Talk:Exile (TV series)

Possible references

 * http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/8490178/Exile-BBC-One-final-episode-review.html
 * http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2011/may/04/exile-the-secret-millionaire-review

Moving these here, these are not suitable as EL's. The external links section is not a repository for possible references.  X  eworlebi (talk) 11:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hm. According to what and whom are reviews not acceptable in external links? Last I checked, reviews are completely acceptable in EL, and are not forbidden in WP:ELNO.
 * Linking is one of the most important features of Wikipedia: linking to reviews both encourages editors to write them into the article, and gives readers a toehold as to what the world thinks of a show.
 * There's no need for militancy, or any need for "purity" in EL. Stripping off information from the links like title, publisher, or date harms recovery from WP:LINKROT. Undamaged links are presented here, for comparison and discussion.
 * Exile, BBC One, final episode, review. The Daily Telegraph, 3 May 2011.
 * TV review: Exile. The Guardian, 4 May 2011.
 * In general, it's best not to either own articles, or keep reviews out of articles. It's better to improve articles by adding reliably sourced information.
 * --Lexein (talk) 11:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * As I said, external links is not supposed to be a repository of links, it should be kept to a minimal, specific reviews simply have no place there. I have no problem with the reviews, and my removal has prompted you to improve the article, I call that a win-win situation. Linking is not the purpose of Wikipedia, or even an important feature, in fact Wikipedia is not a repository of links. WP:EL specifically states "This guideline concerns external links that are not citations to sources supporting article content. If the website or page to which you want to link includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source for the article, and citing it." as well as "Some acceptable links include … relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy."  X  eworlebi (talk) 12:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It doesn't pay to live inside one guideline. It pays to really understand Wikipedia as a whole. It's incorrect to state that linking is not important to Wikipedia.  MOS:LINK states quite clearly (emphasis mine):
 * ''"Linking through hyperlinks is an important feature of Wikipedia. Internal links bind the project together into an interconnected whole. Interwiki links bind the project to sister projects such as Wikisource, Wiktionary, and Wikipedia in other languages. And external links bind Wikipedia to the external World Wide Web.
 * Appropriate links provide instant pathways to locations within and outside the project that are likely to increase readers' understanding of the topic at hand. When writing or editing an article, it is important to consider not only what to put in the article, but what links to include to help the reader find related information, as well as which other pages should carry links to the article."
 * Thank you for quoting EL, because the linked reviews were not mentioned in the article, and the links to the reviews were not used to support any article content, and therefore were not proscribed by EL. Adding a (fleshed out) link to a review (one or two) substantively improves the article, while using it as a reference in a review summary indeed would improve the article further.  To argue to exclude something which could be used as a reliable source (but does not support anything in the article at the moment) is silly on the face of it.
 * I suppose I could have had my way with a Further Reading section, but that's silly, when External Links has, by your actions, only two links in it.
 * It would be beneficial, in future, if you did not use deletion of work by other editors, as some sort of whip or brickbat to make them do more work. Better to contribute. --Lexein (talk) 14:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced reviews
IP editor 2.26.20.8 inserted two unverifiable reviews without citations here and here. Per WP:BURDEN, it is the responsibility of the adding or restoring editor to provide reliable sources for all material. I looked for evidence of either of the reviews, and found none. --Lexein (talk) 12:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)