Talk:Exile (TV series)

Television: British / Episode coverage Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the British television task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.

BBC Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tasks for WikiProject BBC:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Improve BBC, BBC News (TV channel) and BBC News to Good Article status following previous reviews, create BBC Computer Literacy Project (in light of forthcoming 30th anniversary)
Cleanup : Chucklevision - references and general clean-up, Pebble Mill Studios - over-detailed and long, BBC World Service Television - unreferenced and confusing
Copyedit : BBC News, Broadcasting House
Expand : Top 20 start-class BBC articles with most importance: BBC Japan, BBC World Service Television, BBC Lifestyle, BBC Two Northern Ireland
NPOV : Criticism of the BBC (See comments)
Stubs : Stub-Class BBC articles
Other : *Restructure the category
- Add infoboxes to the BBC articles without infoboxes
- Add free-use images to biographical articles where possible
- Add references to Goa Mix (see assessment) and Coat of arms of the BBC
- Return Dad's Army to a Good article. (See comments)
- Reassess BBC following improvements to article.

Possible references[edit]

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

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)[reply]

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." _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 12:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Unsourced reviews[edit]

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)[reply]