Talk:Lab Rats (British TV series)

message: The 2008 one season, 6 episode BBC series is the main Lab Rats on an encyclopedia? While the 2011-15 four season, 68 episodes (and counting) Disney XD series with a much larger viewership is on redirect? OK, someone may love the BBC, but this is against all rules and just makes Wikipedia look stupid. Can someone please change it?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.205.181.231 (talk) 12:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: This is absurd

message: As I said to User:Islander on his talk page regarding this edit
Hello. Your removal of quotes from Lab Rats had the following edit summary:
"(Block quotes should be avoided, as NPOV is hard to maintain - 'reception' should, as with the rest of the article, be prose.)"
That's nonsensical and does not accord with any Wikipedia policies I'm aware of (please place a link on my talk page if you know better).
As far as I'm aware blockquotes are to be used when substantive amounts of text are being quoted (that is, more than a phrase or sentence). The issue of NPOV doesn't arise since quotes from the media are a matter of referenced/recorded fact. No user (unless they are the journalist themselves) can create these quotes of their own free will. 
In any case: since your argument is that they should be in a different format (ie, "be prose") that's not a reason for you to remove them, rather merely to reformat. On that basis I'm reverting your removal. --bodnotbod (talk) 23:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, see WP:MOSQUOTE. Per the fifth point, only quotes "...more than four lines [in length], or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of number of lines..." should be formatted as blockquotes. That's slightly more than your guess of "more than a phrase or sentence". As for NPOV, the section  clearly has a negative POV. For a start, why is it called Critical reception, when Reception would suffice perfectly. Secondly, the two quotes consist of an appalling review (The Guardian), and a mediocre review (New Statesman). What about a good review? Lab Rats got a stunning review in Radio Times, though unfortunatly I don't have it to hand. Omitting the good reception automatically gives the section a negative POV slant. As for 'reformatting', it is the responsibility of the original contributor to get it right. If this were midday, I'd happily go about completely reworking the section. As it's 0100, I'm going with the standard that it's better not to have any 'review' section than to have one which fails both WP:NPOV and WP:MOS. Please correct these issues before replacing. TalkIslander 23:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Touche. Will do. Although "it's getting late" isn't a defence for removal of content. But it WILL get a good review when I find one. --bodnotbod (talk) 00:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Touche? Nah, just trying to keep the article to a high standard ;). As for the new section: it's perfect. Wasn't difficult, now, was it ;P TalkIslander 07:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Critical reception

message: [ This revision] has a slightly messed up edit summary. Was supposed to be about unexplained removal of content. My bad. --Krenair (talk • contribs) 04:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit summary 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lab Rats (UK TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061008141010/http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article1204955.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article1204955.ece
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:17, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified