Talk:Lab Rats (British TV series)

BBC: Sitcoms 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.

This article is supported by BBC Sitcoms Task Force.

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.

Television: British

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the British television task force.

This is absurd

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)[reply]

Critical reception

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)[reply]

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. _Talk Islander 23:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 _Talk Islander 07:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, the word "critical" doesn't necessarily mean "negative" unless used in specific contexts. "Critical reception" acknowledges that these are the opinions of television critics, be they negative or positive. Bob talk 17:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary

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)[reply]

Requested move

I think this page should be moved to Lab Rats (2008 TV series) because there is a film and 2012 series this series doesn't stand out over the others Christopher10006 (talk) 20:11, 9 June 2014

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:17, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]