Talk:Sitcom

WikiProject Television (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborate effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Comedy (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

BBC vs ITVEdit

The following statement is made in the UK section "The BBC has had more success with this format than its commercial counterpart ITV. This is attributed to the fact that ITV has to allow for commercial breaks so programmes are several minutes shorter and thus do not allow for character and plot development."

This is rediculous. I can't find any source which, firstly has bothered to analyse this phenomena, or secondly has come to the conclusion that it's because of commercial breaks. There's also two exaggerations in one sentence; "Several minutes" (23ish vs 29ish - 6 minutes maximum) and "do not allow for character and plot development", what none at all? Shows like Father Ted, Friends, The Simpsons and The Big Bang Theory are all extremely popular yet all consist of episodes of 23 minutes in length. There must be another reason why ITV is not as successful as the BBC at making sitcoms. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 02:16, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the difference in length is a questionable reason, but isn't the entire premise POV? If not, then surely citation needs to be given as to why the BBC is deemed more successful than the commercial channels. 208.81.28.204 (talk) 17:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

South Park and The SimpsonsEdit

The article mentions South Park "surpassing" The Simpsons. I don't think this sentence needs the part in parentheses; it definitely is one of the most successful animated sitcoms, but to say that is surpassed The Simpsons is highly subjective. Besides, there isn't even a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.235.230.122 (talk) 19:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Ancient GreeksEdit

Saying the Ancient Greeks, Shakespeare and past civilizations invented (some variety on) Sitcom seems like a big statement to make if there's no source for it. Shouldn't it be removed until someone comes up with a legitimate source? --Pvt. Coffeeshop (talk) 13:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Blanked historyEdit

I was puzzled by the scattered, empty history sections (US television is carefully broken down into six eras, all of them empty) which an IP was quietly but unhelpfully filling in with examples of show titles, this evening, but it looks as if User:Rupert loup blanked it all for being unsourced earlier this month, spent a couple of hours restoring some with sources, then wandered off. We should focus on restoring this, with sources. Very little of it seems at all controversial. --McGeddon (talk) 20:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes indeed, but also the content should meet notability. We can't add random content without reason. It needs to meet a criteria according with Wikipedia (WP:NOTE and WP:NOT). Rupert Loup (talk) 23:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Bob, this isn't a paper encyclopaedia. We don't need to limit the information we include and for the project's sake we musn't' Don't adhere to the letter of Wikipedia's policies while violating their spirit. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 12:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Paul Benjamin Austin To do something that is against the policies first you need a strong consensus. Rupert Loup (talk) 18:25, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
You mean WP:VERIFIABILITY; notability is about whether individual articles should exist at all. Editors can cut unsourced material purely for being unsourced if they like, but the verifiability policy encourages us to focus on content whose accuracy "has been challenged or is likely to be challenged". There were plenty of questionable "this was the first example of sitcom type X" statements in there, but also a lot of unremarkable "this sitcom existed". If a statement is unsourced but you don't personally disagree with it or feel that anybody would ever object to it, it doesn't hurt to leave it, or at most to flag it with a template so that other, passing editors can see that it needs sourcing and help out. --McGeddon (talk) 09:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
McGeddon No, I mean notability, Wikipedia "does not aim to contain all data or expression found elsewhere" WP:NOT, and it was already tagged since 2013. Rupert Loup (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Since User:Rupert loup's original statement that "I will try to restore some content if I find sources" when cutting 6,000 words of content to empty sections, that user has successfully provided content for three sections (Australia, Canada, Mexico) with sourcing, and semi-retired from the project last week. Nobody else is really helping out here - the only other contributions have been from passing, well-meaning editors who've just added names of shows to empty sections. If nobody's working on it, I think we'd be doing readers more of a service to give them sections of unsourced material (very clearly flagged as such) rather than throwing away 13 years of content and saying "This section is empty. You can help by adding to it." a lot.

I entirely agree that Wikipedia shouldn't aim to contain "all data" about a subject, nor should it contain "random content without reason". But so long as we cut any claims which seem doubtful, a poorly-written international history of the sitcom clearly flagged as being under-sourced is much more useful to the reader than a patchy list of empty sections. (The current version of the article has the absurdity of mentioning the US and Australia as rerunning and remaking UK sitcoms, while the entirety of the UK sitcom section is that Are You Being Served? was once ranked as that country's 20th best sitcom.)

I've restored the deleted content, superimposed the new Australia/Canada/Mexico sections and a chunk about MASH and Sanford & Son, and dropped the genuinely "does not aim to contain all data" excess of the "Highest-rated U.S. sitcoms since 1970" table. --McGeddon (talk) 11:04, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

McGeddon you re-added unsourced and disputed content (WP:BURDEN and WP:POV) and in the process you deleted sourced content (which was added by me like as I said I would), if you gonna re-add content please try to provided sources. Rupert Loup (talk) 15:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
And I disagree with that unsourced and disputed content is more useful. I added a list of sources, so there is no excuse to re-add material without its respective cites. And according with WP:BURDEN "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". I'm sorry that you are not satisfied with the speed with which I re-add content, but right now I'm bussy with real life. Rupert Loup (talk) 15:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
About the editors that keep adding unsourced content, you can warn them with the uw-unsourced user warning. Rupert Loup (talk) 15:48, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I didn't intend to overwrite any changes when reverting, so apologies for anything that I missed - I deliberately pasted in the newer Australia/Canada/Mexico/MASH content that you'd sourced and copyedited.
You've now blanked it all again because I don't have "consensus" for restoring it, but there's no explicit consensus either way at this point. User:Paul Benjamin Austin questioned your "violating their spirit" of Wikipedia above, and User:Calidum reverted your original blanking with the suggestion that you should "tag the article instead of gutting it". Nobody has yet agreed that the article is better with blank sections.
WP:BURDEN tells us that sourcing is important for material "challenged or likely to be challenged", and recommends that when removing content we should "state [our] concern that there may not be a published reliable source for the content". We should certainly cut any material which we think is unsourced and wrong or unsourced and improbable, but I don't see that we improve the article by also throwing out anything which is unsourced but probably true. There are plenty of dubious/WP:OR claims in this article (eg. the "first respected Danish sitcom" appearing in 2001), but those sentences can be easily reworded to avoid making any surprising claims, and to just mention the sitcoms having existed. An article of arbitrarily curated "here are some Chinese sitcoms which may or may not be the best examples to use" sections is a better placeholder than "this section is empty, you can help by expanding it". --McGeddon (talk) 09:21, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
  Not done: McGeddon Adding information which is not verifiable through reliable sources and that was tagged since 2013 (like I already said above) is disrupting editing. Consensus is not made by votation, Wikipedia is not a democracy. Rupert Loup (talk) 15:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Australia and its reliance on imported sitcomsEdit

I was just going through some of the tv listings magazines from the 1970s and 80s at the State Library and there are some fascinating letters from plebs who don't understand why the quality is different on the 16mm films the ABC was getting from the BBC vs the 625-line VT the Seven Network was getting from ITV contractors such as Thames. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 07:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sitcom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Sitcom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sitcom. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:30, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

It's Always Sunny In PhiladelphiaEdit

I feel like the article should mention this show, it's becoming the longest running sitcom in american TV history, and it's certainly the best sitcom of the 2000s/2010s.

Frarean (talk) 10:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Return to "Sitcom" page.