Jump to content

Talk:List of television shows notable for negative reception/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Orphaned references in List of television series considered the worst

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of television series considered the worst's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "NickDigilio":

  • From John Kricfalusi: Nick Digilio. "John K interview". WGN Radio. Retrieved 2010-01-17.
  • From The Ren & Stimpy Show: Nick Digilio. "John K interview". WGN Radio. Archived from the original on 2009-07-28. Retrieved 2010-01-17.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 15:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

This list needs to be streamlined

A lot of the shows on this list, particularly in the news show section, aren't shows that were poorly received at all. In fact, they were simply shows that managed to generate (minor) controversy. That is not the purpose of the list.Zero no Kamen (talk) 16:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Length of entries

Do some of these entries (Secret Life of the American Teenager, Baby Talk, House of Payne, etc.) need to be so long? If there's an article about the show or special, then why not have two or three sentences summarizing the criticism(s) and include the links so that if people want to read more, they can just click on the links and read about them in full detail there? For instance, the entry on Survive This could just have a description saying something like, "The show was criticized for straying from Cartoon Network's original format, being derivative, and failing to address a real-life death some have blamed on the show," and let people click on the link to the Survive This article if they want to know more? Any thoughts?

Also, this isn't related to article length, but does anyone know the story on BSTV, the short-lived prank show on Vh-1 years ago? I heard that it was cancelled part-way through an episode, and that one of the celebrities on the show was so disgusted at one of the pranks that he called his agent during the segment to complain. Is any of that true? I want to know the facts. Evernut (talk) 16:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

These worst pages lists need to be deleted

It is all too subjective and has no business being here. I'm not a fan of 20/20 but it has zero cause to be in this section. Some of these shows are fondly remembered cult shows like The Flying Nun, On the Buses and Hogan's Heroes whereas others such as Battletoads aren't even worth mentioning. This is basically a documented hate list. It has no business being here. If you want to have a list of Razzy winners well then make one, you got one. I dislike reality television in general but some of the most noted of them are on this list. Sure they stink but their placement here is only a matter of opinion. Please delete this as well as lists of worst movies, books, games, songs, etc.. They have no place on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesnappysneezer (talk • contribs) 02:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Size split?

  • Split - Article is over 100 kB, and should be split apart (if not trimmed or deleted). Thoughts? Suggestions?--Jax 0677 (talk) 17:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • No reason to trim/delete it. I see nothing wrong with the size. Does anyone these days have internet connection so slow that it'd be a proper? Internet servers are fast enough the world over so I don't think it lags for anyone. Dream Focus 14:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Split. Many people in the world do have bandwidth limits, particularly mobile users. Furthermore, Wikipedia has an official guideline, Wikipedia:Article size, which lists reasons such as readability and human attention span for keeping articles under 60K. The guideline recommends splitting or trimming articles over 100K. One obvious way to do this would be to incorporate the prose here into the parent article of each show, leaving just a brief summary. Another way would be to split out the largest section (Sitcoms) into its own article, say List of sitcom television series notable for negative reception. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. Sitcoms and reality shows have been split into separate articles. I don't think any of the other sections are long enough to be split, so I've removed the {{split-apart}} tag (although feel free to revert if anyone disagrees). I've left the {{toolong}} tag in place though, because I agree with the point made by Evernut higher up this talk page that the entries could be condensed. DoctorKubla (talk) 12:42, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Online Media?

What about Online shows that have been negatively viewed and panned? The internet is truly a new form of entertainment and as such, people really have made some bad shows that have even been canceled. Nile Man 234 (talk) 06:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

"Negative reception"

What exactly does the phrase negative reception mean? It seems like it means critical/public reception for some of the shows on this list and then it just means poor ideas in others. For example, the entry for NHL on SportsChannel America spends a paragraph talking about how the network was smaller than ESPN and not the reception the show itself got. Shouldn't this list be limited to shows which were famous critical disasters or were voted worst ever and not just shows which were mis-steps? --PlasmaTwa2 11:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

When people make bad comments like "what were they thinking?", "this is a terrible show", "I hate it". --Luigithemetal64 (talk) 17:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Yeah, but it can't be just Joe and Jane Viewer making those comments, because every show has its detractors. Lots of people think Breaking Bad is the worst TV show ever made. We cannot base a list on personal preferences. Negative reception should be based upon reliable sources that satisfy Wikipedia's standards for sourcing; I'm even hesitant to include Metacritic scores. I agree the list could do with some trimming. 68.146.70.124 (talk) 16:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Enterprise

Much as it pains me, as I'm a fan, and keeping in mind what I wrote in response to the above thread re: Negative reception, Star Trek: Enterprise should probably be included. Aside from the widespread fan backlash against the show (which received media coverage, so it was more than just a few random people saying "I hate it"), there is also quite a bit of professionally written criticism out there that would satisfy Wikipedia's sourcing requirements. 68.146.70.124 (talk) 16:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Brickleberry

I don't think that should be there. It's not notable for being bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.91.111 (talk) 15:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

The list needed to be trimmed

This is supposed to be about the absolute worst shows and that are universally accepted as that. Several shows that have vocal detractors or were considered mediocre were listed here. There are probably several more on this list but I do not know enough about British shows to judge them. TV guide list of worst shows ever is sited a lot but considering that there number one show is one of the most popular shows ever the list should be taken with a grain of salt.

I removed shows that did not belong: with Clutch Cargo style shows the animation was bad it has been praised for its innovative story telling and structure. While Barney douse have a devoted group of haters but it also a number of supporters and kids that love the series and consider it one of the sweetest shows ever. Charles Angels was considered mediocre and received an average rating of C. the same is true for playboy club. Secret life of the American teenager is in the same boat but has also been praised by several media organizations. While in hindsight some people dislike the amazing spider-man it was both well received by critics and had high ratings during its run. Jersey Shore was considered the most successful cable show the year it debut and has had strong ratings since which is a pretty good reception (even if I personally think it should be here). Aftrmash might not have been as well received as its predecessor but it was still a well received show until a timeslot change cased its ratings to plummet. Hank was also mediocre nothing special. Hogan’s Heroes was a classic that received several emmy nominations and is well remembered. Joanie Loves Chachi was a rating success it even mentions so in its entry. Man Up was well received by several critics. House of Payne was a great success with the audience. AFL NHL and XFL are sports leagues which existed beyond TV shows which all had decent ratings. Jerry Springer and Marry are both long running shows with a large fan base. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.160.173.184 (talk) 23:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

While some of the trimmings indeed are warranted (I specifically warned editors this is a WORST TV series list and there have been a number of mediocre ones showing up), some of them are clearly not. As the warning says, there are a number of long-running shows that nonetheless are very poorly received. Jerry Springer and Maury are among them; why they're still on is primarily because of its lowbrow appeal and ridiculously low cost. Same with Jersey Shore (it's the only series on this list that has an entire article devoted to the negative reception of the series). Some of these shows are shows people love to hate, and perhaps that's why they get the high Nielsens. As for the XFL, there shouldn't be a dispute-- it comes up in pretty much every U.S. list. I've relisted that one under the titles of the TV coverage. (To address your NHL claim, that one was specifically targeted at the Fox coverage and that infamous glowing puck they decided to use, not at the league itself.) A show does not have to be short-lived to be bad. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 12:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Just because a program is successful in the ratings doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't immune to negative reviews from professional critics. It's just how the second live-action Transformers movie from Michael Bay was a huge success at the box office even though it got overwhelmingly negative reviews. And why are you going to quickly discount TV Guide's "worst ever" list!? BornonJune8 (talk) 01:46 a.m., 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Star Cops is far from the worse TV SF program ever made. It had bad reviews at the time, but is remembered fondly by many. If the benchmark for inclusion in the list is merely bad reviews, there are hundreds more programmes to consider. It should not be just programmes that have been cancelled. There needs to be some notoriety for their sheer awfulness too. It is not merely bad TV, it should be the Worst TV. Jonknight73 (talk) 12:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Star Cops

I don't think "Star Cops" should be here. While the initial reception of the show wasn't good, it later got excellent reviews from reliable sources like SFX magazine ("Star Cops" was on their list of " top 50 SF shows of all time" ("Golder, Dave (editor) (April 1999). "The Top 50 SF TV Shows of All Time". SFX (supplement to issue 50): p17.) and Dreamwatch ("when when it came to entertainment, it (Star Cops) succeeded magnificently". Topping, Keith (August 1997). "Extraordinary Coppers". Dreamwatch (36): p45–47. ISSN 1356-482X.) 176.61.97.121 (talk) 13:14, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Synthesis

I nominated the list for deletion because the criteria for inclusion are unclear, and such as they are seem frequently violated. I've just removed a number of entries that give no evidence of "worst" status at all, and seem merely synthesis attempts to show it was a very bad show. Someone who cares about this should really curate this list properly. Rd232 talk 05:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Any show on the list if you ask me, doesn't have to be specifically labeled exactly as one of the "worst" per se. It should be simply or purely one that has garnered mostly negative or generally negative reviews. I don't understand why you're complaining about shows that supposedly lack evidence of "worst" status? The whole point of the article is to document shows that have been generally seen as "bad" in general. I don't think that you should be cherry picking shows that should fit an extremely strict criteria. Plus, there are many, many "reliable" sources backing up these opinions (thus, it isn't simply "my opinion"). In the end, simply trying to sort out which is exactly just "bad" in the eyes of most people and which is exactly the absolute "worst" is perhaps a bit too confusing. It just like how any movie that's nominated for a Razzie much less win is by default, one of the worst ever regardless. It's just that the "losers" just happen to be not as bad as some others. BornonJune8 talk 01:09 a.m., 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The list claims to cover "television series considered the worst". It's bad enough that there are no objective criteria for that, but at the very least, the subjective criteria of cited authorities need to involve some superlatives that make that "worst" judgement viable (Razzies, to take your example, are clearly some authority's judgement of worst in a given year, at least). If you want to keep the list as it is/was (there's still more that needs clearing out that doesn't involve any "worst" judgement), then, as suggested in the AFD, rename it something like List of television series with notably negative reception; at least the title would more honestly reflect the mess of the article. Rd232 talk 23:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. It's an overly long list of television programs some critics didn't like. It isn't worthy of inclusion or appropriate in its current form and should either be drastically altered or deleted 77.99.12.140 (talk) 19:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Cartoon section mostly confined to older cartoons - WHY?

The cartoon section is biased in favor of viewing 1950s cartoons as the worst, when in fact, there are many cartoons produced in the 2000s that are viewed as quite atrocious. I mean, look at Out of Jimmy's Head! That garbage was almost universally viewed as such! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.27.236.6 (talk) 23:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Articles are a collaborative effort. If you can prove that Out Of Jimmy's Head and the like have been universally viewed as garbage, include them in the article with reliable sources. 77.99.12.140 (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Modern cartoons

Why are there only older cartoons on this list? Many cartoons in the 2000s and 2010s gained a lot of negative reaction. (examples: Johnny Test, The Problem Solverz, T.U.F.F. Puppy, etc.) Superghost987 (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Articles are a collaborative effort. If you can prove that Out Of Jimmy's Head and the like have been universally viewed as garbage, include them in the article with reliable sources. 77.99.12.140 (talk) 19:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Article Name Change: List of television series considered the worst

I propose we change the article name to List of television series considered the worst. This would make it much easier to decide on guidelines for inclusion, and would put the article in line with:

List of music considered the worst
List of films considered the worst
List of songs considered the best

At the moment there's far too much ambiguity surrounding guidelines for inclusion; notable for negative reception doesn't mean much. There are television programs that have divided opinion and received strong negative reception, as well as strong positive reception. Worst and best lists might not even be appropriate for Wikipedia, but at least the two extremes are easier to define - there's no ambiguity when a notable critic or organisation state categorically "this is the worst ever" or "this is the best"

What do you all think? 77.99.12.140 (talk) 20:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi 77.99.12.140. Sorry for the delayed response. Dunno if you'll read this. I think it's reasonable to bring the article closer to the "List of...considered the worst" standard. I'll boldly move the article. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to clarify language in lead section

I don't care much for these "List of ___ considered the best/worst" articles because I think they tend to dirty dance with WP:SYNTHESIS. Editors often purposefully or inadvertently cherrypick a few negative reviews, then draw a conclusion that the series is notable for being bad, when that's just a projection of their own opinion. That said, if this article must exist, I think the lead should be tightened up to make it clear that we're only interested in series that are notable for negative reception or for being the worst, that is, they series has taken so much flak, the flak has taken on a life of its own and news outlets are reporting on how horrible everybody thinks the show is, and/or the series is appearing on "Worst" lists in reliable sources, a la "Time Magazine's Worst TV shows of 2014". In contrast, simply going to Rotten Tomatoes and adding Black Box to this list because it has a 25% rating should NOT be sufficient. That might be a confusing nuance, but the difference is this: We can use a review aggregator like Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes to state in an article that general critical response was either positive or negative, but deciding that a series was "considered the worst" based on these results, would constitute original research in the form of synthesis. Thoughts? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Handling reality television

If we're going to have a list of worst television shows, and leave out any mention of reality television (itself probably one of the most controversial formats in television), then there really isn't a point in doing a page on this. Yes, I understand that there was an article devoted to the worst reality shows, but I seem to recall that the reason it was deleted was because it was so extensive.

If we're going to approach the topic of worst TV shows in a neutral, balanced way, we have to find a way to reincorporate something regarding the format into this article. (A list without Jersey Shore, for instance, which is well-cited as one of the most controversial shows in television history, can't truly be complete.) I'm not sure how we would do it without making the article another leviathan, but it should be addressed. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 11:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

A decent point. The article is not titled "List of television dramas" or "List of sitcoms considered the worst". How do we quantify reality shows considered the worst? How they've been doing it at Film Accents is typically by pointing to articles in reliable sources that say, "These are the top 10 worst accents in film". Of course, the list was trimmed considerably during an AfD, and now there is evidence of only 6 shitty accents in the history of film. (Although interest in the article has waned.) I will point out that since I moved this article from "List of television series notable for negative reception" to "List of television series considered the worst", that sort of changes the scope of the article. Now instead of including articles simply because they received negative response out the gate, it seems that the series have to be designated by reliable sources as the worst, which means that many of the examples in this article may no longer make the cut if there is no source that calls them the worst. Succinctly: the list doesn't have to be a leviathan. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Reestablishing lead

Since the article has been moved from List of television series notable for negative reception to List of television series considered the worst, I think it makes sense to redefine the scope of the article to dissuade the addition of series that just don't do well, vs. series that are notable for being the worst, for example if they've made a reliable source's Top 25 Worst TV Series of All Time list. This would be consistent with List of film accents considered the worst, which focuses on film accents that have made "The Worst Accent" lists in various publications, as opposed to just a general, and subjective collection of negatively reviewed TV series. Anybody can dig up a bunch of negative reviews and write up a smear on a series. There has to be something more concrete than that. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Low Nielsen #s do not normally equal a bad show ; half the time, the networks are simply throwing shows into suicide slots & hope to find 1 or 2 salvageable ones. You can even, if you try, find printed haters of Citizen Kane & The Wizard Of Oz & I Love Lucy & The Honeymooners, but that doesn't mean that they are bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mary1938c (talk • contribs) 14:28, 30 November 2014 (GMT)

Bubsy Cartoon

The cartoon i saw is Bubsy which it was been based on the video game character of the same name like Battletoads cartoon after when it canceled by only one episode due to the Animal Abuse (Bubsy keep abuse his partner Arnold Armadillo like over and over again), Poorly Cartoon Design, Like the game Bubsy is been as a jerk and annoying, Lots of Stock footage's. So do you think it's the Worst cartoon ever made? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.164.160.124 (talk) 06:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Suggested title change

Since this article covers a variety of TV programs, not just series, I suggest retitling the article to "List of television programs considered the worst". Trivialist (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Trivialist:, I don't have a problem with this. Tangential to this, I wonder: if we removed all the content that cannot be substantiated as "worst", what would be left? Shows considered bad is not the same thing as shows considered the worst. Low ratings =/= worst. 47/100 at Metacritic doesn't qualify as worst (see: The Secret Life of the American Teenager entry) "Generally unfavorable reviews" (Shark Swarm) doesn't mean worst. There was a discussion about this at List of film accents considered the worst (god rest its soul) where the threshold for inclusion was that the accent had to have made the "worst accent" list of of some reliable source. I think we should re-sculpt the focus of this list if we change the title again, and set the bar higher for inclusion. Right now it's rather indiscriminate. Thoughts? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me, but good luck keeping out the cruft that lists like this attract. :) Trivialist (talk) 16:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Have I mentioned that I think these lists are stupid to begin with? I think it's angrily written somewhere above in a previous discussion. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

You're back in the room

I have to question this show's inclusion on this list. This list defines itself in the introductory paragraph as follows:

"Television series notable for negative reception, from around the world, either by published critics, by network executives or by audience response"

The article in question for the show admits a "mixed response" which doesn't strike me as being particularly notable for negative reception from around the world Davethorp (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I've now removed this show from the article and removed reference to this list on the show's article too. Given the show has received a mix of positive and negative reviews I don't think it is particularly notable for negative reception. If anyone disagrees with this edit, I'd suggest discussing it here and allowing other editors to form a consensus before adding it back on to the list Davethorp (talk) 13:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. I'm sure there are numerous items in the list that don't qualify as "worst", only "meh". Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:28, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I suspect you are right. I've not gone through the list in full as I only came across it from a link on the page of the show in question, but I suspect some editors are adding shows to it that they personally don't like regardless of the opinions of others and/or critical opinion which obviously isn't the neutral stance that wikipedia should have Davethorp (talk) 15:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm on board with everything you've said. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Reversion of content submitted by BornonJune8

Though I feel badly for doing a mass reversion of what I assume are good-faith additions, the content I reverted here is problematic for a few reasons: Much of it is improperly sourced. We don't care about IMDb user ratings or TV.com ratings any other non-scientific user-ratings. CinemaScore is about as close as we come in this venue. "The series was universally panned by several Cartoon Network viewers" is not a sufficient argument. Internet cranks are a dime a dozen, so any jerk with an axe to grind can slam a show. We care about learned opinions from reliable sources. Even the sourced content, like that about I Wanna Marry "Harry" only suggests that one person didn't like the show, and that Married by America may have run afoul of decency restrictions, but there is no indication that either qualified as "the worst". There should be a higher standard here. And I am extraordinarily curious why The Girlie Show (Channel 4) was re-introduced with citation needed templates dating back to 2008. That looks an awful lot like someone digging through the edit history to reinstate POV content to me. I would like to be wrong about that. For these reasons, I have reverted the bulk of these recent edits until consensus considers them appropriate. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Please check this out and tell me that you disagree w/ what's on here or believe that it isn't valid either:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Horrible/LiveActionTV BornonJune8 (talk) 10:54 p.m., 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Since I also received this note on my talk page, I replied to you there. I think my explanation above should be sufficient to explain what the content should look like, although I should add a reminder that while user-contributed sites like TVTropes might be a good place to begin research, they are not reliable sources per WP:RS and cannot be used as such. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on List of television series considered the worst. 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.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on List of television series considered the worst. 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.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Muddled scope

Is this for TV series "considered the worst" or "notable for negative reception", to use two Wikipedia-isms? If the former, it needs heavy pruning. If the latter, it needs a rename. --BDD (talk) 14:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Suggested Removals

I think this needs a section here please. Beansy (talk) 00:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

ECW on TNN strikes me as a very silly thing to include. Even putting aside whether or not you want to include professional wrestling as sports, there's nothing in the entry about the program being bad, just low-budget and having a very adversarial relationship with the network carrying it. ECW was very well known for doing far more with less, as far as resources (both financial and talent). It also was the highest-rated show on TNN during its run if I recall correctly. Much more critically, within the world of pro-wrestling I don't think any contemporary or modern source is going to consider ECW on TNN nearly as bad as Vince Russo-era WCW, which overlapped ECW on TNN for most of either's existence. There are actual books about that (see The Death of WCW), as well as extensive documentation by Dave Meltzer in the Wrestling Observer newsletter. Beansy (talk) 00:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on List of television shows considered the worst. 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, 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) 04:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of television shows considered the worst. 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, 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) 18:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on List of television shows considered the worst. 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, 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) 04:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Why we shouldn't include Bird Up in this article

Why we shouldn't include Bird Up is because they called it "the worst show on television" as a joke. So it can't qualify if anyone does understand the joke. It's also not a show either but a hidden camera prank segment from The Eric Andre Show. MechMaster Katzenstein (talk) 22:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria

This article simply does not have inclusion criteria. Several of the entries focus on individual controversies during the shows run.

For example: Yes, George Clooney started a boycott of Hard Copy. How does that translate into it being "considered the worst"? It doesn't.

Suggested criteria:

1) The show* must be a blue-link notable TV series, made-for-TV movie or mini-series. (No individual episodes of a series here.)

2) The show must have aired, however briefly. (That horrible pilot that never saw the light of day? Too bad.)

3) Multiple independent reliable sources must directly call it "the worst" show ever. (George Clooney launched a boycott? Interesting, but doesn't land it a spot here. It's "the worst sitcom t=of the 80s"? Not quite. As always, blogs and forum posts are not reliable sources.)

Thoughts? - SummerPhDv2.0 01:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of television shows considered the worst. 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, 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) 22:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of television shows considered the worst. 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, 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) 23:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of television shows considered the worst. 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, 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) 18:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

The Wilton North Report

The nearly 500 word essay on The Wilton North Report strikes me as a trifle undue. — MaxEnt 18:14, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:POV

Hi, I’ve flagged this article as {{POV}} because some sections, such as Brickleberry (link is to Brickleberry article) never mention positive reviews when their main articles do. 165.91.12.209 (talk) 01:56, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I've already removed five shows that have little to no viable third-party sources to support their inclusion in the article. The ones that are poorly sourced are based more on personal than critical opinion. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 02:49, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Rewrites

The descriptions for each entry on this article are lifted verbatim from their main articles. They need to be rewritten in their own words. 2605:A601:7013:4100:E4EB:C0C0:DC8E:D34C (talk) 15:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Jeremy Kyle Show

It might be a bit "recentist", but should we consider adding The Jeremy Kyle Show to this article? PatGallacher (talk) 22:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Sports Section

Much of the section on sports programming does not fit this article. Listing some complaints about a show does not mean it is one of the "worst" shows in history. The NBA on ABC and Thursday Night Football and the Olympics on NBC have all been broadcast for many years. Thus, they are successful. This article should not be a general gripe section from casual viewers. Closedthursday (talk) 20:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Criticism on how a sports event is broadcast by a TV station does not equal "one of the worst TV shows of all time". This whole section seems nonsensical and should be rewritten or deleted completely imho. Maybe it can be outsourcend as a new article called "criticism on sports coverage" or something.Epomis87 (talk) 11:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Inclusion of Holby City on this list

While I have huge reservations about this article as a whole and think some of the inclusions are very debatable or dubious and based on subjective personal views, the inclusion of Holby City seems completely inappropriate. No sources are cited for its inclusion here, and the rationale seems to be based on criticism of its depiction of its subject matter (again I would not this is not sourced) rather than its entertainment value. The series has been running for nearly 20 years, unlikely for a series considered among the worst, and has been nominated for several awards and has won a BAFTA for being for Best Continuing Drama, arguably the highest recognition a TV series can achieve in the UK. Unless some well sourced material showing evidence of experts considering it "a worst" type of drama, I think it should be taken of this list. It really just looks like it is here due to someone's personal view, and while everyone if free to dislike a series this is not what Wikipedia is for. Dunarc (talk) 22:45, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I second that. 21 years now, ten awards, over 100 nominations. Not everyone's cup of tea, but there just have to be one or two TV shows objectively worse than Holby and not mentioned in this article. Dumbox (talk) 14:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I also note that the comments about this programme were completely unsourced. PatGallacher (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately too many editors think that a couple negative reviews automatically qualifies a show for the list. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 01:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Caillou?

I know most hated shows can be subjective but I’m surprised that Caillou is not on the article as it is considered one of the most hated children’s show of all time. Bob3458 (talk) 11:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Article suggestion - List of television shows considered the best

I was wondering what people thought of creating this article and if anyone would like to start it? It seems very odd and out of place that we have an article for List of television shows considered the worst, List of films considered the best and List of films considered the worst, but not one for List of television shows considered the best. Personally, I probably don't have time to create such an article and I'm sure people here will know better sources than myself. Helper201 (talk) 19:47, 29 July 2020 (UTC)


I was thinking that to. There's so many tv shows considered the best but perhaps we could set it up like the List of video games considered the best -TurkeyToaster

ThunderCats Roar

If you don't know anything about ThunderCats, it's a beloved franchise about a group of alien felines that started in the 80s and had a 2011 reboot that was also liked by fans and critics (but had low viewership due to its darker tone and was canceled after one season). Unfortunately, Cartoon Network decided to make another reboot of the show called ThunderCats Roar, and this reboot was heavily derided by fans for its shift to comedy and its art style (with Teen Titans Go!, another reboot, mocking the show in a crossover episode). For this reason, I think ThunderCats Roar should be on the list. 24.188.22.145 (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Basically, any Cartoon Network reboot should be on the list, such as the 2016 Powerpuff Girls series, the 2017 Ben 10 series, Teen Titans Go!, and of course, ThunderCats Roar.--24.44.76.88 (talk) 21:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Hell no. Unless you have enough reliable sources indicating that critics call it the worst, this cannot go on the list. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:24, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Ditto Espngeek (talk) 12:01, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Exclusions

Should any of these shows be added/removed

I know tv guide hated it but the tom green show was pretty popular with audiences

Anyway here's a few shows I know that have scathing reviews from critics and audiences alike but aren't on here, I might add more if I find any.

The Problem Solverz shows up on quite possibly every worst animated show list and the worst show of 2011 according to IMDB

The Nutshack does also

Fred the Show its wikipedia alone states its known as one of the worst shows — Preceding unsigned comment added by TurkeyToaster (talk • contribs) 21:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

That's about all I got for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TurkeyToaster (talk • contribs) 20:14, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Remove programs where positive reviews from reliable sources exist (mainly referring to Barney)

I understand that there is a lot of hate for Barney. But in my opinion, this page should be for shows unanimously considered bad, not simply shows with a lot of controversy. According to the show's own page, Several people have concluded that episodes contain a great deal of age-appropriate educational material, including Yale University researchers Dorothy and Jerome Singer, who called the program a "model of what preschool television should be", which shows that some people do enjoy it. This sounds more like an issue of really loud detractors instead of a universally hated program. Well, guess what, this exact same principle applies to Teen Titans Go, a show I absolutely hate and see a ton of people online agree with me, but like Barney, it shouldn't be on this page because positive reviews from reliable sources of it do exist. I'm not familiar with most of the other programs here, so if any of them do have positive reviews from reliable sources in any way, they should be removed from this page in my opinion. When I see this page, I expect bottom-of-the-barrel garbage heaps that negatively affect those involved and everybody hates, not merely shows with a very vocal dislike; List of films considered the worst did a good job trimming down movies that have generally bad reception but no bad impact. If that has too many qualifiers, then renaming this page to List of television shows notable for negative reception might be a good idea. Unnamed anon (talk) 02:59, 27 October 2021 (UTC) I'd like to request another removal on this page: Elvis in Concert. It was his worst performance by definition, but to call it one of the worst things on television is questionable when the entire reason why it was bad was the singer's poor health, and not any true ineptitude. Unnamed anon (talk) 06:11, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

"Teen Titans Go, a show I absolutely hate and see a ton of people online agree with me" Personally, I don't get the hatred. The character designs and animation style are rather appealing, and the voice acting is above average. When it comes to the story, the episodes are rather hit-or-miss. Generous doses of black humor and occasional exploration of various characters' emotions and motivations work well, but some episodes have rather thin plots. I would still consider it a rather decent show.

" that negatively affect those involved and everybody hates" The careers of most actors are not that affected by their participation in a flop or two. Several of these "bad" shows had low rating and were too short lived to have much of an impact. They are mostly forgotten, rather than loathed. Consider Ren & Stimpy "Adult Party Cartoon". Six episodes in total, and broadcast on a minor network. Much of the criticism I have seen online for it depends on a single episode : ""Ren Seeks Help". Which reveals that Ren has uncontrolled sadistic tendencies and anger management issues since childhood, and that he liked to torture and mutilate animals during his childhood. I have no idea whether this was supposed to be satirical, but many reviewers find the episode rather disturbing. Dimadick (talk) 15:01, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 27 October 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: MOVED: I'm not relisting this as I don't think this is going to generate any significant debate. I'm closing and moving this article mostly per Colin M's point about consistency (non-admin closure). Spekkios (talk) 00:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

List of television shows considered the worst → List of television shows notable for negative reception – Some shows here have well-sourced positive reception. Renaming this page lets the criteria for this page less arbitrary. It also is a much more fair name for some programs listed here: for example, Elvis in Concert is his worst performance, but calling it one of the worst shows ever because he was dying sounds unfair. Saying it was merely poorly received is much more objective. Another example that was on this page for a while: Barney and Friends does have a lot of notable anti-Barney humor, but positive reception does exist, so to mix it in with the bottom of the barrel when it was clearly successful for the network is questionable. As a comparison, List of video games notable for negative reception does encompass games that are seen more as disappointing instead of unplayable, which is less jarring because of its name. Unnamed anon (talk) 03:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Two points. Several negatively received films or books have vocal minorities of fans and supporters. Finding something which is universally either loved or loathed seems hard. The "Barney" example makes me wonder whether the target demographic was considered. The show was popular with preschoolers, while much of the criticism against it was from older people who perceived its messages as detrimental to education. Quoting from the main article: "His shows do not assist children in learning to deal with negative feelings and emotions. As one commentator puts it, the real danger from Barney is "denial: the refusal to recognize the existence of unpleasant realities. " Dimadick (talk) 14:21, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. I'm not sure I quite follow or agree with the nominator's rationale - I don't see why a show having some well-sourced positive reception would preclude it from being on a list of shows "considered the worst" or "notable for negative reception". But I do think there's value in being consistent with List of sitcoms known for negative reception, and it seems like a slightly less arbitrary criterion for inclusion (in that, if a show is notorious for having received very negative reception, it makes sense to include it in this list, even if we can't find an instance of an RS specifically using the word "worst" to describe it). Colin M (talk) 22:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should Japanese cartoons be added to this list?

I sorta feel like unsuccessful Japanese cartoons should be put on this list too, along with other shows from non-Anglophone countries. —theMainLogan (talk) 15:36, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

NBC Olympics broadcasting

Should this entry be sorted alphabetically as "NBC" or "Olympics"? The former would see it move to right before NHL on Fox on the list. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Velma

On the Velma (TV series) page, it says that it is "often considered to be one of the worst animated shows ever made" with the last couple of words linking here. That said, should it be added? 4TheLuvOfFax (talk) 01:56, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes it 100% should be added. I recently have had a user who is reverting edits based on personal preference. Wikipedia policy states Stick to source when using this site Fruitloop11 (talk) 04:53, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
May I add that one editor pointed out that critical reviews are more mixed? The show currently sits at a 55% on Rotten Tomatoes and a 59 on Metacritic. The Grand Delusion(Send a message) 05:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Those ratings work the same way school grades do. A 55% is listed as rotten and a 59 is just as bad like a 55 and 59 on a test would be bad.. A 70-80 would be considered mix. And 80-90 would be considered mostly positive and 90+ would be Positive/highly acclaimed. Fruitloop11 (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Metacritic says 59 indicates "mixed or average reviews", so your argument already has holes in it. The Grand Delusion(Send a message) 15:19, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Also it has a user rating of 0.4 and user ratings are just as important as critic ratings because they don't include a possible paid bias. Also on IMDB it has a rating of 1.4. Its universally negative by the people watching it. If it isn't a negatively rated show then nothing is Fruitloop11 (talk) 19:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
"possible paid bias"... and yet you have no evidence to back up that claim. User ratings aren't foolproof either, as there is always the possibility of review bombing. The Grand Delusion(Send a message) 20:13, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
I happened to notice that this "Velma" content had been removed along with sources that seemed valid, without a valid rationale. I reverted that change, not realizing that this has been flipping back and forth since December. I am not involved in this content dispute, I don't care either way whether the content stays or goes, but I am interested in preserving stability of articles on Wikipedia. To that end, I have full-protected the article for a couple of weeks until consensus can be reached. If consensus is reached before protection expires, I'm happy to unprotect it sooner so that it can be edited again. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't think it should be added yet. So far, only two episodes have been released, so I'd say wait until the season finishes and see if later episodes are better-received or if the hostile audience reception persists. I just think it's too soon to add it, that's all. The Grand Delusion(Send a message) 05:21, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
I was about to suggest that you may be referring to WP:TOOSOON but that's about article creation, and we already have an article on the series. Having just read through Velma (TV series), I can understand why an editor might want to add an entry here: the series seems notable primarily for its negative reception at the moment, although you make a good point that the series is still young. One possible resolution is to leave this list entry in place for now as long as it qualifies for inclusion, and then remove it if the series turns itself around and starts garnering praise. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:09, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 24 January 2023

Please change the short description from "Wikimedia list article" to "none" per WP:SDNONE. Thanks! ~ Eejit43 (talk) 23:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

How many international titles do you need?

Tried to find " worst international" and "worst foreign" shows, but all I found were "worst remakes of international/foreign" shows. Espngeek (talk) 21:29, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

The Australian animated series Pixel Pinkie was very widely panned. Would that manifest as an international title? Squiggledog (talk) 03:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Is it in a non-English language? Espngeek (talk) 02:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Found one: Tomorrow's Pioneers complete with reliable sources and stuff Espngeek (talk) 23:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_television_shows_notable_for_negative_reception/Archive_1&oldid=1257012041"