Jump to content

Talk:Sitcom/Archive 1

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

Too POV

This article features way too many generalizations and its content is overwhelmingly subjective. Stereotypes abound and very few sources are present. One cannot possibly characterize American, British or any other nationality's sitcoms as part of some kind of monolith rooted simply in their country of origin. There are thousands of comedic t.v. shows throughout history and differences between them clearly exist. Is Seinfeld really that similar to Growing Pains? What about South Park and Friends? Eastbound and Down and Full House? Curb Your Enthusiasm and Saved by the Bell? The humor, story-lines, direction, targeted audience etc vary greatly.

I will try to remove some POV statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheyCallMeTheEditor (talk • contribs) 04:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Situation Comedy Formula

While I see the some notations in the explanation of what a sitcom is, I feel more could be added. Focus more on the cliches, character development, typical plot runners, parallel A-B story lines, mutli-camera AKA "three camera sitcom" [under 30 mins runtime, typical cast, canned laughing, amicable story closure]

Since TV comedies have to fit a demographic/ratings, time constraints, and fixed budgets they formula of storytelling, unlike feature films which have very little constraints. --Neoursa (talk) 09:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Too US Based

This article is too US focused. I am happy for it to remain largely US biased as I cannot dispute the claims that it was the first to develop the genre.

But once we get down to paragraph 5 the reader is barraged.

I vote that that para is moved to a new page: 'US sitcom' or 'American sitcom'.

This article should remain broad and provide a springboard to a list of sub-genres and countries.

One thing that's intresting to note is although this is article seems to be US based the US section seems to not relate to the rest of the article. Deathawk 00:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

--bodnotbod 16:36, May 1, 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the article is too exclusively focused on USA tv. While seperate articles about situation comedies in different nations may be a good idea eventually, we don't seem have much material yet. Perhaps a light rewrite of the article into a general introduction, then a sub-heading for "U.S. Sitcoms"? Perhaps someone can add at least a few sentences as a start on situation comedies in other nations? -- Infrogmation 17:07, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
I agree. What about 'Fawlty Towers'? That was a sitcom and preceded much of the US' creations. It's a little too US. Tolo 07:07, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)
With this huge section 3 on other countries, I guess it's safe to say that we've expanded the previously limited geographic scope. --Brazucs (TALK | CONTRIBS) 18:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
That's somewhat odd. I came back to this talk page to mention that I thought the wiki article didn't have enough about US sitcoms. --129.110.197.84 08:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


Is not situation comedy quite the same what you see p.e. on German Bauernbühnen?

Australia section

I have made a start on the Australia section. There are many early sitcoms I am yet to describe, including "My Name's McGooley, What's Yours" and "The Group", and I'm sure many others. There are some later ones too including "All Together Now". There are also MANY shortlived flops like "Bingles", "Late for School". When I have more time I'll do the research and add them in. Asa01 18:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

--The Australian section is too long-winded. There is absolutely no reason that it needs to be longer than any of the other countries that have contributed so much more to the sit-com. I read the first few sentences, one or more of which basically stated that Australia doesn't/hasn't contribute(d) a great deal to the sit-com, and that most of the sit-coms shown in Australia are American, and yet it goes on, five times longer than any of the other nation's sections. Most people are going to skim over it. Most of the rest who bother to read it will end up wishing they hadn't. I'm not going to clean it up, but i suggest whoever contributed all the "longwindedness" however, should do so. If you'd like to make an Australian sitcom article then go ahead and do that. It's cluttering this one. Also, it seems that most of the information is just a time line of the sitcoms that have been produced in Australia or other such specific and useless information. There is a reason that the UK and US sections are shorter even though they clearly have produced more sitcoms that are more universally popular. If someone did to the American and UK sections what's being done to the Australian section, then the two sections would combine to be three times as long as the rest of the entire page put together. Don't add anything else about any more specific Australian sitcoms. The Nations section of the article shouldn't exist for the purpose of listing all the sitcoms someone can think of and on which network they aired on which time slots. Briefly list what's been culturally impact full, or important; Tell us about what makes Australian sitcoms unique give a few examples, and move on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.51.90 (talk) 08:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't have a header Australia at the moment. Now the whole History section seems to be about Australia, as if that country was the center of the Sitcom world, very strange. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.160.72.40 (talk) 12:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite

I see Bodnotbod is doing a good rewrite. I started a modified article myself, then got the edit conflict note. I'm placing my text here for a limited time, in case I want to incorporate any bits of it into the article when Bodnotbod is through. -- Infrogmation 17:30, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm finished ;o) I'm going to list the article on Articles Needing Attention or something like that, asking for input from mainland Europe and elsewhere... I, for one, am curious about non-US/UK sitcoms.
--bodnotbod 17:44, May 1, 2004 (UTC)
The Russian Sitcom section (3.3) is seriously flawed, and was obviously written by a non-English speaker. I suggest it be removed for it's brevity and grammar issues.
--Sgm 10:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Invented in US?

The article claims the sitcom is a US invention, but the list of UK sitcoms lists many that predate the US list, which seems to be mostly 80's and 90's shows. Is it just that no one has listed any older US sitcoms, or is it that the US did not in fact invent them? 194.168.3.18 13:16, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Good point. I tossed in some shows from the 50s, 60s, and 70s. There were plenty more that I have not included (thank goodness ;) Gwimpey 21:45, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

Forget the Brits; I have added historical background re plays by ancient and 16th and 17th c. authors that are essentially situation comedies, except that they were not series. However, some of the ancient Roman comedies of Terence and Plautus had stock characters who reappeared in several plays. User: siegfried19 23:49, May 31, 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 03:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely Fabulous

Does it count as a sitcom? It definitely should be mentioned as a successful British export to the USA, largely because it supplied elements of humour that had gone missing this side. -- Smerdis of Tlön 18:29, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I was under the impression that it, like many such conversions (see Men Bahaving Badly) was a complete flop in the US. - Hayter 18:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


AbFab was most definitely NOT a flop in the US. It never aired on major US TV channels (no way it could with its subject matter), but it is generally considered one of the best UK imports of all time. It is espeically popular in the gay commmunity.--Victoria1286 01:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

List of Sitcoms?

Should we start a list of sitcoms, by decade in a separate Wikipedia entry? Many other areas of Wikipedia take this approach, such as the entries for Power Pop Music and Power Pop Bands.

I think a separate list (or lists) would be a very good idea. The list at the moment is almost exclusively American, and probably still only scratches the surface. A representative list would have the potential to be huge. JW 00:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Sitcom Storyline

Usually what I would expect in a sitcom is that each episode would be independent of other episodes. Which means you can survive without knowing events that happened in previous episodes. Friends however is quite different as almost all episodes contain references to the past episodes or their past. It means to watch Friends, it is suggested that you start watching the 1st season and continue to watching in proper order to understand how the events came to be. That entire series revolves around several issues.

In the particular case of "Friends," I have no problem watching a syndicated episode from 2003 and then watching one from 1996. Sitcoms are written as stand-alone episodes, and Friends fits that rule BETTER than most sitcoms - the humor/story balance is probably 17/5 episode to episode, with the exception of season-to-season considerations (especially in Season 10). It is not necessarily crucial to know HOW or WHY an issue has come about, but rather simply to KNOW that it has come about - it's not something like "Lost." Sgm 10:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Alphabetize?

I was going to alphabetize 80s and 90s to match 40s through 60s, but then realized they were in order of start date. Had their been prior discusson on this?BabuBhatt 21:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm more in favor of organization by year, versus alphabetical-- as that creates additional encyclopedic utility. (See, for example, how I reordered List of snowclones.) If users want to find a specific series, they can always use Wikipedia or their browser's "find" feature, but they have no other means to see which series appeared in which time sequence. Likewise, I'd rather see the 40s to 60s reordered by when they were on the air, versus their titles. —LeflymanTalk 18:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
A claim for longevity might be made for Last of the Summer Wine a BBC series which has run (with abbreviated seasons) for 27 years! —LeflymanTalk 05:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Every single person would need to be aware of every single start date, to be able to find the titles easily, in the order the titles were in. Not everybody knows the details of start dates. I personally had problems trying to find some titles. I therefore decided to alphabetize all titles (to the best of my ability), so that other people would not experience the same type of problems and frustration with finding details that I did. Also, there have been duplicate entries for some of the titles, which I became aware of when I was listing the titles in alphabetical order. Figaro 10:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Do we have a system in which we can see start and end dates simply by year? "Sitcoms beginning in 1990" or "Sitcoms ending in 1998," "Sitcoms running in 1994," in the case of Seinfeld. Sgm 10:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I want to correct the anonymous user who said "The Simpsons" is going on 17 years by saying that it is not, it is, in fact, going on 26 uninterrupted broadcast years. It began, as most of you know, as a series of shorts in the Tracy Ulman (or however you spell it) Show. --Fandelasketchup (talk) 10:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Blackadder

and the end of each series of Blackadder involved the ritual slaughter of the cast

It did? I know they went over the top in Blackadder goes forth, presumably to their deaths, but I don't recall a slaughter of the cast in either Blackadder II or Blackadder the Third. It's too long since I've seen the first season to comment but this statement appears to be incorrect. - Hayter 18:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

In Blackadder II the entire cast was shown slaughtered after the end credits of the sixth episode. In Blackadder the Third. the Prince Regent is shot dead. - Saboteur 12:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Archetypes

I'm not sure that the current method of making up archetypes as desired is valid. The Archetypes page lists none of these (nor should it be expected to be 100% comprehensive). Right now there are archetypes with a single character that may fit better into other archetypes (Ed Norton from the well-meaning blue collar worker to the naive fool, for example). Unless there is a pressing need for multiple characters across multiple sitcoms, how about trying a 'best-fit' approach? Kickstart70 23:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Kramer a sage?

I would have put Seinfeld's Cosmo Kramer in the "meddling or nosy neighbor" category, not the sage category. Any objections if I move it?

No objection, and if you've got thoughts on the other archetypes, feel free to move those too. To put it bluntly, an archetype with only one or two members isn't really an archetype. --Kickstart70·Talk 02:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Kramer thinks he is a sage, and he plays the role, but his advices suck, that's why he is so much fun. He is a nosy neighbor. Some nosy neigbors are like that. --201.152.157.118 05:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Coining

Where are we getting these terms like node or naive fool. I got comedy relief from the movie about Andy Kaufman, so I hope it fits fine. I do think that is a very common stereotype. Anyhow, I think we better start sourcing before some (what's the apropiate word for somebody with an anal retentive personality?) comes censoring this article. I've been there and these people makes the task of making an article out of a clever stub a hell of a mission. So I propose we do some reserch before expanding the lists more. Greetings!--201.152.157.118 05:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Kramer

Strange that I should disagree with the same editor on the same day on two different topics, but I think most people would say Kramer is highly medling and nosy. He goes through Jerry's fridge, drawers, mail and inhabitshis living room and bedroom when Jerry is not home. He often (good-heartedly) tries to get his friends what they want, and in the process fouls things up. Kramer is the difition of sitcom nosy meddler. BabuBhatt 04:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Huge lists of characters

This is getting ridiculous. The section dedicated to sitcom character archetypes is now unreadable, taking up more than half of the entire article, with sections having bulleted lists of fifty or more names. The majority of new edits to this page are people adding their own favourite sitcom characters to the lists, and acceptance of this makes the article theoretically unlimited - every new sitcom that's made will feature some of the archetypes.

The simple one-paragraph summaries of the archetypes seem fine - maybe two or three examples, at most, from a representative selection of sitcoms. Looking at listcruft guidelines, I don't think there's any argument for splitting the lists off into separate articles. Time to be bold? --McGeddon 04:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree - cut and cauterise. PMA 07:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Kudos. --McGeddon 15:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I've burned all this back again a year later. We don't need a run-on sentence listing twenty-five examples to illustrate the concept of the "naif" character in situation comedy - I'm not even convinced we even need one. --McGeddon 13:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

My deletion from opening para

I just deleted changes from opening para. The list of examples was redundant. Para already noted that "Sitcoms usually consist of recurring characters in a common environment, such as a family, home or workplace." and those shows listed fit that desc, so there was no need to list them. The newly added description of what the "situation" in the term means - they get into funny situations - is wrong. It refers to the fact that the shows exist within a fictional dramatic framework, mileu or story world - that is, a situation - unlike a sketch comedy program, a comic chat show, or a TV showcase for stand-up comedians, which have no fictional story world. Asa01 06:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Character Comedy

It should be said that Sit-com aka situation comedy is most often character driven and as such character comedy. the shows are driven and surround characters, we watch things happen to them. I think this is a crucial point which should be explained somewhere in the article. Bobbyfletch85 01:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

First sentence

Does anyone think that saying what it is is more important than the fact that it originated on the radio, and therefore the former should precede the latter in the first paragraph? MBerrill 20:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Nobody replied? Hmmm... funny. Yes, always define an object (ie. state what it is) before stating its purpose, history, colour, smell, or whatever else (ie. any embellishment that may be of further academic interest or constructive curiosity). Pete Hobbs (talk) 14:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Ethnic Stereotypes

In the section concering ethnic stereotypes, I deleted the listing of the character Carla from "Scrubs." Carla is ethnic, but she is NOT an ethnic stereotype. There is a big difference. Viewers are not expected to laugh at the way she talks or the fact she is Latino, unlike characters such as Fez from "That '70s Show."--Victoria1286 01:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Ethnic Stereotypes

I think I see Victoria’s point, but ”ethnic” does not mean ”non-white” or ”non-Caucasian”. Einarw 02:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Start with history

I reworked the beginning of the article to begin with a chronological history rather than have the article jump right in with characteristics of the genre in a sort of ahistorical way.

I think the various other elements on the page should be folded into the historical narrative.

YMMV. -Broc7 05:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Radio deletions

People seem to like to delete parts of the radio portion of sitcom history. I know it's hard for some people to believe, but there is actually a lot of important cultural history that they are completely unaware of (i.e. sitcoms are more than just Friends and The Simpsons). If anything, the radio section deserves a lot more here than it currently has. So I humbly request two things: if you think what's there isn't currently sufficient, add to it, don't delete. If you actually think what's there doesn't belong there, please state your reasons. Deletions with no comment, even in the summary field, aren't helpful. Broc7 04:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Search Results

Why is it that this page does not show up in the first page of search results if I search for "sitcom"? Is there a way to make this page more 'findable'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.161.249.172 (talk) 09:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

If you simply type "sitcom" in the search box and click enter or press the Go button it will redirect to this page. So I don't think finding this page is much of an issue. Although if you click the Search button after typing in "sitcom" you are right that it doesn't show up on the first page. This issue I wouldn't know how to change. LonelyMarble (talk) 07:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

No Mention of TGIF "kidcoms" or sitcoms on Cable?

Is missing LOTS of sitcoms in general, and tends to be just one point of view, ignoring sitcoms from The N, (Radio Free Roscoe), then entire ABC's TGIF line, which was a sitcom factory for the entire 1975-1990 generation, Britcoms on PBS, stuff like Maniac Mansion and Weird Science on cable, etc. There wasn't even a mention of Daria, but a mention of South Park. This article needs to be totally re-written, and International Perspectives ought be considered within the whole of article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coffee4binky (talk • contribs) 13:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

"Kidcoms" are an important subgenre and I put them into the article with the audience fragmenting bit. Might need a little more, but there's no need to mention every sitcom & every outlet. Broc7 (talk) 01:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Too many examples

It says this page has too many example but i disagree there should be more sitcom examples such as absolutely fabulous and a few more modern sitcoms as this is useful to anyone studying GCSE or higher media studies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.226.67 (talk) 14:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The UK Channel 4 poll

I believe this section should be deleted from the article. It's unnecessary and is opinion based. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Getluv (talk • contribs) 21:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Animated Sitcoms

This should be mentioned her, possibly under Modern Sitcoms. Shows like The Simpsons, King of the Hill, Family etc. fit into this category.

desi arnez

{{editsemiprotected}}

desi arnez did not develop the three camera system for "i love lucy". Al Simon, the show's first season producer, did.

Not done: Reference please. —Ms2ger (talk) 09:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Laugh Track?

Why aren't there any mentions of the laugh track in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.244.120 (talk) 04:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Camera setup

Why is "Two and a half men" listed as a single-cam setup? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.200.128.5 (talk) 15:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The List

I'm no professional... not even a contributor... I just like comedy. But I'm sure "Scrubs" is not a sitcom... it's a comedy-drama. Simpsons, Family Guy etc. They are all Animated Comedies, right? "Shameless" is a drama.

I expected simply things like

  • Friends
  • Big Bang Theory
  • How I Met Your Mother
  • The Class
  • Fresh Prince of Bel Air

etc. Where can I find a list of shows similar to that?

Most of these shows to me need to be in List_of_comedies... Although a lot of the ones listed on there get confused between comedies and cartoons. 94.197.174.107 (talk) 22:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move, no opposition, discussion at CfD shows consensus for term being the common name. Taelus (talk) 12:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


Situation comedy → Sitcom — WP:COMMONNAME and this discussion. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

1960's edit

Removed: "Green Acres shared rural life, as lived by Eddie Albert and Eva Gabor, just outside Petticoat Junction but a bit away from Andy Griffith and Don Knotts over in Mayberry." from the 60's section. Maybe these shows deserve mention, but not in this graf, which is about fantastical elements.

Also re-arranged this section for a bit more logical flow. Broc7 (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Situation comedy films

This is a useless section. A situation comedy film is, I suppose, to be compared to a sketch comedy film. But it is not at all a widely used term, and there is already an article dealing with exactly this type of thing: Comedy film, wherein there is no mention of sketch comedy (and it is not just a list). The term 'situation comedy' refers to something narrower, where recurring characters are placed in different situations each week. --118.208.32.99 (talk) 12:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

US

If there is a separate article called British Situation comedy, there should also be a seperate article for US sitiation comedy. Totorotroll (talk) 11:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I think so, if only because the US section is disproportionately large; moving it to American sitcom (or something similar) and summarizing on this article seems prudent. —Ost (talk) 15:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Having it separate just because British Situation is doesn't seem valid unless every country gets moved to its own. The length doesn't warrant splitting either. I think a split is warranted on though based on the level of detail in the US section. Ost316's idea seems prudent.163.150.225.201 (talk) 19:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Daughters outnumbering Sons

Beginning in the 1970's, sitcoms that centered around 'a family' tended to have more biological daughters then biological sons, or sometimes only biological daughters - Here's some examples: All In the Family, Maude, Diff'rent Strokes, The Cosby Show, Family Matters, Fresh Prince of Bel-Air (most of the series), 8 Simple rules, etc. I've no sources for this trend, but it's a fact. Would like to add this info to the article, if anyone can find a proper source. GoodDay (talk) 20:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Workaholics

Workaholics is listed as being filmed before a live studio audience. I'm 99% certain that this is incorrect since the format of the show wouldn't allow for an audience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.210.10.253 (talk) 14:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

BBC vs ITV

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 Simpsons

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 Greeks

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)

Australia and its reliance on imported sitcoms

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)

Blanked history

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)

It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia

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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sitcom/Archive_1&oldid=1179423248"