Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin

Orphaned references in List of sitcoms notable for negative reception[edit]

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 sitcoms notable for negative reception'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 "time":

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⚡ 10:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion criteria[edit]

This list article lacks clear criteria for inclusion. Per WP:LSC: "Selection criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources." Comments? - SummerPhD (talk) 14:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on List of sitcoms notable for negative reception. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 13:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The War at Home[edit]

Should this sitcom really be on here? It seems to be a fairly forgettable sitcom but I wouldn't say that the negative reception is notable enough to warrant mention. The summary even mentions praise for the show. 65.60.216.22 (talk) 04:04, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tripper's Day[edit]

Yes, it was a godawful bucket of arse gravy but why no mention of the sequel, "Slinger's Day"? With Bruce Forsyth in the title part and many of the unfortunates from "Tripper's Day" reprising their roles (rumour has it that they were told "You'll never work in this business again if you don't sign up for this") it was, improbably, even worse than the original. I don't have a strong enough constitution to go looking for references, but perhaps there is a connoisseur of dreadful TV with a handy shipping container of mind bleach who feels up to the task? Mr Larrington (talk) 03:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also did wonder why the sequel is not mentioned here. There does seem to be a general problem with references for this one. As noted at Talk:Tripper's Day the Tripper's Day article does not actually provide evidence for the poor reception the original received and that is also the case here. I am not disputing that it was poorly received, but there should be some source cited to show this. Dunarc (talk) 20:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on List of sitcoms known for negative reception. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 09:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of sitcoms known for negative reception. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 11:08, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite[edit]

All of the entries need to be rewritten as they appear to be copied verbatim from their main pages. 92.53.105.156 (talk) 05:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 November 2017[edit]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved as this idea got a negative reception. (closed by page mover) Bradv 00:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

– Consistency with List of films considered the best, List of films considered the worst, List of television shows considered the worst, List of video games considered the best, and List of automobiles considered the worst. 165.91.13.204 (talk) 02:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong oppose "considered the worst" is not the same as "known/notable for negative reception". The former is more just direct looking at aggregate scores and summarizing those. The latter is more about understanding why something was considered bad. There are bad sitcoms and video games that are just bad and have disappeared into the vapor, but there are also sitcoms and video games that may not have been as bad, but their "badness" created long-standing reputation. --MASEM (t) 02:37, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose - for the video game article, as it would completely break the entire premise and inclusion criteria that has been used to clean up the article. There's no need for absolute consistency in this anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 03:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per previous comments, "considered the worst" implies something different than "known for negative reception". There are some video games on there, like No Mans Sky, which most critics would never call a "bad game", but received large amounts of negative reception for other reasons (its small scope on release compared to advertising/hype).ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose not sure about the sitcom article but in the case of the video game one changing the name would require a major shift in organization and inclusion criteria, something was never discussed before the move request.--67.68.21.146 (talk) 04:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The naming of the list switches around things for me; 'known for negative reception' implies things which the public and critics didn't like and can be sourced with ratings and reviews easily. 'The worst' is subject to personal opinion and doesn't seem to imply any type of sourcing is needed. Nate • (chatter) 23:14, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of sitcoms known for negative reception. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 11:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of sitcoms known for negative reception. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 06:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shorten list by deleting unnecessary entries?[edit]

The list is way too long and overcrowded with entries. Imo it should be thinned out by deleting all entries that do not exactly fit the inclusion criteria. In particular, all entries that do not cite at least one reliable source that says it's one of the worst shows ever or had an otherwise notable and lasting negative reception should be deleted. Epomis87 (talk) 11:18, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Epomis87: I just deleted 12 enties that were unsourced or based solely on a TV Guide listicle from 2002. Together, these entries totaled 10,023 bytes, or about 7.2% of the entire list by bytes. 82 entries remain to be inspected. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:24, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AList_of_sitcoms_known_for_negative_reception

Leave a Reply