Talk:Britain's Best Sitcom

Not shocking

Yes the top 10 were all BBC made but is that quite so shocking when you consider that something like 60% of British sitcom production is completed by them (plus of course it used to be much higher!). Whilst Father Ted was great don't forget it was a bit of a cult show.

More than 60% if you're talking about quality stuff that people watch years later. What has ITV done since Men Behaving Badly? What has Channel 4 done since Father Ted? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.146.47.250 (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

Is it really true?

"top ten programmes were all their own productions". In the strict TV meaning of "production" (i.e. the company that made the programme) Dibley was made by Tiger Aspect [1] as was at least the last (worst) part of Blackadder (same page). So I think the article should say "were all shown on the BBC" not "were all their own productions". -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:14, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree, but think that "were all first shown on the BBC", or "were all produced to be shown on the BBC" would be better to distinguish Blackadder, say, from imports such as Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, or if the BBC showed other British shows from other networks. I don't know that the BBC have done this, although other channels have (UK gold in particular). Another alternative is "are all BBC shows", but that's more vague. Silverfish 11:00, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

I think I like your last suggestion best (as otherwise the more precise we get, the more ungainly the resulting prose). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 13:24, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

How about "were all commissioned or made by the BBC"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.146.47.250 (talk) 21:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

"were all premiered on BBC" is probably sufficiently precise and economical of language. I'm not entirely sure if the word premiered is used much for TV shows but it's meaning is clear here. "were all produced for premiere on BBC" is concise and contains most of the meaning being discussed here. Admittedly, the phrase perhaps implies an intent which might not have always existed during production. Un chien fou (talk) 17:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

NPOV?

"The high position achieved by The Vicar of Dibley and the low positioning of Fawlty Towers and Open All Hours surprised many observers."

Says who? Personally I'm not in the least bit suprised by the high position of The Vicar of Dibley. I think a citation is needed. Failing that- just remove it. Anyone agree? -Matt

There was a lot of press articles about this very topic at the time. It was a surprise to many people, therefore it should stay.--HDC7777 13:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Only Fools and Horses vs. Blackadder

I'm almost positive that Blackadder won this competition? Edit: I checked the website, and it says they came 2nd.. but I'm still sure I remember Rowan Atkinson picking up the award. -Mikay 19:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it was Only Fools and Horses that won, as you can find out by going to the BBC website. Vorbee (talk) 16:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

BBC

Further to some of the above posts, I've removed the alleged "criticism" of the BBC for the entire top ten being BBC productions. This was a poll open to all, so unless there's any suggestion that the BBC fiddled the results this is a pointless (and unsourced) statement. Personally I don't think it's at all surprising that the top ten are BBC productions, who else makes decent British sitcoms? I also removed a paragraph about "some" being surprised at the performance (or lack of) by certain programmes, as it was unsourced and weasel-y. Just thought I'd explain the removals. Cheers, Miremare 21:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio

Publishing the entire list here might actually be a copyright violation. The JPS^{talk to me} 14:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The Database Directive of the European Parliament, the CDPA of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, the UK's Copyright and Rights in Databases Regulations 1997, and the decisions of the High Court and ECJ case in 2012 all agree that such lists are not copyrightable.

If you read the legal language behind the acts that decide whether or not a collection of data is copyrightable, you shall always find a stipulation that the data must be arranged systematically. Why isn't the sitcom list a 'systematical arrangement'? Because by systematical the law means that someone made qualitative evaluations in deciding what to include, and that they made creative choices in arranging the data.

Compare this list with the those of the aforementioned 2012 case: The Premier League sued Yahoo!, Enetpulse Aps, and Stan James for republishing the data from their fixture lists (locations and times of football matches). The ECJ ruled that "a football fixture list cannot be protected by copyright when its compilation is dictated by rules or constraints which leave no room for creative freedom". In case you're wondering, Wikipedia also publishes fixture lists (example).

In the case of the sitcom list, the constraints to creative freedom are the facts of how many people voted for each sitcom, and facts are not copyrightable. The High Court and ECJ decisions, consistent with the legal acts listed above, reject the sweat of the brow doctrine; in other words, the mere labour of compiling a data set is insufficient for copyright. We may all count ourselves fortunate that not even the arbitrary capping of the list at 100 is a sufficiently "creative" act to merit copyright.

To summarize: The data in the sitcom list was not decided by a creative effort at the BBC, but by public polling. According to the rules of the contest, no one at the BBC chose which titles to include or exclude; if they did then the competition was fraudulent. (Indeed, some people voiced suspicions about this because all the top 10 sitcoms are all BBC productions.) Ordering by vote count precludes the possibility of ordering by a qualitative assessment.

Regardless of whether or not you accept these arguments, please do not continue the edit war. Instead, discuss it here until there is understanding and consensus. If such good-faith efforts are inconclusive, invite outside arbitration by posting the article to Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations. —Ringbang (talk)

The case was already decided for us by Wikimedia legal staff long ago, and the decision was that we could not even include the top ten out of such a list without violating copyright. —Kww(talk) 21:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I would humbly suggest that Wikimedia legal staff are fucking idiots. Really, the list of winners from some contest can't be posted on Wikipedia? Why is the top 10 from this contest listed then? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Greatest_Canadian Absolutely ridiculous, I will guarantee you that anyone reading this page wants to know the final results, and not just the winner. I personally think the winner they chose was preposterous and would like to see where Fawlty Towers and Yes Minister ranked. There is no point in this page existing without the results.24.137.115.238 (talk) 03:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Why wasn't that documented on the talk page or in code comments? Ringbang (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

That's a good question. It led to the deletion of a whole raft of articles about Channel 4 shows. I'll see if I can find a good template/marker to the discussion to put on relevant talk pages.—Kww(talk) 23:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that would be very helpful. You say "good question", but wasn't it you who edit-warred with User:維基小霸王 over this? Ringbang (talk) 17:19, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Chef!

Was "Chef!" really not included in the BBC's poll or did the program have a different name in the UK? 75.23.74.36 (talk) 13:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, forgotten show I'm afraid. But there have been hundreds of great series left off (including comedy dramas. Also there have been a number of bad series for good reason forgotten. 78.151.115.121 (talk) 06:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Number of episodes

I have started adding the number of episodes to the list. This is vital as just saying the years broadcast doesn't state how large or small the output of the show was. 78.151.115.121 (talk) 06:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Complete list of celebrities needed

Rather than just have a vague mention of how different celebrities spoke up for a different sitcom in the Top Ten, and then have a couple listed, wouldn't it be nice to have the complete list of names in here? For example, Donald Dickinson spoke up for Only Fools and Horses, Carol Vorderman for The Vicar of Dibley, John Sargent for The Black Adder, Jack Dee for Fawlty Towers, Anneka Rice for The Good Life and Phil Jupitus for Dad's Army. This information could go in the article to improve the article somewhat. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

A question on phraseology

I have now put in the complete list of advocates, although I do wonder whether the expression "spoke up on behalf of" is a little too colloquial for an encyclopaedia. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I have changed the phrasing now to "advocated" _ I hope that this is OK. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 15:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Article needs more precise title

The article should be retitled "Britain's Best Sitcom (2004)". The article's list of 100 sitcoms is a "snapshot in time" of tastes and inclinations at a single point many years ago. The present title (without date) is misleading if one arrives seeking up-to-date info (as was the case in my visit). The article should also say more about the TV series of the title, and not just be a list of the sitcoms (useful though they are). The dates when the programmes in the series were aired would be useful. A 2003 comedy-discussion website referred to the limited background to the voting as "viewers have to vote for a mere ten sit-coms, from a practically pre-determined and non-negotiable list of 100 (you can nominate only one of your own choosing that isn't on the list. Woop-de-*******-doo)." Information like this should also be included, although obviously without the descriptive anti-programme bias. It also seems definite, from other web-sources including the BBC, that the poll was conducted by the BBC (not BBC, ITV and Channel 4 as stated in the article opening). Also it is an undisputable fact (pure and simple) that the top 10 were all BBC sitcoms. When someone removed an alleged "criticism" of the BBC for the entire top ten being BBC productions (above, 2007), they took out all reference entirely - a case of throwing out the baby with the bathwater! This is my summary of what's needed [IMHO] to improve the article. I'll leave it for a day or two for any comments, and then try to action as above if no one objects. Pete Hobbs (talk) 12:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

You make some well-reasoned points. I haven't yet seen the deleted references you mention, but certainly they are worthy of integration if they are from good sources. Earlier this year I added some information about the television series and its context, which I think makes the topic of the article clearer to readers. As for renaming the article to avoid reader disappointment: Britain's Best Sitcom is a proper noun. That should communicate to readers that we are not speaking in general about the subjective identification of Britain's 'best' sitcom (however that's defined). There are no other works called Britain's Best Sitcom from which to distinguish this one. Adding a year implies that there is a Britain's Best Sitcom campaign for some other year, but—as of this writing—there isn't. —Ringbang (talk) 16:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

And the winner was...?

I understand the point made above that publishing the whole list has copyvio problems - but not even mentioning which show won seems absurd. A one-line "The eventual winner was [show]" wouldn't hurt, surely? 31.50.56.210 (talk) 15:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done Added on 8 October 2014. Ringbang (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

TBA

Why is it that the written by column constantly has the phrase "TBA" in it? This survey was a long time ago now, back in 2004, so it would seem unlikely there is anything "to be announced" about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vorbee (talk • contribs) 19:39, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

This article could do with a list of rankings

This article could do with ranking how the Top Ten sitcoms were ranked following the final poll - it was 1. Only Fools and Horses 2. The Black Adder 3. The Vicar of Dibley 4. Dad's Army 5. Fawlty Towers 6. Yes, Minister / Yes Prime Minister 7. Porridge. 8. Open All Hours 9. The Good Life 10. One Foot in the Grave. Vorbee (talk) 16:50, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion about putting in wikilinks

Since most, if not all, of the Top Ten sitcoms have their own entries in Wikipedia, the list of episodes could present the names of the sitcoms in Wikilinks. Vorbee (talk) 10:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

They are wikilinked in the episode descriptions. Linking them in the episode titles creates the expectation that the links lead to a page about the episode. The way they are linked now follows the principle of least astonishment. —Ringbang (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry - looking at the table just now, I do see that they are wikilinked in episode descriptions. Vorbee (talk) 14:05, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Website with complete list on it

If one goes to the website tvtropes.org/pm.wiki/pm.wiki.php/Series/Britain's Best Sitcom, one will see the full list of the nation's favourite sitcoms with their rankings. This website could be put in the external links. Vorbee (talk) 14:43, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

​I don't know if we can link to that. My understanding of the situation is that the list is still protected under sui generis and the "sweat of the brow" doctrine, since it was created in Europe. However, since this restricts use for 15 years, I believe we can publish the complete list by the end of March 2019. Until then, the list is accessible through the archived "Official website" link. —Ringbang (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Sequels

The article refers to Porridge and then says "and its sequel Going Straight. Since Yes Minister had a sequel Yes Prime Minister, could it not say "and its sequel Yes Prime Minister? Vorbee (talk) 07:55, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

@Vorbee: Thanks for mentioning this. I checked BBC Comedy Guide about it, and also skimmed the respective episodes for scenes from Yes Prime Minister and Going Straight. As far as I can tell, they were not co-nominees with Porridge and Yes Minister. Maybe Johnny Vaughan uses Going Straight in his case for Porridge? —Ringbang (talk) 20:06, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

List Inclusion?

Stumbled on this article and it's talk page. I note that a previous section User:Ringbang noted that any copyright concerns about publishing the results of this poll would expire on 27 March 2019. I'm no legal expert, so is there any reason why a list of ranked results (be it bulletpointed or tabled) could be included, as per the page for the similar poll 100 Greatest Britons. Unless there are any objections, I'm happy to draft a list section. I'll wait for responses for a month before acting. Hjheath1 (talk) 21:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Full List

The article on 100 Greatest Britons gives the full list. Should this article give the full list of the sitcoms, in order of their ranking? The top 90 was:

1. Only Fools and Horses 2. Blackadder 3. The Vicar of Dibley 4. Dad's Army 5. Fawlty Towers 6. Yes Minister/ Yes Prime Minister 7. Porridge/ Going Straight 8. Open All Hours 9. The Good Life 10. One Foot in the Grave 11. Father Ted 12. Keeping Up Appearances 13. Allo Allo 14. Last of the Summer Wine/ First of the Summer Wine 15. Steptoe and Son 16. Men Behaving Badly 17. Absolutely Fabulous 18. Red Dwarf 19. The Royle Family 20. Are You Being Served/ Grace and Favour 21. To the Manor Born 22. Some Mothers Do 'Ave 'Em 23 The Likely Lads/ Whatever Happened to the Likely Lads? 24. May Family 25. The Office 26. Drop the Dead Donkey 27. Rising Damp 28. Dinner Ladies 29. As Time Goes By 30. Hancock's Half Hour 31. The Young Ones 32. 'Til Death Us Do Part/ In Sickness and in Health 33. Butterflies 34. The Thin Blue Line 35. The Rise and Fall of Reginald Perrin 36. Phoenix Nights 37. Waiting for God 38. Birds of A Feather 39. Bread 40. Hi-de-Hi 41. The League of Gentlemen 42. I'm Alan Partridge 43. Just Good Friends 44. Two Point Four Children 45. Bottom 46. It Ain't Half Hot Mum 47. The Brittas Empire 48 Gimme Gimme Gimme 49. Rab C Nesbitt 50. Goodnight Sweetheart 51. Up Pompei 52. Ever Decreasing Circles 53. On The Buses 54. Coupling 55. George And Mildred 56. A Fine Romance 57. Citizen Smith 58. Black Books 59. The Liver Birds 60. Two Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps 61. The New Statesman 62. Sykes 63. Please Sir 64. Dear John 65. Barbara 66. Spaced 67. Bless This House 68. Love Thy Neighbour 69. Man About the House 70. Desmonds 71. Duty Free 72 All Gas and Gaiters 73. Terry and June/Happy Ever After 74. Only When I Laugh 75. Brass 76. The Rag Trade 77. Sorry 78. Kiss Me Kate 79. Doctor in the House/ Doctor At Large/ Doctor in Charge/ Doctor on Top/ Doctor At Sea/ Doctor on Top 80. I Didn't Know You Cared 81. Shelley 82. Fresh Fielda/ French Fiedls 83. The Army Game. 84. Nearest and Dearest 85. Robin's Nest 86. The Dustbinmen 87. Whoops Apocalypse 88. My Wife Next Door 89. Never the Twain 90. Nightingales.

                                                                                                              Rollo August (talk) 21:59, 19 September 2021 (UTC)