Talk:30 Rock

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Good article30 Rock has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 8, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
August 7, 2008Good article nomineeListed
August 27, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Good article

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on 30 Rock. 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 04:50, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 30 Rock. 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 07:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

"critical acclaim throughout its run"[edit]

While I have been reverted several times in making an edit related to this sentence, the fact is that the section on reception (which could certainly use some expansion) does not prove that 30 Rock was critically acclaimed all throughout its original run. It is not true that the first season was acclaimed, for example, according to Metacritic. Critics' lists for 2008, 2009, and 2011 are also not mentioned, which means that the section doesn't prove acclaim for the third, fourth, or sixth seasons. Until the quoted statement is actually backed up, the reversions of User:Anonymous5454 will constitute the reintroduction of unsourced puffery and will thus be undone. AndrewOne (talk) 14:00, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

You're making a change to the page; you have to justify it and garner a WP:Consensus. I don't have to justify the language that has been listed on this page for several years now simply for stopping you. You've now violated the WP:3RR and are owed a block, and as such, I will revert your last edit. The current language is absolutely fine and has been fine for years, and is sourced in the critical reception section; it implies that the show received consistent acclaim, not that it was always acclaimed. To your example, the first season won the Emmy for Outstanding Comedy Series and was clearly acclaimed. If you revert again, it might be necessary to get ANI involved. Stop edit-warring and garner a consensus if you want to make an edit to the page. Anonymous5454 14:38, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
I justified it in my past edits to the page, and also in the post you just responded to. I already showed why the section on reception does not back up the argument that 30 Rock was acclaimed all throughout its run. You have also falsely accused me of breaking the WP:3RR (no more than three reverts on a page in 24 hours) when I have not broken that rule, and you did not address my pertinent comment that critics' lists for numerous years were not mentioned. Please stop evading the question at hand. AndrewOne (talk) 14:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

"Throughout its run" is a literary term, not a legal term. To use the phrase in the lede, it's sufficient to have citations for 4 of 7 seasons, unless there's evidence one season was "panned by critics" or the like. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

No, citations for all seven seasons having been acclaimed are needed for use of the phrase, because the word "throughout" is specifically defined as "in or to every part of; everywhere in". The Sopranos and Fargo are examples of shows that were acclaimed, or have been acclaimed, all throughout their runs. Look to the third paragraphs of the articles for The Office and Parks and Recreation and for examples of intellectually honest summaries of critical reception. Season four of 30 Rock received a 67% on Rotten Tomatoes, with a 7.57 average. This, while positive, is not acclaim. Season one has a 73% with a 7.55 average. The phrase "throughout much of its run" is in greater accordance with the facts. AndrewOne (talk) 14:18, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Power~enwiki is correct. Anonymous5454 04:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Is it misleading to say that 30 Rock was critically acclaimed "throughout its run"?[edit]

(non-admin closure) No consensus.- MrX 16:37, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.

This request for comments is concerning the claim in the lead section that 30 Rock garnered acclaim from critics throughout its run. AndrewOne (talk) 05:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Votes[edit]

  • Yes. AndrewOne (talk) 05:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
  • No. As per above: to use the phrase in the lede, it's sufficient to have citations for 4 of 7 seasons, unless there's evidence one season was "panned by critics" or the like. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
You have merely reiterated a statement from an earlier comment, without actually explaining what makes the phrasing acceptable. Please do so in "Discussion". AndrewOne (talk) 12:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
I think this really kills any opposition to the phrasing. The sheer number of sources now supporting it is overwhelming. Anonymous5454 04:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
@Anonymous5454: In actuality, none of the sources support it. 30 Rock ran from 2006 to 2013. Sources one, two, and three are from 2007, 2008, and 2009, respectively, and thus they couldn't possibly prove the statement. Sources four, five, and seven simply state that the show is critically acclaimed, without further specification. Source six, which is the same way, seems to be on a website of questionable reliability. Source eight is simply talking about the second season and not the entire show. There are also, as I have explained before, multiple seasons that did not meet the threshold for acclaim on Metacritic. It has been proven before that the show was not acclaimed throughout its entire run. AndrewOne (talk) 22:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

My arguments can be seen in the above talk page section "'critical acclaim throughout its run'". I posted three comments there, the last of which is to my mind the most pertinent. Several seasons of 30 Rock simply haven't been proven acclaimed by the sources cited in the reception-centered section of the article, and would not be reported by review aggregators such as Rotten Tomatoes as having been acclaimed. Therefore, the phrase is puffery. AndrewOne (talk) 05:55, 9 June 2017 (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.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on 30 Rock. 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 19:58, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on 30 Rock. 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 16:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)