Talk:British sitcom

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

Untitled[edit]

This page badly needs a rewrite out of a US-POV. -- Tarquin 23:41 Mar 19, 2003 (UTC)

Father Ted was removed (because it was Irish). But it was a British Channel 4 production (by Geoffrey Perkins amongst otheres), so I'm reinstating it RTE thought it was too controversial. Mintguy (T)

I don't see why something can't be Irish and British at the same time - Ireland (more properly Ulster) is part of the British Isles after all. sheridan 11:21, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
"British" Isles? Don't you mean the Irish Isles? --Eamonnca1 23:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing you're being slightly tongue-in-cheek here. I also guess that you might be an Irish patriot.
"Britain" is commonly used (mainly in America) to refer to the UK. However, it is an informal term which more properly refers to the entire archipelago, which includes Ireland (Ulster being an older term which means vaguely the same thing as Northern Ireland). The islands in this archipelago are collectively the British Isles. The other term that can cause confusion is Great Britain, which refers only to the largest island. Shetland, Orkney, the Isle of Wight and many other islands are UK, but not Great Britain, and Northern Ireland is both UK and Irish.
Just thought I'd clear that up to prevent any future confusion. RobbieG 17:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Use of the word "Britain" isn't really confined to the US, its commonly used as shorthand for GB or the UK. But I don't think it would ever be used to apply to Ireland as well, that would be "the British Isles".
And I think the outlying islands you mentioned would be considered part of GB, even if they are not connected to the mainland. The Isle of Wight, for eg, is considered to be part of England, therefore its also part of GB. JW 10:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All true, although I am British and I seldom hear anyone refer to the country as "Britain". It's usually "England" or "UK", or more often than not, just "this country"! But anyway, in everyday speech, everything you've said above is true. However, I was giving the strict technical terms, and I think they're all correct. Not 100% sure, but I'm pretty confident. RobbieG 20:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, the point is redundant, because although Father Ted is set in Ireland, it was made by a British company (Channel 4), thus making it a British sitcom. After all, 'Allo 'Allo isn't a French comedy just because it's set in France. (As someone who lives in Northern Ireland though, and also a terrible pedant, I always give my nationality as UK national rather than British citizen. But that's beside the point.)

I have a theory about British sitcoms. I think that all the best British sitcoms are about inadequate men who consistently fail to acheive their intended goal , e.g. Harold in Steptoe and Son (goal: Escape from his father's working class roots, (and his father)); Basil in Fawlty Towers (goal: improve the quality of his clientelle); David Brent in The Office (goal:Make everybody laugh at his jokes and think he's a "fun" boss); Del Boy in Only Fools and Horses (goal: become a millionaire); etc.. add to the list, The Britas Empire; Til Death Us Do Part; Ever Decreasing Circles; Hancock's Half Hour; One Foot in the Grave; Some Mothers Do 'Ave 'Em; Rising Damp; Father Ted; Citizen Smith and Blackadder. Mintguy (T) 01:10, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

that's great man. (ricjl 23:56, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC))
Okay actual reply: what about To the Manour Born, The Good Life, rah rah. British sitcoms have always been about failure because that's what makes them great - you can relate to them! US sitcoms are all about dreams that real people can't achieve. That's a different kind of comedy. (ricjl 23:56, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC))

The discussion of the article British_comedy wonders whether that page and this page should be merged. While that's a good question, in the meantime, I'm wondering about a different issue. There are numerous references to "Britcom" scattered throughout Wikipedia, but the term isn't defined, nor are the terms linked to the Brit-com page. That page itself currently redirects to British_comedy, which contains no mention of the term "Britcom" (or "Brit-com"). Should uses of the term "Britcom" link to a descriptive page of its own, or should they redirect to this page? It doesn't seem to make sense to leave things as they are, since this page at least gives a minimal definition of the term, whereas that page doesn't even mention it. (User:0dimensional 08:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 0dimensional (talk • contribs)

History[edit]

The overview history only mentions one of the top 10 British sitcoms (as voted last year). That needs to be sorted! (ricjl 23:52, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC))

NPOV[edit]

Would it be possible to rewrite this so it didn't come off sounding so superior and brainy? We're not talking facts here, it sounds like a bulletin board bigot explaining why he thinks Americans are stupid. I'm talking about stuff like this:

Unlike American sitcoms, which employ teams of writers and attempt to cram as many jokes into half an hour as possible, the traditional British situation comedy is produced by just one or two writers. Although it may be argued that a sitcom's raison d'être is to pack as many gags as possible into a half hour, the more measured approach engendered by a single writer or a close writing partnership permits greater control over the programme's direction and a more structured approach to character and plot development. A need for rapid-fire jokes can make the establishment of multi-dimensional characters much harder. The British approach therefore gives greater freedom to individual writers and more opportunities for character development.

Let's be a little less gushing, eh? SavMan 08:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that sounds fine, a need for rapid fire jokes DOSE make detailed charachters harder and having one or two people DOSE give them more control. Tortanick

It is the tradition of British sitcoms that the comedy arises out of the drama, it is an adjunct to Shakespeare and that crowd. There is an American tradition of cramming in as many gags as possible, the Dick van Dyke show, which was actually set in a scriptwriters' office, is a good example of that. Sweetalkinguy

I accept what's being said, but this article actually does make it sound as though British sitcoms are better than American ones. I think something probably should be done to rectify that. Wikipedia shouldn't contain bias. The problem is, I also think I shouldn't be the one to make the changes. I wouldn't know how to go about it, because, well, in my experience, I've enjoyed all the British sitcoms I've seen much more than the American ones. RobbieG 20:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not better, just different. Actually, I have a theory about where this difference comes from: the BBC. As a non-commercial station, the beeb doesn't have to chase ratings. That's probably less the case now than in the past but it's still somewhat true. I have heard that neither Dads Army nor Only Fools and Horses found their audience until the third series but both are now among the best-loved of programs. This means that the producers had the freedom to back their gut feeling and keep plugging away. It's inconceivable that a US network would produce a third series after two unsuccessful ones, or even a second series after one poor season. US shows have to hit the ground running hence lots of gags. Character-based comedy doesn't tend to work until the audience knows the characters. Also, the fact that the script isn't expected to pack in as many gags means there is more space to develop the characters. I think the 'best' Britcoms to tend to go deeper than US sitcoms. But, it has to be said, there have been plenty of Britcoms that were neither deep nor funny and a US sitcom is at least likely to be funny.217.154.66.11 12:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs drastic action[edit]

As it is, the article contains no references to sources whatsoever to support any of its claims. It is FULL of US bias and comparisons which are unnecessary. Much of its information is trivia or personal opinion. It is, basically, a massive mess which is so heavily buried under POV it is difficult to understand why it has not been fully rewritten before. Rather than moving to have it merged with a page on British comedy in general, where it might be better looked after and more thoroughly sourced, I have attempted to tackle these issues. I have not found sources for the claims made (since they are not my claims) but would STRONGLY encourage you to if you wish to include any of this information. If it is not verifiable, it is not welcome. Feel free to work to build a better article, but remember to stick to the facts and keeep your opinions to yourself. Best of luck with the article. --86.153.57.126 (talk) 15:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does seem to need a lot of attention. I'm struck by the sheer stupidity of statements like, "Currently, very few British-originated sitcoms are in production in the UK," and then citing only Two Pints... & The IT Crowd. What about Peep Show, The Inbetweeners, Reggie Perrin, Pete versus Life, My Family, Outnumbered, Mongrels, etc., etc., etc.? Nick Cooper (talk) 18:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on British sitcom. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 00:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on British sitcom. 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) 05:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in British sitcom[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 British sitcom'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 "Gaughan":

  • From Chesney and Wolfe: Gaughan, Gavin (22 December 2011). "Ronald Wolfe: Writer and producer best known for The Rag Trade and On The Buses". The Independent. Retrieved 24 April 2018.
  • From John Howard Davies: Gaughan, Gavin (25 August 2011). "Obituary: John Howard Davies". The Independent. London, England: Independent Print Ltd.

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⚡ 04:16, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Major expansion[edit]

Looking up something about a Christmas special I watched in December 2021, I realised that this article seriously needed updating. That update has involved three days and evenings of full time work over the holiday and I throughly enjoyed doing it, but the dilemma is knowing which sitcoms to include and how large the entries should be. Missing entries on important programmes have been added and others expanded from their parent articles and further research and fact checking. I think there is now a fair selection of entries and other types of content without the article getting too long and unwieldy.

The article is not intended to become an anthology of Britsitcom, but it's hard to define what makes it so successful without resorting to PoV and/or websites that are blocked by our filters as unsuitable for sources. That kind of information just does not seem to be available. No one seems to speak of the magic casting and distillation of the highly experienced comedy actors, for example, that made laugh-out-loud Keeping Up Appearances and Dinnerladies, and 'cozy' comedy such as The Good Life, To the Manor Born, and Doc Martin such roaring successes, while it is also well known OTOH, that the casts of some of the other well know sitcoms couldn't stand the sight of each other - but try sourcing that! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:58, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing this, the article is much improved. However, I've done a few modification to address some issues.
Care should be taken to avoid it reading like a personal essay. You can't declare a criteria for considering a sitcom as 'major' that appears to be based on personal opinion. There is no objective way of measuring how much a sitcom made viewers laugh, so really the only measures that can be used would be viewership and/or longevity.
Some of the specific claims made were unsupported by sources, or were weaselly claims that were unattributed.
--Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Escape_Orbit, thank you for your edits. I have reverted one edit which contravened its stipulated use. Some f the errors were imported from the parent articles, please do not attribute all of them to me and in negative ES. If you feel so strongly about them, perhaps you could take a moment to edit them yourself proactively rather than simply removing sections of text. Wikipedia is a collaborative work, care should be taken to keep it so.

  • Could you please re-edit (or appropriately source) the the parent article
  • IMO the reader may want to now why, among hundreds of British sitcoms, these have been selected for this article. Please consider replacing your removal with: The sitcoms featured below are among those that have a consistent group of characters and settings, that have had successful ratings or received awards, have influenced the shows that followed, have reflected the world around them, and have had an enduring impact on British culture. Some sitcoms notable for their lack of success are listed for contrast. Or find your own criteria for the choice of sitcoms represented here - 'major' should be evident from their descriptions, but as a header is required to separate the section intro fro the list, the L3 could probably just be replaced with [[===Selection===. Or please be kind enough to discuss it.

Thank you for your time. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:52, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reader may indeed want to know why these sitcoms have been selected, and the problem with selecting some without a criteria, or one that is essential the opinion of the contributing editor, is that these kind of article tend to expand to become "A list and description of various random people's favourites". The criteria you suggest is overly complicated and open to interpretation and, most significantly, doesn't really tell the reader anything about the article subject. At best it could function as an editor note.
It's a tricky balance. The article needs examples to illustrate the subject, but once you set out to give a definitive list, you are caught between original synthesis and opinion. For instance, who decided that Doc Martin should be included? Who decided that it is even a sitcom? Why do so many of the sitcoms mentioned also attempt to list every single actor in it?
I'd suggesting removing much of the decade lists, which dominate the article. This is not "List of Best British Sitcoms" and the article should focus much more on the particular attributes of a British sitcom, rather than listing the detail of individual sitcoms. Discuss common themes, for example, and reference particular examples. e.g. the puncturing of pretensions is often a source of humour in British sitcoms. What sitcoms can be used as examples of this?
The Helen Pilcher study is a sound starting point for any listings. It's authoritative, sourced and much more focussed. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Pilcher study was almost already out of date before this really gets going. You obviously have not read the article, otherwise you would know that it's not a list of Best British Sitcoms. It's designed to demonstrate what sitcoms have influenced others, introduced new trends, and had an impact in British culture, and what a close knit community the producers, directors, and actors are in British comedy in contrast to other countries. If the readers are not interested in the decade lists, they don't have to read them, but it's not our task to second guess what they want. Our job here is to inform, and most of the editors who provide appropriate new content do it quite well. I asked you to discuss it, not make suggestions for reducing it just because you don't like it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have done excellent work on this article User:Kudpung, and thankyou for your kind words. I don't have extensive knowledge post-c.1980 even so. Philip Cross (talk) 14:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your description of what the article should be doing. My point is that it isn't. I picked an entry at random; please explain where the listing for Hi Di Hi demonstrates its influence of others, what new trends it introduced, its impact on British culture, or the close knit community that produced it in contrast to other countries. (Could you also show where this last idea is mentioned anywhere at all in the article, and where it is sourced from?) Thanks. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Escape Orbit, some of the content is more complete, more up to date, and better sourced than the parent articles, I think 'I picked an entry at random' is precisely the problem in these and your other criticisms. Each entry has its own parent Wikipedia article, while this article is supposed to be read as a whole and by doing so the issues you mention are more than adequately evidenced. I think it's therefore fair to assume that most readers who are genuinely interested in the topic will have no difficulty in seeing the remarkable cohesion and similarity throughout the first 70 years of British sitcom. With the development of digital TV and the eruption in the number of channels as well as the many on-demand streaming options for which some of today's shows are exclusively produced, viewer levels are now much diluted. The impact of newer sitcoms will probably be far less influential than the days when one had to be at home to see what was being broadcast on the handfull of traditional free-to-air providers and watched on the family TV set in the living room, and while the pioneering actors, writers, producers, and directors were still alive. Be happy that Wikipedia has this article at all - which took a lot of work and further research and is a vast improvement on what it was 15 years ago even though you don't like it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:35, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear description of cultural changes[edit]

After "British sitcoms reflect changes in public opinion and culture through the times" in the lede, I was trying to find a better description than "They began at a time in which, for example, 'class and ethnic prejudices were challenged and mocked'. The racial and religious slurs were appreciated for their pure laugh-out-loud and slapstick humour and exploitation of stereotypes that were often the essence of a sitcom series and the butt of the joke line, rather than as offensive issues that are nowadays discredited by modern tastes.'"

It seems to touch on two contradictory devices used:

  1. Prejudice and stereotypes are the material of inappropriate humour, appealing to the boorish ("slurs were appreciated for their pure laugh-out-loud and slapstick humour")
  2. the character(s) exhibiting such prejudices are held to ridicule, appealing to the culturally enlightened ("prejudices were challenged and mocked")

Any thoughts on a more cogent description? signed, Willondon (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_sitcom&oldid=1206439611"