Talk:British sitcom

message: 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)
thread_title: History

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Article needs drastic action 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110629122247/http://www.televisionheaven.co.uk/buses.htm to http://www.televisionheaven.co.uk/buses.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090709092240/http://www.televisionheaven.co.uk/armygame.htm to http://www.televisionheaven.co.uk/armygame.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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: 
From John Howard Davies: 
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)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:British sitcom]] 

message: 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:
# 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") 
# 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)
thread_title:  Unclear description of cultural changes