Talk:A Little Late with Lilly Singh

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2019
Change the Reception section from this: "On Rotten Tomatoes, A Little Late with Lilly Singh holds a 100% approval rating based on 10 reviews, with an average rating of 6/10. The site's critical consensus reads: "The delightful Lily Singh breathes fresh air into the world of late-night comedy with an energetic new show that's willing to play with the format in ways that will keep viewers looking forward to staying up A Little Late."[16] The premiere episode also attained steady ratings in comparison to the finale of Last Call with Carson Daly.[17]

In a positive review, Shirley Li from The Atlantic opined that while Singh's monologues came off "awkward," she excelled in interviewing the series' guests, during which she delivered "some of her best, off-the-cuff humor."[18] Caroline Framke of Variety also gave the series a positive review and commended Singh as an "engaged interviewer capable of steering the conversation where it needs to go."[19]"

to this: "On Rotten Tomatoes, A Little Late with Lilly Singh holds a 100% approval rating based on 10 reviews, with an average rating of 6/10. The site's critical consensus reads: "The delightful Lily Singh breathes fresh air into the world of late-night comedy with an energetic new show that's willing to play with the format in ways that will keep viewers looking forward to staying up A Little Late."[16] The premiere episode also attained steady ratings in comparison to the finale of Last Call with Carson Daly.[17]

In a review, Shirley Li from The Atlantic opined that while Singh's monologues came off "awkward," she excelled in interviewing the series' guests, during which she delivered "some of her best, off-the-cuff humor."[18] Caroline Framke of Variety commended Singh as an "engaged interviewer capable of steering the conversation where it needs to go."[19]

However, public response to the series has been largely negative. The program holds a 2.2/10 rating based on 2798 audience reviews on IMDB. On Rotten Tomatoes, the show holds a 2.5/10 rating based on 1265 user reviews. "

in order to offer a more comprehensive view of the show's reception. 192.190.19.42 (talk) 22:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * ❌ As can be seen from the edit history of the page, this would be contrary to consensus. The cited IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes ratings are user-generated reviews, and not reliable for Wikipedia purposes. The statement "public response to the series has been largely negative" would need to be cited to a reliable secondary source; otherwise it is original research, which is contrary to policy.  Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 01:09, 4 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The critic ratings on the aggregator site are subject to conflict of interest and group think, and are less reliable than the audience score; as seen, for instance by the large swings over time of critics scores, e.g. the Orwell show. compared to the stability of the audience scores. There are also no citations on any correlation between between critic scores and the success of the subject under review, to justify their continued use. Therefore, they *also* need to be removed. They have no proven reliability.
 * Please sign your posts using ~
 * critic ratings on the aggregator site are subject to conflict of interest and group think that's your own opinion and orginal research. The long established consensus at Wikipedia in general and WikiProject_Television in particular is that Rotten Tomatoes is a reliable sources for aggregated critics scores (but also that audience scores are not reliable). Please read WP:TVRECEPTION again. Only in rare case when multiple reliable WP:SECONDARY sources highlight a discrepancy do we consider including the audience scores (The Orville is one of the very few exceptions) and even then the important point is the overall difference of opinion not the score itself. The inclusion of IMDB scores in this article is based on some very weak WP:SECONDARY sources, don't be surprised if editors take a more strict view and remove them.
 * The disparity between critics and audiences didn't get much coverage, but reliable sources did report that the ratings for this show were never great. -- 109.78.206.101 (talk) 12:46, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Broadcast Ratings on NBC
Week of Sep. 16-20: 0.14, 610,000 viewers (PREMIERE WEEK)

Week of Sep. 23-27: 0.15, 660,000 viewers

Week of Sep. 30-Oct. 4, 2019: 0.16, 670,000 viewers (Note: Oct. 4’s “A Little Late” was an encore.)

Week of Oct. 7-11, 2019: 0.14, 650,000 viewers https://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/weekly-ratings/late-night-ratings-oct-7-11-2019-late-late-show-ticks-up/

Week of Oct. 21-25, 2019: 0.15, 630,000 viewers

Week of Oct. 28-Nov. 1, 2019: 0.16, 670,000 viewers (Note: All of “A Little Late’s” telecasts throughout the week were rebroadcasts, except a Oct. 31 Halloween episode.)

Week of Nov. 4-8, 2019: 0.15, 680,000 viewers

Week of Nov. 11-15, 2019: 0.14, 660,000 viewers

Week of Nov. 18-22, 2019: 0.16, 720,000 viewers

— Preceding unsigned comment added by PopCultureMan (talk • contribs) 17:21, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

But according to the shitty policies of Wikipedia none of this is valid, so the clear falseness of the reception (100% rating, lmao what a joke) has to remain, despite the fact the actual public (whos opinion matters more than that of "professional critics" *airheads) hate this tripe. More evidence as to why Wikipedia is a flawed beast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.251.89.45 (talk) 09:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You gotta remember bro, you NEED to trust the reliable sources™️ EytanMelech (talk) 01:49, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Question about "at-home" episodes
Hello again, everyone! While I appreciate Brianis19's recent edits to this page, I wanted to ask a question about this week's episodes. It was my understanding and recollection that, with the new episode of Lilly Singh that aired on Monday, Lilly made a brief introductory appearance from the location of her at-home quarantine due to COVID-19. So I can understand in that sense how this week's episodes could technically be classified as being an "at-home edition" of the show. But again, if I am recalling correctly, didn't Lilly note in that same introduction on Monday night that, per her usual tradition, she had pre-recorded a batch of episodes in-studio that would be airing that week? If the episodes that are airing this week are indeed prerecorded, then would it still be accurate to say that those episodes pre-recorded in-stuido are "at-home editions"? In this case, A Little Late this week has not been like The Tonight Show or Late Night, where Jimmy Fallon and Seth Meyers are actually recording their shows at home, from which the interviews and segments (in other terms, entire full-length shows) are also originating. If it were up to me, I'd opt to not classify the episodes of A Little Late which are airing this week, or any in coming weeks that are prerecorded as being "at-home" editions thereof, and we'd wait to classify them as such until such time as the entirety of her show originates from her current location, including conducting interviews via technology. Thoughts? --Jgstokes (talk) 08:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Essentially, they just took a pre-recorded in-studio new episode, but replaced the "teaser" that she usually does before the first commercial break with an "at-home" introduction. This was probably done so that viewers wouldn't think that NBC was airing re-runs of Lilly Singh or (worse yet) recording these shows with a full studio audience during a pandemic! Madnana42 (talk) 21:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Madnana42

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2020
173.49.139.17 (talk) 23:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC) Request is empty.  Passenger pigeon  ( talk )  23:25, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Confusing paragraph relating to production
Hello again, everyone! Recently, one or more anonymous editors have attempted to add information about this show halting prodcution due to COVID-19. However, the date on which they are listing suspension on production needs to be modified, IMHO, because several "new" episodes have aired since the suspension of production. And unless there is also a way to add a reference about how that's possible, my gut feeling is that none of the information should be included. But I know Wikipedia operates on consensus, so if a way can be found to properly source the complete story here, I think I'd be on board with that. Thoughts? --Jgstokes (talk) 03:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi! My paragraph does not state that production has halted. I specified the date which the studio audience was cancelled and that production continues from her home. I’d like to have something about the current lack of “in studio production” in this article which there currently isn’t. Please add any thoughts/suggestions! Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 03:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


 * But production is not continuing from her home. Production on the show halted after she pre-filmed episodes in-studio that are now airing. She has not aired a single episode from her home during the COVID-19 quarantine. All new episodes that have aired/will yet air are studio-based pre-filmed ones. So unless you have a source indicating that production of the show is originating from her home, and that somehow DJ Daniel and her studio audience are all crammed into her home during quarantine (which would violate the rules of said quarantine), then we need to be careful about how this page mentions new shows. That is the problem. That said, if you have a source verifying that it's all coming from her home, I'd love to look it over, but I doubt you'll find one saying specifically that. And I've looked on my end. To my knowledge, no such source exists. And that is another problem I have with the mention of production being suspended. Unless we find a source detailing the whole scenario, none of it should be mentioned. --Jgstokes (talk) 03:17, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that any information related to the pandemic needs a reliable source for inclusion. Otherwise, it's not verifiable. KyleJoan talk 04:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Number of episodes in the first season
Hello again, everyone! Just a quick question: the number of episodes of this show that have aired does not seem to be equivalent to the number of episodes mentioned as having been greenlit for the first season in the "production" section (there's a one- or two-episode difference between the two). What can we do to fix this seeming deiscrepancy? --Jgstokes (talk) 03:49, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2020
Change Reception to add another line underneath. While Little Late with Lilly Singh has a 90% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes from Critics. It also has a 17% user rating. Rotten Tomatoes is owned by Comcast which owns and operates NBC, the production company for Little Late with Lilly. Most criticism, encourages that the YouTuber and television personality could be paving the way for queer women of color, but her repetitive and stereotypical jokes become problematic at connecting to a empathetic audience. Stainlessstove (talk) 05:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The "Reception" section in articles is usually devoted to critical reception, not user ratings - see Review aggregators.  If you would like criticism added to the article, please provide a reliable source.  Thanks!  GoingBatty (talk) 15:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. While user ratings tend to reflect audiences better, it is hard to measure them impartially, but if you can find a way to add criticism with sourcing to the article, I think it'd be more than welcome. EytanMelech (talk) 00:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Way to keep it current
By all means, go behind my back and delete my edits, but do nothing to update the episode list on this page after 6 months.--67.86.58.61 (talk) 14:03, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Reception/Ratings
You can't really believe it's honest to mention the 82% critic's score without even mentioning the 1.6/10 on IMDb or the 16% audience score in Rotten Tomatoes. I've edited plenty of Wikipedia pages of shows and movies and I've never seen one having a problem with listing audience scores. The only reason why you won't let someone publish audience scores or broadcast ratings is because they'd show how subpar this talkshow really is. This is a disgrace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Papado01 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed 100% and it's so weird! This show is on about a dozen "worst shows of 2020" lists on IMDB. I only know of this show because it's a huge joke of how much it's hated and came to this page to see if there were any funny reviews in the article. No mention at all of how detested this show is. Does a youtuber have to create a "top ten worst forced corporate comedy show flops of 2020" we can cite before we can add it? Someone explain this anomaly. Strangewhine (talk) 13:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

LOL moderator trying to protect this show and prevent people from seeing the truth that it is amongst the worst rated television shows of all time. I agree an "individual" user review shouldn't be cited but imdb rating and audience score are frequently cited on Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.146.194.185 (talk) 23:13, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Both WP:USERGENERATED and MOS:TVRECEPTION warn not include audience scores. There are only rare exceptions to those rules. -- 109.76.132.254 (talk) 20:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * MOS:TVRECEPTION states "Review aggregation websites such as Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic are citable for data pertaining to the ratio of positive to negative reviews..." so even if audience reviews are not professional critics, the overwhelmingly negative audience review ratio is worth mentioning. Especially when on Rotten Tomatoes there are over 2,000 audience reviews compared 11 critic reviews whose score is cited in the article. 38.21.210.111 (talk) 03:04, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

"There are only rare exceptions to those rules." You don't think a critical/audience discrepancy of 66% is a rare occurrence which may warrant an exception? I think it is notable.
 * It is not about what I think, it is about what the guidelines and the reliable sources say. We're supposed to be trying to write an encyclopedia. If a WP:SECONDARY reliable source reports on it then it might be enough to consider it notable. Preferably multiple sources. Otherwise no. (The IMDB scores are not cited frequently on Wikipedia, they are almost never allowed. I can only think of a few [[Sticks & Stones (2019 film)|

exceptional]] cases, mostly films.)
 * I didn't expect to like this show, and I watched a few clips of interesting guests on Youtube and I still do not think I would have liked this show. None of it is relevant, and this article should follow WP:UGC and MOS:TVRECEPTION like almost every other Wikipedia TV article. -- 109.77.204.193 (talk) 00:35, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't delete the IMDB score from the article this time. I remain unconvinced that the sources are good enough for it to be included, or that it even matters. The IMDB score itself is irrelevant, and a not a particularly good way to make the point. The only relevant information is that (some) audiences didn't like it. The details of the Nielsen ratings could be rephrased to better tell the story, the show never got ratings as good as Carson Daly (25% below) and ratings didn't get any better with the second season. -- 109.77.204.193 (talk) 00:58, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Missing episode not listed
Hello, I recall there was one episode that was never aired that featured the Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau. It was pulled from broadcast at the last minute due to the then fresh revelation of the blackface photos, it was supposed to have aired in the show’s debut week. Why is it not mentioned at all?
 * Please sign your posts using ~.
 * Things don't get included unless people provide reliable sources. These might be enough for someone else to add it eventually. Also it is debatable if it is noteworthy to highlight a non-appearance, or something that didn't happen. -- 109.77.204.193 (talk) 01:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)