Talk:List of television shows notable for negative reception

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

Suggested Additions[edit]

A list of "favorite" bad shows to be added to the official list. Listed here does not assure listing in the article, but does consolidate several suggestions under one heading.

Caillou

Should you add Caillou and Greeny Phatom to the List of television series considered the worst page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C8:C001:8A3A:14C8:232D:1A0B:981F (talk) 19:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what references? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:22, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How about this article link from CBR which talks about Caillou being the worst TV show? Caillou: The Rise, Fall, Death and HATE for the Nickelback of Cartoons (cbr.com) CrosswalkX (talk) 05:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mega babies

Link

If you look that up, you'll notice that it has many negative reviews of making people sick, due to its extreme toilet humor.Joeleoj123 (talk) 16:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joeleoj123 Negative reviews is not the same thing as reliable sources saying "This is the worst or among the worst series out there." Bad =/= worst. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Utopia Utopia (U.S. reality TV series)

While many "reality" shows have mixed reviews with lots of fans and haters, Utopia (Fox network) was scheduled to last a year and was canceled in less than two months, going from twice weekly to once weekly before being canceled outright. This show aired partly live. GeeBee60 (talk) 22:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heil Honey I'm Home

The BBC sitcom about Adolf Hitler and his Jewish neighbours, it was pulled after only one episode, perhaps someone should consider adding it to the TV shows on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.80.192 (talk) 21:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GeeBee60 Though I know you meant well, I don't see the value of consolidating these suggestions into a Suggested Additions section and to reformat the headings, since none of them were worth suggesting to begin with, and should be archived, which may now not happen mid-2016. The article is about television series considered the worst. That means they have to have made notable worst TV shows lists, and by no stretch of the imagination should we use this as a forum for internet cranks to complain about series that they dislike. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cyphoidbomb Thank you for the dubious honor of being recognized as a well-meaning internet crank.
The introductory paragraph of this worst TV article defines "worst" very broadly, hardly some lofty summation of an officially designated International Worst Television award. My heading was a suggested work-around to place possible additions here under "Talk" and thereby reduce placement of random TV programs onto the main page, shows which fail to meet consistent references and criteria -- clearly being done. Several of the described shows on the main page ought to be deleted or moved to "Talk". Consider this Talk Heading a Terrible Watch List. My specific suggestion meets some failure criteria -- the show was cancelled because of low viewer ratings, and only about 15% of the promised episodes were produced / aired. If not worst, certainly it was unsuccessful.
This article could be improved if each described show on the main page began with a checklist of criticism as to who designated the show worst. Instead there seems to be a lot of self-assured individual ranting for the various choices described. I agree with BDD, below, that the article is muddled.
All this being said, if you (or some other), Wikipedian feels my heading designation is wrong, you should go ahead and change it. In that it has taken me 8 months to notice this reply, it is hardly an urgent personal topic except in the doldrums of mid-winter. GeeBee60 (talk) 14:04, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
GeeBee60 - I assure you that "well-meaning" was directed at you, but "internet crank" was not. My objection was specifically about creating a forum for casual editors to crankily request that their pet peeve series (like Calliou) be added to the list with no regard for or awareness of any sort of scope. Since it doesn't appear to have been an issue, I'm happy to yield, but I think the section should be allowed to be archived normally from lack of participation. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's already been added on the Live Action sitcom page article page section. CrosswalkX (talk) 05:06, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Teen Titans Go — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.60.183.103 (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ideas I thought up Toddlers & Tiaras (for some reason it has a low rating on IMDb) Wild Grinders (it has negative reviews) MechMaster Katzenstein (talk) 12:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One other I thought we can include is Tomorrow's Pioneers because it got some major controversy and criticism. MechMaster Katzenstein (talk) 23:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Man in the Mirror: The Michael Jackson Story Espngeek (talk) 15:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you add "Santa Inc."? NIKO (talk) 10:21, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Love in 40 Days

Philippine drama series on Kapamilya Channel, because the storyline was poor, poor ratings and heavy advertising many negative reviews of making people sick, look like crime and mystery genre very terrible during the read-through. User:Vanryoko (talk) 18:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Biatches

The 2014 Comedy Central series Biatches has only 1.0 on IMBD out of over 700 ratings and was very widely panned. That's got to manifest as worthiness for the list, let alone it's one Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squiggledog (talk • contribs) 03:17, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of Lotería Loca to the list[edit]

Lotería Loca
The premiere of the 2023 American game show hosted by Jaime Camil, which utilized a format based on the popular Mexican game known as lotería, drew 1.7 million viewers, one of the worst debuts for a game show on a major television network. The extremely low ratings caused CBS to remove the program from its primetime schedule after five episodes were aired out of the ten that were produced.

24.191.232.15 (talk) 12:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NBC Olympics broadcasting[edit]

Should this entry be sorted alphabetically as "NBC" or "Olympics"? The former would see it move to right before NHL on Fox on the list. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Velma[edit]

On the Velma (TV series) page, it says that it is "often considered to be one of the worst animated shows ever made" with the last couple of words linking here. That said, should it be added? 4TheLuvOfFax (talk) 01:56, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it 100% should be added. I recently have had a user who is reverting edits based on personal preference. Wikipedia policy states Stick to source when using this site Fruitloop11 (talk) 04:53, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
May I add that one editor pointed out that critical reviews are more mixed? The show currently sits at a 55% on Rotten Tomatoes and a 59 on Metacritic. The Grand Delusion(Send a message) 05:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those ratings work the same way school grades do. A 55% is listed as rotten and a 59 is just as bad like a 55 and 59 on a test would be bad.. A 70-80 would be considered mix. And 80-90 would be considered mostly positive and 90+ would be Positive/highly acclaimed. Fruitloop11 (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Metacritic says 59 indicates "mixed or average reviews", so your argument already has holes in it. The Grand Delusion(Send a message) 15:19, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also it has a user rating of 0.4 and user ratings are just as important as critic ratings because they don't include a possible paid bias. Also on IMDB it has a rating of 1.4. Its universally negative by the people watching it. If it isn't a negatively rated show then nothing is Fruitloop11 (talk) 19:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"possible paid bias"... and yet you have no evidence to back up that claim. User ratings aren't foolproof either, as there is always the possibility of review bombing. The Grand Delusion(Send a message) 20:13, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I happened to notice that this "Velma" content had been removed along with sources that seemed valid, without a valid rationale. I reverted that change, not realizing that this has been flipping back and forth since December. I am not involved in this content dispute, I don't care either way whether the content stays or goes, but I am interested in preserving stability of articles on Wikipedia. To that end, I have full-protected the article for a couple of weeks until consensus can be reached. If consensus is reached before protection expires, I'm happy to unprotect it sooner so that it can be edited again. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it should be added yet. So far, only two episodes have been released, so I'd say wait until the season finishes and see if later episodes are better-received or if the hostile audience reception persists. I just think it's too soon to add it, that's all. The Grand Delusion(Send a message) 05:21, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to suggest that you may be referring to WP:TOOSOON but that's about article creation, and we already have an article on the series. Having just read through Velma (TV series), I can understand why an editor might want to add an entry here: the series seems notable primarily for its negative reception at the moment, although you make a good point that the series is still young. One possible resolution is to leave this list entry in place for now as long as it qualifies for inclusion, and then remove it if the series turns itself around and starts garnering praise. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:09, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 24 January 2023[edit]

Please change the short description from "Wikimedia list article" to "none" per WP:SDNONE. Thanks! ~ Eejit43 (talk) 23:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How many international titles do you need?[edit]

Tried to find " worst international" and "worst foreign" shows, but all I found were "worst remakes of international/foreign" shows. Espngeek (talk) 21:29, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Australian animated series Pixel Pinkie was very widely panned. Would that manifest as an international title? Squiggledog (talk) 03:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it in a non-English language? Espngeek (talk) 02:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Inc. Absent?[edit]

Similar to Velma in terms of controversy and sheer frustration the internet expressed against it, I feel that Santa Inc. deserves to be an inductee on this list.

Both shows are also similar with their overlap of racist and non-racist criticism; their humour was also criticised as uninspired. Internet Informant (talk) 13:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_television_shows_notable_for_negative_reception&oldid=1214462231"