Talk:The Big Bang Theory/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Theme song

An IP has made some significant edits to the article today claiming that a full-length (1 minute and 45 seconds) version of the theme song was released on October 11, 2010, not October 9, 2007. However, the original claim was added to the article on 21 October 2007,[1] and the citation was added on 25 November 2007.[2] It seems the October 11, 2010 version was a re-release. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Gaming

Is it just me or does the "Gaming" section seem to have an extraordinary amount of intricate detail. Do we really need a list of every game ever played on the show? It seems trivial and unnecessary. The section could be reduced down to one encyclopaedic sentence. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Looking further, there seems to be some original research in the section. Most games have never been identified by name. The editor adding this content has apparently recognised (or thought he recognised) games and named them based on this. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Are there independent reliable sources for them or are we just looking at the show and saying, "Look! He's wearing a sweater! Let's add that to the 'Stuff Sheldon is seen wearing' section."? If independent reliable sources are discussing the individual games in relation to the show as a whole (not merely mentioning them in relation to that episode), we might have something to include. Otherwise, it is pointless trivia, IMO. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find any reliable sources - that's not to say they aren't there, just that I can't find them. I've asked the IP to discuss here. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The exhaustive list there is, IMO, trivial. I can't say I've watched the show to know whether or not the games are specifically identified in the show. I've tagged the section. Unless there is meaningful discussion to the contrary, I'll yank it in a couple of days. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

While I know that the show features a lot of games, I agree with AussieLegend, that there is no source that explicitly says that a game was used. The editor is just identifying them as recognizable by looking at each episode. The only one that may warrant inclusion is Mystic Warlords of Ka'a, which was made into an actual game. -Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I've chopped the endless/useless list/mess to a brief statement and two games. Why those two? One was a fictional game created for the show and went on to become a real game (It's sourced and everything! A Festivus miracle!). The other is a fictional game created for the show that has its own Wikipedia article (I haven't dared to look at whether or not it should. I'm not that brave.) Feel free to disagree, call me mean names and throw general hissy-fits below. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Since we have trimmed this section down so much, can we some how incorporate it in the section above it? -Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Aussie has now done just that. Another Festivus miracle. Looks like we're done here (barring opposing points of view, of course). - SummerPhD (talk) 05:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Lead too long

Seriously, some details should be merged or repeated into the body article. The article barely mentions syndication ratings, as well as the renewal. If possible, should the lede be no more than four paragraphs, as current Featured or Good Articles are? --George Ho (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the lead is getting too long. The whole final paragraph should possibly be moved to either the U.S. ratings section or the Syndication section to cut help cut down. The third paragraph seems to have a mix of info in the article and some that is not, so that can possibly be trimmed down as well. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Length was something that we were concerned about in early January (see the above discussion and RfC). Much of the excess content was added to the lead in late January.[3] I've moved it per the previous comment. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

While big improvement, I still wonder if more details should be moved into body article, like awards and the "live audience" part. --George Ho (talk) 01:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I have moved the "live audience" part to the production section, and the award prose to before the table in the awards and nominations section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Huge improvement; I still wonder if the second paragraph should be moved to body article. I cannot find anything about "intelligence vs. commonality" humour outside lede. Also, I would hope a good introduction or summary of the whole article. --George Ho (talk) 08:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

"Main cast" section too long?

Descriptions of characters are already made in List of The Big Bang Theory characters. Why repeating what they say about them in main article? Maybe trimming is needed, right? --George Ho (talk) 05:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I think after the main five characters, those could use a good comb through. They seem a bit excessive. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 13:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Which characters must I remove from main article? --George Ho (talk) 05:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

We shouldn't remove characters. Only reduce the info that is said about them, or condense sentences, because, like you said, it is more in depth on the characters page. -Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Can you at least trim them down? Or you want me to do it? --George Ho (talk) 08:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Why Here?

Shouldn't this search take one to the scientific theory, instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Commando303 (talk • contribs) 05:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

No it shouldn't. Please scroll up the page and click on the "Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)", after reading the section titled "Requested move". --AussieLegend (✉) 06:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

RfC: The last paragraph of the lead

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.

---

Three different options have been proposed:

• Current version of article:

On January 12, 2011, CBS announced that the series had been renewed for an additional three years, extending it through the 2013–14 season. As of the 2012-13 television season, the series is in its sixth season, which premiered on September 27, 2012.

• Option A: (proposed by user:However whatever) -- swap the two sentences and add 8 words (added words in red) to read:

As of the 2012-13 television season, the series is in its sixth season, which premiered on September 27, 2012. At least one more season is expected, since on January 12, 2011, CBS announced that the series had been renewed for an additional three years, extending it through the 2013–14 season.

• Option B: (proposed by user:Favre1fan93 as a compromise, accepted by user:However whatever) -- keep the order of the sentences the same, and add 4 words (added words in red) to read:

On January 12, 2011, CBS announced that the series had been renewed for an additional three years, extending it through the 2013–14 season, the series' seventh season. As of the 2012-13 television season, the series is in its sixth season, which premiered on September 27, 2012..

There is currently no consensus on any of the above options, so more comments are needed to form a consensus. I think either Option A or Option B should be implemented, as the two sentences are disjointed. In my opinion, both Option A and Option B read better than the current version of the article. However whatever (talk) 01:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• However whatever's RfC is more than a little misleading. He is correct that there is no consensus for any of the options. Even the "current" version is "his" version. Prior to discussion commencing, the article read as follows:

"On January 12, 2011, CBS announced that the show had been renewed for an additional three years, extending it through the 2013–2014 season.

The series' sixth season premiered on September 27, 2012."[4]

The current version of the article is the result of However whatever's persistent edit-warring. When he made a bold edit I attempted to work with him and made some changes, which he immediately reverted. I subsequently reverted to the WP:STATUSQUO, but However whatever decided that this version was the consensus, even though there was no consensus for it. Even after formally warning him about his persistent edit-warring, both on his talk page,[5] and above,[6] However whatever decided to muddy the waters even further by making this edit. While minor, it nevertheless represents a complete disregard for the BRD process. For the record, I believe the text should read:

"On January 12, 2011, CBS announced that the series had been renewed for an additional three years, extending it through the 2013–14 season. As of the 2012–13 television season, the series is in its sixth season, which premiered on September 27, 2012."

An encyclopaedia is a formal document and "series" is more appropriate. "Show" is fine for Broadway, but not for a television series. There is no need for the red text in options A and B, it unnecessarily exceeds what is required to convey required information in a formal document and is therfore simply fluff, used to pad out the text. WP:YEAR says "A closing CE or AD year is normally written with two digits (1881–86) unless it is in a different century from that of the opening year, in which case the full closing year is given (1881–1986)." Since all years are in the same century, yyyy-yy is more appropriate and consistent with WP:YEAR and 2012–13 United States network television schedule, which is being linked to. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• I am agreeable to all the listed options in the following order: Current version (more preferably the way it is stated by AussieLegend as his belief of the sentences), Version before discussion (stated above by AussieLegend), or Option B (with the minor changes of "show" to "series" and the date fixes, presented by AussieLegend). I am Opposed to Opinion A and any larger variations on it, as I feel the words in red here are unneeded. Even now, I am leaning more to Opposed for Option B, than for it, as reading it back, I can see how the words in red are unneeded. And for the record, what I initially proposed, which is now labeled Option B, read:

On January 12, 2011, CBS announced that the show had been renewed for an additional three years, extending it through the 2013–2014 season, the show's seventh season. As of the 2012-2013 television season, the series is in its sixth season, which premiered on September 27, 2012.

"series" was changed to "show" by However whatever in this edit, listed by AussieLegend as well. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Revised comment below. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Lets not broaden the dispute -- I have changed show to series in both sentences, and changed the date format to 20xx-yy. Lets keep the dispute to the 4 or 8 words emphasized above. However whatever (talk) 07:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Fine. As I see you have done these things, may you change them in all of the bolden options you stated, so we are all working and talking about the same things moving forward? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• I am agreeable to the Current version, opposed to Opinion A and any larger variations on it, as I feel the words in red here are unneeded, and uncertain about Option B. I am leaning more to opposed for Option B, than for it, as reading it back, I can see how the words in red are unneeded.-Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I must say that you are quite noble for proposing a compromise which you yourself don't particularly like. However whatever (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I've removed the {{collapsetop}} and {{collapsebottom}} templates that However whatever added, ostensibly to hide a section about "2013-2014 vs .2013-14" & "show vs. series". Those two issues form only a part of the comments in that section and selectively "hiding" comments made by others in a RfC, leaving only his own comments immediately visible, as was done by the addition of these templates, is at best inappropriate. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • No wonder you are a difficult editor to deal with, because you like to explode and broaden disputes. This just shows that. The purpose of the collapsing of the discussion was to bring focus to the discussion. You could have (should have) done the same thing Favre1fan93 did that he reposted the portion of his comment that dealt only with the options presented. You are certainly NOT a person that is easy to deal with. To accuse me of trying to hide anything doesn't pass the laugh test, as everything is right there with the press of a button, nothing hidden. I call on you to re-collapse the sidebar discussion. However whatever (talk) 15:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• The problem here continues to be that you keep editing in such a way that makes it confusing for others, changing the article while discussion is underway (completely ignoring WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO in the process) You've opened an RfC inviting comment from other editors but then changed the article, and the proposal, after other editors have already responded, so that future editors may not understand what is going on and you seem completely oblivious to the fact that this is NOT the way we do things. When you make a proposal, that proposal should remain unedited until discussion is completed. I responded to your RfC clarifying issues and explaining why I think that a certain format is preferable. Favre1fan93 has done the same. Then you've edited the article so that part of what we've said will seem strange to other editors who may decide to join the discussion without realising that changes have been made since the RfC was opened. Please don't tell me what I should have done - I've done exactly what is normally done. YOU should not have edited the article until discussion is complete. There should be no need for me, or any other editor, to change what we have written just because you've decided to go out of process and make changes that you shouldn't have made. You need to start doing things the established way and stop expecting other editors to comply with the unconventional way that you want to do things. We're not here at your beck and call. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:IAR. If there is consensus on something, we implement it. If there is no dispute, WP:BOLD edits are welcome. You are just impossible to work with because you keep being a WP:Wikilawyer. However whatever (talk) 03:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, the problem is that you edit when you think there is consensus, and not necessarily when there is consensus. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comments - I begin to think that the lead paragraph itself is too long. Many recent Featured Articles omit citations, so the current version should be put into body article and then rephrased. --George Ho (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I received an automated random notice to comment on this one, and I was at first remarkably puzzled. I'm well accustomed to comment on disputes when there's a question of sourcing, or notability, or BLP, or a question of article titles, CRYSTAL, or inclusion of content, or external links, even inconsistent use of the MOS. All of these are reasonable questions where there are real choices, and something worth settling according to policy and judgment. . But here's a case where there's a dispute between three suggested wordings, all of them saying exactly the same thing, none of them substantially problematic, and the question is which version is clearer or more " encyclopedic ". I'm not going to say which my preferred version, because I'd probably write something slightly different than any of them.

This is not something to fight about. There was no reason I can see to change it in the first place, but if someone were to do so, I don't see why anyone else could rationally be concerned about it. There has to be some motivation for arguing over nothing; looking at earlier sections of the talk page, , I see the parties involved have been strenuously arguing over multiple issues in this article, some of the of importance. As an administrator, I would advise them both to take a substantial break from the topic. If this sort of thing continues, the community is likely to think it disruptive. 3RR is not a license to go up to the limit. DGG ( talk ) 23:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Current version There is absolutely nothing wrong with it, those "options" are just plain dumb.Caringtype1 (talk) 00:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• Current version The suggested options have even more excessive wording in them than the current one. Keep the original. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• Current: it's the only one that's remotely grammatically correct, and most certainly flows better. This is an odd thing to have an RFC over (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• Current Version Seriously? This is still being argued over? I thought we had already established that the current version is better both grammatically and with it's content. It doesn't need to change. MisterShiney ✉ 12:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

No, nobody is arguing about it. Five days after opening the RfC However whatever stopped editing and hasn't been seen since, although I suspect he's still editing using his IP. Regardless, there has been no argument since his departure and the RfC is still open so people are still commenting. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was UserTalk stalking and same this. I'll go back into my little hole now. MisterShiney ✉ 17:30, 4 February 2013 (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.

Space station?

The ISS was featured in all of what... 4 or 5 episodes of a 6-season show? There is absolutely no reason for the "production" section to have a full subsection on the the building and filming of those dozen scenes. I don't want to delete the section as its information is written fine and is useful, but it really needs to be moved elsewhere; either to the Season 6 section or to the first episode article it appeared in and then later episodes can reference that first episode. It does NOT warrant being the third thing on the series article's TOC. TheHYPO (talk) 14:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

It could possibly be moved to the season 6 page, and added under a Production heading. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

It really belongs in both the season 5 and 6 articles, as it applies to both. I've moved the Soyuz stuff to s5 and the ISS stuff to S6. There is some overlap, but that's not a problem. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Right. I forgot that they had the inside of the Soyuz at the end of season 5. I was just thinking/remember the material from the beginning of season 6. My mistake, but I see that you have moved everything, which looks fine. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Geek satire should be included in the genre..

Simply Calling it a sitcom doesnt suffice the genre of the tv show.. It needs some more content.. Plus i feel sitcom is a format and not a genre . and a Geek satire is the most apt Genre for this..Thearjunpp (talk) 21:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Everything added to Wikipedia must come from reliable sources. Personal analysis by Wikipedia editors, which is what was added yesterday,[7] is not permitted. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

So each and every word in the article is based on a 'reliable source'??. Cant even add an adverb to the description of the tv show.. Thearjunpp (talk) 11:21, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

If you want to call it Geek satire, you need to find a reliable source that say it is geek satire. It's that simple. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Science

During transitions from commercial breaks, there's an animation of an atom and a curvy line. The atom is lithium. Its significance is that lithium is one of the elements created during the big bang; however there appears to be too little lithium found in the oldest stars - thus lithium is a puzzle. The curvy line appears to be a Lorenz attractor, a graph of the solution of chaotic Lorenz system. So the transition depicts a scientific puzzle and chaos superimposed. I think this would be a fitting addition to the end of the Science paragraph.

Rkimbrell (talk) 00:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

To add any of that, you'll need a reliable source discussing it in relation to the show. Otherwise, it is original research. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:54, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I think I understand. Here's a reference about the lithium atom: Scientific American, May 2013, "How CBS’s The Big Bang Theory Humanizes Scientists." It's a short interview with Eric Kaplan, one of the producers of the show. In answer to the question, "Is there any rhyme or reason to the animations of atoms that break up the scenes? I think I noticed lithium once," he said, "I think I asked the same question when I showed up. I was like, “Hey, is that lithium?” And the answer I was given was, “Yes, it is lithium.” But it's not [there] because lithium is an antidepressant or anything like that." I have no reference (yet) for the Lorenz attractor nor one discussing the implications of lithium or chaos. Rkimbrell (talk) 19:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Here is the link online for other to view How CBS’s The Big Bang Theory Humanizes Scientists. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

"I think I noticed lithium once" is hardly sufficient. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Haphephobia Red Link

In the "Sheldon and Amy's Relationship" section, the word Haphephobia is listed as a redlink, even though haphephobia has its own page here. -- Ebbillings (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Ratings Page

The page has The Big Bang Theory listed as the second most popular comedy behind Modern Family. This was true last year. With the 2012-13 ratings, this is no longer true, The numbers on Deadline.com released on the 23rd showed that The Big Bang Theory was significantly ahead of Modern Family and every other comedy, as well as every other program except for football in the 18-49 demographic, with a rating of 6.2 to Modern Family's 4.9 in 18-49. Source: http://www.deadline.com/2013/05/tv-season-series-rankings-2013-full-list/SteveHNo96 (talk) 08:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, here's a source with the exact numbers, showing The Big Bang Theory beating Modern Family by over 1.6 million viewers in the 18-49 demographic: http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2013/05/29/complete-list-of-2012-13-season-tv-show-ratings-sunday-night-football-tops-followed-by-the-big-bang-theory-the-voice-modern-family/184774/SteveHNo96 (talk) 07:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC) -- fixed it myself but I'll leave the reference here in case someone wants to insert it. SteveHNo96 (talk) 07:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

Epilogue

Perhaps this discussion should not be archived, so as to serve as a reminder for subsequent nominators? For the record, as LtPowers said, this has been done to death:

• closed 8 December 2010
• closed 5 October 2011
• closed 21 February 2012.

Note that the last RM closed only 3 months ago, and the second one only 3 months before that. After 14,800 words of discussion in the three previous requests, nobody can say this hasn't been thoroughly discussed, and yet the result each time has been "No consensus to move". Nothing has changed since then and there's no reason to believe that the outcome of this discussion would have been any different to the recent discussions. I too share LtPowers' concern at the nominator's rationale. Of course if you search for the exact name of the television series you're going to end up reaching the article about the television series, regardless of where it is located. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Critical reception section synthesis

Hello, I restored my deletion of "Early reviews of the show were mixed." and "critical reception became more positive" for a few reasons: The objection to my original edit was, "Removing those bits affects the flow of reading. Reviews can change as time goes on as is evident" I disagree that my deletions negatively impact the readibility, because I only deleted information that the reader can glean by himself. But this is easily remedied by fixing the flow of reading, if necessary. More importantly than reading comfort, I'm suggesting that summarizing the general critical attitude toward the series (or any TV show, book, song, or film), unless our summary comes from a reliable external source, constitutes original research.

Presenting data and quotes from Metacritic and other reliable sources is fine, but when editors start trying to explain what the data implies, especially when we're using a small sample from various sources, it is WP:SYNTHESIS. That is, we are drawing a conclusion from a variety of sources that is not explicitly stated in any of those sources. We are using an aggregated Metacritic score of 23 reviews to set the baseline of 57/100 for Season 1. Then we use a series of single reviews to establish a positive trend in critical response for the remaining seasons? Where are the negative reviews for NPOV?

If it's accurate that critics took a shine to the show later on, then the article should present this information either in raw data, or by way of a published conclusion from a reputable TV analyst (or whomever) in a reliable source. But cherrypicking reviews and trying to draw conclusions is not what Wikipedia is about. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Its not synthesis or original research to summarise what the reviews and the facts we have available says. If you want negative reviews. Find them and put them in. And may I remind you that per WP:BRD you discuss before reverting and not just do it again because "you have started a discussion" -- MisterShiney ✉ 09:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, I'm confident that I am not materially in violation of BRD, and I perceive your admonishment as well as your "Per BRD. It gets DISCUSSED!" edit summary as needlessly condescending. But I'm eager to look past that. Your first objection was that my edit disrupted the "flow" of the prose, which is not a direct answer to a complaint about original research. My objection, as I've attempted to explain, is that there are conclusions being drawn in the article that are not supported by the references. This is more important than flow. If what you are suggesting is that I find negative opinions to either support the conclusion or to arrive at a different conclusion, I find that option beyond the scope of an encyclopedia. It's the duty of a review aggregator to process the critical response and arrive at a conclusion, not ours.

My bold choice may not have been your choice, but it was to remove the opinionated statements as they seem to fit the mold for WP:SYNTHESIS. Yes, you've told me that it's not synthesis, but telling me that it is not, is not the same as explaining why it is not. If I went out and found three negative reviews for season 6, would we then have to conclude that critics panned the series in that season and that critical opinion of the series declined over time? No. That would be ridiculous, because it would be based on the POV that I set up by cherrypicking reviews. As an interim compromise, since we each think the other person doesn't get it, and because I don't want to fight, I would be amenable to running this past WikiProject:Television to solicit input from the community. I don't think, however, that you've adequately addressed my objections to justify the restoration of that redundant and opinionated content to the article. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

While this obviously isn't a film article, it may be pertinent to note that at WT:FILM the consensus has been that making overarching statements about critical reception that are not taken from reliable sources in fact does constitute WP:SYNTHESIS. The consensus that has developed has been to either remove such statements or cite them to reliable sources that made the statements themselves. Just my two cents. DonIago (talk) 13:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Disclosure: I participated in one of those conversations (Aug 13, 2013), and that discussion motivated my bold decision to change the prose here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, if there are no more unsubstantiated objections, I'm going to re-submit my changes. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I waited a few days, then re-submitted my bold changes here. I still think the cherrypicked positive reviews need balanced negative reviews for NPOV, but at least we're not claiming to the entire world that five selected reviews, or whatever, proves that the critical response to the series improved with time. Oy. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

You can't say the conversation as "Grown stale" and make the changes back. If you want more input go and find it. If you want more reviews go and find them. From the sources, it is very clear that the reviews were mixed and from what is then said, the reviews do get more positive. -- MisterShiney ✉ 17:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

You are again instructing me to find reviews that support the unsourced POV, or possibly to find reviews that contradict it, so that I can what-- re-write the opinion in the summary? That doesn't make sense to me, and fortunately it's not the only solution. I'm boldly cutting specific language that arrives at conclusions not expressly stated in the sources per WP:SYNTHESIS. You've said that such statements do not constitute synthesis, but you never explained why it does not constitute synthesis. Without your explanation, and without your active participation, I don't see that I'm actually in a dispute with anyone, rather someone keeps jumping in front of the bulldozer every time I start moving dirt, shouting at me to do this or do that, instead of working toward a constructive conclusion. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the synthesis. Metacritic specifically says "Metascore 57 mixed or average reviews based on 23 Critics" --Asher196 (talk) 03:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

@Asher196:, Hi, thanks for taking a look at this. The synthesis is not in that summary of the Metacritic review, but in these sentences: "However, critical reception became more positive as the second and third seasons of the show progressed." and "Later reviews of the show have continued the positive reception, particularly season six." As of this writing, only the first season has a solid Metacritic score. So from where do we get the idea that the critical response improved? All we have are selected reviews that support the conclusion. It's circular logic. WP:SYNTHESIS advises: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." We are combining material from multiple sources (IGN, American Film Institute, Entertainment Weekly, USA Today) to reach a conclusion that is not explicitly stated by any of the sources (that critical reception became more positive in seasons 2 and 3, with that trend continuing through season six.) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe you may have a good point. If those sentences were derived from an editors reading of the reviews, then yes, I believe that it would indeed be synthesis.--Asher196 (talk) 12:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

@Asher196: Thank you. As a minor point, I also find these sentences repetitive: "Early reviews of the show were mixed. The first season received a score of 57/100 from review aggregator Metacritic, indicating 'mixed or average reviews'." Couldn't we just start the section with, "The first season of The Big Bang Theory received a score of 57/100 from review aggregator Metacritic, indicating 'mixed or average reviews'." Do we need to summarize what's already summarized? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Reader feedback: Age of actors

108.26.86.91 posted this comment on 4 September 2013 (view all feedback).

Age of actors

IMHO it is NOT too much to ask, even of a casual user, to click on the actors' names to find out their ages. Nczempin (talk) 13:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. The place for ages is in the actors' articles, not here. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

:If you click on the actors' names, you will find out their ages, because their ages are included in their articles. I double-checked. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Excuse the idiot. I misinterpreted what was going on here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 September 2013

Aviva12345 (talk) 21:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC) Please make an addition to Howard Wolowitz's name. It is discovered earlier in the season that his middle name is Joel. I am a big fan of the show and would apperciate it if you could do this for me. Thank you, Aviva12345

 Done Modified cast section with source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Does summarizing hand-selected reviews constitute WP:SYNTHESIS?

Does wording such as, "critical reception became more positive as the second and third seasons of the show progressed", constitute WP:SYNTHESIS if based on hand-selected reviews? 23:59, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• From a quick reading of the refs yes it does. I'll just it and then at a later date if no ref show up you can delete it. SD (talk contribs) 00:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

3 of the actors requires a massive raise to the salleries

jim parsons, jonny galecki and kaley couco demands more money because the smaller character`s actors got more money. if they dont get that then the series will be canceled. the source of this information however can only be accessed through a norwegian tv channel. their demand however is per episode. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.64.62 (talk) 22:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

A single source in a foreign language seems fishy to me. pcuser42 (talk) 22:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

HuffPo reported on this source. I wouldn't add anything to the article however per WP:CRYSTAL and as it's using an "unnamed source". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:22, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Delete File:BNL BigBang.jpg?

The single is not the main topic of the article. Therefore, I don't think this image is necessary any longer. --George Ho (talk) 07:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The single is the subject of commentary in the article. There's nothing in WP:NFCC that says non-free content can only be used to illustrate content that is the main topic. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

All right, a better argument. The cover itself is not subject of commentary. I could not find text that describes the cover. --George Ho (talk) 15:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Different, but not necessarily better. If you look through the history of this article, you'll see that the title of the theme song has been the subject of some debate. That's why the theme title has two citations in the infobox. The image serves to support that the title is not "The History of Everything". You might note that the file description for this image says "This is the cover art for The Big Bang Theory theme song (The History of Everything) by the artist Barenaked Ladies." --AussieLegend (✉) 08:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Non-free is non-free. I replace it with a free image of the band. --George Ho (talk) 21:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The section is about the theme song, not the band, so an image of the band is not a replacement in this article, where the image is the subject of commentary. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

To other editors, I am inviting you to Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 August 24#File:BNL BigBang.jpg in effort to improve consensus. As it seems, Aussie and I argue back-to-back, and we haven't changed our stances. Please help by voting. --George Ho (talk) 22:57, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Reader feedback: I would like to see a list i...

206.126.26.10 posted this comment on 1 September 2013 (view all feedback).

I would like to see a list included of all the scenes of Earth's history that flash by in milliseconds in the program's introduction accompanied by its theme song: "Our whole universe was in a hot dense state ..." Thank you.

I would give examples, and include a footnote to a place on the Web where surely this info has already been collected. - Nczempin (talk)

I don't really think these matter. I would only suggest including them, if they changed from episode to episode or season to season, but they really don't have any notability in terms of the show being what it is. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

There is a Wikia on every television series. You can find such a list at here on BBT Wikia for those who are interested. It pretty much defines OR so I don't think there is a place for it on en.wiki. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:30, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Broadcasting Interval

It says nowhere in the article information, that episodes are broadcasted every two weeks. Any reason for that (the missing information)? Pnckpan (talk) 23:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

That is because the show is not on a set schedule on when episodes air. If you look at the episode list it shows that for the most part it has actually been airing one a week this season so far. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 00:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

As Jnorton said, the show is not on a set schedule. Typically, it airs every week for a substantial amount of weeks, then takes 1 or 2 off, skips Thanksgiving, and then may alternate airing weeks before they take their winter break. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

@Pnckpan: Such a piece of information is also ephemeral, as any change in the schedule (such as the ones reported by the users above) would render the information inaccurate, thus, it's preferable not to include. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Move Article

Can we please get this article moved to The Big Bang Theory (Television) or some other name that doesn't make it the top Google search result? This show is a bunch of nonsense you can't even find the article on the actual scientific theory with this stupid television show. 72.72.250.117 (talk) 12:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Most, if not all, of the top results have to do with the TV show so the current Wikipedia placement fits right in. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

If you read the FAQ you'll see that this has been discussed at length on four occasions and there has never been consensus to move the article. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

It should be moved. The show was named after the big band theory, oh hey look i just said the tv show name. Scientist non-wikipediaist use the phrase "The Big Bang theory" it is a theory not a fact. People searching for info on the big bang theory would get a TV show unrelated to the big band threory as top result. Currently whoever made this page has create a giant disambiguation. How other articles have handled this is putting "(info)" on all the pages and no one page has the title.—CKY2250 ^ταικ 02:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Please read Talk:The_Big_Bang_Theory/Archive_3#Requested_move and come up with new arguments. If you absolutely feel you have, please see Wikipedia:RM#Requesting_a_single_page_move for further directions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I have read them. Why would there be any other argument. Then I would be making things up and that is not how it should be done. For example: What if there was an article about apple the company made first and then someone made an article about apple the fruit how would you know the difference if you would say apple the company was first so it must stay the same and that all searches for apple are for the company, in other words the consensuses made said that it was more relevant even though one was clearly developed from the other. Back out of the example. If it wasn't for the big band theory, the TV show would not have it's name. This is a reply to you, I am not starting a consensus so don't reply with your wikipedia nonsense. —CKY2250 ^ταικ 03:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The apple article talks about the fruit, and Apple Inc is the company. Similarly, although The Big Bang Theory was named after the scientific theory, their names are not exactly the same - this is sufficient disambiguation for Wikipedia. Furthermore, whatever shows up in a Google search isn't relevant to Wikipedia, but is based upon what other people are searching for, hence the computer company being more prominent than the fruit and the TV show being more prominent than the scientific theory. pcuser42 (talk) 05:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

You are not getting my point then. In your logic, since Apple Inc is more important than the apple only because of google -- what is peoples basis of searching --, that Apple Inc should then be named Apple as it's article title. What I am saying is that neither should not be named apple with the disambiguation on that page or the original context should be named apple -- the fruit.—CKY2250 ^ταικ 14:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

That's not what I was trying to say. I'm saying Google's search results are based on what people search for, but that should have no bearing on article names here. pcuser42 (talk) 19:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. The big difference between the two is that the cosmological model is the Big Bang theory while the TV series is The Big Bang Theory. Moving this article wouldn't wouldn't result in moving Big Bang here or redirecting The Big Bang Theory to Big Bang. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I am not suggesting a page more for the big bang theory (Big Bang). I am only saying "The Big Band Theory" should be moved to "The Big Band Theory (TV series)" Example: That is how Arrow is wait is that the show or the arrow.

These articles should not be named out of what gets more views. It should be named out of how to find the page efficiently.—CKY2250 ^ταικ 14:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC disagrees: "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

For a start, it's The Big Bang Theory. What would moving it to The Big Bang Theory (TV series) achieve? The Big Bang Theory would be a redirect to The Big Bang Theory (TV series) as a result of the move. It's unnecessary disambiguation. As for "what gets more views", Big Bang has been viewed 159,000 times in the last 30 days, an average of between 4,000 and 6,000 times per day.[8] By comparison, this article has been viewed 819,000 times, more than 20,000 times per day.[9] Based on your argument, this article is right where it should be as it gets more views. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Are you replying to me or NeilN It is unclear when you are using your ":". If it is reply to me that is not the point I was making, I was saying with the points you guys are giving that would be the case. So Apple Inc should be moved to Apple since it has more views. You guys are not reading clearly, and not using proper wiki syntax to keep a coherent reply.—CKY2250 ^ταικ 18:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

That case isn't so clear. Despite Google linking to Apple Inc. prominently in their search results, that article is viewed only slightly twice as much as Apple. [10], [11] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

There's only one person who has referred to "The Big Band Theory" multiple times, that should make it clear who I was replying to. I also quoted you, that should have been another hint. As we've already said, this discussion has been done to death over the past 3 years. There's no reason that article should be moved, for reasons that have been hashed and rehashed umpteen times. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I guess you don't get my underlying point is that you guys are not very technical and are just following the mass of wikipedians like a lemming -- by the way there isn't an article named lemmings right? take a look, it is redirected to lemming and the video game has "(video game)" attached to the name. I first didn't want to start a debate and was just making a comment. Furthermore both of you are purposely not comprehending what I am telling both of you, in order to avoid changes and giving pointless replies.—CKY2250 ^ταικ 19:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

We get it. You want the article moved to ""The Big Bang Theory (TV series)". As I wrote earlier, please see Wikipedia:RM#Requesting_a_single_page_move for further directions if you feel you have new arguments. P.S. writing "It should be moved." is participating in a debate as this is not a private diary. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

It is just a statement until someone inquires for expansion on the thoughts of the statement. Since someone replied to my statement it started the debate, I publicly stated what I did so people would know that it is something wanted that will not happen due to wikipedians and their self minded ideals.—CKY2250 ^ταικ 20:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

"I guess you don't get my underlying point is that you guys are not very technical and are just following the mass of wikipedians like a lemming" - That's bordering on a personal attack. Please comment on content, not on the contributors. As we've already indicated, what you're proposing is unnecessary. We only disambiguate when necessary. There is only one The Big Bang Theory so it is correctly located here as there is no need to disambiguate. Lemmings is redirected to Lemming because "Lemmings" is a reasonable search term for somebody looking for lemming. That's why the video game needs to be disambiguated. That's not the case here. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

So I guess the big band theory is not a reasonable search for the big bang theory, eh? Ok mate. Then I would like for you personally is to change The Big Bang theory's lead to not say "The Big Bang theory". That is why I am saying the commenters on this discussion are lemmings, you're all avoiding changes purposely; saying it is a personal attack is not the case, you do know what a lemming is right, they just follow the same path and do not change. When I quote any of you for something you then say I am saying it and then use that to counter me. You are not reading at all, just replying in a pointless argument, repeating the same thing. Well here then I'll bring an admin in and have them look over this nonsense.—CKY2250 ^ταικ 14:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Having watched the theatrics for a few days now, it's pretty clear to me, CKY2250, that you entered this discussion with a chip on your shoulder. Either you are trying to start a new consensus (which you denied in one of your early posts) or you are not. If you are, it doesn't seem to me that you are going about it the right way. If you are not, what is the purpose of all the bickering? To fight City Hall? Regardless, I don't see how calling people lemmings and advising them not to reply with their "wikipedia nonsense" is supposed to achieve anything. (Interesting fact: Lemmings don't actually follow each other off cliffs. That was a myth started by Disney.) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

It was a bunch of pointless bickering and I was unwilling to give to what I believe is nonsense. I was just tired of reading the old requests. One thing lead to another and changed into me defending my statement to then seeing flaws in peoples support claims. I had an admin consult me on this, and I decided that a formal page move request would take too much room on the wikipedia hard drives, since I know the case would be lost to people so strong in no change. It is too bad pop culture trumps science. And a comment on your side note, I didn't know that... quite funny. So the dispute is closed.—CKY2250 ^ταικ 19:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2013

the reference to Thor as the Norse god is incorrect. while claiming to be the Norse god Raj was wearing a blond wig which is from the marvel universe. the original 134.29.235.142 (talk) 16:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC) Please change the parentheses which contains "and Thor (albeit as the original Norse god and not the Marvel Comics character).[64]" to this "and Thor (although claimed to be the Norse god, it was an amalgamation of Norse and Marvel due to the blonde wig)"

From Wikipedia's "Thor" [Thor] is generally described as fierce-eyed, red-haired and red-bearded. On the red beard and the use of "Redbeard" as an epithet for Thor, see H.R. Ellis Davidson, Gods and Myths of Northern Europe, 1964, repr. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin, 1990, ISBN 0-14-013627-4, p. 85

Not done: Marvel has clearly influenced the perception of Thor as a blond in popular culture, but I don't think it's up to us (and certainly not within the scope of this article) to describe this as an amalgamation, when it was likely an oversight or a decision made from ignorance. Anyhow, the detail simply does not improve our understanding of the series, and I'd be inclined to suggest we cut the entire Thor parenthetical as trivial. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Cyphoidbomb. While Raj is claiming to be a Norse god, so is Chris Hemsworth. I don't think the difference is relevant here. I've removed the parenthetical statement. --ElHef (Meep?) 17:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Quick question though on the wikilink. Should it be to Thor (as it is now) or Thor (Marvel Comics), which would be more in line, as everyone else were superheroes from the comic representations. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2013

Howard Wolowitz is an Aerosoace Engineer, not a Mechanical Engineer as the article states. M Whyte27 (talk) 21:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

This source says Mechanical Engineer. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Big Bang Theory (Theme)

Hey, since there seems to be some back and forth going on about the name of the theme, here's the information I dug up from the US Copyright Office

Type of Work: Music

Registration Number / Date: PA0001598334 / 2007-10-29

Application Title: Theme from the Big Bang Theory.

Title: Theme from the Big Bang Theory.

Description: Compact disc.

Copyright Claimant: Warner-Olive Music LLC. Address: 10585 Santa Monica Blvd, Los Angeles, CA, 90025

Date of Creation: 2007

Date of Publication: 2007-09-24

Nation of First Publication: United States

Authorship on Application: Warner-Olive Music LLC, employer for hire. Authorship: Words and music.

Copyright Note: C.O. correspondence.

Names: Robertson, Ed

Warner-Olive Music LLC

Also, the song is registered with ASCAP as BIG BANG THEORY (THEME) - Work ID: 320934601 ISWC: T9012586991

Hope that answers lingering questions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

We've been over this before, so I don't see why it has been changed again, especially as there are citations and an image in the article. Thanks for adding the above, every little bit helps. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Kaley Cuoco's new creditation

How should this be handled on this page, the list of characters page, and the Penny page? (Not really worried about the season pages, except for maybe 7.) I did this which I felt was sufficient, but should this be done as well? I have never really dealt with a situation like this, and don't know how it is handled, especially since Kaley Cuoco has not changed, maybe due to WP:COMMONNAME? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

As you've pointed out, her article is still at Kaley Cuoco per WP:COMMONNAME and she has been credited as Kaley Cuoco in 147 of the 148 aired episodes, so I think continuing to list her as Kaley Cuoco for the time being is appropriate, given that you've added notes to the article clarifying the new name. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I think going forward, everything should stay as is. If she continues to be credited with the new name and the show gets an 8th season, I'd propose that only the season 8 page change her name in the cast section. And if the show happens to be fortunate enough to go 148 more episodes, then we could have a real discussion regarding what the name should be, given the equal use of name (but this is all hypothetical). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 07:21, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Article length

A demand has been made of me to justify my addition of the "too long" tag, which I think is fair. Well, I think the article may be too long. It took a long time for my computer to load given that its prose size is only 42 kilobytes (which falls into a questionable zone per WP:Article size), which I attribute to its use of numerous large tables. I have suggestions to shorten the article, but since I'm not a major contributor I don't feel entitled to be bold and make them myself:

• Split Awards and nominations into its own article. This is rather standard.
• Condense the second, third, and fourth subsections of Recurring themes and elements. They're largely unsourced anyway, and—in the third and fourth subections—seem to go episode-by-episode rather than focusing on general themes and listing examples when necessary to illustrate.
• Shorten the descriptions of some of the characters, particularly Sheldon. Tezero (talk) 04:50, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Where is the proof for this?

Science-David Saltzberg, who has a Ph.D. in physics, has served as science consultant for the show for six seasons and attends every taping.[55] While Salzberg knows physics, he sometimes needs assistance from Mayim Bialik, who has a Ph.D. in neuroscience. I see no proof that David Saltzberg,who has a Ph.D in Physics,need assistance from Mayim Bialik. There is no source or this. It need to be removed. 98.240.76.78 (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted the removal of this because it;'s supported by the reference in the article that follows.[12] --AussieLegend (✉) 00:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh geez. Screw up on my part. Thank you Aussie for correcting. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Typo fix

The surname of David Saltzberg is mistyped twice as Salzberg in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.212.29.88 (talk) 11:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed Thanks for the heads-up. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I can't read this crap in this font

This font is garbage and unreadable. Wikipedia is now just a trivial useless site written for it's own private user base. IT IS UNREADABLE. Huw Powell (talk) 07:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that's an exaggeration but I feel your pain. Unfortunately there's nothing that can be done here. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Episode needed -- Season 4, where Priya "loses interest" in dating Leonard

The Wikipedia page for "The Big Bang Theory" -- specifically, the section about Leonard and Penny's relationship -- indicates that Priya eventually loses interest in dating Leonard but indicates "episode needed."

I'm not sure Priya really lost interest in dating Leonard, but the first sign of problems that I remember is "The Agreement Dissection" (Season 4, Episode 21) where Sheldon sets his computer up to send an E-mail to Priya's parents in India telling them she's dating Leonard if Leonard doesn't sign a new roommate agreement before the 60-second Star Trek self-destruct sequence on Sheldon's computer gets to zero. Priya tells Leonard "Either give him (Sheldon) what he wants, or we're done."

Just my opinion, but I think Priya was never really considering a long-term relationship with Leonard. Case in point: "The Irish Pub Formulation" (Season 4, Episode 6) where Leonard clandestinely spends the night with Priya, but the next morning before she returns to Raj's apartment, Leonard hints at moving to India to conduct research and be close to Priya. She tells him "Sweetheart, just because we have fun when I come to down doesn't mean I want a serious relationship."

Seems to me that she wanted a boy-toy at first but then wasn't willing to broach the subject of having a serious relationship with a "white boy" with her parents, so she decided to go back to India without telling Leonard to "solve" that problem... Kellyrende (talk) 22:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Main character list

I'm surprised to see that the Wikipedia page on The Big Bang Theory doesn't have a list of recurring characters that aren't necessarily considered "main characters" like John Ross Bowie (Barry Kripke -- or is that Bawwy Kwipke?), Brian George (Raj's father), Alice Amter (Raj's mother), etc.Kellyrende (talk) 16:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

They're in a subarticle: List of The Big Bang Theory characters --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Why no discussion about offensive and wrong stereotyping?

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.

---

In my opinion, the characters of this show depict the manifestation of genius about as accurately as White actors wearing Blackface pretending to be Africans.

I see nothing intelligent about this show and much that is offensive to intelligent people. If the stereotypical humor and writing of the show was aimed at race differences instead of intelligence differences, the show would be considered by all to be blatantly racist.

The biggest thing that I find offensive is that real geniuses do not behave like these characters at all. These characters are highly-intelligent normal people, not geniuses. Imagine if there was a show that made fun of particular behavioral eccentricities of any racial group, AND THEN GOT THOSE ECCENTRICITIES WRONG yet continued to harp on them over and over as if they were valid. Switch race with brain and the result is the Big Bang Theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.184.121.58 (talk) 11:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

We can't base content on the opinions of Wikipedia editors. We don't constitute reliable sources. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Rilech (talk) 15:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Hyperbolize much? Your argument seems to ignore comedy fundamentals, which is to significantly, and unreasonably exaggerate character flaws for a turn that interrupts our rational expectations. Why, if the Skipper had just killed Gilligan after his first screw-up... Anyhow, as Aussie aptly points out, we're not here to inject our biases into articles. If BBT got the "genius community" into an uproar such that it made national headlines, then it might be worth mentioning, though I suspect yours is not a serious question. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to voice your opinion here on Wikipedia! In order to have your concern addressed, it might be prudent to read this Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, which explains how new material to the page needs to be sourced. If you can find reliable sources, as per those described in the link I've provided, and present them here then we would certainly have to consider their content for potential additions to this page. Have a great day! Jeremy112233 (talk) 17:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Can you give some examples of how the portrayal of highly intelligent people is inaccurate? I know from experience that many Ph.D's, who are absolutely brilliant in their fields of study, have problems in social settings and also have problems communicating, particularly as it pertains to audience analysis when lecturing or talking about their work. I also know Ph.D's who can't balance their own check books or pick an outfit that is timeless or fashionable. Are all highly intelligent people like that? Of course not. As already mentioned, the writers of The Big Bang Theory have hyperbolized these and similar character traits in the Functional-But-Not-Fab-Foursome.Kellyrende (talk) 17:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Please remember that any analysis of the show or its characters has to come from reliable sources. Asking the original poster for examples will do nothing for the article. WP:NOTFORUM might be worth a read. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to recommend that this off-topic discussion be closed by an uninvolved editor/admin. I blame myself for getting the ball rolling. AussieLegend's response was sufficient and I shoulda kept my yap shut. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:13, 16 April 2014 (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.

Themes?

I am not sure if Religion is a major theme or element of Big Bang Theory? Sure the references under that section is true -- but I will hardly count the handful of references in 7 seasons as a recurring theme. Maybe make as part of aspects of Sheldon's upbringing ... including the fact that he didn't really have a father as a role model, that he was bullied during school, he didn't really fit in with his family etc.

I am sure "tea or other hot beverage" is mentioned more than religion in the show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.236.169.11 (talk) 20:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2014

In the "Howard's mother" section, I'd like to add that the name of the mother was revealed to be "Debbie" in Episode 24 of Season 7.

Desmond1303 (talk) 16:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Mrs Wolowitz's first name is not important enough to include in this article. Her name is correctly included at List of The Big Bang Theory characters#Mrs. Wolowitz. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. We have an entire paragraph on Howard's mother in this article and you don't think it's reasonable to include her name?--Asher196 (talk) 16:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

It's WP:UNDUE to include the first name here. She's credited only as "Mrs Wolowitz", even in the one episode where her first name is said (in the last 90 seconds no less), and if you look at the paragraph most of it is related to how other people relate to her. The characters article is the right place to mention her name. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Content dispute discussion

There is a content dispute at List of The Big Bang Theory characters. Unfortunately, the page doesn't seem to have a lot of active editors so I'm seeking wider input. The relevant discussion is at Talk:List of The Big Bang Theory characters#Content dispute - October 2014. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

This got renamed now to People who can control Sheldon --Jnorton7558 (talk) 20:00, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

TBBT template

IMO, the two "Related articles" entries are trivia and should be removed. I'd also delete the "Recurring concepts", since they're not really concepts, and both articles are also tagged as possibly not meeting the notability guideline. AussieLegend has reverted my deletion of the related entries. Let the voting commence. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

As you should be aware, decisions are not made based on votes, and KConWiki has already started a discussion about this at Template talk:The Big Bang Theory#Inclusion of Bazinga (genus) and Euglossa bazinga. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Rock paper scissors lizard Spock article for deletion

Please see this discussion. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Impending Vandalism, recommend temporary semi protection

There has been a vandalism attack on this page as indicated by the quote a "slammin hot waitress and aspiring actress who is hot as balls." This vandalism originates from 4chan. Recommend immediate temp semi protection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LennVator (talk • contribs) 04:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but as a general rule we do not preemptively raise the protection on articles when there has not recently been a significant and unmanageable volume of vandalism, edit warring or other abuse. The vandalism you mentioned was being reverted even as you typed your message. Should there be a significant increase in the vandalism of this or any other page, any editor (including you) can request the page be protected at that time at WP:RPP. Dwpaul ^Talk 04:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

RfC: 73 in Big Bang Theory

See Talk:73 (number)#RfC: 73 in Big Bang Theory — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Too much information

In my opinion, this article is too long, and has too much detail. I think some of it should be moved into separate pages. For instance, why is there a whole section on the cast AND a separate article on the cast. All information should be in 1 place, I think on the cast article. The recurring themes is also very long and detailed, could it transformed into a couple of lines on each section, with the full detail being moved to a separate article? Similarly the ratings section is pretty long, and could be put in another page. Ditto the awards section (it's just a big list, unless you're specifically interested in it).

Basically, I think that this page should appeal not just to hardcore fans, but people who want a general overview of the programme. I think the main Big Bang Theory page should be an overview of the themes, but not too much detail that it overwhelms those without vast prior knowledge of the show. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Strongly agree. I had thought about drastically pruning the article, but it would have been a lot of work (and likely controversy), so I chose to spend my time on other things. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

So I tried putting the ridiculously long awards section in a box that you can choose to hide or show (as I'm sure not everyone wants to read such a long, detailed list) and it got reverted. This is stupid.

The information on the characters for instance is in 3 different places: on this page, in the list of characters, and each character has their own wiki page. This page is TOO LONG, it has no real use to anyone, as it's virtually impossible to find information in the page.

Wikipedia suggests "A page of about 30 kB to 50 kB of readable prose, which roughly corresponds to 4,000 to 10,000 words, takes between 30 and 40 minutes to read at average speed, which is right on the limit of the average concentration span of 40 to 50 minutes.[1] At 50 kB and above it may be beneficial to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries per Wikipedia:Summary style – see A rule of thumb below. Comprehension of standard texts at average reading speed is around 65%." This is 62.5KB, so too long. To sum up, it needs editing, and separating into different articles. But I'm not wasting my time because people will just revert it. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't refrain from editing because you're worried people will revert. See WP:BRD — someone removing your text isn't the end; it just means you need to explain yourself a bit more (or get some other people's opinions). I'm glad you put the awards into a collapsible box: it's much easier to read the article now.

But before creating whole new articles or making controversial changes, it might help to talk about it a bit first. Which sections do you think need to be WP:SPLIT into multiple articles, and what do you think is duplicated too much in other articles? — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 18:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Hidden Text

Lets try removing some hidden text that was added to disputes that took place a long time ago, and are not likely to reoccur. Ricardo Santiago (talk) 16:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The text was not added because of disputes per se. Periodically editors come to this article removing Sara Gilbert because she was only in a few episodes. On occasion it has been so bad that it's a nightmare tring to keep up with it, and is the main reason the FAQ has been created. She is the only actor who has been targeted, so there's no need to target the text at multiple actors. Similarly, we periodically see years and seasons being added to the infobox, which is why that note exists. Other characters re periodically reordered, especially Jim Parsons, and the other note serves to keep that problem in check. The text in the notes has gone through several variants and the current text has been the version to be most effective. I'm sure you've heard the old saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". --AussieLegend (✉) 16:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

"Aint broke don't fix it" does not mean it cannot be improved. Hidden text should never be used to discourage editing, and the hidden text does appear to do that with statements saying that any edits will be reverted as vandalism. It's so nice that you could see that. I will think of other ways to word the hidden so that it does not discourage edits. Ricardo Santiago (talk) 16:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Please don't alter it unless you want to take responsibility for reverting all the ridiculous changes that we've seen over the years. It's been proven to be effective in its current form, which is clear, to the point and unambiguous and it doesn't need rewording. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we do get the occasional bit of vandalism like this, which ironically usually happens when somebody plays withthe infobox. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Post hoc ergo propter hoc Ricardo Santiago (talk)

As somebody who has edited and had to fix this article far too many times in the past several years, I bow to your 2 hours experience editing this article. Clearly you know more than me. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Hold on a minute. The hidden notes certainly can be amended if rephrasing would improve them. Ricardo, can you suggest any problems with and/or solutions for hidden comments currently in the article? — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 18:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Ricardo has already tried rewriting the text,[13][14][15][16] resulting in an overall change that removed notes that history has shown are still required and softened the wording so much that it missed the point completely and made what was left ambiguous. There were some valid issues that he raised and the infobox notes have been pruned somewhat,[17] so there's nothing really more to be done. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Awards and nominations

Eeslc recently tried to split content from this page (under Awards and nominations) into its own article, which was quickly tagged for CSD by AussieLegend and then redirected back here. Both of these were done without discussion, so I'd like to start one here. From my perspective, splitting the content would have the advantage of reducing this page by about 13,000 bytes, which might make loading the page quicker for some of its ~6 million views per year; the article is about 114,000 bytes at the moment, which is probably a bit too long (although the {{overdetailed}} tag suggests it should be a bit shorter). As for disadvantages, it creates a possibly unneeded article, when the content takes up very little space in the article as it is under a collapsible wikiktable. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 16:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't oppose such a split in principle but the split was problematic. One main problem is that the content was not split as required by WP:CWW, which requires that attribution be given for copyright purposes. The other is that the article fails to establish notability. All subjects mus meet the general notability guidelines and the article that was created did not. It contained only 4 citations, all of them primary sources. If nominated at AfD the article would not survive. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

In principle I agree with a split, however I agree that the current split produced a non-notable article. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree I think it would survive AFD, at least it is in no better or worse shape then others in Category:Lists of awards by television series. As to weather it should be split out or not I don't really have an opinion, I just thought it would be better to have the redirect then delete the article. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 17:38, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

There are a lot of articles in Category:Lists of awards by television series that are well referenced so yes, it is in worse condition than many of them. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:32, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, there are some better and some worse articles in that category, but that's WP:OSE. There are hundreds if not thousands of articles that exist somewhere on Wikipedia, but don't meet any notability guidelines and should be deleted. If you can find some in that category, maybe you should nominate them for AfD (or even CSD). The question is: should the content here be split into another article, assuming WP:CWW was followed and the article was referenced as fully as it could be? As it stands, we have someone who supports a split (Joseph2302), someone with no strong opinion (myself) and someone who doesn't oppose a split (AussieLegend). — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 22:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Redirect

Really? I type "Big Bang Theory" and I get automatically redirected to some damn soap opera or something? Is this someone's idea of a joke? I am not amused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by El Badboy! (talk • contribs) 06:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

If you click on the FAQ link at the top of the page you'll see an explanation as to why that happens. Had you simply typed big bang instead of adding "Theory", which is not part of the cosmological model's name, you would have ended up exactly where you wanted to be. There are 11 redirects to Big Bang and you just happened to pick one of the 2 that redirect to this article. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)