Talk:The Big Bang Theory/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Hidden text

Per WP:HIDDEN, hidden text cannot be used to take ownership of an article. It can only be used to suggest to others that a consensus exists. Since Consensus can change, it is inappropriate to use the hidden text to prohibit others from making certain edits. However whatever (talk) 21:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I always try to be polite but your edits here are becoming disruptive and I am losing my patience with you. Regarding this edit summary, "Please do not remove" is NOT forbidding anything. It is simly a request not to do something. There is a big difference. It's also of little use to give editors a vague direction as to where to go. Pointing them directly to the thread that explains everything is far better. There was simply no reason to remove that. Consensus has nothing to do with this issue. As I've stated above, Gilbert and Rauch's inclusion in the infobox, and the direction not to remove their names is covered by MOS:TV. You need to start editing constructively and stop simply reverting what you don't agree with. Doing that is bordering on vandalism. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

We can point editors directly to that thread without using language that prohibits edits, but rather request consulting the thread prior to making the edit. That's all. However whatever (talk) 22:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

You don't seem to want to point them at all. You've removed the direction five times now.[1][2][3][4][5] You could have softened the wording without removing the direction but instead you chose to remove it completely. Softening the language is fine, but your suggestion is softer than talc. Your wording invites the reader to remove the content after viewing the thread when Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Style guidelines#Cast information, consensus and convention says they should be included. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

There are two reasons why I removed the specific links and replaced with the generic reference to the talk pages and archives.

1. This is hidden text, so providing wiki links with the double square brackets is pointless. If you're going to provide a link provide a URL, so that it could be copied and pasted.
2. The talk page gets archived, so in a few weeks the link would become stale.

Other than those two reasons I would not mind having a specific link. However whatever (talk) 05:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

1. Regardless of whether you provide a url or a wikilink, it will have to be copied and pasted so neither is better than the other although, since the target is internal to Wikipedia an internal link (ie a wikilink) seems more appropriate. The point though, is that you didn't substitute the wikilink for a url, you just deleted it.
2. Not an issue.[6] We can make it stay on the page as long as is needed. Even if it had been archived, the link can always be changed so that it points to the archive. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted However's change to the edit comment, as there was no good reason for the change. I'd ask that he/she desist from such changes as they are bordering on disruptive behaviour. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you using (bordering on abusing) your System admin privileges to make threats? However whatever (talk) 22:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Interesting tactic. However, I'd appreciate it if you could keep the focus on the matter at hand. Edit comments of the kind we are discussing are common and accepted practice on Wikipedia, and are often employed in fictional articles to prevent edits - often well-intentioned - that are contrary to the conventions used in our articles. Main character status is but one example; another would be the case where a series has recently ceased production and a hidden comment helps to prevent an endless string of "is-to-was" edits. --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC) --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Hidden comments are supposed to be suggestive in nature, unless the edit that is dissuaded is in violation of WP policies. Since there is no policy here (as evidenced by the fact that different articles treat the infobox differently) the hidden message needs to be softened. However whatever (talk) 22:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Errors in recent edits

I'm referring specifically to these edits. Normally I'd just fix them myself but, based on recent history, I expect that it would be reverted so I'll just list them here for now.

• [7] - While we may "know" that the episodes had to be re-written, the added reference does not support the claim. It says the cast would film without her and hoped she could catch up her scenes when she recovered. Being written out is not mentioned. This is WP:SYNTH. Nor is "foot" mentioned. The article just says "leg". The other source[8] as does mention "foot-cast" but then it says that she broke her leg. It also includes a quote form Cuoco, "landed on my leg." We can assume that the foot was broken but both sources, and the actress, say "leg". As for "the character's role was modified such that the feet from the knee down", I'm sorry but the knee is not part of the foot. This should, obviously, say "the leg from the knee down".
• [9] - New citation but it doesn't say foot either. There are two mentions of leg in the article and one in the url though. It also says that "they'll have to write around her', not specifically that "the character had to be written out of the script". It's a small point but a point nonetheless. We need to avoid original research and stick to the facts. Another article linked from the eonline reference,[10] says that there was a shooting hiatus in the week after her accident anyway. Incidentally, it says nothing about breaking a foot either.
• There's also an obvious error at the end of the section. "She was therefore, without explanation, made into a bar tender rather than an actress." should end with "rather than a waitress." --AussieLegend (talk) 10:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• Foot / Leg whichever. I believe it was the foot that was broken, but I'm not going to argue that. You are correct that it is the leg from the knee down that is not shown.
• Since they were hoping "she could catch up her scenes when she recovered", and she didn't, that means the script had to be re-written. How is that WP:SYNTH? Isn't this obvious? Remember that we do not have to use the exact same words that the references used.

However whatever (talk) 13:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

No, actually it doesn't mean that but that's not the point. The citation says that "they'll have to write around her", not specifically that "the character had to be written out of the script". That's your assumption and assumptions are WP:OR. Citations have to directly support the claims made. If you say she had to be written out, the citation must say that and it doesn't. It's a small point but a point nonetheless. We need to avoid original research and stick to the facts. Another article linked from the eonline reference,[11] says that there was a shooting hiatus in the week after her accident so they could probably shoot around here without writing here out. She may not even have had a significant role in the episode but the main point is, we really don't know what happened and we can't just assume. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Another obvious error that I forgot to mention is that at the end of the section it says, "She was therefore, without explanation, made into a bar tender rather than an actress." This should actually end with "rather than a waitress."

Prompted by this edit I went back for another look at the episode and even "the leg from the knee down" is not accurate as the final scene shows Penny sitting and the top part of the lower leg, including the knee, can be seen at 20:44 and again, although with less lower leg shown, at 20:58. This is the citation for it:

• "The Apology Insufficiency". The Big Bang Theory. Season 4. Episode 7. November 4, 2010. 20:44 minutes & 20:58 minutes in. CBS. {{cite episode}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |serieslink= (help); Unknown parameter |episodelink= ignored (|episode-link= suggested) (help)

The amended section, in a more concise format and sans WP:SYNTH and other original research is as follows:

During the fourth season, Kaley Cuoco broke her leg in a horse-riding accident. When she returned, after missing two episodes, she was shown working as a bartender, instead of in her normal employment as a waitress at The Cheesecake Factory. Her cast was concealed, and no mention of the unseen broken leg was made.

Although only one is necessary, I've included all three references for the accident, because they all say she broke here leg. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't "they'll have to write around her" + she was not in the show for two episodes = she was written out of the show for those episode? What am I missing here? For the Apology Insufficiency episode it meant making her a bar tender, and not require her to walk in any scene. However whatever (talk) 14:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

a + b = c is effectively spot on what WP:SYNTH is talking about. The "they'll have to write around her" comment was in an article before the shooting hiatus. What they actually did after that is not stated. If it's not stated, we can't write about it, as much as we'd like to. It's much better to go with a more neutral "missed two episodes" because that's a fact, regardless of the reason. The same goes for not walking. It isn't stated that she was accommodated that way and in the episode, when she turns around at the bar (time 15:30), it looks like she was turning around on her legs, so maybe that wasn't an accommodation. The point is we don't know because it wasn't stated so we can't say it. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Sheldon's non-Asperger's, and his middle name

In an NPR interview, Jim Parsons pointed out that Sheldon doesn't have Asperger's. I was thinking about trying to add that detail to the article, but couldn't make it fit into the description of Sheldon, and it probably doesn't need a section of its own. Is it something worth adding? If so where?

Also noticed in the The 21-Second Excitation episode (aired yesterday) that Sheldon points out that his middle name is "Lee". Don't know if that's something we'd like to add either. Thoughts? Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 14:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Aspergers is mentioned it its own section in Sheldon Cooper. That same article lists his name as "Sheldon Lee Cooper". It isn't necessary to cover these items here. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, completely forgot Sheldon's got an article. Agree that its more appropriate there. Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 16:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move. Dpmuk (talk) 10:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

---

The Big Bang Theory → The Big Bang Theory (TV series) — As much as I love this show, I'm pretty confident that the scientific Theory is the primary topic. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose – per WP:PRECISION. A simple hatnote can resolve any issues, which the article already has. 「gu1dry」⊤ • ¢  03:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't see that policy as relevant here. "When additional precision is necessary to distinguish an article from other uses of the topic name, over-precision should be avoided." I don't think "TV Show" is too much precision. The issue is whether this article needs to be distinguished from the scientific theory that has the same name. Please clarify. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Unnecessary as there are already hatnotes. However, if it is moved it should be moved to The Big Bang Theory (TV series) per WP:TV-NC. Mhiji (talk) 05:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I changed the proposal accordingly. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Although "Series" shouldn't be capitalised. Mhiji (talk) 07:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Already distinct from Big bang theory. Kuguar03 (talk) 06:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Unnecessary disambiguation. The cosmological model is the "Big Bang" theory, while this program is "The Big Bang Theory". Note the positioning of the quotation marks and the capitalisation. Appropriate redirects are in place already and articles seem to be at the appropriate location. There is no need to include "(TV series)" because there is no other "The Big Bang Theory". As per other comments any issues are resolved by the pre-existing hatnotes. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, the use of "the" is nearly never legitimate disambiguation, since most people consider phrase with "the" and without "the" to be the same. The same is true of variant capitalization. And while the show is normally shown with quotes or italics, neither is part of the article title. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 13:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support I'm sure there are people on this planet that don't watch TV but want to know something about physics one day. Why screw them up, unnecessarily? If it is a TV series name it TV series, like Lost (TV series) and others. What would Sheldon have said if he had read this? "TV over physics? Never!" --Ben Ben (talk) 15:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Page view statistics - The Big Bang Theory - 919,611 in November.[12], Big Bang - 215,393[13] If anyone was going to be screwed up it would be the majority who look for the TV program. --23:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Interesting statistic, thank you. My question is what will stay longer, the Big Bang Theory or the TV show? (Hope the show will make it as long as possible).--Ben Ben (talk) 00:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Well, the Big Bang was a one-time cosmological event that happened billions of years ago. It probably didn't last as long as The Big Bang Theory has been on the air. The physics article (and the subject thereof) isn't called the Big Bang Theory, just like the pages on gravitation and evolution don't have theory in their titles, either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.29.164 (talk) 14:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
        • When will I see your proposal for deletion for the redirects Big Bang Theory and Evolution Theory? BTW Gravitation isn't a theory, it's one of the four Fundamental interactions.--Ben Ben (talk) 15:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• Mild Oppose. Tough one. I decided to decide this one by looking at the creation of this article. If it did not exist prior to the TV series, then I would favor keeping it as is. If it existed as a redirect to the Big bang or Big bang theory or whatever prior to the creation of the series, then I would favor the move to restore that redirect.

  As it turns out, the article was first created to be about the TV Series. That indicates no one, at the time at least, expected anyone to enter "The Big Bang Theory" to search for the scientific theory. I suggest that remains a fair expectation today.

  As to adding "(TV series)" just for clarity, that would be quintessential "more precision than necessary" to avoid conflicts with other uses of the same term... there is no other use for "The Big Bang Theory". Titles are supposed to convey the name of the subject, or how the subject is normally called, not convey what the actual subject is, or what type of subject it is (the intro is for that). If titles were supposed to convey the subject of each article, or the type of the subject, most titles would be much, much longer than they are. That's simply not one of the purposes of titles.

  TV series like Lost (TV series) are disambiguated only when they require disambiguation, because there are others uses of their base name (e.g., see Lost). --Born2cycle (talk) 18:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

* I agree that this is a tough one. But I prefer this to redirect to Big bang theory, really. Wiki doesn't have to be so... "word"-sensitive like this. Silvergoat (talk∙contrib) 06:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

*Hm, Big Bang Theory exists, it is a redirect to Big Bang, an article about a scientific theory, which inspired the makers of a TV series to name the series The Big Bang Theory. --Ben Ben (talk) 10:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose The name is sufficiently different from "Big Bang" or "Big Bang Theory" that searchers are not likely to be confused, and proper hatnotes exist. --Trödel 02:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Just to add to the fun, there is also another TV show called Big Bang D O N D E groovily Talk to me 17:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Character's sexuality

Why was my segment about the character's sexuality was removed? isn't that a key element in the plot?Ofir michael (talk) 10:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Style of humour

Is there a way to describe the humour in the show? Unlike most comedies the humour in TBBT typically doesn't derive from jokes, slapstick, irony or wordplay; rather it seems to mostly stem from the characters' perceived esoteric speech. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.61.94 (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

It is a character based sitcom. Although I have no sources. 145.53.23.37 (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Penny as a bartender

See also: Talk:List of The Big Bang Theory episodes (season 4) § Kaley Cuoco's broken leg

This edit has been reverted a few times now,[14][15][16] so it seems to be something that needs discussion. The phrase added in the edit, "and became a bartender during the first season" is somewhat misleading. In the eighth episode of season 1 Penny said that she had convinced The Cheescake Factory to give her "a shift" as a bartender and was seen tending bar in that episode. That's the last time she was seen behind the bar, as far as I can remember, until season 4. There is no evidence that she was allowed back behind the bar in the 62 episodes between those two. A single shift behind the bar does not make you into a bartender. On the other hand, Penny's normal job is most definitely a waitress as she has stated that and has been seen many times working as one. When she returned to the series in "The Apology Insufficiency" she was shown working as a bartender (this was even cited!) so "When she returned, after missing two episodes, she was shown working as a bartender at the Cheesecake Factory, instead of in her normal employment as a waitress" is accurate and should not have been deleted. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the summary. --Ben Ben (talk) 06:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Stuart and the Store?

Am I incorrect in thinking that Stuart was identified at least once as the owner of the comic book store? If that's indeed the case, it's a mischaracterization to refer to him as a "clerk".

Anyone have any thoughts (or recall it differently)? — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 07:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I think he is the owner of the store because, as I recall, in Episode 68 he talks about picking up a woman at a Comics Convention and it being the only place where 'I own a comic book store' is an effective chat-up line. 80.176.88.21 (talk) 23:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll fix it. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 03:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

External Links section cleanup

Someone noted the External Links section is bloated and they're right. There are several links in the list that run afoul of the guidelines in WP:ELNO, WP:NOTLINKFARM, etc. To bring it up to spec, I've removed the following:

• The Big Bang Theory on Warner TV -- Commercial site; no additional notable info that would meet WP criteria for inclusion.
• The Big Bang Theory on Tv.com -- Commercial site; no additional notable info that would meet WP criteria for inclusion.
• The Big Bang Theory on CBS.com -- Commercial site; no additional notable info that would meet WP criteria for inclusion.
• Official Site for The Big Bang Theory on DVD -- Commercial site; apparent violation of WP:ADV
• Big Bang Theory at epguides.com -- Commercial site; no additional notable info.
• List of Big Bang Theory' Episodes on TVGuide -- Redundant; WP already has an episode list.

I also removed the template. Anyone have any comments or want to work on making it better? — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 03:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Blogs used as sources?

In the paragraph about the theme music, two blogs (one easily-identifiable one and one self-maintained-and-written one) are quoted as sources:

• http://blog.newsok.com/bamsblog/2010/11/02/barenaked-ladies-ed-robertson-talks-big-bang-theory-theme-song/

• http://imbatman.org/interviews/barenaked-ladies-talk-about-big-bang-theme-song/

I don't think this usage is in keeping with the guidelines in WP:RS. Anyone care to comment? Thanks! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 17:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The first one is fine, as per WP:NEWSBLOG. The second is not, as per WP:FANSITE. I easily found the unattributed original interview the blog site quotes from at http://www.spinner.com/2010/03/31/barenaked-ladies--big-bang-theory/ ; this should be used instead. Ylee (talk) 19:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Aha! You're right! I completely misinterpreted the "NewsOK" bit, which I thought was "News OK" or "News, OK!" rather than "News Oklahoma". (English is so screwy...) Thanks for the info; great catch! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 20:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Notation query on Season 4 DVD release dates

Is it WP convention that the Season 4 DVD release dates (granted, dates yet to be announced) are notated as N/A (presumably Not Available) rather than TBA (To Be Announced)? I work in an organisation that uses N/A to mean Not Applicable, and thought for a moment that the owners of the series had decided not to release the latest season at all.Maarvarq (talk) 12:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Ending after season 7

It mentions in the "production" section that the show has been renewed for three additional seasons with it ending after the 2013-2014 season (season 7). What does it mean by "ending", the renewal for the additional three seasons ending by then, or the show ending altogether without another renewal for further seasons? Chrisj8910 (talk), 15:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Give Episodes Their Own Pages

By saying this i mean that instead of only giving a synopis, we should make the episodes their own pages. I myself have had trouble with cast information(guest stars mostly), and would like to know more about the episodes as would other people. I would also like to bring up the topic that we havent included cast information for Amy Farrah Fowler as well as her own page if my link is not valid. Sorry the topic is so short, this is a small, yet very important idea. Thank you for your time and space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki461 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

See List of The Big Bang Theory episodes, which is broken down even more by individual season episode pages.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Redirects and disambiguation

I just got redirected here from "big bang theory". Isn't wikipedia's policy to prioritise non-fiction (A pretty important scientific concept) over fiction (An admittedly good TV show). Should big bang theory and varients direct to a disambiguation page or even straight to the origin of the universe? Stu42 (talk) 14:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you check out Talk:The Big Bang Theory/Archive 2#Requested move. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from TillSander, 23 May 2011

It already says that the season ends on May 19, 2011, but the air time status is still on present.

Quote:

! 4 |Thursday 8:00 P.M. (September 23, 2010 – Present) | September 23, 2010 | May 19, 2011 | 2010–11 | TBA | 12.90 (to date)

End Quote

TillSander (talk) 23:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Changed, thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

error in description of Sheldon's career

The current page says "Sheldon is a theoretical physicist with two Ph.Ds. He has spent much of his career attempting to prove string theory over loop quantum gravity. He believed he proved it on an expedition to the North Pole..." This is simply not true at all, neither in physics nor in the show. Sheldon is a string theoriest. He studies string theory. That doesn't mean that he is trying to prove string theory over loop quantum gravity (although obviously he believes string theory is a more likely candidate for unifying gravity and quantum physics than loop quantum gravity, his career certainly cannot be described as trying to prove that). Much more problematic, he most certainly did not believe he had proved string theory on an expedition to the North Pole. Rather, he was searching for (and believed that he found) experimental evidence of magnetic monopoles, which has absolutely nothing to do with string theory (it is rather unlikely that a string theorist would even be doing such a thing, but after all, it is just a TV show). Experimentally finding evidence of magnetic monopoles has absolutely nothing to do with string theory, and the show never claimed otherwise. Consequently, the synopsis of Sheldon's career should be completely rewritten. I do not know enough about the show to do that (but I do know enough to know that what is currently written is false). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.98.6.45 (talk) 03:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Is one of your arguments that he isn't a theoretical physicist, because that isn't true at all. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

No, that isn't one of my arguments at all. As a string theorist he is a theoretical physicist. My argument is that string theorists don't sit around 'proving' that string theory is correct over loop quantum gravity, and even if one were to search for magnetic monopoles, such a quest is unrelated to the verification of string theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.98.6.45 (talk) 18:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've watched the relevant episodes and I agree with you. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Bernadette in the Season 4 Finale

The article currently refers to her as simply "Bernadette Rostenkowski" where I believe it should now be "Bernadette Rostenkowski, Ph.D" as it's awarded for her research thesis in the final episode. Ii xHAZZAx ii (talk) 19:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Religion-element of the show?

Just because religion is menitioned a few times in the show, these scenes don`t warrant the inclusion of religion in the elements of the show section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.162.131.110 (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Does every aspect of society that plays a small part in the show deserve its own section? By that logic there should be sections on Use of Technology, Science Fiction and Fantasy, Comic Books, and so forth. The section on religion is not appropriate for this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottm1212 (talk) 13:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. While yes religion is mentioned mainly in passing I think the religion section give some additional details on the characters. For example, Sheldons childhood and the conflicts with his monther. The background information on Howard and Raj not fully following the dietary requirements of their respective religions as well as Pennys belief in certain fringe practices fleshes out the characters and gives more in depth information to someone who may not have seen the show itself. SunGodRa (talk) 10:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I also agree. The show makes jokes about all sorts of things and the religion of the characters is not a major source of jokes. All sorts of details are used to flesh out the characters and again, religion is not a major source of character development. Not enough for a whole section anyway. Comics, fandom and even Chinese food are more frequently mined for comedy. I propose removing the whole section. Ashmoo (talk) 15:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

References

1. Reference: Retrieved May 9, 20011.  ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.243.166.218 (talk) 11:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done Fixed. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Seasons in infobox

Since the reasons for my reversions of the addition of season information to the infobox were obviously misunderstood, I think it best to explain here. My first reversion was made because we shouldn't be using season information at all. The infobox only summarises content in the article and where an actor is not in a starring role for the whole series but is present when not in a starring role, inclusion of season information can be misleading. In the case of Sara Gilbert, she was recurring in seasons 1 & 3 but starring in the first part of season 2. Including "(Seasons 1-3)" as per this edit is incorrect, because she wasn't starring for the whole time. Limiting the statement to "(Seasons 2)", as per this edit, is no better becasue it can mislead the reader into believing she was only in the series for season 2, which is wrong. For consistency, and to avoid any possibility of misleading readers, it's best not to include any information and cover the periods of recurring and starring status in the prose. This edit in no way advocated inclusion of the information, as was implied by this edit summary. It was to point out that we use seasons, not years to refer to fiction as fiction is always treated in the present regardless of the year. Sara Gilbert certainly starred somewhere between 2008 and 2010 but, because we refer to fiction in the present, if you watch an early season 2 episode now, then she's also starring in 2011. This is actually an issue that we hammered out eight months ago, when last the issue of Sara Gilbert's status was raised, and the result that proved least problematic and least misleading was to address the issue of seasons in the prose and not the infobox, as evidenced by the lastest raft of edits since the season information was added to the infobox again.[17] --AussieLegend (talk) 16:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Not having any season in the infobox is equally misleading, as it gives the impression that Gilbert, Rauch, and Biyalik have had an equal contribution to the show as the other 5, when in fact they did not. The standard in Wikipedia is to have season info in the infobox. See many other TV show articles. For example Just Shoot Me! or Parks and Recreation to name two.

I would say that for Gilbert we should only list season 2, because that is the only season in which she starred on the show, and for Rauch and Biyalik list as "Season 4 - present". I am willing to compromise and include the guest roles in seasons 1 and 3 for Gilbert and the guest roles in Season 3 for Rauch and Biyalik.

However whatever (talk) 19:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It's worth mentioning that the infobox in Two and a half men has no trouble listing Melanie Lynskey's role as both starring in the first two seasons and recurring the other seasons. We can do something similar here. However whatever (talk) 21:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The infobox is simply a summary of information presented in the article. As a summary it can't and shouldn't go into specifics as that defeats the purpose of the infobox. Specifics should be handled in the prose. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I somewhat agree that it's "a summary". I think of it as more of "an overview". Regardless, under no condition should it be misleading. The way it currently stands it is misleading to the reader that the contributions of Gilbert, Rauch, and Biyalik is equal to the other 5. We cannot leave it the way it is, and unless you can point to a policy prohibiting the inclusion of the season information in the infoboxes, I will follow the paradigm found in many other articles, and add it back in.

I do appreciate all the effort you put into this article, as well as all TBBT articles. However whatever (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it is misleading at all. All the listed actors are starring, or once starred in the show. Context is (and should be) given in the body of the article. — Edokter (talk) — 20:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

That is actually not true. Gilbert is no longer starring on the show, and the other two did not star at the same level as the 5 main stars of the show. I don't think the infobox should mislead readers to think that they are starring at the same level. However whatever (talk) 20:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not misleading; they have at one point starred in the show. Remember, the infobox entails the entire show, not just the current season. As for the 'level' of starring, that is not our call to make; they starred or they didn't. The infobox give the key information; the details are laid out in the article. — Edokter (talk) — 20:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Just because you say it's "not misleading" does not make it so. The fact that you have to resort to hidden text to warn other editors not to edit is the first indication that there is a problem. Perhaps you can elaborate on WHY you feel that this article should not follow the paradigm of other articles such as Two and a half men. However whatever (talk) 20:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Our guideline here is Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Style guidelines#Cast information, which says, "when organizing the cast section, please keep in mind that "main" cast status is determined by the series producers, not by popularity or screen time." The perceived level of contribution is irrelevant, all that matters is that the person has been credited as starring at some time. It doesn't matter whether they're credited as starring in all of the episodes, or a single episode, they are listed as starring in the cast list. Because the level of contribution as a starring member is not part of the criteria for inclusion in the main cast list, it isn't necessary for the infobox. The paradigm you mention is by no means a standard. It is included in some articles, but there is simply no standing requirement for it, nor is there consensus that it should be used in every article. As for your concerns about hidden text, perhaps you should look at the example you're relying upon, as it includes hidden text as well, and no less than two notes to support inclusion of the content you advocate including here. Use of hidden text here is only necessary because editors unfamiliar with Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Style guidelines kept removing Sara Gilbert from the cast list. There is no single solution, just the least problematic, and that, as far as this article is concerned, is to follow general practice by listing starring cast in the infobox and addressing the issue of when characters were in starring in the prose. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Reading your reply, your point seem to suggest that inclusion of season information is very consistent with (if not mandated by) policy (or more accurately guideline). when organizing the cast section, please keep in mind that "main" cast status is determined by the series producers, not by popularity or screen time: This suggests that not including season information means that Wikipedia editors such as yourself take it upon themselves to "promote" some cast members to full cast members over the entire series. However whatever (talk) 14:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

That interpretation is flawed. It is the inclusion of season info that results in editors making that distinction. All listed cast members have at one point starred in the show. When they have starred is explained in the prose. Again, the infobox provides an overview of the entire series, with the details concerning the seasons contained in the article. — Edokter (talk) — 15:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The interpretation is so flawed I'm not really sure how to respond to it. There is nothing in policy or the MoS that even hints at the inclusion of season information. In fact, as I've already indicated, it specifically says that main cast status is not determined "by popularity or screen time", demonstrating that season information is not part of the criteria and therefore not ecessary for inclusion. Cast members are promoted to main cast status when they are verifiably promoted to main cast status, usually either by press release or by being credited as main cast in an episode. There's nothing wrong with that. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Since you failed to convince me that adding season information is prohibited by the policies, I will follow precedent in other articles and add it back in. However whatever (talk) 19:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeeeaah... That's not quite how it works. Two editors have now opposed your version, so you cannot simply dismiss them on the ground that you are not convinced. — Edokter (talk) — 19:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOT a democracy. You have to make your case, and you failed. I too agree that in this case the status of the starring actors needs so much explanation that I have put it as a footnote. However whatever (talk) 19:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is built on consensus; I didn't fail... you failed to get consensus, and that is why you were reverted. But I guess that means nothing to you, as you keep forcing your version in anyway. I'm not going to editwar over this. I just don't get why you feel the need to duplicate the information that is already in the Cast section. — Edokter (talk) — 19:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

As of this edit, it is no longer a duplication. However whatever (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

You are correct that Wikipedia is not a democracy. It also isn't a dictatorship. You can't just decide that others have failed to meet your requirements and use that to bulldoze your edits into the article. Wikipedia doesn't work like that and others have a right to remove your edits, especially when there is no consensus for them. If you're going to quote policy then don't misrepresent it. WP:NOTDEMOCRACY says "Its primary but not exclusive method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting." It doesn't give you permission to disruptively edit in the event that the majority of editors fail to convince you. There is no consensus for the edits that you have made and since there is opposition to them I have reverted the latest edits. You should NOT be making contested edits while this matter is under discussion. You've been warned about disruptive editing previously, ironically regarding this very article.[18] You need to continue to discuss and, if you can't gain consensus for the edits, they don't go into the article. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

footnotes

In this edit you took away footnotes. Please explain your opposition to the footnotes, and use WP policies to support your argument. However whatever (talk) 13:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

You only added the footnotes so you can have some way of including season information in the infobox, where it isn't necessary. The footnotes you added initially duplicated information already correctly addressed in the prose, which was pointed out to you by another editor.[19] In order to accommodate the concerns expressed by that editor you removed content from the prose but that forces readers to have to look elsewhere for the information,[20] rather than having it directly in front of them, which is more desirable. Your changes reduce readability and are therefore undesirable. The content is better addressed as it was before your changes. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

"Better" is a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact. You are failing to cite any policies. Presenting Gilbert, Rauch, and Bialik in the infobox the same way as the other 5 is misleading. The footnotes are a compromise between presenting nothing in the infobox and presenting season information in the infobox. However whatever (talk) 14:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

"Better" is indeed a matter of opinion and you have two editors who have a different opinion to you. I'd also suggest that the editors in the past who decided to present the content in the way that it was before your changes also have a difference of opinion with you. I have previously cited MOS:TV which says that screen time and popularity aren't criteria for inclusion in the cast list. All you have presented is "they do this at some other articles". Please don't criticise other editors for not doing what you are not doing yourself. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

You really need to start putting your feelings aside and discuss the issue at hand. From MOS:TV (with added emphasis)

When filling in the infobox, useful infobox data might include the creators or actors, first appearance, an image, and in-universe information essential to understanding the entity's context in the overall fiction.

I read this as supporting the addion of the footnotes. However whatever (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the MoS further. The section you've quoted from is titled "Character article structure" and starts with "When creating an article on a single character of a television show". It also refers to {{Infobox character}}, which has a field labeled "First appearance". The section is about individual character articles and the individual character infobox, not the main article on the TV series and its associated infobox. "First appearance" refers to a specific episode in which the character appeared, not the range of seasons where a character was credited in a starring role. It has nothing to do with footnotes at all. You're way off base here. --AussieLegend (talk) 20:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

So where exactly in MOS:TV does it prohibit season information (or footnotes) for starring actors? However whatever (talk) 23:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The MOS doesn't specifically prohibit or allow it, but as I've demonstrated above, it says it isn't necessary. Decisions on inclusion are left up to editors, through consensus, on a case by case basis. In this case, there are really no benefits for inclusion. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The discussion has reached an impasse. I have therefore taken this to the dispute resolution noticeboard. However whatever (talk) 17:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm still interested in discussing it here, but it's hard to do since you've decided to post only every few days. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Just noting that the discussion has been closed as stale with those who commented generally supporting the status quo. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Frequency of occurrence subsection

Given that the consensus at the dispute resolution noticeboard is to leave out the footnotes, and that it was mentioned in the discussion there that "there is nothing stopping this being expanded upon in the prose", I would support expanding the notes in this revision to be placed in a new subsection under he main cast section called "Frequency of occurrence" where it can be explained that 4 of the characters (so far) appeared in every episode, another character missed 2 episodes due to injury (and link to this section in a another article) but still got appearance credit, and then discuss the 3 other characters how they have been promoted and (in one case) demoted and how they do not receive starring credits when they miss a show. Hopefully this is an acceptable compromise. However whatever (talk) 20:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, this means that people have to look elsewhere to find information. It would be better to expand the information in the individual character entries rather than create a completely separate subsection. However, the statement I made was actually "there is nothing stopping this being expanded upon in the prose, if there's seen to be a need to do that" (emphasis added). Edokter indicated that he saw no need when he said "The article is good is it stands now as far as I'm concerned",[21] so his opinion should be sought before any expansion. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I do not understand from your paragraph why you oppose an expanded discussion on the status of the main cast. In other words, why do you think there is no "need to do that".

Regarding user:Edokter, I took his statement "The article is good is it stands now as far as I'm concerned" to mean he does not favor the addition of footnotes because that was the context under which it was said. I don't think it means that the article should never be edited again because it "is good as [sic] it stands now". Regardless, per WP:OWN user:Edokter does not have veto power over this article (or any other article) with all due respect to his administratorship. If he wants to chime in, there is nothing stopping him from doing so, and conversely if he does not want to chime in that should not impede the article from being improved.

However whatever (talk) 19:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I have nothing against expansion of the information, provided done properly. For example, turning the paraphrases into proper prose would be an improvement. I maintain the the location of the information should stay where it is, and not be split up to the infoboxes, footnotes or other sections, as this only results in fragmented information, which hurts readability. — Edokter (talk) — 23:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say I opposed expansion. With all due respect, you seem to be pretty much misinterpreting most of what everyone has said. I was pointing out that since Edokter had already expressed an opinion about the article (ie he was happy with the current state of the article) his opinion regarding a possible future state of the article based on the discussion needed to be taken into account. That's a normal part of the consensus building process. I completely agree with the opinion he has now expressed. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Frequency of occurrance in infobox

What would be the reason to remove a comment in the infobox saying that certain starring cast members are only occasional? Note that the reasons raised in opposition to season information do not apply to the "(occasional)" comment, as there this comment does not raise confusion vis a vis the seasons that the actresses were main cast vs. recurring roles. However whatever (talk) 20:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that you read the discussion you started at WP:DRN again. Numerous comments were made that apply equally to "occasional" as they do to your attempts to include footnotes. While he may wish to clarify, Edokter made it clear that he thought that "all the necessary information regarding starring status is addressed in the Cast section",[22] and that there can be no doubt that "occasional" is a reference to starring status. He also said in the same post that "the infobox is not ment to hold any details which is much better served in prose." [sic] This was a point also raised by Mr. Stradivarius, who referred to WP:IBX which says, "wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content."[23] Again, there can be no doubt that "occasional" is unnecessary content. The matter of unnecessary content was the first point addressed by Yk ʏк yƙ who said, "leaving detailed information out in the infobox should not be perceived as severely damaging the article's accuracy."[24] Given the comments on this, both at the DRN discussion and above, there is no justification for including occasional in the infobox. It's best addressed in the prose and that was the general agreement by all but one of the participants in the discussions. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Actor/Actress

While tradition holds that females in the acting profession are called "actresses" and males "actors", that's changing. See, for instance, the Guardian MOS, which explicitly states that both genders should be called actors. Absconded Northerner (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, actor has always been a gender neutral term while actress specifically refers to females. It was tradition for 2,000 years to use actor, and only 400 for actress. You're correct though, there is a push to go back to the old ways. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

You're quite right - I should have said "recent tradition" or something similar. My point was the one you're also making: that "actor" is a perfectly appropriate term here. Absconded Northerner (talk) 00:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

New addition to Elements of the Show

shouldn't we include some sort of category named Nerddom or soemthing like that? i mean Sci-Fi, Fantasy, Comics, Tv Series and so on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.79.153.35 (talk) 13:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe this is a good idea, as it's a pretty big element of the show. Star Trek, Star Wars, Firefly, Tolkien, Marvel & DC comic books, RPGs, X-box360/PS3/Wii -- some or all of these figure largely in pretty much every episode. I'll start putting something together. Arthur Holland (talk) 14:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Leonard and Penny's relationship: Undue weight?

An undue weight tag is placed under the subsection "Leonard and Penny's relationship". Super section is "elements of the show". I don't think it has undue weight, at least in its current form. It's short and explains how their relationship affects the show's storyline. I think it should be removed. Sentient Planet (talk) 02:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems there's been a bit of a tagfest in the past. That "undue weight" one can go, and so can the "additional citations" one under "Religion". Yes, it could use extra citations but the entire "Elements of the show" supersection is already tagged so it's redundant. Absconded Northerner (talk) 08:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Alright. I removed the tag. Sentient Planet (talk) 16:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

1991?

Somebody changed the series premiere date to 1991. Please Correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Informed Person (talk • contribs) 19:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Rename request

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The Big Bang Theory → The Big Bang Theory (sitcom) – The scientific concept Big Bang theory is likely the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this term, at best differentiated by capitalization or the definite-article. An editor at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#The Big Bang Theory suggested renaming the article about the sitcom with that name to a title that clarifies that as the scope of the article about it. This is a procedural nom--my initial rationale here is just as I understand that editor wrote (and he's welcome to comment further here). DMacks (talk) 18:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - The convention would be to move the article to The Big Bang Theory (TV series) if it was to move anywhere, not to The Big Bang Theory (sitcom). However, the outcome of the previous move request only 10 months ago was pretty much overwhelmingly in support of staying at this location. The cosmological model is correctly located at Big Bang, with appropriate redirects from Big bang theory and similar, while this TV program is called The Big Bang Theory. Adding "(sitcom)" or "(TV series)" is unnecessary disambiguation. Hatnotes already provide appropriate links and, as pointed out at the other discussion, WP:PRECISION would seem to apply. Nothing has changed since the last discussion. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support moving. "(TV series)" is fine by me, no objection to "(sitcom)" or other term of disambiguation with consensus. "The Big Bang Series" should be made into a disambiguation. Infrogmation (talk) 19:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per AussieLegend. That seems totally unnecessary to me. If there was clear evidence that people were being confused by this title it might be worth looking at, but I don't see anything to indicate that. Absconded Northerner (talk) 19:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Page view statistics show that this article has been viewed 1,124,295 times in the last 30 days and ranked 57 in traffic on en.wikipedia.org,[25] while Big Bang was only viewed 171,908 times and was way down in the rankings at 1,572.[26] As per last discussion, the television series seems to be the primary topic. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Totally unnecessary, useless disambiguation. TBBT is important enough. --SlashMe (talk) 20:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support. The sitcom might be the primary topic du jour, but taking the longer view that is appropriate for a serious encyclopedia, the event from which the universe sprang is likely to have the edge, and to be of more enduring significance. If Beethoven (film) temporarily outstripped Ludwig van Beethoven as the referent of "Beethoven" in Googlehits (or in pageview stats), should Wikipedia declare the film to be the primary topic? I think not. Noetica^Tea? 22:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose This is the most precise title for the term and is currently the primary topic. Primary topics can change its true and the wonderful thing about this wiki is that when it does change we can move the page. Page naming is about making it easier for users searching for an article, so at this point in time this is the easiest way to help the greatest amount of users. The dab link at the top helps the others. -DJSasso (talk) 23:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. In my opinion, "The Big Bang Theory" is sufficiently different from "Big Bang" so as not to require a primary topic – hatnotes do the job more efficiently. To go off on a tangent, though, if both articles had the exact same name, then the scientific model would be the primary topic, regardless of page views – there are some times when being an encyclopedia is more important than page views. Jenks24 (talk) 23:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:PRECISION since the TV series is in title case. Similar examples include panic room and Panic Room, source code and Source Code, hall pass and Hall Pass. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support as the theory of the universe is a proper noun, and likely spelled this way, with the "The" as well as other manners. The scientific theory is of more educational value, so per the decision for Avatar not being a film or anything except Hinduism, this should be the science article. Also the primarity sitcom suffers a systematic bias towards recentism of a popcultural phenomenon. 76.65.128.90 (talk) 06:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The name of the cosmological model is "Big Bang" while the name of the TV series is "The Big Bang Theory". The name and capitalisation is not identical, as it is with "Avatar" the film the Hindu concept. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Anyone confused by the names of these articles isn't going to be able to understand either. Absconded Northerner (talk) 00:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Regular" and "Occasional" main characters

Amy Farrah Fowler and Bernadette have appeared so many times now that they have become regular characters, making the use of the "Regular" and "Occasional" headings for main characters inaccurate. For this reason I have changed the heading names to "Original" and "Additional" as these more accurately represent the characters. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Occasional is a better word because they are/were only credited in the episodes that they appear in. but whatever.Caringtype1 (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Occasional means "occurring or appearing irregularly from time to time". Since these characters appear regularly, occasional does not apply. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Geniuses?

I want to query the description of Sheldon and Leonard, in para. 2 of the lead, as "geniuses". The word is normally only applied to a tiny handful of individuals, right up at the summit of the intelligence/talent hierarchy. Sheldon (PhD at 16, etc) is possibly in that category, though one always gets the impression that his own supreme belief in his intelligence overshoots the reality. But I don't think Leonard (or Howard or Raj) are: they're maybe up there in the top 10% or even 5% of academic intelligence, but they've also had to work hard at things that to a "genius" would come naturally. I'd like to change this sentence to read something like "two highly intelligent but socially inept room-mates who work ...". Comments? GrindtXX (talk) 17:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

We know that Sheldon's IQ is 187, which certainly qualifies him under any definition described here. Leonard's IQ is 173, which would fail the stricter test on that page, but which puts him in the top 0.0001% of society (see High IQ society). I know where you're coming from, but I don't think it's a stretch to call the pair "geniuses". Absconded Northerner (talk) 18:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Per episode

In the sentence "According to their contracts, their pay per episode will go up an additional $50,000 per episode in each of the following three seasons" has a redundant "per episode" in there so I remove it. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 05:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Theme song title

This has been discussed before, but it keeps getting added. I have never seen any official confirmation from either the show or from the band that the Big Bang Theory Theme is titled "The History of Everything". I have seen a good deal of articles use the name but they also appear to take a lot of other info from wikipedia which seemed to suggest that someone's calling it "The History of Everything" on wikipedia at one time created a circular citation. Every single place I've ever seen the track sold including itunes, amazon, and on the band's Rhino-produced compilation Hits from Yesterday & the Day Before lists the song simply as "Big Bang Theory Theme" (note: Rhino is a subsidiary of Warner Bros., who just happen to be a) parent of Barenaked Ladies' former record label Reprise and b) the producers of this television show. If the song title WERE in fact "The History of Everything" in any official capacity, I would think that album would have titled it as such. Unless the band or the show releases anything official stating that title, I submit it really ought not appear in this article to propgate the apparently false name. TheHYPO (talk) 05:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

External Link to Big Bang Theory wiki

Why does it keep getting reverted. There are plenty of TV series articles here on Wikipedia that link to their own wiki's, so why can't this one have it? Please explain this to me because this inconsistency is frankly hypocritical on the part of the admins. 24.251.141.194 (talk) 16:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:ELNO says that links to open wikis and fansites should be avoided. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Your response does not answer my question. There are plenty of articles here on Wikipedia that have external links to their own wiki's: Star Trek, Star Wars, iCarly, Friends, just to name a few. Setting standards for one article that are different from others is inconsistent and I would like to know why The Big Bang Theory is so special that it can't have a link to its own wiki like these other articles. 24.251.141.194 (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Some shows do link to their wiki, but only when those wikis have an established history and a strong editor base. TBBT wiki seems quite new, and doesn't offer much information beside what we put here. That is why it was removed. — Edokter (talk) — 23:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Forgive me but that doesn't seem like a good excuse for this inconsistent behavior. 24.251.141.194 (talk) 01:01, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

You have a legitimate reason and explanation. The fact that you don't like the answer doesn't invalidate it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:51, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Making excuses for inconsistent execution of policy is not a legitimate reason and explanation, Barek. Whether the policy supports my position or not is not even the issue any more. The fact that it is not being executed consistently just makes things confusing for new users or casual editors and discourages new people from contributing to this encyclopedia. The fact is there IS inconsistent execution of the external link policy and it needs to be addressed - either ALL articles with external wiki's should be allowed to have links to them or NONE of them should. It's called being CONSISTENT! 24.251.141.194 (talk) 02:43, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

If an external link offers no value, as pointed out by Edokter, then there is no reason why it can be included. Consistency doesn't come into it: just because other articles do it doesn't mean this one should. (I forget the policy page on this...) pcuser42 (talk) 03:00, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not inconsistent. Per WP:ELNO #12, "Links normally to be avoided #12: Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." You were pointed to this already, but chose to ignore it. You have your answer, no need to beat a dead horse. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:08, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there's a lot of inconsistency on Wikipedia. We try to clear up the problems where we can, but it's a big job. That the other articles may include such links contrary to WP:ELNO is not justification to include them here; in fact they should be removed from the other articles so as to bring them in line with our policies and guidelines. It's a simple case of "two wrongs don't make a right". --AussieLegend (talk) 03:19, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Article Lead

I've cleaned up the article's lead a bit to get rid of stuff that isn't crucial to the lead. I didn't want to make a more extreme change, but I want to suggest here, that we get rid of the entire paragraph listing the main characters. It's just going to be reexplained right below the table of contents. The lead really just needs to give a general idea of what the show is about. I would suggest editing the first two paragraphs down to:

The Big Bang Theory is an American sitcom created by Chuck Lorre and Bill Prady, both of whom serve as executive producers on the show, along with Steven Molaro. All three also serve as head writers. It premiered on CBS on September 24, 2007. The show is centred on physicist roommates Leonard Hofstadter and Sheldon Cooper, their neighbour Penny (a waitress and aspiring actress who moves in across the hall in the pilot episode), and the rest of their circle of friends. Plots generally play on geekiness of most of the characters, as often contrasted by Penny's social skills and common sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheHYPO (talk • contribs) 05:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Big Bang Theory vs. Big Bang Theory

Soon this article will be longer than the actual article on the Big Bang Theory. That kind of epitomizes Wikipedia for me. A lot of this pop culture content should be removed. Not every nuance of this show needs to be included.TurtleMelody (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I assume you mean Big Bang, what you posted leads to the show's article. :) pcuser42 (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Sheldon Cooper

Interested editors are invited to participate in a discussion at Talk:Sheldon Cooper. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)