Talk:The Big Bang Theory/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Improper Naming

When I discovered that this was not about the big bang theory, displeasure became apparent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.232.206 (talk) 09:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Consensus is that this article is not improperly named. This article is about The Big Bang Theory, a television series. The cosmological model is called the Big Bang theory. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
What data supports your consensus? Don't you know that great scientific minds refer to it as The Big Bang Theory? Just look at the Nobel Prize lectures and papers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.70.89.12 (talk) 03:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I've always known the scientific theory as the Big Bang. It's commonly called, and/or referred to as the Big Bang, because it's believed to be an actual event. It's be like calling Quantum Mechanics, The Theory of Quantum Mechanics, which it isn't. The Big Bang may be a scientific theory, but it's not called the Big Bang Theory. Also, the show's title "The Big Bang Theory" is a double entendre for nerds trying to score.99.252.114.222 (talk) 09:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Homosexuality

There has been a pretty strong theme of homosexual overtones between Howard and Raj. Any reason why this is not currently mentioned in the article? Efficacious (talk) 01:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: Efficacious's remark, I have to disagree. I have witnessed many male-male relationships that have sexual overtones. However, I think this is a result of society's changing acceptance of emotional openness in males. However, I would like to point out that on March 29th 2012, a new episode was aired in Canada that hinted that Raj may be a bisexual. Spoiler Alert This was the episode where his parent's arrange a wedding with a lesbian. He is seen cooking and cleaning and acting rather effeminate. And when Bernadette gives him that puppy, he acts very... gay? End spoiler alert Even though we have seen Raj sleep with other women, his lack of having a long-lasting stable relationship with a women (even Sheldon has a "girlfriend"!)may point at him experimenting with his sexuality. Any other thoughts? Mellondrama (talk) 30 March 2012 —Preceding undated comment added 06:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC).

Do the characters work at Caltech?

Though the show is definitely set in Pasadena, the characters Sheldon, Leonard etc. always refer to the institutuon they work at as "The University", never as "Caltech". Do Caltech academics really refer to Caltech as "The University"? Or could the writers be suggesting a fictional university, based in Pasadena, but not connected with the real-world Caltech? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.241.199.21 (talk) 10:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

In the pilot, at 14:40 Howard introduces himself to Penny as "Howard Wolowitz, Caltech Department of Applied Physics". Since they all work together it's a pretty safe bet that they all work at Caltech. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Primary topic RFC

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Big_Bang_Theory_(disambiguation)#Primary_Topic_RFC. Polyamorph (talk) 18:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Redirecting the article

Hi all, I came to ask for the redirecting of the article due to confliction it causes when searching the web with words "big bang theory". This wiki article was the first Google hit! The sitcom is using this well known name to benefit from it in terms of publicity - and has now won the rivalry, which is just abhorrent! Think about a kid that has just heard the name Big Bang the first time and searches for more information, and is forced to form an association to the TV series. Please, could we redirect this page to "The Big Bang theory (series)" or something? Probios (talk) 02:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Please see the previous discussions. —David Levy 02:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Besides, changing the title to include the parenthetical "series" is not likely to change what shows up on Google. Powers T 19:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 May 2012

Under the U.S. Standard Ratings, it says that season 5 aired from Sept 22, 2011 to May 17, 2012, when it only aired until May 10, 2012. Everywhere else on this page the season finale date is the same except here. Please fix this.

154.20.198.46 (talk) 19:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Done Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 May 2012

"Sheldon" wears a variety of t-shirt styles by Thinker Clothing(tm), "Knowledge as Your Style", offering designs that highlight innovations in the fields of Science, Tech, Engineering and Math ("STEM"), human behavior and character.

He's worn "Nanotubes"(c) on numerous episodes over several seasons, and also "Atmospheric CO2"(c) (featured in "Entertainment Weekly" magazine), "Mobo"(c), "Quantum"(c), "Are You Grid-Equipped?"(c), "Roboticus Carpalium"(c), "De Oxy Ribo"(c) and "Screens and Lenses Work Magic"(c). http://www.ThinkerClothing.com. (Submitted by Lisa C. Clark, CEO, Textiles for Thinkers, LLC)

75.209.215.177 (talk) 22:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

 Not done In order for something like that to be included, it would have to get significant coverage in multiple independent Reliable Sources (RS), rather than coverage by the product manufacturer, which if included, could be seen as promotional Wikipedia:Spam. Dru of Id (talk) 23:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Howard's Mother

The page says Howard's mother has never appeared onscreen. But in The Countdown Reflection, when the camera zooms out to space, you can see Howard's mother sitting on the roof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.78.209.28 (talk) 21:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. I was thinking the same thing. You might only see her from above and too far away to make out details, but she is clearly visible in a red outfit towards the right hand side of the frame. 86.150.64.159 (talk) 21:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
However, it's not actually the character playing Howard's mother, it's just a CGI version. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Whether the part is played by a living actor or CGI, it is still the character, and the character is still visible. 86.167.22.57 (talk) 08:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
You're assuming that it was Howard's mother, but Wikipedia doesn't allow assumptions. Content needs to be sourced, which is why another editor reverted the change.[1] --AussieLegend (talk) 09:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Is there anything anywhere that says "yes this is Howard's mother"? pcuser42 (talk) 09:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Not that I can find at any reliable source. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Dialogue established Howard's mother was one of the people on the roof. The camera panned back to show the entire roof, including three other people - we know one was Bernadette's father, as he was seen moments earlier. He is standing next to someone in a dress - since we know Bernadette's mother is alive per dialogue in prior episodes, and this person is standing at Bernadette's wedding with Bernadette's father, this person is most likely Bernadette's mother. There is a third person on the roof, standing separate from the others. That would be Howard's mother. But even if you insist on being obtuse and insist that it counts as "original research" to figure out exactly which of the additional figures seen in the overhead shot is Howard's mother, it isn't original research that she is on the roof and then we see the entire roof from above and so all of the people on that roof, this means that one of the additional people must be Howard's mother. 86.167.22.57 (talk) 10:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
"this person is most likely Bernadette's mother" is an assumption. There's nothing that establishes she was on the roof at all. Similarly, "There is a third person on the roof, standing separate from the others. That would be Howard's mother" is also an assumption. When Bernadette yells at Howard's mother she is looking just to the right of the person assumed to be Bernadette's father, not in the direction where the third person appears to be sitting. For this content to be in the article there needs to be a source confirming that the third person is actually Howard's mother. Wikipedia doesn't accept original research. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I am aware it is an assumption as to which of the three additional people on the roof is Howard's mother, and that despite it being common sense as to which she is (only one of the three people visible is sitting in a chair, and Howard's dialogue to her establishes that she is sitting in a chair) that some insist on counting the blatantly obvious as original research if it isn't explicitly spelled out for them. However, she is clearly on the roof - the dialogue establishes that, as she informs Howard she doesn't want to move closer lest she fall off. 86.167.22.57 (talk) 12:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't matter. If it's not common knowledge (see WP:CK), it's gotta be supported by reliable, secondary sources--often, more than one--to be included here. If you want to do original research, please report it elsewhere; there are plenty of sites where such things are welcomed, even encouraged. — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 12:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd argue that it is common knowledge. The episode has been aired and remains available for viewing - hence details of what happen in the episode are common knowledge. It establishes that Howard's mother is on the roof (and is not moving, so she doesn't leave the roof either), then shows the viewer all the people on the roof. If being able to say "hence Howard's mother is one of the people we can see" counts as original research, then no synopsis of any film or TV show should be on Wikipedia, as all record individual viewer's observations and hence fall into your definition of "original research". 86.167.22.57 (talk) 13:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The plot of a TV show is not original research as it can undoubtedly be determined by watching the show. As for Howard's mother, there is nothing that specifically says that the person in the chair is her, and we cannot assume this as you have been doing. pcuser42 (talk) 20:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Then by those standards you should alter the Spooks page to say that we don't know if the character of Lucas North is dead or not. After all, we know he was on a rooftop of a skyscraper. We know he made the only other person on the rooftop, Harry, turn away from him at gunpoint. We know that when Harry turned back round mere seconds later, Adam had gone from the rooftop, despite there being insufficient time for him to have reached the doors to the stairs. We know Harry heard screams and a car alarm from the street below. We saw Harry look over the edge and a look of horror and sadness come over his face. And we saw a low angle shot showing Harry was looking down on a car which had been struck by a falling body, and the hand of said body hanging over the edge of the car roof, dripping blood. But since we didn't explicitly get shown Lucas' face on the body atop the car, nor did we have anyone state in dialogue that it was Lucas or that he was dead, it might just be another totally random and unrelated individual lying on the car roof. Assuming it was Lucas is "original research." 86.140.144.240 (talk) 14:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I want to share this link from Bill Prady's twitter. I don't know if you will consider it confirmation or an answer that Mrs. Wolowitz is there, but here it is: http://twitter.com/billprady/status/200616903889264640. It made me think that it was his way of saying that it was her in the pan out shot. Also this tweet conversation confirms Bernadette's mom being there, I think. http://twitter.com/billprady/status/201761644525785088. Hope this can help. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The tweets are too open to interpretation. In the first Prady says "I'm not going to say that you can see Howard's mom in the season 5 finale tonight", which requires a WP:SYNTH interpretation to arrive at "she was there". The second only supports the claim that she was at the wedding. "Check the google earth shot" is insufficient to establish that the red blob was her. A statement is needed that says "she was the red blob" or it fails Wikipedia:Verifiability. Anyone should be able to verify the statement. As it stands, only fans of the show can assume that the red blob is her. Prady's tweets are teasers and that's just not good enough. As such, they aren't sources that we can use. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Section Religion

As someone seems determined to remove all references, I've reset some of them from an old edit. If this is not the right way to cite, instead of removing them completely just change them as they should be. For easy access, I copied them below in case of another vandalism. Only adding <ref> before and </ref> after should be enough.

"The Gothowitz Deviation". The Big Bang Theory. Season 3. Episode 3. October 5, 2009. 05:41 minutes in. CBS. take them off and I can still be buried in a Jewish cemetery {{cite episode}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |serieslink= (help); Unknown parameter |episodelink= ignored (|episode-link= suggested) (help)

"The Psychic Vortex". The Big Bang Theory. Season 3. Episode 12. January 11, 2010. 17:11 minutes in. CBS. You know I believe in ghosts too. - Great. And Astrology. - I know, and pyramid power and healing crystals. Oh no, no, no, crystals don't work. - Really, that's the line? - Psychics are real, but crystals are Voodoo? Oh, Voodoo's real, you don't want to mess with Voodoo. {{cite episode}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |serieslink= (help); Unknown parameter |episodelink= ignored (|episode-link= suggested) (help) --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 17:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Homosexuality?

Hello,

I had noticed that there are references to Raj and Howard having "homosexual tendencies" on both character pages (and I am pretty sure on the main page also). Does anyone else think this comes across as a little strong? Although, Leonard's mother does say that have created an "ersatz homosexual relationship", the whole point of her saying this is a joke and it's almost taken out of context. Is there relationship not to dissimilar of that of Joey and Chandler, i.e. bromance? Also, the way these paragraphs are written are almost like essays, with the reference of quotes and episodes in a way to almost 'prove' that there is possibility of such happening in the future or it has happened. I just don't think this seems very encyclopedic or adds anything to the character pages. Could this be rewritten in a less speculative way? --Jennie | ☎ 17:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

There are no real references to this currently on the page, though both Raj and Howard's pages discuss this at length. The writers decided to make fun of their not-really-gay relationship at many points which should be discussed in this article for completeness. I don't think the current Raj or Howard pages suggest either character is in fact gay (the strong-desire-for-sex-with-women bit kind of belies that); they mostly document the times it's come up in the series. The two pages' content should probably be combined and summarized on this page.
To be clear their relationship is a bit different from Joey and Chandler's in that its homosexual overtones are explicitly referenced and are frequently made fun of. FWIW I don't think there's anything to it besides two close guys who happen to be horny and for much of the series without girlfriends. Being gay myself, I'm probably more inclined than most to find ho yay moments in TV--just remember it's not real or encyclopedic unless others discuss it at length, making their discussion notable. 75.76.162.89 (talk) 02:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Kevin Sussman

Several sources have reported that Kevin Sussman has been upgraded to "regular" status. However, none of these sources have actually used "starring". That "regular" = "starring" is, at best, an assumption. In fact the press release for the first episode of the season shows him only as a recurring character.[2] Until such time as he's actually demonstrated to be in a starring role, by press release or having his name credited in an episode in a starring role we shouldn't be listing him as a starring character. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. That's all to be said. TBrandley 01:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Agreed until WB releases more info or when we see in at the end of September. ObtundTalk 04:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

International broadcast section

Is this really needed? Wikipedia isn't the TV guide, it shouldn't be in the business of listing all of the secondary markets. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:33, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion of an international broadcast section is supported by MOS:TV but it should be as per MOS:TV#Broadcast. Unfortunately, most TV articles don't. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Where is the source for all these countries? I couldn't find the information anywhere...and not even Wikia's copy of our list included North Korea. Regardless of MoS, there needs to be sources.--haha169 (talk) 00:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Yep--if it's unsourced and/or original research, remove it. Per MOS:TV and WP:NOTTVGUIDE, "When detailing a show's international broadcasting, simply listing every channel the series appears on is discouraged". You are absolutely correct in pointing it out. An ongoing problem is that too many folks slap stuff in without bothering to consult the Manual of Style, which can make things a tad messy from time to time. — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 01:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Is the show not shown in the UK then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.75.62 (talk) 15:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The show is aired in France on the NRJ12 channel, in a multilingual format (English or dubbed into French) since Aug 4 2012, 8 episodes per week on Saturdays. [1] (in French) BruceME (talk) 14:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC) [update -- according to the French article NRJ12 has been broadcasting the show since October 2009] BruceME (talk) 16:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Elements of the show section

First. I found an Unreferenced template at the start of the Elements of the show section, dated February 2011. Since the section now had 3 inline citations (and one explanatory note disguised as a citation), I changed the tag to Refimprove and made the explanation a Note, rather than a Reference. This was done mechanically with no evaluation of the note or references.

However in my opinion, this entire section does not have anything like the number of citations it should have. Either the material in this section is based on the actual episodes themselves (primary sources, see WP:TVPLOT) or each statement could have an inline citation.

If it is based on the episodes, WP:NOR says this (under WP:PSTS):

Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.

If it is based on citations then where are they?

For example, the first sentence in the section says: "Much of the show focuses on science, particularly physics." I would agree that almost all people who watch the program would agree that much of the show focuses on science. So what? Either that statement is based on primary sources (in which case, it is disallowed as Original Synthesis by the quotation given above) or it has at least one secondary source, which could be cited. This is a Wikipedia article, for gosh sakes, not a chat room.

The rest of the paragraph (and most of the subsection, Science) are arguments that the first sentence is true. Almost all of the entire Elements of the show section, including all subsections, suffers from the same complaint. This is just like the Howard's mother talk section up above, although it’s a lot bigger. The same arguments against Common Knowledge apply here as well. If I say in an article that "The moon orbits the earth" that is attributable, if not attributed by citation. If someone challenged me, I could cite half-a-dozen references, including childhood science books.

Turn it around: If I wished to challenge virtually any statement in the Elements section, how would I do that? Remember, it doesn't matter that the statement is true or false but only that it's verifiable or not verifiable.

Although the Refimprove warning at the top of the section now says July 2012 (because I changed it), it's really been in existence since February 2011. That's almost a year and a half. Unless there is serious arguments or more citations added, I'm going to remove the entire section, including all subsections, in a week or two. I will try to find places for the cited material. If someone wishes to challenge the NOR policy and say, for example, that the restrictions on primary sources should not include fiction, I will wait until that dispute is resolved.

--RoyGoldsmith (talk) 12:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I won't disagree that the section requires more citations but I feel that you are missing something in your interpretation of WP:NOR. An important part of the section of WP:NOR that you have quoted is "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." If a person can look at the source and easily verify content that is in the article, no citation is required. For example, you've cited the first section that says "Much of the show focuses on science, particularly physics", and you agree that "almost all people who watch the program would agree that much of the show focuses on science." This is clearly a case where no citation is required. Wikipedia:Verifiability requires that all content added to Wikipedia must be verifiable but it does not require that all content must be cited. It only says that "it must be possible to attribute all information in Wikipedia to reliable, published sources that are appropriate for the content in question." (Note the emphasis on possible.) It goes on to say "However, in practice it is only necessary to provide inline citations for quotations and for any information that has been challenged or that is likely to be challenged." In the case of something like "Much of the show focuses on science, particularly physics", which "almost all people who watch the program" would agree with, it's not necessary to provide a citation. By all means, remove content that can't be cited at all, but don't delete content that is unlikely to be challenged or which is easily verifiable. Tag anything that you can't find sources for with {{citation needed}} and somebody is bound to source it. {{Refimprove}} and {{Unreferenced}} tend to be useless. Have a look at the International broadcast section, which has been tagged since 2010 with no real attempt since then to fix it.[3] In the month since I tagged each entry individually,[4] only a few sources have been added but there's no urgency to delete the rest (although I plan to do so soon) because there is no urgency to get things right. For a series with 111 episodes, it will take a lot longer than a week to source everything but without guidance as to the perceived problems in the form of a {{citation needed}} tag on each issue, you're unlikely to see any improvement. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I've just gone right through the section and tagged every issue that I could find with either {{episode}} or {{citation needed}}. A lot of what's in there is just a simple restatement of plot information or is easily verifiable. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the new tags. But my problem is the policy about primary sources in WP:NOR, not WP:V. I'm saying that you can't cite episodes because they are primary sources and can't be used for interpretive or analytical statements in the article. If you wish to substitute {{Primary source-inline}} for the {{episode}} tags, that would be fine with me.
Do "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts" include in-universe perspectives? If they do then NOR should clearly say so and to what extent in WP:PSTS. If they don't then all interpretive statements based solely on PS should be tagged and eventually removed. Personally I believe that a certain amount of IUP should be allowed in fiction. Most of the articles about classic fiction (e.g., Prince Hamlet, The Odyssey) do not have much of a References section and thus must be based to a large extent on IUP.
But my belief doesn't make it policy. For example, a bulletted list of differences between a film and the novel or play it's based on will usually be deleted summarily with the comment "Obvious OR". What makes this deletion OK but the Elements removal wrong?
This disturbed me so much last night that I posted a talk page section for NOR this morning. Please read it here. Maybe this will start a discussion that will eventually lead to some addition to primary sources about IUP in WP:NOR. I will not delete anything from TBBT until this is resolved. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 17:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Does the elevator ever work? The elevator door on each floor always seems to be covered with caution tape. NBK1122 (talk) 01:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Theme Song

Isn't the theme Song "History of Everything" by "Barenaked Ladies"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.96.127.160 (talk) 12:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

No. See Talk:The Big Bang Theory/Archive 1#Theme? and Talk:The Big Bang Theory/Archive 2#Theme song title for previous discussions. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Geeky aspects ?! more like Nerd aspects!

All characters have claimed there selves to be Nerds, why does the artical contain stuff about geeks when all of them say they are nerds? inlcuding penny too! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.16.29.134 (talk) 15:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Semantics. It's a damn sitcom. 163.150.22.118 (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
They are Geeks because of their interests in comic books, Star trek, online gameing etc.., but are Nerds because of their academic science occupations and interests, okay? does that answer your question?81.111.126.82 (talk) 18:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Is there any clear distinction between a "nerd" and a "geek"? These words are colloquial or slang in modern English, and in many cases synonyms.----137.132.22.254 (talk) 00:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Raj & Wikpedia

I have on two occassions put into the article that Raj has stated that he messed up Wikipedia articles - this was stated during "The Pirate Solution" episode. But this edit has been reverted both times and the reasons given are that it is not notable. The fact that Raj has mentioned Wikipedia is notable, even more so on the website that he said he liked messing up. If the fact that he once purchased a wand from ebay is considered notable, then for sure, the fact about Wikipedia should also be included.Markdarrly (talk) 18:56, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

This article is full of factoids that have little bearing on the trajectory of the show. What's the problem with this one, especially since it is a meta-commentary on the very website we are conversing on right now. --Taivo (talk) 20:56, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
How is this comment notable, and not just non-notable trivia? -- AussieLegend (✉) 23:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
AussieLegend, read the article and you'll find that about half of it is non-notable trivia. For example, why is "religion" important to this series? It isn't, it's just trivia that someone finds mildly interesting. Same here. Yes, it's trivia, but it's trivia that might be interesting to Wikipedia editors/users. --Taivo (talk) 00:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
You are admitting that there is other non-notable trivia in the article and you are using that as justification for adding more?--Asher196 (talk) 00:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
What I'm saying is that people obviously enjoy the trivia in these TV show articles or else it would have been removed before now. If you're making the claim that an article on "The Big Bang Theory" should be held to some tight-cheeked measure of non-triviality on the level of an article on nuclear physics, then your priorities need some adjusting. People come to these TV show articles for some escapism, to find a list of episodes, to prove a bar bet on whether George Takei or Leonard Nimoy was ever a guest, to learn a little bit of the personal lives of the stars, and to get some trivia that they can use the next time they're trying to impress a lassie in a bar. If you think these articles should be any more serious than that, you're missing the point. This piece of trivia is especially "non-trivial" since it's about Wikipedia itself :) It's meta-relevant. --Taivo (talk) 02:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
It is pointless, non-notable trivia, the article is a huge mess right now, and we're just trying to avoid adding more crap being added to it. TBrandley 02:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Your measure of "pointless" is obviously your own opinion. I say that it is quite noteworthy since it is a comment on the very vehicle which we are developing here. Too many of you guys are simply too serious about making every nook and cranny of Wikipedia cold and serious without a trace of the whimsy that television is founded upon. This isn't an article on string theory, guys, it's about a television comedy. Remember, that the things we need to ask ourselves when writing these articles is "1) Who is going to be looking here, and 2) What kinds of things are they looking for." That's my point above. Who's going to be looking here? Fans of the show. What are they looking for? Lists of episodes, names of stars, fun facts about the show. If a subtle dig at Wikipedia isn't a fun fact about the show and completely relevant for the article in Wikipedia, then I don't know what is. Lighten up. --Taivo (talk) 02:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, "Lists of episodes, names of stars" is fine and should be there, but unless production or serious widely-covered notable information, "fun facts" would be a violation of WP:TRIVIA and WP:N. Serious facts (eg: It is filmed in Los Angeles, at Fox Studios, etc.) should be here. Wikia or The Big Bang Theory Wiki sites are meant for fun facts, that aren't very "serious" or "widely-covered". Raj's mentioning is maybe popular culture, or something. TBrandley 02:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
If you take the "this is serious stuff" attitude, why haven't you deleted half the article? --Taivo (talk) 03:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
It seems that I have hit a nerve with some users by starting this section!!. The way I see it is that (a) either everything that is not notable is removed and the article is shrunk down to a few hundred words or (b) keep the notable bits of "trivia" because these little factoids make articles more interesting to readers. I agree with Taivo, this article is not on the same level as an article on nuclear physics because this article is about a comedy and points included in the show that have comic value should be included. Had Raj said that he liked putting space shuttles up for sale on ebay, that would not be as notable as saying that he messed up Wikpedia articles.
Its included that he once bought a twig from ebay thinking it was a handcrafted Harry Potter wand-which is funny and part of Raj's character. If that is thought notable enough, then a fact about the site we are on now and the fact that he does something that we hate is, IMO notableMarkdarrly (talk) 12:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
It's unfortunate that many editors don't seem to know the difference between an encyclopaedia and a fan site; Wikipedia is the former but articles are often treated in a non-encyclopaedic manner. This is especially true for TV articles. However, we require real-world treatment of the subject regardless of its genre with a minimal amount of trivia. That this is about a comedy is completely irrelevant to the way we treat it, it should be treated exactly the same as an article on nuclear physics. -- AussieLegend (✉) 16:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

As far as im aware, an encylopedia is about facts. It is a fact the Raj mentioned he liked messing up Wikipedia articles. It is more apt that it be included on Wikipedia, even though it would also be on any other encyclopdia type website. If your stance is truly as you wrote, may I make a suggestion in that you get one of your fingers into a good shape because you will need it to delete all the chaff that is in this and every other article on Wikipedia.Markdarrly (talk) 17:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Sorry, AussieLegend, but I have to disagree with you completely. Wikipedia is a reference work. As a reference work, you can be 'policy-centered', in which case you establish the rules and then make all information fit within the confines of those rules. Policy-centered is extremely useful for printed reference works so that they do not grow beyond the physical bounds of the publishing process. The other way to edit a reference work is 'user-centered', in which case you include everything that a user might want to find. User-centered is very impractical for a printed reference because it so easily leads beyond the boundaries of the publication process. Since Wikipedia has no such publication boundaries, there is no reason whatsoever for it to be policy-centered other than the traditional boundaries of some editors who aren't yet thinking beyond the bounds of a printed book. Wikipedia should be focused not on the artificial boundaries established by hidebound editors who think that Wikipedia must rank with Encyclopedia Britannica (which, being crowd-edited, it will never, ever be), but upon the wide open possibilities of user-centeredness to provide information that is of value to a wide array of users rather than just a narrow band of users who want Wikipedia to fit some preconceived notion. --Taivo (talk) 17:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Exactly what part of what I wrote do you disagree with? That many editors don't seem to know the difference between an encyclopaedia and a fan site? This is demonstrated every day. That articles are often treated in a non-encyclopaedic manner? Aagin, this is something that we see all the time. That we require real-world treatment of the subject regardless of its genre with a minimal amount of trivia? WP:WAF requires that "Wikipedia articles should describe fiction and fictional elements from the perspective of the real world, not from the perspective of the fiction itself". WP:HTRIVIA says that we should be selective in what we include and this, together with WP:WAF indicate that while we may include trivial information, we should address it from the real-world perspective. How exactly do we do that with a comment that was only mentioned once in 113 episodes? What is significant about that other than it mentioned Wikipedia? To "include everything that a user might want to find" can violate Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. -- AussieLegend (✉) 19:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I disagree with the point that you made about "trivia" being included. If any trivia is included, then this point about Wikipedia should be included. What is the differance between him buying a twig from ebay being notable and the fact that he likes messing up Wikipedia not notable. On what grounds do you differentiate between the two? I think that it is more real world that Raj messes with Wikipedia pages than buys a wand from ebay, afterall, as far as I know, wands dont tend to work! So they are not real world - are they?.Markdarrly (talk) 19:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Trivia is only included when there is a reason to include it. In the case of the "twig", it is being used as an example in support of the claim that "The four males are also fans of non-scientific fantasy" so it has some purpose. The example is actually "Raj once bought a hand crafted Harry Potter wand on ebay", the mention of a stick (not a twig) is only to point out that he didn't actually get the wand he thought he was getting. The claim about Wikipedia serves no such purpose. -- AussieLegend (✉) 20:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
You are missing the point here totally. The fact that Raj has stated in an episode that he has messed up Wikipedia pages is notable because it is a single mention about a single act that people reading the article will find ironic. There are additional summaries of incidences being replayed in the article. It states that they all have a frodo baggins costume, so that statement lets people know that they are fans of L o TR. So why then does it go on to mention about the finding of the ring?, that is additional trivia that is included, but does not need to be there. Either the article gets chopped down to size with no trivia or trivia is included. You cant have it both ways. Markdarrly (talk) 21:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
It's not notable because it's not something that has received significant coverage in reliable, published sources. Claiming that "people reading the article will find [it] ironic" is personal opinion and therefore original research. Inclusion of trivia in an article is not justification for including more trivia. It's an indication that the existing trivia be examined and if found to be merely trivia, it should be removed. If you read the links I provided, especially WP:HTRIVIA, you'll see that trivia can be included, it's not a case of "all or none". We include any content (not just trivia) when it serves an encyclopaedic purpose, and exclude it if it isn't. -- AussieLegend (✉) 21:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
What should or should not be included is always the opinon of one person over another, thats the idea of letting people edit Wikipedia.
What one person finds ironic may not be what another finds ironic, but because it does not fit with what everybody wants you are saying that it should not be included. If some people find it ironic, then it is, per se, ironic. Since when has personal opinion been original research anyway, its a point of view. Markdarrly (talk) 22:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
What should be included may be the opinion of one person but the reasons for inclusion should always be based on our policies and gudielines. The personal opinions of Wikipedia editors have always been original research. -- AussieLegend (✉) 22:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Reliable, published sources? Really, AussieLegend? The majority of the trivia included in this article are not referenced to any reliable secondary sources, but are linked directly to episodes included episode name, and in many case time in the episode. That's WP:OR. You keep trying to make Wikipedia into something noble and scholarly and it is simply not that. It is crowd-edited and that will forever relegate it to secondary status no matter how many high-and-mighty policies you quote. As long as non-specialists are allowed to edit articles on Timbisha language, this will not be the glorious on-line encyclopedia that you envision. We have to focus on things that are of interest to our readers, not on the rigid interpretation of policies that exist for articles on actual science. --Taivo (talk) 23:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Television episodes are primary sources and, for the purpose of verifying claims about what has occurred in an episode, are considered to be reliable sources. It's not OR to use them for that at all. -- AussieLegend (✉) 00:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

You are totally contradicting yourself. "The Pirate Solution" is the episode that stated he liked messing up Wikipedia articles on and if you are now saying that its ok to use them as sources, and the other things like the baggins costumes and then further info re the ring is included for verification, then by your own argument, the fact that Raj said he liked messing up wikipedia articles must be notable and thus, included Markdarrly (talk) 01:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

There's no contradiction at all, I'm afraid that it's your logic that is at fault. That something can be cited does not make it notable. Almost anything can be cited, but that doesn't make it notable. This is explained in WP:IINFO (which I linked to earlier) which says "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". -- AussieLegend (✉) 01:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
No fault here. What you said earlier about the fact that because they are known to like sci-fi and fantasy, the inclusion of the Harry Potter and L of TR stuff is ok to be in because it shows what they are about. But they are also computer geeks and things about geekdom, like messing up Wikipedia should be in. Markdarrly (talk) 01:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
That's not what I said. You asked what the difference between the "twig" and the Wikipedia mention was. I explained that the stick was being used "only to point out that he didn't actually get the wand he thought he was getting" and that the Wikipedia mention served no such purpose. I wasn't necessarily condoning the inclusion. In fact, I removed it 2 minutes later.[5] So yes, there is a fault there. -- AussieLegend (✉) 08:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
I think this quote from the WP:MOS is relevent.
Secondary information
"The term secondary information describes information external to the fictional universe, and is usually taken from secondary sources about the work of art or the fictional world contained therein, or from primary and secondary sources about the author and the circumstances of creation. Publications affiliated with a particular work of fiction (e.g. fan magazines), are mostly not considered suitable secondary sources about the primary works. However, such publications may be suitable primary or secondary sources in an article about the fan publication itself or other related topics.
The rule of thumb is to use as much secondary information as necessary and useful to give the article a real-world perspective, not more and not less. Another rule of thumb is that if the topic is notable, secondary information should be available and possibly already in the article."--Asher196 (talk) 02:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Exactly! It says, "if the topic is notable", no, it is not notable, as said above. It would violate WP:N, WP:V, and WP:TRIVIA. How many times? TBrandley 03:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
You made a ref earlier to fun facts and how they should not be included. Would you please let me know if you class the bit that says they all own baggins costumes a fun fact or is it notable content? One or the other please. Markdarrly (talk) 03:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, AussieLegend, but you are giving the impression that you consider your precious Wikipedia rules and policies to be more important than providing information to readers. That is simply the wrong way to approach Wikipedia. I've seen it crop up on real articles time and time again where the subject matter experts were prevented from properly editing an article because some admin insists on living and dying by the rigid application of some Wikipedia rule or other. This isn't rocket science, bro. It's adding interesting information to an article. This article is about a comedy show on television. It's a comment about Wikipedia, for Christ's sake. It doesn't get any more relevant or notable for an article on Wikipedia than that. Or are you offended by the notion that someone can "mess up" Wikipedia articles? This isn't the apocalypse. --Taivo (talk) 04:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
If that's the impression that you're getting, then you're misreading what is written. What I said, was that Wikipedia policies and guidelines (they're not just "mine", as a Wikipedia editor they're yours as well!) require that Wikipedia articles describe fiction and fictional elements from the perspective of the real world, that we should treat content encyclopaedically and with minimal trivia. Doing so doesn't stop the provision of information to readers, it stops readers having to wade through huge piles of trivial crap in order to find the real world, encyclopaedic content that people want to see when they come to an encyclopadia. If they want fun facts, there are plenty of fan sites out there where they can get those. -- AussieLegend (✉) 09:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
You are still ignoring one fact about this particular piece of information. It is a comment about Wikipedia. Since it is a comment about our very own site here, that raises it from the trivial to the relevant. Perhaps you don't want any potentially disparaging information about the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit (whether they have any qualifications or not)"? --Taivo (talk) 12:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm not ignoring it at all. It doesn't matter that it mentions Wikipedia, it's still just non-notable trivia. They've mentioned lots of things on the show. Adding the comment just because it mentions Wikipedia is giving it undue weight. -- AussieLegend (✉) 12:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
That is exactly the point, the fact that it mentions Wikipedia makes it relevent to an article on Wikipedia. I think that you see TBBT article as your baby and if things dont fit with your perception of whats right, then it should not be in. Well TBBT article is not your baby, Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit and for that very reason the range of people that are editing will have differing views on what is and whats not relevent, but you think you are judge and jury on the matter, if I find it notable and Tavio finds it notable that means that many other people will also find it notable, and if it interests people and is notable, it should be included. Markdarrly (talk) 13:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
How is the mere mention of Wikipedia encyclopaedic? When you respond, please keep your comment civil. Comments like "I think that you see TBBT article as your baby and if things dont fit with your perception of whats right, then it should not be in" are crossing the line. Comment on content, not on contributors. Accusing other editors doesn't help your argument. -- AussieLegend (✉) 14:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
You are beyond belief. That is what this page is all about, a forum to discuss whats what. The fact that you are now accusing me of not being civil suggests that I have hit a nerve in saying that TBBT is your baby. You are proud to show off your "credentials" on your user page about how you love to protect the article. If you think that what I said was an attack, you need to grow a thicker skin. Markdarrly (talk) 14:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
BTW, It is not about the fact that Raj mentioned Wikipedia, its the fact that he mentioned that he liked messing it up that is notable. Markdarrly (talk) 14:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
I think that you would agree that people who like messing up Wikipedia are a pain in the ar5e, most editors hate having articles messed up, it is a quirk of having anybody be able to add input. If you do not think it is notable that a character in TBBT took pleasure in messing up Wikipedia articles and was happy to admit it to his friends, an act that serious Wikipedians find abhorrent, an act that you admit you hate thats specific to Wikipedia, then I have no idea how you apply your logic. Markdarrly (talk) 14:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia has guidelines that apply here. Unsourced material that may be contentious is subject to removal. Well it's obvious that inclusion of this material in contentious. If it was notable, then a reliable secondary source would be available to cite. It's really as simple as that. If you doubt this, then read WP:RS.--Asher196 (talk) 15:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Furthermore, upon reading WP:RS myself, I found this applicable section, "Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."--Asher196 (talk) 15:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Poll on Raj and Wikipedia

In one episode Raj mentions that he enjoys messing up Wikipedia articles. In trying to judge notability alone (and not any other issue), please state whether you think this is a notable addition to this article or not. (Please keep any supporting comments brief and please don't respond to others' comments. I want to keep this poll very simple.) --Taivo (talk) 18:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Notable. Since this is a Wikipedia article and it is a comment about editing on Wikipedia. --Taivo (talk) 18:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Not notable as per the above section. It should not be included in the article. TBrandley 18:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Not notable as per the above section. Mention of Wikipedia is certainly not notable just because this is a Wikipedia article. Arthur Holland (talk) 18:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Not notable, it has little effect on the overall plot of the show or the episode. pcuser42 (talk) 18:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Not notable. Please see WP:SELF. "This is a Wikipedia article" explicitly is not a valid reason to mention Wikipedia.
    Please also see WP:POLL for an explanation of why your above instructions are inappropriate. —David Levy 19:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
    I have participated in and initiated many polls, David Levy, I know what the limits are and the pitfalls. I'm not interested in wikilawyering, just a simple testing of the water. --Taivo (talk) 20:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
    I'm not wikilawyering. I never link to a policy/guideline page as a means of conveying "we must do something a certain way because the rules say so" (which I regard as one of the worst possible arguments in a Wikipedia debate). I do so as a means of citing the information contained therein.
    In this instance, I'm attempting to explain why your request that editors "keep any supporting comments brief" and not "respond to others' comments" (which, ironically, you just did) is unhelpful. —David Levy 20:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Not notable and I strongly agree, despite your reply, that this is a terrible idea. Discussion should be used to gain consensus. Go Phightins! (talk) 20:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
    I'm going to break my own rule again, but since this question is about process and not the question... We've already been discussing for a couple of days now and no consensus was in sight between the editors who wanted to insert the material as interesting and notable since it referred to Wikipedia and those editors who, for various reasons didn't agree. This poll is to judge the extent to which there is or is not enough support to even continue the discussion. I have better things to do with my time on Wikipedia if there isn't enough interest here to warrant it. --Taivo (talk) 23:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
    Have you read WP:SELF yet? Perhaps it would save some time. —David Levy 23:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
    You clearly haven't read any of my comments above, David Levy. This isn't about any legalistic adherence to some policy or another, but about whether users might find something interesting or not. --Taivo (talk) 00:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
    I've read everyone's comments. Have you read mine?
    Again, I never use "because the rules say so" as an argument in Wikipedia debates. Our rules are descriptive, not prescriptive. We don't follow them for the sake of following them. We follow them when doing so is consistent with the reasons behind their existence.
    I'm asking you to read the WP:SELF guideline because it explains why your "this is a Wikipedia article" rationale doesn't make sense.
    As others have noted, "users find it interesting" (irrespective of whether it's because "this is a Wikipedia article") isn't valid rationale either. Again, this is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. —David Levy 01:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
    Sorry, David Levy, that I'm not genuflecting. Of course I've read WP:SELF, but it's a guideline not a policy. --Taivo (talk) 02:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
    Firstly, at no point have I professed superiority, let alone asked you to recognize such. I'm merely expressing my opinions.
    Secondly, "it's a guideline, not a policy" is another of the worst arguments to make in a Wikipedia debate. It reflects the mistaken belief that "policy" = "binding" and "guideline" = "optional". This isn't so.
    Few of our rules (whether policies or guidelines) are set in stone. Exceptions can and do arise, particularly when strictly applying the letter of the rule leads to an outcome inconsistent with its spirit. In general, guidelines tend to have more exceptions than policies do, but said deviations must have some logical basis beyond a mere desire to disregard the rule.
    You've argued that information should be included because "this is a Wikipedia article and it is a comment about editing on Wikipedia". This directly contradicts a longstanding principle documented at WP:SELF (where it's explained that the material is freely licensed and published elsewhere, so it isn't safe to assume that it's being read at Wikipedia). On what basis do you believe that this advice should be set aside? —David Levy 03:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Interesting, but not notable. It is interesting and amusing to me because I enjoy Wikipedia. But it isn't important to understanding the character, and it isn't important to the plot arc, so I don't think it belongs in the article. I'll just be quietly amused by it in an individual way, as I am by other amusing lines. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Clearly not notable While I agree that discussion is important in forming consensus, I see this poll as very useful. Prior to the poll there were two editors angling for inclusion based on the "It's about Wikipedia so it's notable" argument, with three editors opposing addition, referencing various policies, guidelines and essays including WP:N, WP:NOT, WP:TRIVIA, WP:HTRIVIA, WP:WAF and WP:RS. While this clearly demonstrates no consensus to add the content, this poll has encouraged another five editors to join the fray, all explaining their position rather than simply proffering just a vote as originally requested. We now have eight editors agreeing that this is not a notable addition, which demonstrates a clear consensus not to add the comment to the article. -- AussieLegend (✉) 09:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
That was exactly my purpose, AussieLegend. And "rather than simply proffering just a vote as originally requested" is false. I simply requested that comments be brief. --Taivo (talk) 11:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
This really has turned into a can of worms. Aussieleged is obviously the "gatekeeper" of TBBT article (A look at the history section supports this, next to aussielegend you will normally see "reverted 1 edit" or "reverted 2 edits, non notable" )so I think that trying to put anything into the article that is not up to his/her standard is futile. Instead of just knocking out what you dont like, why dont you go with the flow, your blood pressure must be skyward when you check you watchlist and you see that an edit has been made to TBBT.Markdarrly (talk) 13:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Again, please be civil. Attacking other editors is inappropriate and does not help you. -- AussieLegend (✉) 13:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
You class what I just wrote as an attack?? Trust me, that was not an attack. It is well known that you are a "Gatekeeper" of the article, you do revert lots of inclusions, more than any other editor, iv checked. Nothing wrong with that, but I believe that you have got so fixated on having nothing in the article that you dont approve of that its time to chillax a bit. Markdarrly (talk) 13:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I suggest that you read Wikipedia:No personal attacks, which quite clearly says in its lead, "Comment on content, not on the contributor" and then try to stick to the subject. Until you can be civil, I see no point responding to you further. That's what happens when you refuse to respect other editors. -- AussieLegend (✉) 14:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
You wrote earlier that 8 editors dont think it worthy of inclusion but 2 editors do. So according to your way of thinking, just because only 20% find it worth of inclusion, its not worth putting in. But if 20% of Wikipedias millions of users follow the trend and think it worthy of inclusion, that means that many thousands who visit the page will find the point interesting, and while I think that you cant suit all of the people all of time, this is an occasion when you can suit some of the people all of the time. Markdarrly (talk) 14:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I suggest that instead of hiding, when you are asked to comment and the answer wont suit your stance, you should just keep quite and not accuse the other party of attacking you. I stated that you look after the page - how is that an attack? I can see where this is going now,Iv got better things to do than argue about this, Il stand up for my belief - but I will not flag up that im being attacked so that I dont have to answer a questions that I wont like the answer to. Markdarrly (talk) 14:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm not one to get in the middle of an argument but please remain civil. pcuser42 (talk) 18:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm usually on the right side of consensus, but it's clear that is not the case this time. This poll can be closed as far as I'm concerned. --Taivo (talk) 20:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Critical reception section

its missing it. --JTBX (talk) 14:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Criticism

I must admit, even though I've been an editor for quite some time, I'm not very good at cooking up sections from scratch. I do believe though that there should be a section about the criticisms of the show, specifically the portrayal of the 'nerds' and the response from various nerd communities. I can go collect various sources from sites such as Penny Arcade and Reddit that can be cited and quoted. Would anyone be willing to help me craft this section?

Or, are there any objections to the creation of such a section? I want to collaborate in a constructive manner with the editors here, but I do feel that the lack of criticism is bordering on NPOV issues. --Tarage (talk) 08:43, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

It could be added to the reception section, which really should be expanded anyway. Hot Stop (Edits) 13:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Season 6 premiere in lead

The last sentence in the article's lead has the date of the Season 6 premiere episode. This is not all that significant of a fact to be listed in the lead if not for the fact that it is the date of the season premiere of the current season. I have twice tried to add this significance, and twice been reverted (here and here) because of "dating" issues. Should we therefore delete the date of the Season 6 premiere from the lead? as this information itself is "dated". However whatever (talk) 03:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I wanted to follow up on that -- there is other "dated" information in the lead. For example, the fact that the series has been signed for 7 seasons is dated. After production of the 7th season, the information would be moot, and should be removed. It is only relevant now, for readers to know that one more season is highly expected. However whatever (talk) 03:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I think you're misunderstanding the reference to "dated". "Dated" refers to the likelihood that a statement will become incorrect in the future. "The series is currently in its sixth season" may be accurate now, but move forward nine months and it will clearly be incorrect, as the series will then be in its seventh season. The same is true for "The series' most recent season, the sixth season". Compared to that, "The series' sixth season premiered on September 27, 2012" will still be correct at any time in the future. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I am lost in the logic you presented. The fact that season 6 premiered on Sept 27, 2012 will not be of much relevance in the 7th season (it would be as encyclopedic as season 1 thru 5). Similarly, the fact that in January 2011 CBS picked up the series for another 3 years will also not be encyclopedic, because it will already be the past tense. Therefore, it's all "dated". However whatever (talk) 03:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
WP:DATED is not an issue of relevance, it's one of future accuracy. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be misunderstanding WP:Dated. WP:Dated is a policy on referencing time, not on "future accuracy". The first sentence in WP:Dated states "Avoid statements that date quickly". The words "latest season" will not date quickly. They will date once a year. However whatever (talk) 16:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

"Future" is referencing time. The statements that you keep adding all fall under WP:DATED and they are unnecessary. It's enough to write "The series' sixth season premiered on September 27, 2012." You don't need to add content that will one day need to be removed. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
You lost me. All I'm proposing is to add the word "the latest season". I'm not proposing to add the word "future". As for "You don't need to add content that will one day need to be removed", that is not in line with a constantly evolving encyclopedia. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress. However whatever (talk) 17:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Adding redundant content has nothing to do with Wikipedia being a work in progress. It just simply isn't necessary. And remember, WP:DATED is part of the Manual of Style, WP:NOTDONE is just an essay. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Why exactly do you think adding that the 6th season is the latest season is "redundant"? What information does it repeat? However whatever (talk) 17:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Duplication means "Superfluous; exceeding what is necessary". There are numerous references to the sixth, and previous, seasons in the article, including the infobox immediately to the right of the sentence. It's as obvious as the nose on your face that the sixth is the latest season, so there's no need to state it. The word is superfluous, it is not necessary to state it, therefore it's redundant. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Im going to pop in my penny's worth. The line should be included because it is a key peice of info and as per WP:LEAD that lets the user know that the show is on its 6th season without having to read all the way through the article. MisterShiney ✉ 18:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The reader doesn't have to read all the way to find out that the show is in its sixth season. It's obvious that it is, simply from general knowledge such as (but not limited to) it being an American series and American seasons typically run from September to May etc. There's also the infobox, which clearly shows 6 seasons and so on. That the show is in its sixth season isn't actually a critical piece of information. WP:LEAD doesn't say anything about TV seasons. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
It seems that the original argument of WP:DATED is essentially out the door, because there is nothing in WP:DATED that says that information that will have to be updated later cannot be entered (remember all BLP need to be changed from present tense to past tense once a person dies). If I understand it correctly, it seems that the argument against saying that the 6th season is the latest season is "redundancy"? In which case, it seems to be OK to repeat in the lead. However whatever (talk) 19:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
No, WP:DATED still applies. Saying the season is the "latest" is no different to saying it's the "current" or the "most recent"; it's just a different way of saying the same thing, two things that WP:DATED says NOT to say. I'm afraid the logic of your final statement escapes me. WP:DATED actually says to use precise phrases, which is an argument against redundancy. --AussieLegend (✉) 22:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Since the logic of my last statement escaped you, let me be more clear and direct: it is OK for the lead to repeat information that is detailed in the article. The lead is intended to be a summary, hence redundancy is not a reason to suppress information from the lead because as pointed out by Mr.Shiney, some readers are not interested in reading the article beyond the lead. I agree that "latest" is another way of saying "current" or "most recent", but it is a way of doing it that does not violate the manual of style. The idea here is to bring more context to the sentence that says that the 6th season premiered on September 27. Without context, it seems awkward and out of place. Would you be able to offer a different idea for giving context to the sentence? However whatever (talk) 23:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Not only is the lead allowed to repeat information elsewhere in the article, it's supposed to. The point of the lead is to summarise key points from the article as way of providing an introduction to the subject matter. While the sixth season is mentioned several times in the article, "latest" is not, so it's not something that should be in the lead. In order to summarise what's in the article it's only necessary to say what's already there. Again, this comes down to the definition of redundant - "Superfluous; exceeding what is necessary". That "some readers are not interested in reading the article beyond the lead" is not a valid justification for including claims that aren't addressed elsewhere. It's good that you acknowledge that "latest" is another way of saying "current" or "most recent", but you've missed the point that the very fact that it is makes it WP:DATED and using it does violate the manual of style because of that. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

You have still not provided any suggestions on how to provide context to the fact that the 6th season premiered on September 27. If you don't have any suggestions, then we invoke WP:IAR and ignore the manual of style, but doing the best we can to conform to it (so we wouldn't use the word "current", as the MOS explicitly recommends against using it). The way the article currently reads, the sentence is simply out of place. However whatever (talk) 04:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully there is no need to invoke WP:IAR because I may have found a way to present the information in a way that conforms to WP:DATED. However whatever (talk) 04:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
WP:IAR is not a "get out of jail free". There has to be a justification for using it. As you're well aware, while a discussion is underway, the content should not be edited and the WP:STATUSQUO reigns. That said, I do have a minor problem with your most recent edits. There's no need to edit the fourth paragraph at all, the only change that is "necessary" is the change to the fifth paragraph. We aren't writing a novel, we don't have to use flowery language and we don't need to fluff out the word count. In the formal tone of an encyclopaedia, less is generally more; why use 67 words when 36 serve exactly the same purpose? --AussieLegend (✉) 02:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Since you've apparently decided to edit-war over this,[6] I've reverted to the WP:STATUSQUO. We need to come to a consensus before changing the lead again. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Trying not to get caught up in this guys. Both take a step back and look at other pages. It is usual practice (rarely do I see it not included) to include the details on the latest season, i.e. when it was renewed for X season and when that season first aired. Yes that information becomes obsolete after a new season has been asked for by the network, but that is no reason to not include it. Grey's Anatomy, NCIS, The Vampire Diaries, Switched at Birth and Castle all show this information! Wikipedia is a work in progress and it is subject to change! MisterShiney ✉ 07:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, articles do include that stuff, but that wasn't the issue. It was introducing wording that violates WP:DATED that was the problem. However whatever eventually made an edit that was acceptable, but in doing so added more superflous wording, which I edited slightly, resulting in a "final" change from "The series' sixth season premiered" to "As of the 2012-2013 television season, the series is in its sixth season, which premiered". That addressed the WP:DATED issue but this edit went too far so we've had to go back to the status quo until we can agree on what the change should be. Interestingly, the articles that you linked to all show renewal information before mention of the current season, which is exactly what this version of this article did, and which this version does not. Grey's Anatomy is particlarly notable, because it is a good article. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:POINT

Seems that User:AussieLegend is now engaging in WP:POINT given that we have already achieved consensus on the "As of the 2012-2013 television season ...." language, yet he/she continues to edit war. However whatever (talk) 20:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Im not sure of the point you are trying to make here referencing that..? MisterShiney ✉ 20:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Rather than reverting to this version User:AussieLegend reverted to this version, bringing the fight back to square 1 even though progress was made, presumably to make some sort of a WP:POINT. However whatever (talk) 20:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok, well I see you have corrected that. Please make sure you give AL a chance to respond though. Because that in itself could be seen as Edit Warring and antagonising the situation further. I am of the mind that this version, is the best. It doesn't need any more changes to it unless the information changes. MisterShiney ✉ 20:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I my opinion, the two sentences in this version are somewhat disjointed, which is why I'd like to provide a better transition from one sentence to the other. However whatever (talk) 21:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok, well you need to discuss that first as per Wikipedia:BRD. Explain what you think is wrong with it and then explain how you would change it. MisterShiney ✉ 21:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I reverted to this version because that is the status quo, not this version. There was no consensus, stated or otherwise. There is no discussion about that version on this page, However whatever simply made this edit without even mentioning it before hand. When I subsequently edited it,[7] However whatever reverted the change and added two words,[8] resulting in this change from his first version and completely reverting every change made in the "consensus" version. If However whatever thinks we had achieved consensus for this version then this edit which immeditely reverted from the "consensus" version was clearly inappropriate. However whatever, you clearly do not understand what consensus is, so I suggest you read both WP:CONSENSUS and WP:STATUSQUO. The latter says "instead of engaging in an edit war, propose your reverted change on the article's talk page or pursue other dispute resolution alternatives", something that is reflected in MisterShiney's most recent edit.[9] "Explain what you think is wrong with it and then explain how you would change it", but you need to do that before making changes that may be opposed by others involved the discussion. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

You made this edit saying that it "can be taken to imply that only one more season is expected", so I then made this edit to fix the legitimate concern that I was implying that only one more season is expected. You then made this edit which certainly made a WP:POINT to turn back the clock, rather than address any concerns. I have addressed your concern, and you reverted me, which is simply edit warring because you are trying to make some kind of a WP:POINT (and the point that I am sensing is that you think you WP:OWN this article). You need to specify what is wrong with the edit. I opened a discussion below about this issue, and so far you have not responded. However whatever (talk) 01:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
The first edit was made in an attempt to work with you, even though you had made no attempt to discuss your edit before making it. When you subsequently reverted my edit to your preferred version of the article, instead of discussing it, it became necessary to revert to the status quo, since the editing was not constructive. Reverting to the status quo is not WP:POINTy, it's standard practice during discussions over disputed content, and would not have been necessary if you had made your proposal here first, instead of just editing the article without prior discussion. As you'll see below, I've already explained what is wrong with your proposed edits. in previous edits.[10][11] --AussieLegend (✉) 01:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Transition between season 6 and season 7

User:AussieLegend: please explain your objection to the transition in the lead between season 6 and season 7. Saying "superfluous" [sp] is insufficient. You need to say why you think it is superfluous. Your description of the text as "fluff" is not in line with WP:CIVILITY. However whatever (talk) 20:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I have attempted to address your (User:AussieLegend) concern of supposedly creating an illusion that only one additional season is expected, by saying that at least one additional season is expected. I am not quite sure why you are edit warring here, given that I am in good faith trying to address your concerns. However whatever (talk) 20:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
As I have explained above, when a discussion is underway, the WP:STATUSQUO reigns; making edits such as this while the discussion is inappropriate, as is this and this. This is edit-warring, not the immediately preceding good-faith edit that was made in an attempt to work with you, despite you having made an inappropriate edit without ever having mentioned your proposal prior to making it. You can't simply edit the section of the article under discussion willy-nilly during a discussion. You've made four such edits since the discussion started, when you should have made none. As to your request that I explain my objection to your most recent edit, I've done so in more than one post above.[12][13] Far from simply saying "superfluous", I've explained why the content is superflous:
  • "There's no need to edit the fourth paragraph at all" - Self explanatory since you haven't explained why any change is needed.
  • "the only change that is "necessary" is the change to the fifth paragraph" - This discussion was about your belief that some form of context was needed. That isn't supported by the articles linked to by MisterShiney, one of which is GA.
  • "We aren't writing a novel, we don't have to use flowery language and we don't need to fluff out the word count" - Again, this should be self explanatory. An encyclopaedia is a formal document and uses a formal tone, per WP:TONE.
  • "In the formal tone of an encyclopaedia, less is generally more; why use 67 words when 36 serve exactly the same purpose?" - The changes you made add far more than is necessary to convey the required information, and the tone (e.g. " At least one additional season is expected, because") is not what is expected in a formal document.
  • "the articles that [MisterShiney] linked to all show renewal information before mention of the current season, which is exactly what this version of this article did, and which this version does not." - Should be self explanatory.
  • "Grey's Anatomy is particlarly notable, because it is a good article." - We always strive to bring articles first to good and then featured status, good and featured articles are always good examples as to how to write an article.
I don't see what else needs to be explained. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Are we having the same discussion, or are we talking past each other? Lets understand what is the issue here (at least from my point of view).
Current version: On January 12, 2011, CBS announced that the show had been renewed for an additional three years, extending it through the 2013–2014 season. As of the 2012-2013 television season, the series is in its sixth season, which premiered on September 27, 2012.
Proposed version: As of the 2012-2013 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 show had been renewed for an additional three years, extending it through the 2013–2014 season
This is an addition of 8 words (I have no idea where you get 67 and 36). Telling me that other articles do not use this language is an WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST argument, which I am sure you recognize is an invalid argument. However whatever (talk) 02:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm not talking past you, well not intentionally. I'm trying to talk at you, but you keep bobbing out of the way. The proposal you've made above does not reflect the edits that you've made to the article. Your last edit to the article, prior to reversion to the status quo was this, resulting in "As of the 2012-2013 television season, the series is in its sixth season, which premiered on September 27, 2012. At least one additional season is expected, because on January 12, 2011, CBS announced that the show had been renewed for an additional three years, extending it through the 2013–2014 season." While I realise that the change is only minor, it's that sort of change that has caused problems; changing words mid-discussion results in confusion. The 67 words was a typo; your original edit affected two paragraphs and I over-counted, but it doesn't matter whether it's 8 words or 80, it's more words than are needed to convey the required information. WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is an essay that refers to deletion discussions, which this isn't. The essay that applies is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which says "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist". It goes on to say "While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this." My arguments are not based solely on a comparison to other articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Do you see that statements such as "WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is an essay that refers to deletion discussions, which this isn't." are borderline WP:Wikilawyering? However whatever (talk) 01:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that seems a desperate attempt to avoid rebutting what I said. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Now I see your proposal, I can see what Aussie Legends about the current version is saying and I prefer it. I can see it it's extra information that isn't needed. You are fluffing out the information. Don't forget that the lead is meant to summarise the key points, yes its could be considered an important piece of info, but it gets clarified further in. MisterShiney ✉ 07:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment: As a user looking from the outside of this, I must say that I agree with AussieLegend and MisterShiney that the Current version stated above is the correct way to go. There is no need to change the sentences around or add the extra info that one more season is expected. Anyone reading this article that is knowledgeable with American television seasons can gather that if the current season is 2012-13 and the deal was extended through 2013-14, then there is one more season. Also, if they could not look at it that way, they could look here and see that the show was in it's fourth season when the deal was announced and add three to four to get seven. -Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment 2: After looking over this, I thought of a way to combine However whatever's proposed version in the current, but it may still be considered "fluff" and unnecessary. Just throwing it out there. Changes are in bold.

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. -Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm OK with this proposed text. However whatever (talk) 01:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
May I add that it's only 3 4 additional words (since the number of words is under scrutiny). However whatever (talk) 01:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Just because you like something doesn't mean we have consensus to add it to the article. This edit was inappropriate. What part of WP:STATUSQUO do you not understand? Please do NOT change the section of the article under discussion until such time as we have a declared consensus. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
If nobody raises objections, then that means there is a consensus. Are you objecting, if so, why? However whatever (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
No, that's not the way consensus works. When there is a discussion underway, consensus requires agreement between participating editors, not a lack of opposition. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I am only going to ask this one more time -- what is your objection to the proposed text? However whatever (talk) 17:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
My opposition should be blindingly obvious by now, since it hasn't changed for the entire duration of this discussion. It's unnecessary fluff, as suggested by Favre1fan93. Props to Favre1fan93 for the suggestion, but it doesn't change my opinion. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
"Fluff" is YOUR opinion, and violates WP:CIVILITY. Your argument it is an WP:IDONTLIKEIT type of argument, that doesn't quite cut it. You need a better reason why those 4 words should not be in the article. However whatever (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC) --- For the record, I'll add that I think those 4 words are needed, because they provide a good transition from the first sentence to the next. Otherwise the two sentences are unrelated. However whatever (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Now who's wikilawyering? Fluff is an an appropriate term and it does not breach WP:CIVILITY. Nor is it WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I've explained at length why such content is redundant and two other editors have expressed similar opinions, and both have used "fluff". It's not at all necessary to explain that the next season is the seventh when you're explaining that there is another season in 2013-14, especially when that explanation is immediately followed by an explanation that the 2012-13 season is the sixth. We don't need to spoon-feed the readers with every bit of minutiae you can find. So far you've edit-warred, accused me of WP:POINTy editing when I've followed the appropriate process, brought in unrelated essays and then accused me of wikilawyering when I've pointed out your error, accused me of incivility and raised WP:IDONTLIKEIT when there has been extensive explanation of why the content you keep adding to the article is unnecessary. It's really about time you started collaborating, stopped edit-warring, concentrate on the facts and stop the personal attacks. Comment on content, not the contributor. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

My conversation with User:AussieLegend is over. He or she thinks the 4 additional words proposed by User:Favre1fan93 are "fluff" (shortened from the 8 additional words that I proposed), and I think they are essential to making a good transition and link between the two sentences. Would any other editor like to chime in? or shall we take it for an WP:RfC? However whatever (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Withdrawal from the discussion process doesn't mean you have free reign to edit the section of the article. This edit demonstrates a complete disregard for the WP:BRD process, an unwillingness to collaborate with others and an intention to completely disregard valid warnings. The unwillingness to collaborate with others is demonstrated by your withdrawal and failure to acknowledge that 3 of the 4 editors involved in this discussion have said that the current version is all that is needed. You should at least acknowledge that Favre1fan93's proposal doesn't actually address your problems. In none of your posts or edits have you expressed a desire to include mention of the 2013-14 season as "the show's seventh season", only as the 2012-14 season. You keep changing the goal posts, as I've already pointed out. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
To quote Joe Biden: With all due respects, that's a bunch of "Malarkey". The article is not protected, and I can make bold edits for things that have not gone into dispute. However whatever (talk) 07:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
I've responded on your talk page. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
[from uninvolved editor, invited to comment by RfC bot] - Agree with user DGG above. The issue here is fairly minor. This is really a simple copy-editing issue, and escalating to an RfC is not a good thing. All involved editors should focus on more weighty improvements to the article, or to the encyclopedia as a whole. --Noleander (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.nrj12.fr/la-chaine-3282/toutes-les-emissions-et-series-3289/programmetv/fiche/1149-the-big-bang-theory.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Big_Bang_Theory/Archive_4&oldid=1146531886"