Talk:The Big Bang Theory season 6

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

Renaming season pages[edit]

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.

The result of the proposal was moved. See also discussion at Talk:List of The Big Bang Theory episodes (season 5)#Renaming season pages. --BDD (talk) 21:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

List of The Big Bang Theory episodes (season 6) → The Big Bang Theory (season 6) – Per Talk:List of The Big Bang Theory episodes (season 5)#Renaming season pages. 68.44.51.49 (talk) 14:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would make more sense to see if there is a consensus to change those articles first then put this up as a technical request. There is no need to split the discussion.--199.91.207.3 (talk) 16:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Original research[edit]

As is the case with Kevin Sussman's promotion to "regular" status, where there has been an assumption that "regular" = "starring", which constitutes original research, the assumption that a production code can be tied to a specific episode, merely because of its numbering,[1] is also original research. This is a specific type of original research called "synthesis of published material that advances a position. As per WP:SYNTH, you cannot combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. In other words, a source that directly links the episode number and the production code is necessary. If the episode's title was not deliberately concealed, there may be a link but, as it stands, there is no link at all, so the edit very definitely is WP:SYNTH. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the production code, I am looking at WP:COMMON, WP:BOLD, and WP:IGNORE for this case. Especially with WP:COMMON, the photos are clearly associated with the episodes in question, as they have the same episode number (which to me is a more binding association than an episode name), even the director, writers and overall episode number are the same. And adding them from a reliable source (the producer of the show), is in no way harming or hurting the page, or the knowledge gained from it; only improving the page. And you said "a source that directly links the episode number and the production code is necessary". That is what the picture is doing as it has both. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you think something is common sense, doesn't mean that it is. All entries have to comply with WP:V, and that doesn't. It's one thing to be bold, but that doesn't mean your changes won't be reverted if they're against a policy, especially a core policy like WP:V and WP:IGNORE isn't justification to ignore policy when you feel like it. You might notice that each of the photos include "TABLE DRAFT" in the bottom right corner. A draft is not a final copy, so anything could change between when the photo was tweeted and when the final episode airs. We simply can't trust them as sources. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is never a way to get around to you. Ever! ObtundTalk 05:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a matter of getting around to me, it's a case of trying to get around policy and guidelines, and my opinion here seems supported at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion mentioned above has now been archived to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 130#Images posted to Twitter as reliable sources. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SYNTH[edit]

Continuing from above, WP:SYNTH says "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." That seems fairly clear, which makes this edit WP:SYNTH as neither the Futon Critic or the Twitter images (which are not reliable sources per this discussion) stated that the production code for "The Parking Spot Escalation" is 3X7609, the code for "The Fish Guts Displacement" is 3X7610, or that the writers directors and production code here apply to "The Santa Simulation". Inclusion of WP:SYNTH in this article really has to stop. It has gotten beyond a joke. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart as main character[edit]

Since Stuart has been promoted to a main character, is it really necessary to put him as a recurring character in the episode summaries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.234.185.69 (talk) 20:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He has been promoted to "regular" status, but "regular" does not necessarily mean "starring" and press releases for the two listed episodes show him as recurring, which is why he has been listed as such.[2][3] --AussieLegend (talk) 22:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Stuart is listed as starring in the first episode, even though the press release listed him as recurring. Jonny2BeGood (talk) 14:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, the intro sequence was modified for this season to include Bialik and Rauch, but not Sussman. -- AussieLegend (✉) 15:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I feel we should remain adding him as recurring, like Amy and Bernadette were in season 3/4, until they appear every episode. This article announcing the change sums it up nicely: "While he becomes the comedy's eighth series regular, he'll likely to continue to recur in the same capacity as the lovelorn sad-sack Stuart, appearing in seven to 13 episodes." Because of this statement, I feel we should keep adding him as a recurring character for the episodes he appears. -Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He was listed as a main character, in episodes 1, 2 & 4, the last on the list of main characters on the show. He wasn't listed in episode 3, possibly because he wasn't in it.

On the other hand, both actresses playing Amy and Bernadette, were adding to the main cast and listed in the opening credits, long before they were adding to the opening sequence. 70.26.180.110 (talk) 16:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As is indicated earlier in the discussion, despite being added to the credits, the press releases for the earlier episodes clearly identify him only as a recurring character, which is why he is listed that way. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did. Especially since I posted the news on here originally. It says he will be listed a series regular in season 6. Then I watched the season premiere (twice) to see if his name was shown - it was. Right after the two new leading ladies. 70.26.180.110 (talk) 18:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When we add info for each episode for the recurring characters and guest stars, we use reliable sources that have the press releases, (in this case The Futon Critic). Each episode has a break down of the series regulars as well as the recurring cast and guest stars for the episode, if any. For the first two episodes, 1 and 2, Stuart was listed as a recurring character, despite what other sources may have said about him being a series regular. It was not until episode 4 that his name was listed with the other regulars, thus the note in that episode stating so. -Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Episode 11 press release has him listed as "recurring", which means CBS hasn't updated their press release to include him in the main cast. Just like last year CBS listed a guest star for two different episodes of Criminal Minds, in press releases and it turns out the guest star was only in the first episode.

Here's episode 11 press release: http://www.thefutoncritic.com/listings.aspx?id=20121206cbs12

Sorry, I'm cutting and pasting my post to the bottom of the page, where it belongs. I thought I was the bottom before. 70.26.186.128 (talk) 03:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that when applied to the article that logic constitutes classic WP:SYNTH. Sussman wasn't listed in the opening credits as a main character until episode 4, "The Re-Entry Minimization". I suggest that you re-read the thread to refresh the events. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Character list description[edit]

Is it really necessary to have a full description of all characters, since this description can easily be found in more descriptive pages? I think that a simple list of main characters and their actors, maybe with a short sentence, should be sufficient. At least this is what I see in several other season pages for other TV shows. Jonatanschroeder (talk) 02:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New title card[edit]

Does anyone think it is worth mentioning that the title card during the opening, with all of the cast, was updated this season to include Bernadette and Amy? Did not want to add anything if others thought it was irrelevant. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cast list[edit]

Quite aside from it being inconsistent with the other 5 season articles, this edit inappropriately lists Melissa Rauch and Mayim Bialik as recurring characters. Both are credited on-screen and in press releases as main cast. The status quo is to list all characters under "Cast", without dividing into "main" and "recurring", which accommodates all cast, even Kevin Sussman, who is credited on-screen with the starring characters but listed in press releases as recurring. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UK viewing figures - E4 and E4+1[edit]

I realised that BARB give separate figures for viewers of E4 to it's time shifted channel E4+1. In the same way as DVR figures are shown amd added together in the US figures figures table, should +1 figures be shown and then totaled together in the UK figures table? To illustrate what I mean here's what the first two episodes of season 6 would look like.

Episode No. Title Air Date Viewers
(millions) 		+1 Viewers
(millions) 		Total viewers
(millions) 		Weekly
Rank[1]
1 The Date Night Variable November 15, 2012 2.80 0.49 3.29 1
2 The Decoupling Fluctuation November 22, 2012 2.15 0.42 2.57 1

What does everyone think? ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 16:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As long as this info can found for each of the episodes, I see no harm in adding this. The only thing would be to possibly add E4 in the first viewers column headings. -Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Top 10 Programmes". BARB. 2012-12-16. Retrieved 2012-12-26.

Episode summary lengths again[edit]

After going through this last season, it seems that that everyone has fogotten. While it should be obvious, since it's explained at {{Episode list}}, the plot lengths for several episodes in this article are excessive. {{Episode list}} says that episode summaries should be 100-300 words. Currently, the following episodes exceed this, some by a considerable amount:

The 100-300 word figure is based on the length of the episode, a one-hour episode is more likely to be closer to the 300 word limit while a half-hour episode is more likely to be closer to the 100 word limit. In this article, even the episodes that are below 300 words are closer to what you'd expect for a one-hour episode. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to cut the words down in these in the coming days. Do you want to add the other episodes that you say are under 300 but are still close to the 300 limit? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Only "The Decoupling Fluctuation" at 214 words is compliant. The rest are all 240 words or more. Summaries should only address the important points, they don't need to include minutiae. For example, in "The two geniuses can't figure out what the number means", "geniuses" is unnecessary. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I will try to have a good comb through of all the episode. Just now I was able to get "Fish Guts" down to 272 (as noted with the strike through above), so I can prune that again. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Episodes 2-6 have all been reduced in word count by recent edits. -Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The episode summaries are also quite poor because they're blatant spoilers. I check The Big Band Theory and The Office's episode list page often to make sure I'm up to date and far prefer the Office's summaries. Ironically the episode that tweaked me to this is also about spoilers. - I don't actually have a Wikipedia log in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.204.102 (talk) 20:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not use any form of spoiler warning per WP:SPOILER, and thus they are included in the summaries. In addition, by using The Office as a comparison, you are comparing apples to oranges. Each Office episode is made into their own Wikipedia page, while each Big Bang Theory episode has not. Thus, the Office uses short, brief summaries, like ones found in a press release, while these episodes are given a full 100-300 word summary. -Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree for example, "After an evening in which Sheldon fails to live up to this expectation, Amy gives Sheldon an ultimatum that their relationship is over unless he tells her something from his heart." would not be a spoiler. the further "Sheldon gives a romantic speech about his new and conflicting emotions, only to reveal that he quoted the first Spider-Man movie. Despite this, Amy accepts it." Is a spoiler, as a blatantly tells how it ends, Just food for thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.204.102 (talk) 19:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing to think about. WP:SPOILER is clear, "It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot." --AussieLegend (✉) 07:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

US ratings table[edit]

A recent edit to the table added a Household rating. I was just wondering if this is overkill for this table, and if not, if it should be the first rating info? I personally think this is too much as the 18-49 share is the "major" ratings factor, and then the viewers and DVR numbers add upon the 18-49 share. -Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like it is overkill to me, as well as the DVR columns. I think all that needs to be there is the 18-49 and viewers with both either being pre or post DVR. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 01:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Micucci[edit]

I'd like to point out that CBS' press releases for Big Bang always seem to have mistakes with their guest cast.

Kevin Sussman (Stuart) is listed a recurring, along with Casey Sander as and Meagen Fay (Mr. & Mrs. Rostenkowski). Not to mention the official press summary for this episode, was released on January 26th (and we don't know when it was written either) and EW's news item was released four days later.

I know The Futon Critic is a reliable source, but they only go by what CBS tells them, I've said this before, the network makes mistakes, when giving Futon information. Whoever writes up the official summaries, doesn't check their facts.

Are you now going to say that EW is wrong/unreliable, when they say Kate Micucci's first appearence is episode 16, not 15? I know what the official summary say for episode 15, but it is wrong. Why not wait until episode 15 airs and then see if she's in it or not?

This isn't the first time that The Futon Critic has released an official episode summary and it turns out they were wrong. TV Guide, TV Line and EW have more accurated information, lately.

Please read this link below and look for the words "first appearence". http://insidetv.ew.com/2013/01/30/big-bang-theory-meet-rajs-possible-love-interest

70.26.186.214 (talk) 19:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has said that EW isn't a reliable source, but the press release says that Micucci will appear. Giving the EW article more weight than the studio's own press release is not maintaining a neutral point of view and is original research, both of which are unacceptable. In such cases we defer to the press release. If it turns out to be wrong, so be it. We can change it then because the non-appearance is verifiable but now, all we have is your personal belief and that can't be used. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me again it's my "personal belief"? I told you her first appearence would be on Feb. 14th and I was right. Especially since the official episode summary says Raj and Stuart throw a lonely hearts party on Valentine's Day.
I wouldn't rely too much on TFC when another site contradicts them for guest stars. 184.161.208.72 (talk) 01:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of what you said before and now, it is still was your personal belief, did not maintain a neutral point of view and was original research, as AussieLegend said. When adding information for TV episodes, we look to official press releases (which are all located at The Futon Critic) for the information on the episode. That information is defaulted to until the air date of the episode in question. If there are any minor characters, spelling errors, or characters completely forgotten, they are taken changed then. -Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)You're missing the point. The Futon Critic reproduces the press releases, which are authoritative and given greater weight than other sources since the press releases come directly from the studio. Sometimes it turns out that the press releases are wrong, but we aren't allowed to decide that they're wrong before the event. To do so is personal analysis, which is not permitted. Wikipedia editors can't substitute their own opinions for verifiable content, even if their opinion later turns out to be correct. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs. Wolowitz[edit]

It says in "The Spoiler Alert Segmantation" that: "This is the first episode that Mrs. Wolowitz is seen in any capacity. However, her face is not shown." Not to be pedantic, but I´m pretty sure you can see her (briefly) ind "The Countdown Reflection". There is this overhead view of the wedding party and you can see her from above, sitting quite apart from Bernadette´s parents. Doesn´t that count? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.58.216.248 (talk) 15:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the discussion at Talk:The Big Bang Theory/Archive 3#Howard's Mother. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I see your point, but we know there are ten people on the roof. Sheldon, Raj, Amy, Howard, Leonard, Penny, Bernadette and Bernadette´s dad are obvious. We know from the second Bill Prady tweet that was linked in the Archive, that Nr. 9 is Bernadette´s mom (the tweet was referring to her, not Howard´s mom!). And we know that Howard´s mom is on the roof, because she says so and people are talking to her. When the shot pans out we can see ten people, so I would argue that it is fair to say, that Mrs. Wolowitz is in the picture. Just my twocents. But even if you disagree, I think at the very least that wikipedia should be consistent. It clearly states here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mrs._Wolowitz#Mrs._Wolowitz that Mrs. Wolowitz can be seen on screen. The whole part about her is a mess btw. It says she´s never seen on screen, later that she appears in the satellite picture and at the end that she appeared for the first time in "The Spoiler Alert Segmentation". Isn´t that contradictory? 84.58.216.248 (talk) 16:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True, you can see her briefly, but you pretty much have to pause the TV to actually see her. If you didn't know what you were looking for, you'd miss it, so I'd say the 'Spoiler Alert' episode is really the first episode we actually 'see' her. Czolgolz (talk) 13:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Color change[edit]

As a DVD cover has been revealed, and I know previous season pages (with I think the exception of season 5) have all taken a color that has appeared on the box cover. Should we change from the yellow then? Here is what the color would look like against the other season's, with the red from the banner on the box, and the blue from the background.

Current

Seasons
1
2
3
4
5
6

With the Red (close to season 1's color)

Seasons
1
2
3
4
5
6

With the Blue (in between season 2 and 5's color)

Seasons
1
2
3
4
5
6

We seem to have a lot of colors that are in the blue and red pallet, so I would be fine with keeping the yellow, but wanted other thoughts. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citations needed for episode section title notes[edit]

I initially raised the following issue in the season two article discussion; perhaps further discussion/debate should occur on that page. This section serves as more of an outlining of the problem and a notification as to where it can be discussed.

We can't note where the title comes from unless we can source a RS that explains that; to do so is OR. I will wait about two weeks, as I am guessing that most of the season articles for the series do this. After that, I will remove them completely as unsourced OR. I welcome discussion on the matter until that time. Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:11, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Big_Bang_Theory_season_6&oldid=1216333627"