Talk:Big Love

Future Plans

Great job on the show main page. I see ther are links set up the in the main page to planned individual episode guides. I hope to contribute to them one day soon. Are there plans to create character pages for anyone other than Bill, or a list of characters? --Opark 77 07:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

possible merge

I don't think it's a good idea to merge Bill Henrickson with this article. We've only had one season so far, but if the show continues to multiple seasons as expected, then there will likely be much more info about the main characters (see Category:The Sopranos characters). So I'm suggesting that we will have to split them up again if we merge them now.--Mike Selinker 20:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I tentatively agree. So my question is, why is Bill Henrickson the only character so far to get his own page? Surely his other family members (as well as the secondary characters) warrant articles as well; even if its info gleaned from HBO's site? Then again, it is only the first season, and not a lot of information (apart from on the HBO site) has been fleshed out on the other wives, kids, Don Hendrickson, Roman, etc. --Micahbrwn 03:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

I have no criticism, but does there exist criticism about the accuracy of the show? I ask because 2 LDS types came to my door, and claimed the show was false. Mathiastck 21:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Since I've seen the show on television, I can guarantee you that it does in fact exist! Toward which criticism are you referring? It doesn't portray members of the LDS church; rather, the cast are adherents to a splinter group following the same basic principles.

The aspects of the Mormon religion it does depict though, are amazing accurate - including shaking the dust off one's shoes, etc.148.177.1.219 20:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Really? Do you even have any idea what that means or where it comes from? I haven't seen the show, so I don't know how they include that, but if they show it at all then it's not an accurate portrayal of the LDS Church (yes, I know the show is supposedly not about the LDS Church). In the LDS Church, shaking the dust of your shoes is not something you will likely ever see any member doing, unless they were literally trying to get their shoes cleaner. The Bible can tell you everything you need to know about this subject as it relates to the doctrine of the LDS Church; look it up.

Episode synopses

Can someone please expand the episode plot guides so they include the entire plot?

• That's what individual episodes are for. The table is just an abridged summary of the plot which leads into the full article if it is already written. I plan on writing a few episode articles soon. If someone would like to get started that would be great too. Sfufan2005 23:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • A separate article for each episode really is unnecessary. I think putting them all in Episodes of Big Love would work better. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 23:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I truly think individual pages are necessary because (1) individual pages cut down on the article size whereas a season page contains more memory (I do grasp the concept that Wikipedia is not paper though), (2) each episode has different plot lines and events unlike Lost which is a continuation or chapter of the previous episode, (3) I understand a season page keeps things more "organized" and easier to "maintain" however most television articles on this site with the exception of a few have individual articles for their episodes and most people seem fine with it. I'm not saying all of them are fantastic or well written but I would much rather have individual pages then season pages if everything is done right and correctly. Sfufan2005 02:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Douglas Smith

Please, pretty please write an article about Douglas Smith. He is very cute and he made a series in Australia too. Ramseystreet 21:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Request: Lock Edit

Hello, I am co-owner of the BIG LOVE LOVERS website <http://biglovelovers.proboards49.com> and we are very pleased and honoured to have the opportunity to link to our site here at the Wikipedia. However, the vandal/owner of the other Big Love Fan Forum, which I believe is at www.biglovefans.com or something or other, continues to remove our link and replace it with ONLY their own. I hope that perhaps editing of the Links section may be locked or perhaps moderated so that everyone has an equal opportunity to get exposure for their site. It's unfortunate that some trolls cannot handle a competiting board.

Thank you so much, Ian Owner, Big Love Lovers

I have removed all fansites per Wikipedia's external link policy. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 20:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Response to "Request Lock Edit"

Here's the REAL story.

People can check the history to see evidence.

You anonymously removed my established Big Love forum/message board link & replaced it with your own. That is a fact and is in the Wiki history for this page. If you had simply added yours below mine, I would not have done anything.

I would recommend that your forum NOT be added because it does not even have its own domain name. U actually PAY for my hosting & domain name to run my BigLoveForum.com website

Also, Wiki rules states that exceptions can be made to Fansites and Forum listings. I have had no complaints about my BigLoveForum being listed.

The main issue is your anonymous REMOVAL of my external link and your replacing it with your own new free ProBoards message board.

--EmmSeeMusic 09:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not engage in an edit war. None of the fansites added to this article meet the external link policy. Paying for a domain and hosting does not make your website notable. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 11:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Removal of links

Reading the RFC, I've removed the following two links:

• http://biglovelovers.proboards49.com
• http://www.bigloveforum.com/forum/ BigLoveForum.com

Both of these sites seem to be very minor and non-notable. That's judging by a variety of measures including usage, membership and google links from other sites. The conduct of both editors is also questionable, with several Wikipedia standards being relevant.

Edits such as this, by user:EmmSeeMusic:

• "You anonymously removed my established Big Love forum/message board link & replaced it with your own. That is a fact and is in the Wiki history for this page. If you had simply added yours below mine, I would not have done anything."

are in breach of WP:POINT ("Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point")

Edits such as this, by user:Aurora1979:

• "the vandal/owner of the other Big Love Fan Forum, which I believe is at www.biglovefans.com or something or other, continues to remove our link... It's unfortunate that some trolls cannot handle a competiting board."

are in breach of the Wikipedia policies WP:CIVIL ("civility") and WP:NPA ("no personal attacks")

Finally, the writer of this post:

• "I hope that perhaps editing of the Links section may be locked or perhaps moderated so that everyone has an equal opportunity to get exposure for their site."

and indeed both writers, need to be aware that the purpose of Wikipedia is as an encyclopedia, and not as an advertizing or exposure medium. Would your site be considered for inclusion by an academic thesis on the subject? Would it be cited as a credible and noteworthy place for information by Encyclopedia Brittanica? Probably not, for either. That is why other editors have referred to WP:EL and removed such links. This is not critical of either site, since obviously everyone hopes both sites do well. It's a reflection on the purpose of Wikipedia, and that it is WP:NOT not a collection of advertising or other links.

Last thought: as fans who both care that much about the series, if you have useful material on "Big Love", why don't you both contribute to the topic so that others can learn more, instead of both equally seeing an article on the series as an opportunity to market and promote yourselves and your websites?

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC).

While I agree with your general reasoning, it would have probably been better to add a note in each user's talk page as well. They have few edits, and are probably not used to the concept of "Talk pages". By posting in their talk pages, there will be a better chance at reaching them before the exchange becomes too harsh to go without punishment. With a small exchange I have found EmmSeeMusic a good faithed contributor. Maybe contacting Aurora1979 (talk · contribs) at her talk page will get an answer and a change of her behaviour. If she does not respond there after several attempts, and continues to modify the article trying to make a point, other measures could be agreed upon. Remember, we are not talking about long-term wikipedians, but people who just joined, willing to help, and still not "wet" with Wikipedia policies, style guides and guidelines. -- ReyBrujo 06:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Good point and advice, I'll remember it for future. Thanks. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright... I think that this may be a potential candidate for the Lame Edit Wars page, hehehe. --Prezboy1 11:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Other fansites

Found this fansite too: http://www.biglovinit.net/ signed: Travb (talk) 23:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

User Breaking Rules... again.

Aurora still can't play by the rules... --EmmSeeMusic 06:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Then folks here'll deal with it. It's not something to worry over. Right now probably a few dozen people are watching how this article's going, and will step in if they feel the need. And yes, the revert was a fair one... because its likely to be the consensus on the subject. But no need to say "One user doesnt get it".. that's unnecessary since some people may wonder if its an attack (however mild). So just say something like "revert - ad link, see talk page" explains it cl;early for anyone reading the page history. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleted sections

Going through the edits, I noticed some interesting edits, which I agree do not belong in the article, but I think should be on the talk page, for those in the future who read this article:

The theme tune is unique in the sense that it matches the show's plot in certain ways. For instance, the line 'I may not always love you' reflects the Bill's shift in affection between wives. Also, 'If you should ever leave me, life would still go on believe me' highlights the fact that even if both wives, let alone one were to leave Bill he would still be married.

Signed: Travb (talk) 22:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Family Tree

Inspired by Kennedy_family#Fourth_generation, I made a family tree for Big Love, hope everyone likes it. (It was very hard to format this section). Travb (talk) 02:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Jtrost if you are going to delete one fansite

RE: [1]

To be fair to those who have interests in this site, Jtrost if you are going to delete one fansite, you have to delete them all (except for the official HBO one).

As a third party neutral, with no big love site of my own, I think that http://www.biglovinit.net/ should stay. Thus I reverted.Travb (talk) 20:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

That is the only fansite currently listed. Please read #Removal_of_links. There was already a discussion about this. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 21:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Kewl, thanks for your hard work. Travb (talk) 01:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Anybody else see a massive picture of a penis and testicles when they look at this page? specifically, this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Testicles_marked.jpg ?? can't find it in the code... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.220.251.100 (talk) 02:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

Never mind, it's gone now

Big Love - Australia

It says in the International broadcasting area that Big Love has been shown in Australia on SBS on Wednesday 8:30.

Is this a future broadcast? I don't remember it being shown or advertised and I can't find any reference of it on the SBS site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.245.207.188 (talk) 16:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

Season 2 - Canada

Season 2 will debut in Canada on The Movie Network and Movie Channel on June 11 at 10 PM

Family Tree Update

Would it be a spoiler if someone revised the family tree to include others introduced/explained by the end of the first season? Or else, is it noteworthy that Orville was the Prophet, if I understand correctly?

24.90.138.194 07:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Cast vs. Recurring

Hey, a question maybe for those who have spent more time on this article than I have. A number of people listed under "recurring" are now listed in the opening credits as, it seems, regular cast members. Shouldn't they be moved up here also? I'd do it myself but a) I wasn't sure if opening credits is the only qualification, though it seems reasonable; and b) I was especially concerned about moving Don Embry into the main cast, since his wives are listed with him under recurring (but legitimately, they are just recurring, while Don is a regular). Any thoughts or does anybody feel comfortable taking care of this? --SuperNova |T|C| 20:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Plot

The plot section for Big Love is more of a summary of the show's portrayal in relation to LDS and the actual LDS's response to that. Doesn't really fit here, this info should be in another section, and the plot should include a few more important aspects of the show. Agreed? Gwynand 15:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

OK... I made major changes to the plot section, taking out the "outside world" angles of the previous one. I tried my best to pick up the major points of season 1 and then lead that into what we have so far with season 2. I encourage others to edit with formatting and grammar where neccesary, but I think this is an improvement on the previous section and should not be reverted.Gwynand 18:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I did one pass at a copyedit, but the section could stand a good bit of improvement still. Rray 18:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed it needs improvements... I don't think separating the plot points with spacing is neccesary. Check out Sopranos Wiki as an example. This spreads it out too much. Gwynand 18:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Children's Ages

Are the birthdates given in the family tree correct? As of now (June 2007), Sarah would be 16 but in last night's episode clearly said she was 18, though still in high school. Ben seems way older than 14. And Wayne is 6? Nikki and Bill (and Barb) just celebrated their 6th anniversary, and Nikki hardly seems the type to be popping out the babies before marriage. Mapjc 02:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Better question: What is the source for the family tree at all? It's interesting but does it have any basis? We should probably remove at least the birthdates without some background. --SuperNova |T|C| 07:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was a nice/encyclopedic type addition to the page... but most of the information is impossible to verify at this point. I say we have to ditch it. There are quite possibly some errors in the show that don’t add up… but won’t matter to 99% of the viewing public. For example, it is said earlier in season 1 that Ben played last year on JV baseball, when he was a sophomore. So in Season 1 he would be finishing up his junior year. Since Sarah is the eldest, that would mean she is finishing up her senior year, but there have been no indications that this is her last year in highschool… they have just started talking about college. Is it true that Teeny and Wayne’s bday are just 1 day apart? -- Gwynand 13:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Family tree again

The family tree is very interesting but it needs to be sourced, and that sourcing must be placed in the article. Is it from the Big Love website? If it can be sourced I am going to have to delete it. For all I know it is a figment of someone's imagination.--Mantanmoreland 15:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I think people are getting overly worked up in regards to original research. The tree is no more original research than the table stating who plays what part. It's common sense for anybody who has ever seen the show, and the website's cast index states explicitly the relationship between each character; simply click the character's image. Also, note that each child's age is stated within their minibio. - auburnpilot talk 16:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with constructing a family tree chart based on information given on the Big Love site. But the ages and birth dates need to be obtained from the site (or some other reliable source). If the date of birth is mentioned in an episode, that is fine but the episode needs to be mentioned. I just want to be sure that all this information is accurate.--Mantanmoreland 16:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The first thing I checked on was wrong. You somehow have a specific birthdate and age of Margene, saying she is 24 now. HBO's minibio has her as currently being 21. I think this alone is enough to ditch the ages... the rest of the tree I think is fine in terms of relationships.Gwynand 16:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

 Done All nice and sourced. I've also removed the birth date and age templates. - auburnpilot talk 16:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice job. I think the tree fits well into this page and this type of show. As an afterthought, I think it is hard in general to start listing official birthdays for characters on TV shows. For example... 3 seasons from now, Wayne's bday might all of a sudden be happening right around xmas. This happens on shows all the time in TV... continuity errors that exist but make very little or no difference to the quality/content of the show. I can't believe Ben and Sarah are supposed to be 14 and 16... I'm definitely gonna keep an eye out on the show for something that contradicts that. Has Ben ever driven on the show?

Yes, in the very last episode Ben drove his father to work. I agree that the family tree looks fine, but I am still unclear about why some of the characters have birth years and some do not. Originally there was a full birthday for Bill Hendrickson. It would be nice to add those birth dates (and others) if they are from a reliable source.--Mantanmoreland 17:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added Margie's year of birth as 1986. That's because at the episode last night (episode #2) she says that she is "five years older" than Ben, who has just celebrated his sixteenth birthday. In fact, I'll add Ben's birth date on that basis too. I think this is adequate sourcing.--Mantanmoreland 16:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

She also said she was 23 more than once in the past. Most of the ages on HBO's web site are how old they were when the series started, not how old they are now. "Five years" could have been a figure of speech, or a mistake, or they could be trying to retcon her age so that Bill has also married someone too young. If she is 21 now, how old was she when she first dated Bill, got married, had her first child, etc. Except for that one line, all evidence points to older than 21. —MJBurrage • TALK • 07:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Having just read some of her official blog on the HBO site, as of April 2003 (four years ago), Margene was living on her own, going out drinking with friends, and working at Home Plus. It looks to me like some ages are as of the start of the show, and some have been updated, but not consistently, which makes comparative references even more prone to error.
Does anyone know how much time has officially passed since the show started? It does not have to be one for one, Grey's Anatomy for example only covered one year in its first three seasons, and other shows sometimes skip many months or even years between episodes. (Rome for example) —MJBurrage • TALK • 10:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not to sure she ever said her actual age ever on the show. At one point this page stated she was 23. After looking at everything, we really need to not use her birth year. First of all, the two pieces of evidence are first the hbo site, which contradicts itself with actual facts of the show, and secondly an offhand statement on the show. Saying you are five years older than someone can actually imply 4 or 6, or just that general amount. Plus, this doesn't mean she she must have been born in 1986. Also, the two seasons of this show came over a year apart on TV, but it is clearly stated in the first episode of season 2 that only 2 weeks have passed between seasons. It might be the case that the show "aged" all the children, and possibly Margene, to make their ages more believable. The HBO site originally stated that Ben and Sarah were 14 and 16. Ben has just turned 16 on the show, and Sarah has stated she is 18 (which I am pretty sure is an accurate statement). If this is the case that the writers are doing this, then birthdates should not be included in the wiki. It would be interesting to have this explanation on the page, but there is really no verifiability of it and should stay within the talk page. Also... have they ever stated what year it is on the show? Gwynand 11:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Gwynand 13:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)== Vote on keeping/elminating all birth years in Family Tree ==

I feel we should get rid of all the birthyears. There is no real sourcing stating the exact years, but rather HBO's inconsistent website which states their ages (which fluctuates on the whim of whoever edits that page).

Some points,

First, as an example, if my child is "1 years old" right now, he may have been born in 2006 or 2005. If his birthday was November 2005, he is 1. If it is March 2006 he is 1. Overall point... just because hbo.com says Bill's father is 65, that doesn't mean we know he was born in 1941.... its not a straigtforward 2007 - x years.

Second, since the show premiered in 2006, and the timeline has stayed within that year (as shown by the storyline), then this year (on the show), must be 2006, right? No... it could be 2007, because, hey, that's TV.

Lastly, and most importantly, there is NO real verifiability to any of these years. They really should be removed on that point alone. HBO.com, while informational, really appears to function as more of a fan site than absolute fact about the show. If you look on the site now, the 'cast' section shows Margene as "Margene Henrickson" which we know from the show not to be her name, rather Margene Heffman. The show itself cannot be used as a source since the year in the show is shifting without a year actually passing in the story.

Post here, stating either to KEEP or ELIMINATE the birthdates, with any points you want to make.Gwynand 12:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, but I do think that the show itself and the website are reliable sources. To deal with the uncertainties you mention is to simply put "circa" before each birth year. I think the abbreviation is the letter "c."--Mantanmoreland 13:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The show and the website have contradicted themselves. How can we have years of birth when it is not established on the show what the current year is?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwynand (talk • contribs)

Can you cite an example of a contradiction? For example, someone just posted, in removing an age for Margene, that she said on the show she was 23. What was the episode in which she said that? The website says 21, which is consistent with her statement in the last episode (No.3, second season) that she was "five years older" than Ben, who just turned sixteen. Can someone cite in what episode she said she was 23?

I think one solution might be to make a neutral mention of the age inconsistencies somewhere in the article, perhaps a footnote. I think it is useful information and I don't think it's OR to simply report what is said on a show or stated on a website. The family tree could say for Margene "21 or 23"--Mantanmoreland 15:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Example of contradiction... Sarah has stated on show she is 18. On website it says she is 16. Ben, her younger brother has turned 16 on the show. A few weeks ago, hbo.com stated Ben was 14 and Sarah was 16. Now hbo.com says ben is 15 (not 16... another contradiction) and still says Sarah is 16. It is all very unreliable and inconsistent.Gwynand 16:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the problem here. We are not arbiters of such things. If in describing a fictional character HBO provides inconsistent information, we should simply say so. However, we should state specifics episode numbers and website URLs. I think that what matters is what the website currently says, not what it said in the past. For Ben, we can say that the website says "15" (at URL X) and "16" at episode three. The family tree can give age as "c. 1991" and the footnote would explain why.--Mantanmoreland 16:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree it is not up to us to make the decision on their ages. The overall point is birthyears for fictional characters are barely notable, and unnecesary. Check other shows... if their birthdate was clearly stated somewhere, it is included. Most of the time, it is never stated. Because of this, an overwhelming majority of the WP:Television project does not include birth years for characters. There is no need to state what two different sources state, if anything it suggests they are both unreliable. Also, this is clearly against WP:SOURCE. Why are we stretching on this article to include birth years?Gwynand 16:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Right now we have birth years for some characters and not others. I'd suggest either eliminating for all or trying to insert for all. I think this is a kind of interesting detail, particularly since someone went to the trouble of drafting a family tree.--Mantanmoreland 16:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the Family Tree is great, and for a show like such it adds good quality to the page. When I say the detail of birth year is barely notable, I'm not suggesting it wouldn't be interesting detail. We just can't source it properly, and we only know a few... it could take years, or never, for us to learn all of them, making the page look permanently half-finished. I agree with removing all for the time-being.Gwynand 17:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, then just yank 'em out, then. I don't think it is a big deal. Some of the birth years are unsourced anyway.--Mantanmoreland 17:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

One other minor note on the family tree (and as a professional genealogist, I love family trees): it seems to show that Rhonda is married to Roman, but she has not. She was only placed to live in his household, and since then she has bolted. Mapjc 06:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Good point... I was going to just remove it... but on that note, technically he isn't married to Adaleen either. I'll remove Rhonda. Unfortunately she doesn't have any other place on the family tree despite being a main player in the show.Gwynand 17:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Family tree is neat, but hard to figure out how to edit it if you're not familiar with similar trees. Not sure what the solution is, but it's a bit of a problem. Meanwhile, could someone more awake than I add Joey & Wanda's son Joey Jr? Also, what is Bill's uncle (Lois's brother)'s name and shouldn't he be included in the cast listings?

Why are all of Bill's children Henricksons? I thought only the children of the first wife got the father's surname, and others, like Bill, got their mothers' names. Obviously not a hard and fast rule, since Nikki and Alby are both Grants despite their mother only being sixth wife. But how does Bill explain that all the kids on the block have his last name?? Mapjc 00:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)