Talk:The Big Bang Theory

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Question

When does the next season start? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.250.217 (talk) 04:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirection

Is there anyway we can change the automatic redirection to the Big Bang Theory page every time someone does a search for the show. I'm sick of the extra clicks, when it doesn't even take me to a search results page. 24.178.136.82 04:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked this discussion board to see if anyone was asking that, I assume that you are joking, good one. I vote for NOT changing that re-direct. If you are serious please use IMBD as you have no need of Encyclopedia.

Recurring Cast?

How can anyone add Kurt to the recurring cast. He was in one episode and thats out of two. Doesn't anyone think that they should wait until we have a few more episodes until we add "recurring cast" and why is the fact that leonard wears boxers of any importance people. Spread The Word 12:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-I agree. He isn't returning in episode 3 or 4 either (according to CBS' press release), he certainly isn't a recurring character. 90.206.72.235 (talk • contribs)

Would it hurt anyones feeling if we changed it to Secondary Cast that might be a better name for the list.Spread The Word 14:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notes on some changes

Sheldon did not _invent_ 26 dimensions; this notion is already an established result in string theory (in particular, bosonic ST). When Leonard says "At least I didn't have to invent 26 dimensions to make the math come out", he is in fact alluding to the somewhat divisive effect that string theory, a still controversial theory based more on mathematical than actual physical (i.e. relating to physics) footing, has on physicists. This portion is actually a self-referential/inside joke, one of a few that probably only physicists would get.

Also, I don't know if this is relevant but the names Leonard and Sheldon are very recognizable names of two prominent physicists, Leonard Susskind and Sheldon Lee Glashow. Ironically, Susskind was one of the first proponents of string theory —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.4.50.2 (talk) 18:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-The creators have noted that the names Sheldon & Leonard actually allude to Sheldon Leonard. 90.206.72.235 (talk • contribs)

International Airings

International airings are highly relevant and do not turn the article into a TV Guide. The article became highly american-centric by removing international broadcasters.

Every TV article on the site lists the markets where the TV show airs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.72.235 (talk • contribs)

Heroes showed the international airings so why not other shows I believe it should and others will agree.Spread The Word 17:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Names

The surnames of Leonard and Sheldon haven't been revealed as far as I know, I'm wondering where the names posted could have come from and if they're valid. 90.206.72.235 (talk • contribs)

Both character's full names can be found on CBS's website for the show, located at: http://alpha.cbs.com/primetime/big_bang_theory// --BrettxPW 02:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Theme Song

if you guys are going to put the lyrics on make sure its correct. ive made it correct so dont change it. i DVRed it. so i can rewind and make sure of the lyrics.Spread The Word 17:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm. Do you want to double check it? "Autotrophs began to drool" See, it rhymes with 'cools' and 'tool'.Ruidh 01:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did the Bare Naked Ladies write the song for the show or is it on one of their albums? If it is, could someone please post the album and song titles?--JoeHillen 04:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty certain that it was written exclusively for the show--giving their "Music" page a quick once-over (with special focus on their latest album, as I don't remember it on anything previous) it doesn't appear to occur anywhere within there. Googling the song title for lyrics also doesn't yield much result, although the rest of their songs are fairly well documented. Don't have time to prod further but it seems to have been entirely original for this show... Still not 100% sure on this one but it seems quite like it. AbstractEpiphany 17:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are still a couple of small errors in the lyrics as sung in the opening. For instance, "mystery" is singular and there is no "and" before "then the universe" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.161.164 (talk) 23:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is against Wikipedia:Lyrics and poetry policy to include the lyrics. —MJBurrage • TALK • 14:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Theme songs are copyrighted material and are not in the public domain. They have been removed. 132.170.163.88 (talk) 20:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone notice that in the theme song it say's "They think that it'll make an even bigger bang", when that's impossible. There is no air in space, thus nothin' for sound waves to travel through, thus no sound, which means that the "Big Bang" never occoured. Yes, they was an explosion but no actual bang. --Cra sh U nderride 06:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tables

Tables should be avoided if lists work just as well. For example a cast list does not need a table unless there are also columns about the characters.
In tables any columns that are not needed only make the table wider and harder to read in smaller windows. In particular in this page there is a table with columns where every entry is the same. they can just be summarized in a title or footnote, keeping the table smaller. —MJBurrage • TALK • 15:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Penny's job change?

Does it need to mentioned that Penny apparently changed jobs between episodes 4 and 5? She goes from a cheesecake factory worker to a waitress. Or am I wrong about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.244.123.52 (talk) 21:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Penny is—and has been—a waitress at The Cheesecake Factory, which is a restaurant. —MJBurrage • TALK • 02:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia/Facts about characters

NOT needed, just makes the page look unprofessional. Also too many links to other things in the section, which makes it look like a product advertisement (iPhone, Dell laptops). 74.12.216.114 (talk) 16:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About Wolowitz

Just another remark about his polyglot skills: In "The Big Bran Hypothesis" he speaks Russian with wrong stress on words, easily noted on "devushka" (right stress in bold, wrong in italic). 201.74.136.126 (talk) 11:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikia wiki

I've found a Big Bang Theory wiki at wikia. It's too small to add as a comprehensive external link, but you could help that wiki out if you'd like. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 22:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That said, the writers of the show are missing a bet by not having the boys be Wikipedia obsessives.

And another thing; is it just me, but is Sheldon channeling Spock? I suppose that would make Leonard.... Scotty, maybe? Gzuckier (talk) 15:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Canned Laughter

According to the Notes section of this article, the show was criticized for allegedly using canned laughter (even though it's actually taped before a live studio audience). I've never heard this accusation before. Does anyone have any references which support this statement? KidBohemia (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)KidBohemia[reply]

The Joker's chapterhouse appears... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.116.136 (talk) 15:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably.. I mean, if you've ever watched Friends Special Features it shows editing of the laughtrack.. sometimes shortening laughs etc,, so basically its not canned laughter but editing of the laughter [[[Special:Contributions/81.79.174.127|81.79.174.127]] (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)][reply]

Characters

If anyone agrees I'll move the characters section onto a different page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The man stephen (talk • contribs) 22:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. This will lead to more space for info on the characters and a shorter article here.--Asderoff (talk) 01:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - the article is currently around half the size at which WP:SEZE recommens a split. Currently the sections on the characters provide no secondary sources to assert notability. Per WP:FICT non-notable fictional elements should only be split off for size/style reasons. The fact that there is currently no out of universe content about the characters such as development, reception, etc means that any article created could well be a violation of WP:PLOT. Guest9999 (talk) 19:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New motif?

Penny gets paid minimum wage. How can she pay for an apartment near 2 physicists? Sheldon once said that if he could afford the rent, he wouldn't live with Leonard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.140.93.108 (talk) 22:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a question a physicist might ask. She's a waitress, so she probably gets paid LESS than minimum wage, like a stripper. Last time I checked it was $2.89 an hour, but has probably gone up. But she's hot, and that means she makes it up in tips. This is not rocket science.

Also you’re assuming that research physicists make a lot of money, and really that’s only true when they own some rights to a product they provided research for. The projects they are often attributed to would be mostly funded by grant money, most of which goes to the actual project. Furthermore did you know you cannot copyright mathematical formulas or physics algorithms? So any breakthroughs in the area are actually done for the advancement of the field and the respect associated with it, not a sizable income. Hmmm imagine the absurdity if someone were able to patent the value of pi or the equation e=mc²? This coupled with the extreme debt associated with a PhD (in Sheldon’s case x2) it really isn’t surprising they cant afford a place of their own. --Libbaz (talk) 12:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Wording

I was wondering if anyone has an objection to me removing the following in the opening paragraph:

"When one of them falls for the girl, the other tries to discourage his interest because he believes his friend is chasing a dream he'll never catch."

These words do describe some of the plot in many episodes, but it is does not define the series as a whole. Putting this in the opening I think is not needed and gives too much weight to this plot subject over several others. NeuGye (talk) 20:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Motif sections

I think the Motif sections are looking way too much into a funny show. While I agree with the elevator being a reoccuring gag in the show, I do not think it is a motif worthy of a section. Further, is there anyone who can give the time of the fourth episode that revealed a working elevator?

The Penny motif is by far streching things. It is a simple mixing of opposites which is used in many sitcoms. While it provides funny moments for the show, again I feel like it is not motif worthy. Can we agree to remove or rework the whole motif section? It tends to babble on suspect information in an otherwise straightforward article.NeuGye (talk) 21:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's almost entirely original research. The elavator getting fixed thing is uncited and I didn't see anything in the episode to suggest it.--Stu42 (talk) 23:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Am I right in thinking that the supposed Asperger's Syndrome analogy mentioned in this section is entirely unfounded, or at least unsourced? I have never read any other source referring to it. I feel this - if not the entire section - should be removed. EttaLove (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had removed it on April 4th, 2008. My edit was undone on April 10th. I have again removed it. If you wish to change it, please at least discuss it first. It is a section of original analysis in an otherwise factual article. NeuGye (talk) 00:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's the show about?

The article doesn't have any section explaining what the show is actually about. All the reader gleans from reading the article is that it's a sitcom, and that's it! tildetildetildetilde

google it, it is not hard. try imdb.com or tv.com Xbox999 (talk) 21:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

actually the first paragraph explained what this show is about. Xbox999 (talk) 16:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two socially inept prodigies? Last time I counted there were four... and it really doesn't give a great description.

Telling people to Google it doesn't help in the least, people don't come to Wikipedia in search of information just to be told to go look somewhere else. That's not what Wikipedia is for at all. 24.226.77.23 (talk) 00:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Episode Pages??

I think that each episode should have a new page with a more complete synopsis. This way we can go into more detail and give the reader more information about each episode. Does anybody disagree? If so,why? Wolowizard (talk) 01:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Agree

I agree with the Wolowizard dude above. Oh, great name by the way. Their should be seperate pages for each episode! Wolowizard and I will volunteer to create the episode pages if Wikipedia wants us to. MattsterMaster (talk) 17:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like the conciseness of the episode list, but I have no objection to separate pages. But what more can you really say though? Think outside the box 10:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Making separate pages for TV episodes is often disputed because they often don't meet notability guidelines. I believe there is nothing wrong with separate pages but there are people, including sadmins, who don't believe they should be on wikipedia. If you still want to make episode pages, at least read these arbitration cases first: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters ; Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2.--Stu42 (talk) 14:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who else?

Who else agrees with me that we should have seperate pages for episodes? Anybody see a potential problem?Wolowizard (talk) 18:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I say go ahead. At least do something about the Pilot (The Big Bang Theory episode)- in it's current state, it's definately going to be deleted.--Stu42 (talk) 11:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, stop making new headings about the same thing.--Stu42 (talk) 11:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lets get startedWolowizard (talk) 16:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've begun expanding Pilot (The Big Bang Theory episode), hope you don't mind. The only issue i can see is unless we source a lot more information, the page itself tells us nothing more than the list of episodes goes. 88.105.134.43 (talk) 21:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So far you have been doing well. However, i think that you should go into more detail about each episode. In any case these pages are probaly not going to really long. I like how you have the "trivia" section. Perhaps, you could also add a "quotes" section and maybe a couple pictures of the episode. I also have started a "Pilot" page that I was going to copy and paste from my user sub page. (It is not even close to being completed) Feel free to check it out. (I think we should just make little corrections to your page instead of creating a new page. Wolowizard (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. I don't know who wrote the plot summary, maybe it is worth re-watching the episode a few times and writing out what happens, the current plot summaries are a bit short. Trivia sections aren't really encouraged by Wikipedia policy, where possible it is better to include the info in the text where relevant. We don't want to have loo long a plot section and nothing else, have a look at The Pilot (Friends), they've included info on production and reception by the media, which looks good. Blueblade0 (talk) 19:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]