Jump to content

Talk:The Big Bang Theory

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 93.125.198.182 (talk) at 18:46, 19 July 2012 (→‎Section Religion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Sara Gilbert as Leslie Winkle (again!)

See also: Talk:The Big Bang Theory/Archive 3 § Sara Gilbert as Leslie Winkle, Talk:List of The Big Bang Theory characters/Archive 1 § Leslie Winkle, and Talk:List of The Big Bang Theory episodes § Leslie Winkle

Since the question of Sara Gilbert being part of the main cast has been resurrected,[1][2] I'll go over it again......

She was part of the main cast in season 2. Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Style guidelines#Cast information states, "When organizing the cast section, please keep in mind that "main" cast status is determined by the series producers, not by popularity or screen time. Furthermore, articles should reflect the entire history of a series, and as such actors remain on the list even after their departure from the series." Some of the more important points to note from this are:

  • Main cast status is not determined by screen time
  • Articles should reflect the entire history of a series
  • Actors remain on the list even after departure.

Since Sara Gilbert was a main cast member at one time she remains listed as a main cast member even though she is not in that role any more. This is necessary to ensure that the article reflects the entire history of the series, as required by Wikipedia:WikiProject Television. It's really as simple as that. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you. Sara Gilbert was in a total of 8, yes EIGHT episodes out of how many? 97? That does NOT constitute someone being part of the main cast. At best she was a Guest Star. She should not be listed as a main cast member. General Bozz (talk) 04:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter that she was in eight episodes. MOS:TV, which is linked to, and quoted, above is clear. She remains in a starring role. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Winkle (October 2010)

Leslie Winkle is no longer a main cast member, so i feel we should place her into FORMER MAIN CAST, it does not make any sense to keep her there, but everytime i do so, it's reverted. I'm going to do it one last time and if it happens again, im gonna report it to WT. Rusted AutoParts talk 11:35 21 October 2010 (UTC)

As has been indicated twice now, by different editors,[3][4] we don't split cast members that way. This is also a discussion that was recently had at Talk:NCIS: Los Angeles#Unexplained/undiscussed cast table changes. This comes from Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Style guidelines#Cast information and is addressed above, at #Sara Gilbert as Leslie Winkle (again!). As a main cast member she remains a main cast member, not former main cast. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You see, that's the point: SHE IS NOT PART OF THE MAIN CAST! She's amongst the many recurring now, she hasn't been billed as a main cast member since season 2, so i think you can finish the puzzle from here. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 12:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really not sure what part of the above section is giving you trouble. "Articles should reflect the entire history of a series", means that her status as a main cast member has to be recognised. "Actors remain on the list even after departure" means that even though she's not a main cast member now, she still remains on the main cast list. We always treat fiction in the present tense, regardless of when an episode airs. When we talk about the first episode, we say Leonard and Sheldon visit a sperm bank, not "they visited" a sperm bank. Similarly, Leslie Winkle is still a member of the main cast, not "she was a member" of the main cast. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I mean no offense at all, but that's really stupid. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 13:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not if you understand the principle at work here. We're not a fan site, writing in the moment about the characters as if they were in the real world. Fiction exists in a sort of permanent present, given that you can shift your perspective on it at any time. Watch the new episodes, that is the "now". Buy the DVD and watch season one, and your "now" changes. --Ckatzchatspy 18:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could a reasonable middle ground be adding - "(Main Cast - Season 1, Recurring Season 2 - Present)" after her character name? This seems to be in place before the current lock and along with the description detailing the fact she was deomoted to recurring character as the writers couldn't provide quality material for her every episode. This is in keeping with Wiki's Cast Section policy and shows that she is no longer billed as a main cast member. If an actor is billed as main, even for one episode, they should be added to the "Main Character" list. Even if they are no longer considered a main character by the producers. SunGodRa (talk) 10:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article includes "Sara Gilbert as Leslie Winkle, Ph.D. (recurring seasons 1 & 3, occasionally starring season 2)" and at List of The Big Bang Theory characters#Occasional is "Dr. Leslie Winkle (Sara Gilbert) (appeared in 8 episodes total, 4 credited as main cast)". This has been in place for some time. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)Template:Z48[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please see the previous discussions. —David Levy 02:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.[5] --AussieLegend (talk) 09:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anything anywhere that says "yes this is Howard's mother"? pcuser42 (talk) 09:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I can find at any reliable source. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Requested move

Please check an article's talk page archives before proposing that it be renamed. This has been discussed several times, including a few months ago. Silvergoat commented on a previous request. —David Levy 16:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Big Bang Theory → The Big Bang Theory (TV series) – I search "The Big Bang Theory", and I thought it will be "Big Bang". But instead, this TV show; the science topic is far more popular, important than this TV show. It's main topic. Silvergoat (talk∙contrib) 15:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why did you take the time to type out the entire name of a TV show? Simply typing "Big Bang" or even "Big Bang Theory" would have gotten you to the correct article. Oppose because this has been discussed to death. Powers T 15:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Epilogue

Perhaps this discussion should not be archived, so as to serve as a reminder for subsequent nominators? For the record, as LtPowers said, this has been done to death:

Note that the last RM closed only 3 months ago, and the second one only 3 months before that. After 14,800 words of discussion in the three previous requests, nobody can say this hasn't been thoroughly discussed, and yet the result each time has been "No consensus to move". Nothing has changed since then and there's no reason to believe that the outcome of this discussion would have been any different to the recent discussions. I too share LtPowers' concern at the nominator's rationale. Of course if you search for the exact name of the television series you're going to end up reaching the article about the television series, regardless of where it is located. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Semantics. It's a damn sitcom. 163.150.22.118 (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Starring roles

I have a remark about this:

Three other supporting characters have also been promoted to starring roles: Leslie Winkle, a physicist colleague at Caltech and, at different times, a lover of both Leonard and Howard who left the show after season 3; Bernadette Rostenkowski, Howard's fiancée and now wife, who is a microbiologist and former part-time waitress alongside Penny; and Amy Farrah Fowler, a neuroscientist who joins the group after being matched to Sheldon on a dating website.

At the end of season five, both Bernadette Rostenkowski and Amy Farrah Fowler have been in 40+ episodes, as seen at the actresses IMBD page. However the character Leslie Winkle has been on the show in 8 episodes, as seen on the IMBD-page of Sara Gilbert, therefore I believe that Leslie Winkle was never promoted to a starring role, but it remains a recurring role, furthermore, is it certain she left the show for good as the text says ? (source maybe) Ziyalistix (talk) 09:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read the thread at the beginning of this page, as well as the three threads linked from it. Sara Gilbert's role as a main cast member is well documented and there are at least two references for this in the article, most notably this one. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:11, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I missed that Ziyalistix (talk) 10:21, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[6] In the month since I tagged each entry individually,[7] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Big_Bang_Theory&oldid=503159239"