Talk:The Big Bang Theory

Requested move

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:

• closed 8 December 2010
• closed 5 October 2011
• closed 21 February 2012.

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)

Critical reception section

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

Criticism

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

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

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

Season 6 premiere in lead

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

I wanted to follow up on that -- there is other "dated" information in the lead. For example, the fact that the series has been signed for 7 seasons is dated. After production of the 7th season, the information would be moot, and should be removed. It is only relevant now, for readers to know that one more season is highly expected. However whatever (talk) 03:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding the reference to "dated". "Dated" refers to the likelihood that a statement will become incorrect in the future. "The series is currently in its sixth season" may be accurate now, but move forward nine months and it will clearly be incorrect, as the series will then be in its seventh season. The same is true for "The series' most recent season, the sixth season". Compared to that, "The series' sixth season premiered on September 27, 2012" will still be correct at any time in the future. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I am lost in the logic you presented. The fact that season 6 premiered on Sept 27, 2012 will not be of much relevance in the 7th season (it would be as encyclopedic as season 1 thru 5). Similarly, the fact that in January 2011 CBS picked up the series for another 3 years will also not be encyclopedic, because it will already be the past tense. Therefore, it's all "dated". However whatever (talk) 03:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:DATED is not an issue of relevance, it's one of future accuracy. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

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

"Future" is referencing time. The statements that you keep adding all fall under WP:DATED and they are unnecessary. It's enough to write "The series' sixth season premiered on September 27, 2012." You don't need to add content that will one day need to be removed. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

You lost me. All I'm proposing is to add the word "the latest season". I'm not proposing to add the word "future". As for "You don't need to add content that will one day need to be removed", that is not in line with a constantly evolving encyclopedia. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress. However whatever (talk) 17:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Adding redundant content has nothing to do with Wikipedia being a work in progress. It just simply isn't necessary. And remember, WP:DATED is part of the Manual of Style, WP:NOTDONE is just an essay. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Why exactly do you think adding that the 6th season is the latest season is "redundant"? What information does it repeat? However whatever (talk) 17:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Duplication means "Superfluous; exceeding what is necessary". There are numerous references to the sixth, and previous, seasons in the article, including the infobox immediately to the right of the sentence. It's as obvious as the nose on your face that the sixth is the latest season, so there's no need to state it. The word is superfluous, it is not necessary to state it, therefore it's redundant. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

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

The reader doesn't have to read all the way to find out that the show is in its sixth season. It's obvious that it is, simply from general knowledge such as (but not limited to) it being an American series and American seasons typically run from September to May etc. There's also the infobox, which clearly shows 6 seasons and so on. That the show is in its sixth season isn't actually a critical piece of information. WP:LEAD doesn't say anything about TV seasons. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems that the original argument of WP:DATED is essentially out the door, because there is nothing in WP:DATED that says that information that will have to be updated later cannot be entered (remember all BLP need to be changed from present tense to past tense once a person dies). If I understand it correctly, it seems that the argument against saying that the 6th season is the latest season is "redundancy"? In which case, it seems to be OK to repeat in the lead. However whatever (talk) 19:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

No, WP:DATED still applies. Saying the season is the "latest" is no different to saying it's the "current" or the "most recent"; it's just a different way of saying the same thing, two things that WP:DATED says NOT to say. I'm afraid the logic of your final statement escapes me. WP:DATED actually says to use precise phrases, which is an argument against redundancy. --AussieLegend (✉) 22:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Since the logic of my last statement escaped you, let me be more clear and direct: it is OK for the lead to repeat information that is detailed in the article. The lead is intended to be a summary, hence redundancy is not a reason to suppress information from the lead because as pointed out by Mr.Shiney, some readers are not interested in reading the article beyond the lead. I agree that "latest" is another way of saying "current" or "most recent", but it is a way of doing it that does not violate the manual of style. The idea here is to bring more context to the sentence that says that the 6th season premiered on September 27. Without context, it seems awkward and out of place. Would you be able to offer a different idea for giving context to the sentence? However whatever (talk) 23:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Not only is the lead allowed to repeat information elsewhere in the article, it's supposed to. The point of the lead is to summarise key points from the article as way of providing an introduction to the subject matter. While the sixth season is mentioned several times in the article, "latest" is not, so it's not something that should be in the lead. In order to summarise what's in the article it's only necessary to say what's already there. Again, this comes down to the definition of redundant - "Superfluous; exceeding what is necessary". That "some readers are not interested in reading the article beyond the lead" is not a valid justification for including claims that aren't addressed elsewhere. It's good that you acknowledge that "latest" is another way of saying "current" or "most recent", but you've missed the point that the very fact that it is makes it WP:DATED and using it does violate the manual of style because of that. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Hopefully there is no need to invoke WP:IAR because I may have found a way to present the information in a way that conforms to WP:DATED. However whatever (talk) 04:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:IAR is not a "get out of jail free". There has to be a justification for using it. As you're well aware, while a discussion is underway, the content should not be edited and the WP:STATUSQUO reigns. That said, I do have a minor problem with your most recent edits. There's no need to edit the fourth paragraph at all, the only change that is "necessary" is the change to the fifth paragraph. We aren't writing a novel, we don't have to use flowery language and we don't need to fluff out the word count. In the formal tone of an encyclopaedia, less is generally more; why use 67 words when 36 serve exactly the same purpose? --AussieLegend (✉) 02:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Since you've apparently decided to edit-war over this,[1] I've reverted to the WP:STATUSQUO. We need to come to a consensus before changing the lead again. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

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

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

WP:POINT

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

Im not sure of the point you are trying to make here referencing that..? MisterShiney ✉ 20:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Rather than reverting to this version User:AussieLegend reverted to this version, bringing the fight back to square 1 even though progress was made, presumably to make some sort of a WP:POINT. However whatever (talk) 20:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, well I see you have corrected that. Please make sure you give AL a chance to respond though. Because that in itself could be seen as Edit Warring and antagonising the situation further. I am of the mind that this version, is the best. It doesn't need any more changes to it unless the information changes. MisterShiney ✉ 20:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I my opinion, the two sentences in this version are somewhat disjointed, which is why I'd like to provide a better transition from one sentence to the other. However whatever (talk) 21:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, well you need to discuss that first as per Wikipedia:BRD. Explain what you think is wrong with it and then explain how you would change it. MisterShiney ✉ 21:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I reverted to this version because that is the status quo, not this version. There was no consensus, stated or otherwise. There is no discussion about that version on this page, However whatever simply made this edit without even mentioning it before hand. When I subsequently edited it,[2] However whatever reverted the change and added two words,[3] resulting in this change from his first version and completely reverting every change made in the "consensus" version. If However whatever thinks we had achieved consensus for this version then this edit which immeditely reverted from the "consensus" version was clearly inappropriate. However whatever, you clearly do not understand what consensus is, so I suggest you read both WP:CONSENSUS and WP:STATUSQUO. The latter says "instead of engaging in an edit war, propose your reverted change on the article's talk page or pursue other dispute resolution alternatives", something that is reflected in MisterShiney's most recent edit.[4] "Explain what you think is wrong with it and then explain how you would change it", but you need to do that before making changes that may be opposed by others involved the discussion. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

You made this edit saying that it "can be taken to imply that only one more season is expected", so I then made this edit to fix the legitimate concern that I was implying that only one more season is expected. You then made this edit which certainly made a WP:POINT to turn back the clock, rather than address any concerns. I have addressed your concern, and you reverted me, which is simply edit warring because you are trying to make some kind of a WP:POINT (and the point that I am sensing is that you think you WP:OWN this article). You need to specify what is wrong with the edit. I opened a discussion below about this issue, and so far you have not responded. However whatever (talk) 01:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The first edit was made in an attempt to work with you, even though you had made no attempt to discuss your edit before making it. When you subsequently reverted my edit to your preferred version of the article, instead of discussing it, it became necessary to revert to the status quo, since the editing was not constructive. Reverting to the status quo is not WP:POINTy, it's standard practice during discussions over disputed content, and would not have been necessary if you had made your proposal here first, instead of just editing the article without prior discussion. As you'll see below, I've already explained what is wrong with your proposed edits. in previous edits.[5][6] --AussieLegend (✉) 01:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Transition between season 6 and season 7

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

I have attempted to address your (User:AussieLegend) concern of supposedly creating an illusion that only one additional season is expected, by saying that at least one additional season is expected. I am not quite sure why you are edit warring here, given that I am in good faith trying to address your concerns. However whatever (talk) 20:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

As I have explained above, when a discussion is underway, the WP:STATUSQUO reigns; making edits such as this while the discussion is inappropriate, as is this and this. This is edit-warring, not the immediately preceding good-faith edit that was made in an attempt to work with you, despite you having made an inappropriate edit without ever having mentioned your proposal prior to making it. You can't simply edit the section of the article under discussion willy-nilly during a discussion. You've made four such edits since the discussion started, when you should have made none. As to your request that I explain my objection to your most recent edit, I've done so in more than one post above.[7][8] Far from simply saying "superfluous", I've explained why the content is superflous:

• "There's no need to edit the fourth paragraph at all" - Self explanatory since you haven't explained why any change is needed.
• "the only change that is "necessary" is the change to the fifth paragraph" - This discussion was about your belief that some form of context was needed. That isn't supported by the articles linked to by MisterShiney, one of which is GA.
• "We aren't writing a novel, we don't have to use flowery language and we don't need to fluff out the word count" - Again, this should be self explanatory. An encyclopaedia is a formal document and uses a formal tone, per WP:TONE.
• "In the formal tone of an encyclopaedia, less is generally more; why use 67 words when 36 serve exactly the same purpose?" - The changes you made add far more than is necessary to convey the required information, and the tone (e.g. " At least one additional season is expected, because") is not what is expected in a formal document.
• "the articles that [MisterShiney] linked to all show renewal information before mention of the current season, which is exactly what this version of this article did, and which this version does not." - Should be self explanatory.
• "Grey's Anatomy is particlarly notable, because it is a good article." - We always strive to bring articles first to good and then featured status, good and featured articles are always good examples as to how to write an article.

I don't see what else needs to be explained. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Are we having the same discussion, or are we talking past each other? Lets understand what is the issue here (at least from my point of view).

Current version: On January 12, 2011, CBS announced that the show had been renewed for an additional three years, extending it through the 2013–2014 season. As of the 2012-2013 television season, the series is in its sixth season, which premiered on September 27, 2012.

Proposed version: As of the 2012-2013 television season, the series is in its sixth season, which premiered on September 27, 2012. At least one more season is expected, since on January 12, 2011, CBS announced that the show had been renewed for an additional three years, extending it through the 2013–2014 season

This is an addition of 8 words (I have no idea where you get 67 and 36). Telling me that other articles do not use this language is an WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST argument, which I am sure you recognize is an invalid argument. However whatever (talk) 02:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not talking past you, well not intentionally. I'm trying to talk at you, but you keep bobbing out of the way. The proposal you've made above does not reflect the edits that you've made to the article. Your last edit to the article, prior to reversion to the status quo was this, resulting in "As of the 2012-2013 television season, the series is in its sixth season, which premiered on September 27, 2012. At least one additional season is expected, because on January 12, 2011, CBS announced that the show had been renewed for an additional three years, extending it through the 2013–2014 season." While I realise that the change is only minor, it's that sort of change that has caused problems; changing words mid-discussion results in confusion. The 67 words was a typo; your original edit affected two paragraphs and I over-counted, but it doesn't matter whether it's 8 words or 80, it's more words than are needed to convey the required information. WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is an essay that refers to deletion discussions, which this isn't. The essay that applies is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which says "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist". It goes on to say "While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this." My arguments are not based solely on a comparison to other articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you see that statements such as "WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is an essay that refers to deletion discussions, which this isn't." are borderline WP:Wikilawyering? However whatever (talk) 01:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that seems a desperate attempt to avoid rebutting what I said. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

On January 12, 2011, CBS announced that the show had been renewed for an additional three years, extending it through the 2013–2014 season, the show's seventh season. As of the 2012-2013 television season, the series is in its sixth season, which premiered on September 27, 2012. -Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm OK with this proposed text. However whatever (talk) 01:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

May I add that it's only 3 4 additional words (since the number of words is under scrutiny). However whatever (talk) 01:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Just because you like something doesn't mean we have consensus to add it to the article. This edit was inappropriate. What part of WP:STATUSQUO do you not understand? Please do NOT change the section of the article under discussion until such time as we have a declared consensus. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

If nobody raises objections, then that means there is a consensus. Are you objecting, if so, why? However whatever (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

No, that's not the way consensus works. When there is a discussion underway, consensus requires agreement between participating editors, not a lack of opposition. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I am only going to ask this one more time -- what is your objection to the proposed text? However whatever (talk) 17:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

My opposition should be blindingly obvious by now, since it hasn't changed for the entire duration of this discussion. It's unnecessary fluff, as suggested by Favre1fan93. Props to Favre1fan93 for the suggestion, but it doesn't change my opinion. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

"Fluff" is YOUR opinion, and violates WP:CIVILITY. Your argument it is an WP:IDONTLIKEIT type of argument, that doesn't quite cut it. You need a better reason why those 4 words should not be in the article. However whatever (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC) --- For the record, I'll add that I think those 4 words are needed, because they provide a good transition from the first sentence to the next. Otherwise the two sentences are unrelated. However whatever (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Now who's wikilawyering? Fluff is an an appropriate term and it does not breach WP:CIVILITY. Nor is it WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I've explained at length why such content is redundant and two other editors have expressed similar opinions, and both have used "fluff". It's not at all necessary to explain that the next season is the seventh when you're explaining that there is another season in 2013-14, especially when that explanation is immediately followed by an explanation that the 2012-13 season is the sixth. We don't need to spoon-feed the readers with every bit of minutiae you can find. So far you've edit-warred, accused me of WP:POINTy editing when I've followed the appropriate process, brought in unrelated essays and then accused me of wikilawyering when I've pointed out your error, accused me of incivility and raised WP:IDONTLIKEIT when there has been extensive explanation of why the content you keep adding to the article is unnecessary. It's really about time you started collaborating, stopped edit-warring, concentrate on the facts and stop the personal attacks. Comment on content, not the contributor. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Withdrawal from the discussion process doesn't mean you have free reign to edit the section of the article. This edit demonstrates a complete disregard for the WP:BRD process, an unwillingness to collaborate with others and an intention to completely disregard valid warnings. The unwillingness to collaborate with others is demonstrated by your withdrawal and failure to acknowledge that 3 of the 4 editors involved in this discussion have said that the current version is all that is needed. You should at least acknowledge that Favre1fan93's proposal doesn't actually address your problems. In none of your posts or edits have you expressed a desire to include mention of the 2013-14 season as "the show's seventh season", only as the 2012-14 season. You keep changing the goal posts, as I've already pointed out. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

To quote Joe Biden: With all due respects, that's a bunch of "Malarkey". The article is not protected, and I can make bold edits for things that have not gone into dispute. However whatever (talk) 07:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I've responded on your talk page. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

RfC: The last paragraph of the lead

Three different options have been proposed:

• Current version of article:

On January 12, 2011, CBS announced that the series had been renewed for an additional three years, extending it through the 2013–14 season. As of the 2012-13 television season, the series is in its sixth season, which premiered on September 27, 2012.

• Option A: (proposed by user:However whatever) -- swap the two sentences and add 8 words (added words in red) to read:

As of the 2012-13 television season, the series is in its sixth season, which premiered on September 27, 2012. At least one more season is expected, since on January 12, 2011, CBS announced that the series had been renewed for an additional three years, extending it through the 2013–14 season.

• Option B: (proposed by user:Favre1fan93 as a compromised, accepted by user:However whatever) -- keep the order of the sentences the same, and add 4 words (added words in red) to read:

On January 12, 2011, CBS announced that the series had been renewed for an additional three years, extending it through the 2013–14 season, the show's seventh season. As of the 2012-13 television season, the series is in its sixth season, which premiered on September 27, 2012..

There is currently no consensus on any of the above options, so more comments are needed to form a consensus. I think either Option A or Option B should be implemented, as the two sentences are disjointed. In my opinion, both Option A and Option B read better than the current version of the article. However whatever (talk) 01:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

A conversation about "2013-2014 vs .2013-14" & "show vs. series"

However whatever's RfC is more than a little misleading. He is correct that there is no consensus for any of the options. Even the "current" version is "his" version. Prior to discussion commencing, the article read as follows: "On January 12, 2011, CBS announced that the show had been renewed for an additional three years, extending it through the 2013–2014 season. The series' sixth season premiered on September 27, 2012."[9] The current version of the article is the result of However whatever's persistent edit-warring. When he made a bold edit I attempted to work with him and made some changes, which he immediately reverted. I subsequently reverted to the WP:STATUSQUO, but However whatever decided that this version was the consensus, even though there was no consensus for it. Even after formally warning him about his persistent edit-warring, both on his talk page,[10] and above,[11] However whatever decided to muddy the waters even further by making this edit. While minor, it nevertheless represents a complete disregard for the BRD process. For the record, I believe the text should read: "On January 12, 2011, CBS announced that the series had been renewed for an additional three years, extending it through the 2013–14 season. As of the 2012–13 television season, the series is in its sixth season, which premiered on September 27, 2012." An encyclopaedia is a formal document and "series" is more appropriate. "Show" is fine for Broadway, but not for a television series. There is no need for the red text in options A and B, it unnecessarily exceeds what is required to convey required information in a formal document and is therfore simply fluff, used to pad out the text. WP:YEAR says "A closing CE or AD year is normally written with two digits (1881–86) unless it is in a different century from that of the opening year, in which case the full closing year is given (1881–1986)." Since all years are in the same century, yyyy-yy is more appropriate and consistent with WP:YEAR and 2012–13 United States network television schedule, which is being linked to. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC) I am agreeable to all the listed options in the following order: Current version (more preferably the way it is stated by AussieLegend as his belief of the sentences), Version before discussion (stated above by AussieLegend), or Option B (with the minor changes of "show" to "series" and the date fixes, presented by AussieLegend). I am Opposed to Opinion A and any larger variations on it, as I feel the words in red here are unneeded. Even now, I am leaning more to Opposed for Option B, than for it, as reading it back, I can see how the words in red are unneeded. And for the record, what I initially proposed, which is now labeled Option B, read: On January 12, 2011, CBS announced that the show had been renewed for an additional three years, extending it through the 2013–2014 season, the show's seventh season. As of the 2012-2013 television season, the series is in its sixth season, which premiered on September 27, 2012. "series" was changed to "show" by However whatever in this edit, listed by AussieLegend as well.- Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC) Lets not broaden the dispute -- I have changed show to series in both sentences, and changed the date format to 20xx-yy. Lets keep the dispute to the 4 or 8 words emphasized above. However whatever (talk) 07:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC) Fine. As I see you have done these things, may you change them in all of the bolden options you stated, so we are all working and talking about the same things moving forward? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)