Talk:Big Day

24 in sitcom?

I remember seeing in an interview that the original concept for 24 was a sitcom, about wedding preparations in real time. This is from the creators themselves, and they said in in 24's True Hollywood Story on E!, if I'm not mistaken. --Surten (talk) 01:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)Surten

Viewer Opinions

1. What a stupid show. Marriage is a beautiful thing, you can't abuse it like those horse f****rs in Hollywood.

2. As a person who recently got married, this show was a wonderful, if exaggerated, portrayal of what the process was like. My wife and I loved it!

3. It's a marvelous show. I'm very dissapointed that it's been cancelled, because it was one of those few witty comedies, that have only very little no-brains humour. The script is great, the director is wonderful and the actors are superb, they all portray their characters a little exaggerately, which is exactly what they should be aiming for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.18.45.36 (talk) 15:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Lineage

Having seen some episodes, it rather looks like this show is a version of the UK BBC show The Worst Week of My Life, but with the timescale compressed from 7 days to 1 day, and the number of episodes augmented to meet US network requirements (the UK series had one episode for each day, as 7 episode series are acceptable in that market).

I have as yet not been able to verify my suspicion. --Bill Martin 00:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

As no clear lineage between Big Day and Worst Week can be found -- although the latter predates the former -- a reference to similar story arcs has been added. Bill Martin (talk) 09:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Final Episode ?

I know ABC never aired it, but does anyone know if the final episode (#13) is available anywhere? Thanks, Jaruzel (talk) 14:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved Mike Cline (talk) 13:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

---

• Big Day → Big Day (TV series)
• Big Day (disambiguation) → Big Day

– This series was short-lived, and I don't think this series is popular enough to be the primary topic. In fact, I don't find other entries in the disambiguation page as primary. Moreover, reality series have become critically panned nowadays. Should I give you popularity statistics already? <relisted--Mike Cline (talk) 14:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC) George Ho (talk) 12:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, since it's plausible that a short-lived series is the primary topic for a title (especially one in which none of the other dab page entries are at the title with a qualifier, but rather are translations of the title or just mentioned in other articles. That will make it hard to determine their "popularity" for this title, since none of them have this title. Or you might have traction turning The Big Day into a dab (or moving Big Day (disambiguation) there), to disambiguate the French film from the Cantopop album, but those would be "beside" Big Day. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Big Day, The Big Day, The Big Day (disambiguation), Big Day (disambiguation), and Big Days (TV episode). --George Ho (talk) 21:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

You should use data from prior months, so it won't skew because of the move request. But that looks like evidence for opposing the move, right? -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

January 2012: Big Day, French film and its redirect, and Big Days (TV episode). By the way, believe what you want, but do these evidences support the move? --George Ho (talk) 22:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

IMO, no, since they are for distinct titles that don't need qualifiers ("Big Day", "The Big Day", "Big Days"). And thank you for leave to believe what I want. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: This is the only article with this name, so obviously the primary topic. Is the English translation of Jour de fête a much more likely intention when using "big day" to search? I don't think so. — Bility (talk) 21:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support: The nominator's proposal of renaming the article is not the primary topic of "Big Day". There are over 4.13 billion Ghits about the acronym. ApprenticeFan ^work 09:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

  What acronym? Also, see WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for stats; to be useful, the GHits would need additional terms (or other mechanisms) to line them up with topics on Wikipedia, to see which (if any) of the ambiguously title-able Wikipedia topics (not Internet topics) is primary. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Far too common a phrase to have this not-too-successful and not-too-significant, limited distribution, 13-episode (one still unaired) sitcom as its primary meaning. Andrewa (talk) 23:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:PRECISE. There is no other article currently on WP that uses or reasonably could use the precise title "Big Day". Station1 (talk) 06:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, per WP:PRECISE and the stats provided by the OP. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose There are two other uses of "Big Day" in WP. If this topic did not exist, then Big Day would be a redirect to either Jour de fête or to Rocket Power: The Big Day. But this use is the only one whose name is actually "Big Day", so it's the primary topic. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose – the lameness of TV series may call its notability into question, and that can be addressed separately, but while the article exists, it is the only one in the "Big Day" title space, so it's primary by default. If another (notable) article comes into existence, the question could (should) obviously be revisited. ENeville (talk) 19:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose No convincing argument that any of the other topics would rival this one as primary topic for the term "Big Day." The fact that it's a common phrase is irrelevant when considering where on Wikipedia we should direct users who search for the term. Theoldsparkle (talk) 19:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Big Day. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070630130858/http://www.hollywoodreporter.com:80/hr/content_display/television/features/e3ifbfdd1bcb53266ad8d9a71cad261604f to http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/television/features/e3ifbfdd1bcb53266ad8d9a71cad261604f

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)