Talk:The Big Bang Theory/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Question

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

Monday, September 22, 2008 at 8:00 p.m in America. Dont know for the UK.92.4.56.32 (talk) 22:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

-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)

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)

-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)

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)

Actually they are revealed in a somewhat roundabout way. There are numerous times where Leonard and Sheldon are referred to as, Dr. Hofstadter and and Dr. Cooper (respectively).--Jake0617 (talk) 01:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

If they mentioned Wikipedia some fans of the show might think it's fun to start editing whatever articles get mentioned, and annoy some users.

We don't have to come up with Trek equivalents for all the characters. But Leonard is a little more like McCoy than Scotty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.212.37.239 (talk) 01:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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)]

The laugh track is often edited to put the laughter in the right place for a joke based on a camera reveal that the audience would have already seen during the set up, for example the camera pull back on Leonard's head where Kirk wrote the IOU to Penny. It is also used to place laughter in the right place in a scene that has to be shot in pieces for technical reasons, an example being the paintball massacre between Penny, Sheldon, and Leonard, where the scene would be cut to replace clean body armor with paint stained armor. The scene plays very fast, but for safety reasons, they cannot actually shoot each other during the scene.

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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.

The show takes place in CA, so she makes CA minimum wage, which is $8. But, come on, people, this is a TV sitcom. Suspend disbelief. DFS (talk) 12:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

Except that physicists are paid salaries to study and get a PhD. Also, when you come up with a brilliant theory, you are more likely to receive grants, not to mention that you're paid to do public-speaking gigs, things we've already seen Sheldon and Leonard do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.74.26 (talk) 05:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

No they arent, you are an idiot123.255.23.248 (talk) 08:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Didn't they try to sell their sperm for money ? Can't be making too much money at their jobs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.118.167.228 (talk) 19:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, have you been to a comic book store lately? Those things cost some $$$, as do subscriptions to MMORPGs, collectable action figures, and ordering takeout every single night. It is very possible that if the guys gave up all that stuff, they could afford to pay rent on their own, and maybe even each buy a house. But, maybe they have just decided that they prefer the lifestyle they have, which allows them more disposable income for fun stuff. KConWiki (talk) 02:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Or maybe (and this is just speculation), they presumed that as you were watching a sitcom you might be able to suspend disbelief. If we're going to start pointing out inconsistencies in the 'sits' in sitcoms we're going to be in all kinds of trouble Faragher (talk) 15:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

They could supplement their finances with really good investing in blue-chip technology companies, and then dump all their money into cash accounts every few years to avoid the inevitable bear markets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.212.37.239 (talk) 01:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

Because just a page with a synopsis isn't notable enough. -- Jɑɱǐε Jcɑ 01:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

May be we can create a section on each episode summary where we can give a summary or may be a little bit information on the significant of the science theories/ideas mentioned in the episode. For example, I was looking at List of The Boondocks episodes and they have "culture references." We can do something like "science references," sort of like a trivia thing.Elsonlam1 (talk) 05:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The Dates

I've notice that a lot of the dates listed in this article are clickable links to articles listed significant events in history that happened in the same date in past years. As much as I love this show, I dont think the show belong there. Plus those information has nothing to do with this show.Elsonlam1 (talk) 05:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Theme?

Is there ANY factual basis for claiming that the title of the theme song is "The History of Everything"? Every place it is sold (which I would think would be the place they would use the title of the song) simply has it listed as "Big Bang Theory Theme". I see a lot of search results for that information, but it feels equally likely that someone made up the name either on wikipedia or IMDB or TV.com (and everyone then running with it) than it being an official title. Is there any actual source that says this is actually the song's title? TheHYPO (talk) 06:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me check iTunes. Yeah, It's not called "The History of Everything." It's called "The Big Bang Theory Theme." 24.223.154.154 (talk) 23:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The theme is a remixed version of the first verse of "The History of Everything" by The Barenaked Ladies. Whether you want to consider that a separate song for this purpose is up to you, but it isn't a theme specifically written for the show. 71.233.157.64 (talk) 22:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The theme WAS written directly for the show. There is no question about that. The question is what your claim that "The History of Everything" is the title of the song is based on. I've never seen that title used anywhere official, and the links that exist on google or yahoo look like people saw the title here and ran with it. I'm asking if there is any official document or product that uses that song title. The only places I know of the song being listed, Amazon and iTunes, list it simply as "Big Bang Theory Theme". TheHYPO (talk) 07:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

As a very late aside, I thought I'd point out that the TV theme is not a remix of the first verse of the song; the 30 second TV spot was recorded first, then the band later re-recoreded the 1:45 version of the song (incl. the first verse). Both were recorded for the show specifically. TheHYPO (talk) 06:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Studio audience

At the start of the article, it states it's filmed in front of a studio audience. However, the cited link, as far as I can tell, doesn't say anything about that. Can anyone fix this? Lord Seth (talk) 02:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I added a new citation for the studio audience bit. Propaniac (talk) 21:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The Deseret News article is the only one that mentions the studio audience. Has anyone found more sources for this- even non-notable sources, like a call for audience members? The evidence in one article seems a little flimsy, considering how few shows use live audiences instead of canned laughter tracks- and especially because there's never any panouts to show the audience. tedder (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm not really sure what to make of this quote:

"Chuck, because you do "Two and a Half Men" as well, do you have to put a different head on to do that show since it's so different?

Lorre: Oh yeah. I have to leave my "Raunch" hat in that office before going to over to the "Big Bang" office. "Two and a Half" is a very different show. It's much more…carnal. It has its own voice. I love that the shows have different voices. On occasion, when a little "Two and a Half Men" leaks into "Big Bang Theory", it is so off and we shoot in front of a live audience, and when that happens, that live audience responds viscerally. "Whoooooa." You know you've made a mistake. We've re-written stuff in front of the audiences; we do that all the time anyway but it's very important to keep things separate."

http://www.collider.com/entertainment/interviews/article.asp/aid/8685/tcid/1

Does he mean that they have live audience for The Big Bang Theory or Two and a Half Men? Or both? anarfox (talk) 00:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Reads to me that the studio audience for Bang reacts "woah" when they see something in the show that is very two-and-a-half-style TheHYPO (talk) 19:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

OK in this vanity card the creator Chuck Lorre and some sound guy says it's recorded in front of a live audience: http://www.chucklorre.com/index-bbt.php?p=208

I guess it is recorded in front of a live audience then. anarfox (talk) 22:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh I also found where you order tickets: http://www.audiencesunlimited.com/fmi/xsl/shows/browserecord.xsl?&Show=big+bang anarfox (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Postdoctoral researchers

Sheldon and Leonard do not appear to be postdoctoral fellows, as they do not seem to be awaiting another position nor is their research supervised. Dr. Eric Gablehauser is their boss, not an advisor. As postdocs, they may have been able to teach the research seminar once, so this is not conclusive. Particularly, Sheldon is a double Ph.D. holder and child prodigy who was a visiting professor at 15, so he would not be in such an appointment. For the most part, they do not appear as postdocs. There is ambiguity to their positions, but they have only been shown having research responsibilities, so they may be research professors (besides Sheldon wouldn't waste his time teaching "labradoodles"). --68.227.32.148 (talk) 20:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

As long as there is no clarification on their job description, I feel there should be no mention of any sort details such as postdoctoral fellows or otherwise. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 20:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I concur and have already removed the references. --68.227.32.148 (talk) 22:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Brand Names?

Has anyone else noticed how many products in TBBT are given pseudo-names? For example, Dr. Pepper is called Dr. Peeper, likewise with 7-Up and Z-Up[1], and Fiji and Biji[2]. --Jake0617 (talk) 01:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think this is important, as are the Dell and Apple product placement. --128.220.69.57

Using fake products, like Dr. Peeper, is really common in TV. Not sure if there is a wiki article about it, though. tedder (talk) 22:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Well tonight they mention 'Snapple' by name.24.39.98.137 (talk) 01:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

List of images

I think the list images should be included, even if "TheHYPO" disagrees with a condescending comment, and the section should have the list added back in from the list on 21:14, 23 January 2009. This is especially true considering there is already an article devoted to the list of episodes. --128.220.69.57 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.220.69.57 (talk)

It is completely useless information, unlike a list of episodes which is a list of the pieces of the show itself. A list of all images in the title is not foreseeably useful to anyone other than in a "hey, neat" way. It takes up an inordinate amount of space in an article dedicated to the show and not just to the opening credits. TheHYPO (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I am glad to hear your opinion, but what guidelines are you referring to? 70.131.214.240 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC).

First, it fails WP:Verifiability; there is no source, and I doubt you could find a reliable one that isn't just a fan-made list elsewhere. If, as I assume is true, the list was created by someone watching the video and listing it here, that's WP:Original Research. However, even if it somehow could be cited, the issue is really the content of the list, which is trivial, useless and no encyclopedia would bother to list it. It goes against the general principles of what a WP:List should be for, and outside that, it is in the spirit of what wikipedia is WP:Not. Wikpiedia is not an indiscriminate collection of every fact on earth. Specifically, from that section, Wikipedia is not a directory:

Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed. Wikipedia articles are not:

1. Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics [...] Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List. [emphasis mine]

This list is just a list of random stuff that happen to be shown in the titles to the show. They have no element of fame as a list, and until the opening credits are the subject of some news article or something that indicates that the opening credits of the show are wp:Notable, it is not appropriate; And yes, Notability is generally an article guideline, but you also have to remember that wikipedia policy and guidelines also depend on common sense to apply them (per: WP:Policies and guidelines - "Policies and guidelines [...] need to be approached with common sense: adhere to the spirit rather than the letter of the rules") and in my opinion, it is the spirit of wp:Notability that an unnotable section should be axed just as quickly as an unnotable topic. TheHYPO (talk) 17:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Asperger's Syndrome

Anyone plan on recognizing the Slate article which states that Sheldon's character is obviously suffering from Asperger's? --68.81.70.65 (talk) 11:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this, it's blatantly obvious to anyone who knows this condition. Especially since he even inquires about social protocol and his lack of understanding of irony. Of course it's somewhat exagerated, I really recognize myself in him tho, even if I'm far 'better' off than he is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.226.140.193 (talk) 05:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Nobel prizes?

Has it ever been stated that the main character names are taken from Nobel prizes? I'm not sure but maybe: Sheldon Lee Glashow and Leon Cooper, and Arthur Leonard Schawlow (or even Leonard Susskind, though not a Nobel) and Robert Hofstadter? --Metaxal (talk) 13:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Look up a few paragraphs, this is already addressed. DFS (talk) 12:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Separate Article for Weekly Ratings

I think we should have a separate article for the weekly ratings and leave just the seasonal ratings on the main article, anyone agree? 86.156.118.204 (talk) 17:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what the precedent is, but I really can't see how the ratings for each individual episode are notable enough for their own article. (And the "Future episodes" section under "Ratings" is just nonsensical.) If the information is removed from this article I think it would make a lot more sense to merge it into List of The Big Bang Theory episodes than to put it at its own title. Propaniac (talk) 17:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Wolowitz's mom

Does anyone have any references as to who voices Wolowitz's mom? Simon Helberg makes a pretty good impression of her in s01e11, could be him ... but I don't see any overt statements to that effect, neither here nor on imdb. --Itinerant1 (talk) 07:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Bill Prady on twitter

I'm not sure if twitter posts are considered cite-able sources on Wikipedia, but I wanted to mention that Bill Prady (@billprady) just made this tweet: "First ep. taped. Dull spoiler: apartment building plumbing re-piped while boys at north pole; new copper pipes visible in stairwell" [3] (to clarify that, the main reason I thought this was worth mentioning is the fact that an episode is done; the thing about the pipes is incidental) - 68.146.211.84 (talk) 09:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Main cast

"Simon Helberg as Howard Wolowitz, M.Eng. - He works as an engineer who lives with his mother, who are both Jewish."

Is it just me or is this confusingly written? Does Simon live only with his mother (not both parents)? If so, perhaps we should change this to, "He works as an engineer and lives with his mother. Both are Jewish." If we say they're Jewish, though, it seems we must provide the season and episode number where this is made clear. Also, are they ethnic Jews, religious Jews or both?Mwltruffaut (talk) 19:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Religious Jews, at the least. However, it is a running theme during the series, so it would be difficult to pinpoint the one episode that best states that he is Jewish... Perhaps just a reference to the first episode (in which I *think* it is stated) is in order? 98.202.165.201 (talk) 05:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Not sure which. I'm guessing religious Jews since Wolowitz has at least a background in dos and don'ts--even if he does break the rules. But then again, knowledge and observation are two different things: he KNOWS details about the Jewish religion, but I think there have been at least a couple of times where he's broken rules without much of a care.--198.103.152.52 (talk) 17:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Lyrics removal

I have removed the lyrics in this article. While brief quotations are permitted from copyrighted sources, the use of lyrics as with all copyrighted material must accord with non-free content guideline and policy. Its bare placement in the article, without commentary, is purely decorative. As WP:NOT#LYRICS indicates, "any quotation of [copyrighted songs]... must be kept to a minimum, and used for the purpose of direct commentary or to illustrate some aspect of the style." While it may be appropriate to discuss the lyrics and reincorporate some of them, they cannot be sourced to the website used, per policies at WP:LINKVIOand WP:NOT#LYRICS. The latter says, explicitly, "Never link to the lyrics of copyrighted songs unless the site linked to clearly has the right to quote the work." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

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.

If you want a quick way of getting to The Big Bang Theory page, search "TBBT".92.4.56.32 (talk) 22:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit : Wikiepedia is an encyclopedia, I think that the redirection should go the the Real Big bang theory page, not the TV show... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.75.103 (talk) 23:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I like the show too, but "The Big Bang Theory" really ought to go to the THING AFTER WHICH IT's NAMED--among the most important scientific theories in existance. Is someone from CBS poking around here? 24.20.168.22 (talk) 03:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Just add the term "tv" to the search and you get the tv series page!!

Police is law enforcement, The Police is a rock band. "The" makes a world of difference. No encyclopedia would list the physical theory under T.--Dnavarro (talk) 18:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

No of Episodes on DVD series 2

I was reading this article, as a fan of the show (sadly i identify with Sheldon) and in the dvd section of the article, i noticed that the no of episode column said 23 while in the description it said "all 24 episodes". Upon research the change of this from 23 to 24 was by an 220.244.90.63 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and see 1 This was the guys only edit so far on wikipedia and it, dissapointingly, took 3 weeks to uncover that it didn't make sense Phil Nolte (talk) 18:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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. --Crash Underride 06:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

It sounds to me like the first line is, "Fifteen million years ago" instead of "Fifteen billion." Does anybody else agree? --NotWalter

I doubt anyone would. Fourteen (not fifteen) billion years is the accepted age of the universe. It makes much more sense. Listen closely ;) 82.73.151.45 (talk) 16:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to the "million" not the "Fifteen". And I'm not sure scientists are agreed on the exact number of billion. It still sounds to me like they're singing "million", not "billion". --NotWalter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.212.37.239 (talk) 00:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

LOL. It obviously says "billion". How old is the Universe, 15 million? Well, you know what they say, dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago, so that means dinosaurs are older than the Universe? Even high school-level textbooks mention the universe being around 15000 million years old, with the earth being around 5000 million years old. It's as simple as checking this stuff in Wikipedia. 189.175.206.49 (talk) 14:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyone notice in the references that there are two links to go buy the song (one on iTunes, other on Amazon)? I like the BNL and all, but looks like an ad to me... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.27.170 (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The references should not be removed. They are cited sources of information (including the release date, group that performs the song, and something that has been of notable contention, the fact that the song has no real title - just BBT Theme) Wikipedia is all about sources. Just because they are a storefront doesn't mean the article is better off without references for that information. Re: the previous comment, The theme is unmistakebly "Billion", both in the theme version and the full length version... Also, on two recent live performances of the song, he clearly sings billion as well. TheHYPO (talk) 09:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we agree on when expansion begun, but do they "unmistakebly" say "billion" or do they say "million"? Well, I jumped onto Wikipedia to query why they say - as it sounds to my ears - "million". Of course that would be wrong in scientific terms and it's about the only thing I don't like about the show. Does the theme "obviously" say "billion"? Can't be that obvious when I and others hear "million". Whilst the concept of a 'big bang' at the 'beginning of time' is something that most people have a basic idea about, most people think of this as an explosion rather than as a universal expansion of space, and only a portion of those people realise that expansion also refers to a very specific physical concept whereby the universe enlarged at an extra-super-rapid rate over a very short era at said 'beginning of time'. Ask the average Joe Blow on the street about this and you're likely to cop a LOL wut?! It'e easy to think that the theme's lyric writers simply stuffed up the million/billion. 203.219.157.116 (talk) 10:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

If anyone is stuffing anything up it's the people who think they're hearing million. Million makes no sense. Everyone knows dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago so how could the big bang have happened after that? I just visited 15 different lyrics sites and all of them had "billion" in the lyrics, even the YouTube video. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The lyrics sites I see also quote "billion". Of course "million" makes no sense, but I am not the first person to hear "million" ... What do you hear? OK, this is Wikipedia, let's find sources - See www.suite101.com/blog/kellykw/the_big_bang_theory which says it defintely sounds like "million". Oops. Maybe different versions of the show have slightly different lyrics? Maybe the did say million, didn't want to look foolish, so simply changed their lyrics? 203.219.158.145 (talk) 10:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a problem with sourcing the lyrics that is outlined below at #Lyrics removal. The source you've provided says that even though the author hears "millions" the written version has "billions". Since all of the lyrics sources say "billions" it's really a trivial matter to pursue. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Vanity cards link?

A few days ago, I added a link to the "Official Chuck Lorre site" where you can see all the cards they flash at the end credits. It was removed shortly thereafter. What was the rationale for this removal? If no rationale, I would like to add it again.

KConWiki (talk) 02:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm putting it back. KConWiki (talk) 23:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Vanity cards Part 2

Another editor has started restoring the vanity cards link after it has been removed.[4][5] This link has been removed and then re-added several times previously, so there is clearly a need for some discussion. Vanity card links have been removed from numerous articles, including The Big Bang Theory for good reason. External links should be relevant to the article and, as specified in Wikipedia:External links, "any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article" should be avoided. The vanity card link is just such a link. The vanity cards provide no additional resources and, for the most part, are completely irrelevant to the subject. That they appear right at the end of the program is not a justifiable reason for inclusion since the link meets the very first criteria of Links normally to be avoided. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I have to admit I don't understand how that criteria rules out the link. As I'm reading it (and it's entirely possible I'm wrong, because I don't think it's very clear), it calls upon the user to ask the question, "Would this information be included in the article, if the article were good enough to meet the standards of FA status?" and if the answer is yes, the site should not be linked. The vanity card information would never be included in the article itself, for practical reasons (if there were only one or a few cards that were used, I think it would be eligible for inclusion), so I don't see how the site meets that criteria for exclusion. Aside from any consideration of that criteria, the link seems adequately relevant to me; even though the vanity cards usually don't comment on the plot of the show, they are inextricably connected to each episode. Propaniac (talk) 13:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

If we are coming at this question from different interpretations of the criteria wording, I'd like to ask for clarification at Wikipedia talk:External links (and I may do so anyway), because I really do find it unnecessarily confusing. Propaniac (talk) 13:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how the vanity cards are irrelevant at all. That's sort of like saying the names of the actors are irrelevant. Given that they aren't irrelevant, I'll be adding them back presently. Aprock (talk) 22:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

@ Propaniac - You're correct that the vanity card information would never be included in the article but it's not for practical reasons, it's because the vanity cards themselves have absolutely no relevance to The Big Bang Theory. That can be seen by simple examination of the contents at the link. External links should contain meaningful, relevant content that is on-topic. The vanity cards do not contain anything of the sort. They provide no unique resource about the subject of the article so the link is one that should be avoided. Thus it clearly meets criteria 1 of WP:ELNO. Fan sites are more relevant than the vanity cards and we don't link those. There is also an argument that it meets criteria 13 since it's only indirectly related to the article's subject. The vanity cards link might be relevant to Chuck Lorre Productions or Chuck Lorre, but not here, or any of the other Chuck Lorre series articles, which is probably why they're only linked here.

@ Aprock - That's like nothing of the sort. The actors are an integral and extremely important part of the program. Without the actors there would be no program. The same can not be said of the vanity cards. How does advice not to fall for a woman who has sex with one of your rock'n'roll heroes,[6] learning about how the screen would wobble when you freeze-framed at the end of Dharma & Greg,[7], knowing that a vanity card was censored,[8] or knowing about a yellow breasted bird[9] improve our understanding of The Big Bang Theory? Regarding this edit, re-adding disputed content in the middle of a discussion is inappropriate. It's promoting edit warring and goes against the Bold, Revert, Discuss method of achieving consensus. The information should either be re-added, or remain excluded from the article until consensus is reached, especially since you haven't provided any cogent argument to support the re-addition after several deletions. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The vanity cards are content presented on every show. They belong just as much as information about the theme song. If I was too bold, I'm sorry. The exclusion of references to actual show content is rather silly. Aprock (talk) 03:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Once again, just because they're at the end of each episode, doesn't justify providing a link to them in the article. They are so irrelevant that they are shown after everything except the Warner Bros. logo. Should we included a link to that as well? No, because it's shown at the end of each WB program and isn't actually relevant to the program itself, just as Chuck Lorre's vanity cards are shown at the end of each Chuck Lorre production and the content of the vanity cards is completely irrelevant to the program. By contrast, the theme song is shown within the actual program and is relevant to the program itself. Maybe you'd like to discuss the fact that Panavision cameras are used. That's before even the copyright disclaimer, which is before the vanity card. At least that's relevant to production. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the fact that Warner Brothers produces the show is included in the body of the article. This seems to indicate that information about the vanity cards should be included in the article as well. Aprock (talk) 17:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that the mention of Warner Bros is limited to a single sentence and we don't supply a link to the logo do we? --AussieLegend (talk) 18:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting they be included? Aprock (talk) 18:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Just because you think they are irrelevant, that doesn't make it so. But I do agree, if it were just a logo, including it wouldn't be warranted. However, there is content unique to each show in the vanity card. Aprock (talk) 17:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

And just because you think they are relevant doesn't make them so. The content is unique to each vanity card but the content is not relevant to The Big Bang Theory. If it were, you should have no problem answering the question that I asked and yet still remains unanswered. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what question you're referring to. If think you think that unique content included in every show is irrelevant, I think it's up to you to make a fairly strong case. Is "The Bloodhound Gang" irrelevant to "321-Contact". Is Andy Roony irrelevant to "60 minutes"? Are the names of dead soldiers irrelevant to "This Week"? Aprock (talk) 17:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The question I'm referring to is only a few paragraphs up in a reply to you and, as nobody has bothered to answer it, should be easy to spot. For you though, I shall repeat it: "The actors are an integral and extremely important part of the program. Without the actors there would be no program. The same can not be said of the vanity cards. How does advice not to fall for a woman who has sex with one of your rock'n'roll heroes,[10] learning about how the screen would wobble when you freeze-framed at the end of Dharma & Greg,[11], knowing that a vanity card was censored,[12] or knowing about a yellow breasted bird[13] improve our understanding of The Big Bang Theory?"

As to who should make a strong case, I've already done so and it's long standing policy that the editor who adds or restores material needs to justify its inclusion. All you've done so far is said it is relevant but you haven't explained how it is relevant. The questions you've asked are irrelevant here. What is relevant to one article is not necessarily what is relevant to other articles, especially when they're unrelated. As an example, while Andy Roony may (or may not) be relevant to 60 minutes in the US, he certainly wouldn't be relevant to the Australian 60 minutes. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

To answer your question: "The vanity cards are unique content which are a part of every show. Understanding the vanity cards allows you to understand that part of the show." That's all the relevance that's needed. Aprock (talk) 18:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

That's an answer, but it doesn't answer the question that I asked. I'll make it easier for you, how exactly does advice not to fall for a woman who has sex with one of your rock'n'roll heroes allow you to understand The Big Bran Hypothesis? The answer is that it doesn't. It's not relevant to the episode. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It's relevant to the episode because it is part of the episode. Aprock (talk) 21:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

And again, that doesn't answer the question that I asked. Failure to answer that question shows that you can't demonstrate the relevance of the vanity card which proves that the cards aren't relevant. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I really do not follow your reasoning here. It would really help if you expressed things more clearly. You may think you're being clear here, but honestly you're not. Aprock (talk) 23:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems to more the case that you are deliberately trying to avoid answering the question. If you can answer the question, showing how advice not to fall for a woman who has sex with one of your rock'n'roll heroes allows you to understand The Big Bran Hypothesis, then you can demonstrate relevance. Simply replying "it's relevant because it's part of the episode" does not demonstrate relevance or justify inclusion in the article. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

AussieLegend, I still don't see how criteria 1 has anything to do with whether the content is relevant. As I said before, I read the wording as saying, "If the information on this site would be included in a FA-quality article on this topic, the site should not be linked." Maybe you're ignoring the part about FA status, and simply reading it as "Any site that does not provide a unique resource should be avoided," but the vanity cards are a unique resource, whether or not the information provided is relevant. I really do intend now to bring up the matter at the Talk page for the EL criteria, but I don't have time to start such a discussion there right at this moment. Regardless, I simply don't agree at this point that the EL criteria restricts this link from being included, and I concur with Aprock that the link should be included; I think the comparison to the theme song is fairly apt. Something present at the end of every single episode is not as irrelevant to the show as you're arguing it is. Propaniac (talk) 03:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be misinterpreting the criteria. It speaks of links being "a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article" and it says that if they aren't then they should be avoided. Wikipedia:External links says that links to external websites "should not normally be used in the body of an article". If vanity cards were discussed within the article, then providing a link to them in the "External links" section would be appropriate (not inappropriate as you seem to be arguing) but, if they weren't discussed in the article, and they most certainly wouldn't if the article was FA because the vanity cards are essentially irrelevant trivia, then they shouldn't be linked. I am not arguing that "something present at the end of every single episode is not irrelevant to the show", I'm saying that these vanity cards are irrelevant. Regarding relevancy, it is a general Wikipedia principle that applies to all links. We don't link to irrelevant information and the vanity cards are irrelevant. I note that neither your nor Aprock answered my questions about the content of the vanity cards. Perhaps you could do so now and explain how the cards that I've linked to present a resource that is worthy of inclusion in this article? --AussieLegend (talk) 10:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

If you're suggesting mentioning the vanity cards in the article, then I agree with you. Aprock (talk) 17:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that at all. They're too trivial. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you thinking that they are trivial is not any reason to exclude the content. Aprock (talk) 17:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

That's quite obviously not the only reason to exclude the content and I haven't seen any cogent arguments from you as to why they should be included. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Reason to include: It's unique content that is a part of every show. Aprock (talk) 17:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

That's not a sufficient reason. The vanity card content is completely irrelevant to the program (and you still haven't answered my question, which, if you had, might have given this some credibility). The credits are unique to the show but we don't discuss them. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It's more reason than you've given. I still have no clue what question you're referring to. Plenty of details from the credits are included in the article. Aprock (talk) 18:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

You do realise that I went to the trouble of restating the question in the outdented text above, in response to the same comment, 36 minutes before you posted here, don't you? It makes me wonder whether you're taking this discussion seriously. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the timesamps, you'll see that I responded here at the bottom of the thread first, and then I saw you had done an outdent in the middle, whereupon I responded there. Aprock (talk) 23:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

If that were actually the case then you should have made a note here to avoid confusion. You need to make yourself clear. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm bringing this down to the end to make following this easier to follow. First, I'll be happy to admit that many of the vanity notes do not discuss the show. By the same token, many of the shows do not relate directly to the vanity notes. This not a problem. It is perfectly reasonable that one aspect of a show not always relate to another aspect of a show. The argument that needs to be made is that one (or the other) aspect of the show should not be included. If a particular aspect of the show should not be included, the reasons should apply only to that aspect. Whether one aspect relates to another is a moot point. Maybe you'd like to argue that there isn't enough creative content, or that there isn't any general interest in that aspect of the show, or that the notes are distinct and separate from the show. But arguing that one aspect is not related to another has nothing to do with whether it is or isn't relevant to the show. Aprock (talk) 23:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it is a problem. For you. You've now conceded that the show and the vanity cards aren't relevant because the cards aren't related to the show and the show isn't related to the cards. The only thing tying the two together is that Chuck Lorre attaches one right at the end of each episode. This means there is no justification for inclusion of the vanity card link because the site "does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article" and therefore the link should be avoided under WP:ELNO and because links should be relevant to the article. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflict, writing this as the above two comments were posted) AL, regardless of what Criteria 1 is trying to say (I still don't understand your interpretation), it seems like your point is that the link isn't relevant to the topic and should thus be excluded. I'm pretty sure all three of us agree that an article should not link to irrelevant information. The essential conflict here is that Aprock and I think that the link is relevant information, and you think the link is not relevant information. It doesn't seem likely that further discussion between the three of us, on the lines of what's taken place so far, is going to change any of our minds. Since two of the three of us currently agree on what action should be taken, it seems to me that right now, the majority opinion should take precedence in the article. Further actions that could be taken that might change that majority opinion would include posting an RFC on the matter; asking for input from a relevant WikiProject; or presenting your opinion in a different way that might be more convincing, as it does seem like your arguments to this point have been essentially "it's irrelevant because it's irrelevant" or "it's irrelevant because this policy says so, even though it doesn't seem to you that that's what the policy is saying" (seriously, maybe if you explained the policy and its bearing here more slowly and completely, I might get what you're saying and agree with you after all). Propaniac (talk) 00:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I realize that the above discussion is old, but I want to state for the record that I thoroughly disagree with AussieLegend's arguments.
Firstly, AussieLegend's interpretation of the criterion in question is simply incorrect. As noted above, it's intended strictly to advise against linking to information that should instead be included in the article. It has absolutely no bearing on information that should not be included in the article, regardless of whether it's relevant.
Secondly, I'm baffled by AussieLegend's contention that the vanity cards are irrelevant to the show. Yes, the vanity card usually is unrelated to the episode's main plot, but relevance to the main plot ≠ relevance to the show. The vanity card is a separate part of the show, consisting of unique comedic content featured in addition to the main plot. AussieLegend's claim is analogous to stating that couch gags are irrelevant to "The Simpsons."
We cannot lawfully host a complete list of Chuck Lorre's copyrighted vanity cards, but it is entirely appropriate for us to link from each program's article to Mr. Lorre's official compilation of vanity cards featured in that series. —David Levy 23:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm another that thinks the vanity cards are relevent. The clarify, the entire show, including the credits and vanity cards, is called The Big Bang Theory. I'll repeat that - THE ENTIRE SHOW INCLUDING. Arguing that the vanity cards are irrelevant to the main episode is itself irrelevant. The cards, howver disjointed from the main programme, and however trivial in content, are still part of the show. There does seems to be a consensus forming now with only one person disagreeing with other contributors. The Yeti (talk) 00:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Good arguments on both sides, but I just want to add one tidbit. Some of the Vanity cards (I started reading them out of curiosity) are duplicated on [Two and a Half Men] as well. So they may be in fact, more of a signature on his shows, then something relevant to the series. Hourick (talk) 06:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

"Sheldon Leonard"

It's pretty obvious that the names of the two main characters are a tip of the hat to Sheldon Leonard. Not sure how to mention that in the article, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.159.76 (talk) 21:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Unless you can include a citation from a reliable source in support, it's original research and shouldn't be included. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Is the IMDB considered a reliable source? It has an entry on the trivia page Gorillatheape (talk)

No, it's not considered to be a reliable source since it can be edited by anyone. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

http://www.chucklorre.com/index-bbt.php?p=187 71.227.125.129 (talk) 05:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

UK Ratings

Why do we care about the UK ratings, why not list the ratings of every single country it airs in if we're going to list the UK? Makes no sense. 70.54.126.86 (talk) 05:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree. The only ratings that are really of interest in most articles are the ratings in the country where the program is produced, since these are what determine the future of a program. If there was some third party analysis there might, and that's a very weak might, be some value but I don't see it here. I'm not opposed to the UK ratings being removed. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Running Gags

There is no reason why running gags should have been removed. It is part of what makes the show the show. Many other TV shows have this on their Wiki pages. For someone who (for instance) saw a "Soft Kitty" episode and didn't understand why everyone was laughing, this would serve as a resource for them to understand it.

Aussielegend, I see your thinking, but you're wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drummer8719 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 4 February 2010 UTC

A "Running gags" section is unencyclopaedic and trivial, and trivia sections are discouraged. That other articles may have them is not a convincing argument. Such information, if worthy of inclusion in an article, should be added where appropriate into the prose, and treated encylopaedically. Bazinga and Soft Kitty are related to the eccentricities of Sheldon and could be treated appropriately in Sheldon Cooper. (Soft Kitty is already mentioned there.) Brisket could possibly be discussed at Howard Wolowitz. Of course you must be careful not to use original research in doing so. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Define unencyclopaedic. Trivial, true, but isn't a theme song trivial as well? Forgive me for being fairly new to contributing to Wikipedia, as I'm not completely knowledgeable on every Wiki policy. Though I do agree that the gags I had posted could be separated into the characters' pages, they are not the only ones. There is many more which I am researching and gathering citations for. Oh, despite being an avid fan of TBBT, I am making these contributions for a research proposal. Drummer8719 (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Critical reception?

Why is there no reception section for this show, and in fact most other shows I've looked up on Wikipedia. It seems like it would be more notable than a lot of the things that get put up on these pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.83.28 (talk) 03:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed it would. By all means, start such a section if you have information that can be used. --AussieLegend (talk)

Spoiler Alert

In the Leonard section there is reference of him and Penny getting together in 3rd season (btw sorry for not knowing the rules here this is my first wiki entry) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.105.62.101 (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, it doesn't concern itself with spoilers. See WP:SPOILER for more information. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Sara Gilbert as Leslie Winkle

She isn't part of the main cast —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.105.62.101 (talk) 00:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

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 Leslie Winkle 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. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

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)

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

hi, excuse me, but i have a serious question. how can " an attractive blonde waitress with show-biz aspirations " afford such a flat? is "attractive blonde waitress with show-biz aspirations " an american slang word for prostitute? mfg 78.50.49.203 (talk) 13:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

This page is for discussing the Wikipedia article, not the TV program itself Oscroft (talk) 14:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

And besides, that's a very common phenomenon on TV sitcoms.76.113.104.88 (talk) 07:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Cuba

The international broadcast index, lists Cuba. I'm guessing its a mistake, wouldn't it be against the embargo to show it there?

It may not be a mistake. I read somewhere that a lot of Latin American or Caribbean countries pick up U.S. satellite transmissions and rebroadcast them. Sorry, I don't have a source.76.113.104.88 (talk) 07:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Not yet...

Can someone remove Malaysia from the list of countries that aired the series? I can assure you that the series are not here (yet!) even in the paid channels. I have no idea how to edit a table, I'm afraid if I do it, I might mess it up. Thanks. Syfuel (talk) 05:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Done by User:AussieLegend. --Ben Ben (talk) 14:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Mayim Bialik referenced in series...

I don't know if this falls under useless trivia or whatnot, but should it be mentioned somewhere that in Episode 13 of Season 1 (The Bat Jar Conjecture), Raj suggests "the girl who played TV-s Blossom" (Mayim Bialik) as a member of their Physics Bowl team. Since the actress now appears in the series herself, it would seem to be a logical contradiction. It does seem rather unnecessary as I'm writing this, but I thought I'd mention it anyway :) Orav (talk) 20:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Sheldon Has Asperger's Syndrome?

I heard that from somewhere. Doc Quintana (talk) 02:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

LOL no! His mother had him tested! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.105.62.101 (talk) 23:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

It's discussed on the article for Sheldon Cooper. His mother did *NOT* have him tested for AS (as far as what's been said on the episodes so far). His mother had him tested for *insanity*. AS is not insanity. -- 67.42.107.14 (talk) 22:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure in one of the interviews with the actor he said explicitly that Sheldon does not have Asperger's. Rakerman (talk) 12:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Here it is - it's actually the show co-creator, Bill Prady who says it's not Asperger's. Come up with a new theory: Sheldon does NOT have Asperger's -- Rakerman (talk) 12:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, since it's imaginary character we can't speculate for there was no reference in the show. AS is not insanity but one could argue that his mother (a religious nutjob) would count AS as insanity... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.86.205.7 (talk) 03:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Is this show supposed to be about people with Asperger's? Or was it just created as a show about "geeks"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.30.96.226 (talk) 03:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

4th season ?

there is going to be another season?Comu_nacho (spanish speaker) (talk) 02:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The new Science section under the Elements section

Although I think we should definitely discuss how the show focusus on Science and Technology, the way it's currently presented is duplicated with the Main Cast section of the article. Any idea on how to fix this? I don't want to just delete this section, as there does need to be a section telling how Science (and technology) are major themes of the show. However whatever (talk) 19:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Also "He [sc. Leonard][...] unsuccessfully attempted to disprove the existence of dark matter." -- I sure missed the episode that story was told, or even the whole season. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.152.208.69 (talk) 02:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Season information in the infobox

As I indicated in this edit summary, I thought clearly, including season information in the infobox can mislead the reader into believing that an actor only appeared on the show in that season. For both Sara Gilbert and Melissa Rauch this is certainly not the case. Season information is best addressed in the prose, as it already is, especially since the infobox is supposed to be a summary of information and seasonal information is specific. Not everyone is a regular watcher and we have to accommodate everyone who may read this article, not just the fans who watch it. Arguing that guest stars are not members of the cast[14] is quite ridiculous. Anyone who appears in the episode is a member of the cast for that episode, regardless of whether they are main cast, recurring cast or guest cast. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It is quite standard to distinguish cast members who were not there for the entire run of the series. See for example The Facts of Life (TV series) and Family Ties. The infobox is for Main cast, not guest cast. However whatever (talk) 05:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

What you are missing, despite the fact that I've said it twice now, is that putting the season information for these characters is misleading. While it may be common to put season information in the infobox, it's not common for recurring cast members to be main cast for only a short period of their involvement with the program. Generally actors become main cast immediately they join and when they stop being main cast it's usually because they've left the program. This isn't the case for Sara Gilbert or Melissa Rauch and so their period of involvement as a main cast member should be addressed in the prose, and not in the infobox to avoid any ambiguity. As I've also stated, we have to accommodate everyone who may read this article, not just the fans who watch it, and the casual reader may not be aware that these actors were recurring before the stated period and, in the case of Gilbert, recurring after that period. Including season information without any explanation is likely to mislead these readers. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The point that I think you are missing is that only main cast are notable enough to be in the infobox. Otherwise, we'd have a huge list in the infobox. I agree that this TV show is somewhat unique in that it promotes and demotes characters into and out of the main cast back to the guest character list, but the point is that only the main characters belong in the infobox, so that we don't end up with a list of 6 dozen actors or so. I don't know how to explain it any better. However whatever (talk) 05:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not missing that at all. As I explained above, generally actors become main cast immediately and stop when they leave the program, so the period that they are main cast is the entire period they're with the program. Because of this, when people see a period next to someone's name, they expect that is the entire period of involvement but that isn't the case here, which is why adding a period of time is misleading. In other words, when people see "Sara Gilbert (Season 2)" they expect that she was only a cast member for season 2, when in fact she has been in seasons 1-3. The situation can't be explained in the infobox so it's best to have nothing there at all. And just to clarify, this has nothing to do with cast being notable enough to be in the infobox. That line is completely irrelevant. It's all to do with misleading the reader, even unintentionally, as to a main cast member's period of involvement with the program. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should look at the infobox -- it says "STARRING". That means main cast. Guests are not stars. It should therefore include only the period of time that the actors were stars on the show. Guest appearances excluded. However whatever (talk) 06:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I really don't understand why you are persisting with this irrelevant mention of guest stars. As I've stated, this has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion. I'm not arguing that Sara Gilbert should have "(season 1-3)" after her name, I'm saying that there should be nothing at all because it misleads the reader into thinking she was only a member of the cast for season 2. I really don't know a simpler way to explain it. As for this edit summary, no, we don't need to convey that. As you've pointed out, the infobox lists starring roles. It doesn't explain when people had non-starring roles. That sort of thing is best left to be explained properly in the prose. You should note that with that edit, you've now breached WP:3RR and could be blocked from editing at any time.[15][16][17][18] --07:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Do not resort to threats. You are actually at 3, and I'm still at 2 (you're not counting correctly). However whatever (talk) 08:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

There was no threat, I was simply pointing it out to you. I have provided diffs for the qualifying reversions and they number four. You can't argue that you didn't make them. If you need more information, please read WP:3RR. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Note I have restored the standard (i.e. no season mention) version while this discussion is under way, as the alternative is contrary to the wider convention in use. We generally list all cast members who have held "main actor" status, without any season notes. As Aussie stated, that is what the body copy is for. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

That's simply not true. See

• The Facts of Life (TV series)
• Family Ties
• The Jeffersons
• Diff'rent Strokes
• A Different World (TV series)
• 227 (TV series)
• All in the Family
• and even as far back as Flipper (1964 TV series).

That's 8 shows that I was able to find in 10 minutes. However whatever (talk) 08:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's look at some more contemporary series, with larger and much more active editing, such as Scrubs, Lost, Heroes, Law and Order, CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, and 24. --Ckatz^chat_spy

That means that there is currently no official standard, and either way is acceptable. It seems to be misleading to lump Ruach and Gilbert with the other 4 stars who appeared (or credited as in the case of Cuoco). Ruach has so far made only 7 appearances (2 in a starring role), and Gilbert has made only 8 appearances (either 3 or 4 in a starring role). No wonder people are inclined to remove them which explains the threatening hidden text. It simply doesn't do justice to lump those two actresses together with the other 5 actors. By presenting Ruach and Gilbert in a less deceptive manner the obnoxious hidden text message could be removed, as far fewer people would be inclined to make a good faith edit to remove them. However whatever (talk) 09:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

As is explained in the section above, titled Sara Gilbert as Leslie Winkle (again!), 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." Note the last two words. It doesn't matter that they've only been credited in a few episodes, if they're credited in a starring role, they get lumped together with others who've been credited in starring roles. Of course, this doesn't have anything to do with adding season information. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

However whatever, if you look at this page (archived talk page from WikiProject Television), you'll see that what you are proposing has been discussed in the past. Overall, the feeling was that the extra description clutters the infobox and is better suited for prose content in the body of the article. The infobox is just for quick, summarized information about the show. Clarifications should be presented in prose and that requires the body of the article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Consensus in one article is not binding on any other article. To represent Gilbert and Rauch in the same way as the other actors is outright misleading. Yes, the two were credited as having a starring role in a few episodes, which is why they should be listed as starring actresses, but a distinguishing parenthesis ought to be inserted, as is the norm in many other articles, to distinguish that their starring roles are much smaller than the others. Unless there is a policy that forbids this, this is what we ought to do here. However whatever (talk) 18:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Three of the four editors who have participated in this discussion so far, and another who commented on this very subject at WT:TV#Season information in the infobox disagree with you, the sole dissenting voice. The consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 13#Infobox ordering would seem to support our position on this artcle. The fact that Gilbert and Rauch aren't starring for the entire series run is covered in the prose far better than could possibly be done in the infobox. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not the "sole dissenting voice" as it may appear. You have pointed to other threads which I did not participate where others objected to Gilbert's inclusion as main cast. I do not object to the inclusion, but their inclusion does need to be in the properly context. Requiring readers to read the article to avoid the misleading message in the infobox defeats the purpose of the infobox. However whatever (talk) 19:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The other threads were about inclusion of Gilbert and had nothing to do with adding season information against her name. On that, you are the sole dissenting voice. The opinions expressed in those threads did not take into account Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Style guidelines#Cast information which supports inclusion. As to the "misleading message in the infobox", what message is that? --AussieLegend (talk) 20:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Placing Rauch and Gilbert without any additional parenthetic statements gives off the impression that their contributions to the show are equal to those of the other five. That is the misleading message, and this is why other editors attempted to fix that by removing them. I'm proposing something less dramatic than removing — adding short clarifying parenthetic statements, something quite common in Wikipedia as given by the list of articles that do this which I have provided at the beginning of this discussion. However whatever (talk) 20:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Consensus here, and at WT:TV would seem to be that we don't do that. Other editors have removed Gilbert, both from the infobox and from the article, and even moved her to another section altogether, or just disagreed with her inclusion because "she's not a main cast member any more, or because "she was only in x episodes", even when explanations as to her status have been provided.[19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29] Not once has anyone ever removed her because of a lack of "additional parenthetic statements". As for this edit summary, WP:HIDDEN precludes "telling others not to edit an article, period". It also precludes "telling others not to perform certain edits to a page unless there is an existing policy against that edit". The warning not to remove Gilbert is not "mere consensus" as your edit summary indicates. It is covered by Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Style guidelines#Cast information as explained above in the section titled Sara Gilbert as Leslie Winkle (again!). You removed this comment previously,[30] and it was restored by an administrator.[31] That should be an indication as to the comment's validity. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

WT:TV is NOT binding policy. However whatever (talk) 21:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Nobody said it was. However, MOS:TV is the result of wide consensus and you should follow and have good reason not to. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

However whatever, the consensus was not on "one article", it was at the WikiProject for ALL television articles. Not everyone must be a part of that discussion for there to be consensus. There were enough people that did take part and that did agree that that type of information is best left in prose form. It also does not defeat the purpose of the infobox to "force" readers to read the body of the article to get all of the information. As a matter of fact, that is exactly what the purpose of the infobox is for. If the infobox was just to let readers read a tidbit of info and then move on we wouldn't have articles in the first place, just a basic page with dozens of infoboxes. Fortunately, that isn't how it works. The infobox provides the barest of info and the article body describes what is listed there. So, in fact, we would be following the plan for the infobox more by NOT including that type of information because the infobox wasn't designed to "clarify" the info that is presented within itself.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)