Talk:The Convention Conundrum

The Convention Conundrum has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: August 13, 2014. (Reviewed version).

Television: Episode coverage Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Comedy Mid‑importance

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from The Convention Conundrum appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 1 June 2014 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that James Earl Jones and Carrie Fisher appeared in The Big Bang Theory episode "The Convention Conundrum"?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2014/June. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Convention Conundrum.

Wikipedia

Kaley Cuoco-Sweeting: references

In the article, it says:

"This is the first episode to credit Kaley Cuoco as Kaley Cuoco-Sweeting.[1][2]"

Now, this fact has been placed, without sources on Wikipedia elsewhere - see Penny (The Big Bang Theory). After I placed the first source there (IMDb), it was tagged with this: ^{[better source needed]}. As with most information in the article (the plot description, for instance), it is based on the primary source of the episode itself: watch it and you can clearly see "Kaley Cuoco-Sweeting" credited. But I thought a source would be useful - I've added two above to this (especially as it was the subject of a potential DYK hook I nominated, and inline citations are a requirement for facts used in hooks).

But I'd like other opinions. So my question is: does the fact need a source, and if it does, are my sources provided good enough? Bilorv (talk) 12:32, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The content was only tagged because you included the imdb source and imdb is not generally regarded as a reliable source. Had you not included imdb, it probably would have been overlooked. That said, anything added to Wikipedia must be verifiable. This is clearly stated in Wikipedia:Verifiability, which says "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material". Note "directly supports". This means that if you say this is the first time Cuoco has been credited as Cuoco-Sweeting then the source has to say that. It can't simply say that she was credited as Cuoco-Sweeting. That doesn't directly support the claim. The episode is fine as a source for anything that happened in the episode but this claim involves previous episodes, and it can't be used to support the claim that "this is the first time". It can only support the claim that Cuoco was credited as Cuoco-Sweeting in this episode, which is all the TV Guide reference did. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would a reference showing Cuoco being credited as "Cuoco" (not "Cuoco-Sweeting") in The Occupation Recalibration, the previous episode, ([3]) prove it? If you're being pedantic, you'd need references showing every single previous episode crediting her as "Cuoco", but clearly that's not plausible. I really can't find any source directly stating it, but primary sources (the episodes themselves) and plenty of other sources naming the cast show it. Bilorv (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2014 (UTC) Minor edit made by Bilorv (talk) 17:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a fortnight since the last reply. From my perspective, it looks like one of the following should happen:

The statement is fine without references - as with plot descriptions (and other occurrences of this fact around the site), the implied source is the episode itself.
The statement could be improved by adding two references to TV guides: one showing Kaley credited as "Cuoco" in the episode directly before this, the other showing Kaley credited as "Cuoco-Sweeting" in this episode.
The statement needs a reference saying the exact fact, rather than implying or proving it. The IMDb source is not considered reliable enough for this (and presumably, neither would a TBBT wiki source), although the same words on a more reliable website would be perfect.

In the case that the third option is what should happen and no reliable source can be found, would it be better to simply say something along the lines of:

"Kaley Cuoco was credited as "Cuoco-Sweeting" in this episode.[4]"

or would the sentence have to be removed completely? Quick replies would really be appreciated: this problem has been brought up at my DYK nomination of this page. Bilorv (talk) 08:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've boldly changed it to a ref showing the 2 TV guide links, since it doesn't seem anyone is going to reply here (see WP:SILENCE). Bilorv (talk) 14:10, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Convention Conundrum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:04, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]