Template talk:The Big Bang Theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Television (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborate effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. For how to use this banner template, see its documentation.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Links to actors articles[edit]

I added to the template links to the actors' articles, but was swiftly reverted with the stated reason being that goes against consensus at WP:ACTOR. I would appreciate a direct quote from WP:ACTOR that explicitly prohibits it. All I can find at WP:ACTOR that remotely addresses this issue is the following paragraph:

Per extensive determinations of consensus as summarized here, navbox templates containing filmographies are not supported by this project. Such templates should be nominated for deletion as unusable. Note that filmography navbox templates for work by film directors are not covered by this consensus.

I fail to see how this sentence says that adding the names of the actors is prohibited. Is there another quote at WP:ACTOR that I missed?
However whatever (talk) 13:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

See TfD's here along with the following discussion. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 18:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps I wasn't clear: I'm looking for the specific quote which prohibits this inclusion. At the moment, I can't find anything. However whatever (talk) 21:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
There isn't a quote, there is a discussion about it. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 23:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Discussions are not policies. Therefore, unless you can clearly state why you object to including links to the articles in the template, I see no reason to exclude those links. Please note that "goes against consensus" is not a legitimate reason. I need a legitimate reason as to why those links should not be included. However whatever (talk) 00:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Consensus still should be observed, other wise what is the point? Try actually reading the discussion that took place. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 00:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The burden is on you to specify the consensus. Telling me "go fish" is insufficient. If you agree with the consensus you should be able to paraphrase it, or at the very least, link to it. However whatever (talk) 00:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I linked to the discussion where the consensus was stated. Actors/crew members should not be included in navigation boxes. Navboxes are supposed to group together tightly related articles. Actors and crew members are not limited to one series or film. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 01:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Your links got me nowhere. Nonetheless, I don't see how linking to the pages of the actors deviates from the consensus "Navboxes are supposed to group together tightly related articles". Actors the the life of the series/film. They are therefore tightly related to the series/film, especially in the context that I presented them, using paranthesis after the name of the character.—Preceding unsigned comment added by However whatever (talkcontribs) 01:15, 12 February 2010
This link may be a bit better, sorry if the other wasn't working for you. I understand your reasoning, though. Actors are integral to the show for sure. But you can talk about a show without mentioning the actors at all. And we can run into trouble when a character is played multiple actors, do we include all of them? Or which one is more important, which could lead to issues in POV. Hope that makes sense. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 01:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Now I finally have something that I can follow.
First thing first, until it makes it to an official policy page, the consensus is non-binding, as it only applies to the page in question. Second, your slippery slope concern seems to be easily resolved with limiting the navbox to just actors whose characters have articles, and each actor would have to be listed alongside his/her character. When a character is played by multiple actors, they can all be listed (example, Lionel Jefferson played by Mike Evans and Damon Evans) However whatever (talk) 01:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I encourage you to bring it up on WT:ACTOR. But as far as I am concerned, since everything is debatable, there is nothing official other than policies established. So I think that consensus has been reached and I could point to several users who would agree. And of course characters with articles should be included, but that doesn't necessarily mean the actor is more notable than any other actor on the show. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 02:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Notability criteria for episodes[edit]

Just saw the tag in the template. Well I think it's pretty obvious what the inclusion criteria is - the episodes with individual articles are listed there. As that's quite simple enough, I'm going to go remove the template now. Miyagawa (talk) 09:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to say, the new layout on the template is much better. Miyagawa (talk) 17:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
It should be updated to reflect that the template is about wikipedia, more than the big bang theory, looking at the current format it appears no episodes where produced in season 3. When in reality the exclusion is that no episodes in that series are worthy of inclusion by the internal standard of this particular site (talk) 14:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
The purpose of a navbox is to facilitate navigation between related articles, it's not the place for disclaimers or explanations. I don't see how what you suggest can be achieved. --AussieLegend () 14:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
The purpose should be made clear, at the moment reading it suggests that season one only consisted of the pilot (talk) 14:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
There are links to the main episode list and to each season article that clear show that is not the case. What it shows at the moment is that, despite the episodes listed in the main episode list the season one article, only one episode article exists for that season. This is fairly common in these templates because not all episodes are notable. --AussieLegend () 14:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I understand what you're getting at with this edit, but "Articles related to" is redundant as, by definition, all articles listed in a navbox are related to the navbox title. --AussieLegend () 15:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
If there are episodes that should have articles on them, that are yet to be written they shoud be added in per WP:REDLINK (talk) 17:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Umm, no. Per Wikipedia:Navigation templates, specifically the section titled "Navigation templates provide navigation between existing articles", "Red links should be avoided unless they are very likely to be developed into articles, and even if they do, editors are encouraged to write the article first." The key here is "very likely". It's not "very likely" that any of the "missing" articles would be developed into articles. It's a remote possibility at best for most of them. --AussieLegend () 20:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
My preference would be work within official wikipedia guidelines that have community support, rather than an essay that is nothing more the opinion of a single author. (talk) 22:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Navigation templates is hardly the opinion of a single editor and it does have wide support, which is why it is linked from WP:NAVBOX, which is an editing guideline. WP:NAVBOX says "Navigation templates, sometimes called navboxes, are boxes containing links to a group of related articles." Redlinks are not articles, which is why they aren't normally included in navboxes. WP:REDLINK doesn't say redlinks should be included, it says "Do not create red links to articles that will likely never be created". Most of these episodes will never be created, so redlinks shouldn't be included. --AussieLegend () 03:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion of Bazinga (genus) and Euglossa bazinga[edit]

The links to the articles Bazinga (genus) and Euglossa bazinga were recently removed from this template, in this edit. The question was posed, "in what universe are these articles "related"?" . These two articles are for things whose scientific names were at least in part inspired by the show. To me, this demonstrates the cultural impact of TBBT in the scientific community and beyond. Additionally, if the asteroid 246247 Sheldoncooper ever got its own article, I think a link to that article should go in this template as well. Based on this, I would like to see the two links back in the template. I will, however, wait a day or two before I do this so as to allow for responses here from the rest of the group. Let's discuss further as needed. KConWiki (talk) 05:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I've restored them. They should never have been removed. --AussieLegend () 05:53, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Season headers[edit]

AussieLegend, I disagree with the statement that it's better to have empty sections than "duplicate" headers. For one, we try to remove whitespace where possible (this include empty sections), and given that the seasons are only linked once, they are barely duplicated. Also, having the latter over the former makes the template smaller and removes excess space. The season "subheaders" could even be shortened down to reduce any mistake of "duplication"; realistically, the episodes don't even need to be under separate sections. Alex|The|Whovian? 09:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Navboxes shouldn't contain text only "links". In a navbox like this it's unavoidable as they have to be used as section headings, but before your edit there were only two. After your edit there were eight. You removed two empty sections and replaced them with ten links, seven of which duplicate already existing links. A little bit of whitespace is far less undesirable than much duplication. The size of the navbox is really unimportant as it sits at the end of the article, and your edit only saved a single line, because the two sections that you removed had to be replaced by a line. No, the episodes don't need to be in separate sections but navboxes are supposed to aid navigation between related articles, and sectioning the episodes into seasons allows readers to identify and navigate episodes more easily. Theoretically we could leave the navbox as this:
That removes all unnecessary whitespace and duplcation, but we don't do that. We try to make navboxes easier for the reader to use, and sometimes we have to compromise. --AussieLegend () 10:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I was originally going to let this be, but now, I'm not seeing how the version I implemented is any different to the one you have implemented at {{Bones}}. Both contain a row of the seasons, linked, and also row(s) of episodes with unlinked seasons. And also, I didn't duplicate any links. I simply moved them to the one row, and the seasons in the headers were unlinked. Alex|The|Whovian? 12:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I didn't make the change to {{Bones}}. That was another editor.[1] However, it's a significantly different situation to here. At that template there are a lot of episode for season 1, a single episode for season 2 and none for the other 9 seasons. It wouldn't make sense there to have empty rows for 9 seasons. This is not what I preferred. Sometimes we have to compromise.
I didn't duplicate any links. I simply moved them - You moved the blue links, but your edits resulted two of each of "Season 1" to "Season 9". That's duplication. --AussieLegend () 16:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)