Talk:Big Time Rush

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Undue weight?[edit]

There seems to be disagreement over whether the Linebarger quote (cited in the article) should be included. Wikipedia's undue weight guideline is critical here. The guideline states: "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." The Boston Globe article represents a significant viewpoint on the show (it is one of only a handful of reveiws), and the prominence of Linebarger's comment was critical to that review. The guideline goes on to say; "In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." However, in this case, there is no clear-cut majority viewpoint about the show. Positive reviews tend to be pithy (a sentence of approval here or there), while negative reviews tend to be fewer but much more substantial. The two most substantive reviews are the AP's and the Boston Globe's, and neither is a majority. Equal weight is therefore given to both views (as of late January 2010). The guideline further notes: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." Linebarger's comment, while striving for balance (it approves of the show's escapism), is significant in view of her expert opinion and the substantiveness of her commentary, thus meeting this aspect of the guideline as well. Finally, Jimbo Wales is quoted in the guideline as advising that "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents..." By quoting Linebarger specifically, the that "prominent adherent" is named (rather than attributed to a media critic, who is less of an expert). it may appear that, by quoting the Boston Globe twice that undue weight is given. But as noted above, there is no majority view; the weight of the Boston Globe's criticism is only supported by quoting Linebarger (an expert), and Linebarger's quotation meets Jimbo Wales' guideline about citing adherents. The quote should be kept. - Tim1965 (talk) 16:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The part that is critizing them for they're looks, etc, shouldn't be put in the article. It's unneccessary.LAUGH90 (talk) 21:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quotation is not criticizing anyone for being handsome or being not handsome. The quotation clearly says that setting up false standards of beauty for children may be harmful, even when done in a light-hearted fashion. And that's essential to the critique that the Boston Globe was making. The quotation absolutely did not criticize the actors on the show for being good-looking. I strongly encourage you to read the quotation again, and restore it. - Tim1965 (talk) 23:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here goes your 3O: I honestly think it should be kept. I think the reader might want to know what the critics think about it. LAUGH90 you may add an opposing quote if you would like, no rule about that. I hope ths helps. House1090 (talk) 01:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3O: Having no prior knowledge of this show i can say that the quote should stay. LAUGH90, you have not nearly had as much as a persuasive argument as Tim has. SoCal L.A. (talk) 03:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Having a criticism/review section is unneccessary already. The other shows on Nickelodeon and Disney channel do not have a criticism/review page either.LAUGH90 (talk) 14:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Laugh90, such comments are absolutely necessary. The guidelines for good articles say that criticism sections should be included if the article is to reach B or Good Article status. The article for Big Time Rush should include critiques of the show, positive and negative. Other Nick, Disney, or Cartoon Network shows may indeed lack such sections; that only indicates that these articles are in poor shape and should be improved. Note the guidelines for writing a good television program article, specifically the "Reception" guidelines, which I will quote here at length:
...you should analyse how the television show was received. The reception information should include broadcast ratings (though it may be easier to maintain seasonal averages for the main page, while the season and episode articles could contain a list of ratings for all the episodes) and critical response. For the main article, it will be best to seek critical reviews that look at the series as a whole, while season and episode articles can use more selective reviews. Reviews should preferably come from the conglomerates (Associated Press, REUTERS, Canadian Press), major newspapers (USA Today, The Toronto Star, The Times [London]) and major periodicals (TV Guide, TIME, The Hollywood Reporter, Variety, Entertainment Weekly). These reviews can either critique the show, or comments on its impact. They should not just be descriptions of the episodes, and preferably should not exceed two or three sentences per critic, so as not to apply undue weight to any given reviewer.
Clearly, criticism should be included. - Tim1965 (talk) 14:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fancruft and in-universe issues[edit]

This article is consistently in danger of violating Wikipedia:Fancruft and of violating Check Your Fiction guidelines. Contributors continue to write in in-universe style, and add endless lists of trivia (guest-star appearances should be added to each episode in the Episode List, not in the main article). - Tim1965 (talk) 03:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Griffin?[edit]

Does anyone here know who plays Griffin? 75.69.239.55 (talk) 00:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]

  • Look it up on IMDB or some other site. - Tim1965 (talk) 02:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Found it 75.69.239.55 (talk) 22:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Big Time Rush Songs[edit]

Big Time Rush-theme song &in all episodes Famous-Big Time Audition & Big Time Mansion The City Is Ours-Big Time Audition, Big Time Bad Boy,& Big Time Mansion Any Kind Of Guy-Big tIme Audition & Big Time Love Song —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.110.172 (talk) 00:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Big Time Rush theme[edit]

I went to Amazon and found an image of the Big Time Rush single: "Big Time Rush". --HIAW! :) (talk) 20:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jordin Sparks' brother[edit]

Would you consider her brother a guest star? He appears at the end, when he asks her why he has to carry her stuff and she says "Because you're my brother, PJ" but I can't tell if that's him or not. 72.222.140.87 (talk) 02:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

B.T.R. Album Track List[edit]

There should be a separate article for the band's debut album. Here's the source of the track list and cover art. http://tommy2.net/content/?p=18887

1. Til I Forget About You 2. Boyfriend (featuring New Boyz) 3. Halfway There 4. Nothing Even Matters 5. City Is Ours 6. Worldwide 7. Big Night 8. Oh Yeah 9. Count On You (featuring Jordin Sparks) 10. I Know You Know (featuring Cymphonique) 11. Big Time Rush 12. Famous 13. Any Kind Of Guy 14. Boyfriend (feat.Snoop Dogg) 15. Stuck 16. Paralyzed

HTML comments[edit]

One or more people had added HTML comments to the article which simply stated things like "Don't change this" or "Don't edit this". Such comments are not very helpful. Per WP:OWN, no one contributor has editorial control; articles may be constructively edited by anyone. If there's a particular reason *why* something should be a certain why, it's useful to explain that, and by all means do so. Comments explaining things the need to cite sources, or respect NPOV, or the best place to make contributions, those are useful. But any directive just saying "Don't change this" is antithetical to the wiki way. See also WP:BOLD and WP:5. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 03:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Date of release of Big Time Rush in France[edit]

The date of release in France is missing.--Shadow nick (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Reception?[edit]

It says "this show has recieved mixed to positive reviews", followed by a list of scathing, negative reviews. This needs to be rewritten to at least include a larger share of mixed or positive reviews, as currently there are nothing but negative reviews. The article would indicate it is warmly received and the rest of the section should at least mention that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.250.170 (talk) 18:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Find a positive review and post it.. both ends of that section could be inaccurate. Yeah, there may be plenty of positive reviews that aren't included... but it's also possible that someone was being VERY generous in describing the reception as "mixed to positive". -- Alyas Grey : talk 15:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight of individual members and recentism...[edit]

That some classic bands with HUGE hits and large modern followings don't have bios for individual members... but these guys all do. It's not really important, nor am I pushing for change... but it's a textbook example of WP:Recentism. -- Alyas Grey : talk 15:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article protection[edit]

I have semi-protected this page due to edit warring over whether the series is ending or continuing. Until consensus is reached on this talk page confirmed editors that alter this aspect of the article risk blocks for edit warring. Tiderolls 21:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update. VP44444 (talk · contribs) and Mozaa2 (talk · contribs) have taken it upon themselves to edit through the semi-protection without entering into discussion. I have reverted VP44444's edit and fully protected the article. If discussion does not take place and consensus reach before the expiration of the full protection, I will extend the protection period. Tiderolls 00:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it seems the debate about whether this show is ending has extended over to Logan Henderson's article, as you can see here: [1] I am a reviewer and I wasn't sure if I should accept this revision. So what I'm asking is, essentially, did the show end or not? Jinkinson (talk) 01:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reader feedback: Why did it end[edit]

172.248.86.207 posted this comment on 9 September 2013 (view all feedback).

Why did it end

Any thoughts?

Mozaa2 (talk) 16:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC) It hasnt ended yet not confirmed[reply]

I think it was cancelled because of low ratings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.224.26.190 (talk) 20:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rags disambiguation[edit]

The standalone link for Rags at the tail end of the DVD releases section needs to be disambiguated to Rags (2012 film), if an administrator would be so kind (since the page is severely edit-protected). —ADavidB 20:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

holly matthews btr[edit]

hi james and kendal and cralos logan fox maslow have a lovly time on tour and good luk--86.149.66.8 (talk)ඣ] —Preceding undated comment added 08:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Big Time Rush (band) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 11:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Big Time Rush. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Big Time Rush. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 00:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article title and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC[edit]

There was a previous discussion about this – see: Talk:Big Time Rush (band)#Requested move 8 August 2015 (or look at #Move discussion in progress up-page) – where the clear consensus was that the TV series was the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the title "Big Time Rush". This article shouldn't be moved to a WP:TWODABS solution, or to anything else, without another WP:RM, as any such move would be "controversial" in light of the previous RM discussion. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Screamo?[edit]

For some reason the page labels them as a “screamo” and “punk” band even though other sources say there pop. 2600:1006:B059:EBA7:914F:CD78:A57:D03C (talk) 02:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Looks like it was inserted by an vandal a few days ago. Thank you for pointing this error out. Thanks, Aoi (青い) (talk) 06:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

pedophilia in BTR merchandise?[edit]

went to their dallas/ftw concert and was alarmed that a lot of the Merch they were selling had nationally known pedophilia "boy love" symbols on it. Is this a Disney issue, are they the ones marketing this to children? 66.143.87.210 (talk) 13:51, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Big_Time_Rush&oldid=1212727952"