Talk:List of The Big Bang Theory episodes/Archive 1

TBA
What does TBA mean? (189.71.182.245 (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC))

TBA is To Be Announced Tuyvan (talk) 20:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible show's placement?
"The Euclid Alternative" episode names off a few streets & locations. Is it possible they are refering to the Pasadena, CA area & the California Institute of Technology? Its close to both Euclid & Los Robles Ave's. Plus, they also bring up the Glendale Galleria, which is not too far from there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.186.164 (talk) 20:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are in Pasadena. This is verified several times, including in the time machine episode.  They want to go back to see the invention of the telephone, but the machine only travels in time, not space, so they would wind up in 1876 Pasadena.

Season 2
After keeping tabs on this page and the main article in the past few weeks - it seems there's conflicting information. The main article states the season ends on the 18th of May and there is a total of 23 episodes - however episode 23 was shown this week, the 11th. This article claims the season runs until the 11th and doesn't show any signs of a 24th episode. I suspect the season has now ended with episode 23, but can anyone confirm so the differing dates can be changed? --Sagaciousuk (talk) 07:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The information in main article was incorrect, the season finale was on May 11. I've fixed the discrepancy now. Leave  Sleaves  09:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Leslie Winkle
How can Leslie be referred to as a main character in this series? Going into tonight, she has been in exactly 25% of the shows in the series (11 of 44). I think she should be removed as a "main" character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.236.80.165 (talk) 20:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * She was credited as a main character for part of the series so her inclusion is valid. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Even though she is no longer a major part of the series? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.236.80.165 (talk) 14:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's correct. Essentially the rule is "once a main character, always a main character". --AussieLegend (talk) 14:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Ratings
There seems to be some incomplete/inconstancy with the ratings. Could we get these fixed asap? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loony44 (talk • contribs) 10:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure just as soon as you look up the info and add it (citing source of course). 206.47.249.251 (talk) 14:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Someone always has to make a smart ass comment. I think what he is talking about is that some of the ratings are with dvr and some are without. I don't know any sites that have them but i am sure someone will sort it out. 104.57.720.663 (talk) 13:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Noob question
What is the value of anonymous editing in this item? Is it a case of truly humble contributors staying out of the spotlight, not taking credit for their thoughtful emendations? Or, am I missing something? (Other than brains; that's a given since I watch this series ;-) Makuabob (talk) 15:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there some value in editing with a login? I fail to see it.... 206.47.249.252 (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Spoilers
I know this is a sitcom, but could we please avoid spoilers in the descriptions of the episodes?

Like this from S02E22 (episode 39 total): "The episode ends with all of the ISS astronauts asking to go on a spacewalk, presumably because their waste has leaked out of the toilet, causing the inside of the station to stink."

I haven't deleted the sentence, but if others agree that spoilers should be avoided, please delete the above quote too. Thanks RipRapRob (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC).
 * Wikipedia contains spoilers. Leave  Sleaves  04:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info. I really can't see any reason for the spoiler in this case (is it relevant to reveal the ending in a listing of episodes?) but I'll stop using Wikipedia for episode listings then. RipRapRob (talk) 20:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I must also point out a horrible spoiler I found myself, Season 3 Episode 1 "Penny has been harboring feelings for Leonard, which are released almost as soon as he comes home. Leonard's "moments" with her are constantly interrupted, and he "cannot catch a break." They finally sleep together at the end of the episode"

This almost ruined the entire episode because despite all the "cock blocks" you knew Leonard was going to end up sleeping with her. Annon (talk) 18:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.75.145 (talk)


 * Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a TV guide and, as per WP:SPOILER, content is treated in an encyclopaedic manner, regardless of whetehr or not it's a spoiler. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Season 3, Episode 10
The episode in the comprehensive listing is named "The Athens Recurrence" while it is named "Gorilla Experiment" in the ratings table. Which is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siddharth9200 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a good question. TVGuide doesn't list it and MSN lists it as "The Gorilla Experiment" but FutonCritic, which uses CBS press releases, lists it as "The Athens Recurrence", so that would seem to be the correct title. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * In the end, the broadcasted episode seems to have been called "The Gorilla Experiment" - one of the original sources has a poorly "updated" version of a press release that seems to imply the episode title was changed. I've found two other sources - including one from CBS's BBT site - which state the episode as being called "The Gorilla Experiment". I've added new citations and updated the title accordingly. --Sagaciousuk (talk) 09:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * And was a line-by-line, minute-by-minute explanation of this episode really necessary? At least when I write episode descriptions on the Big Bang Theory page I try to leave something out to make the reader wonder what happened so they have a reason to watch the episode.  For example, I wrote the description about the cricket bet between Sheldon and Howard, but purposely left out who won the bet.  I see that was filled in, too.  Most other show's descriptions on Wikipedia don't give more than a sentence or two.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.236.80.165 (talk) 15:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The episode summary field is called "ShortSummary" and so it should be. No more than 3 or 4 lines should be included. If the episode is notable enough to justify its own article, and the vast majority of episodes aren't, then the plot can be expanded there, but here it isn't appropriate to do that. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistencies
Both "Koothrappali" and "Koothrapalli" are used in this article.

The IMDB page says it should be "Koothrappali" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.235.234 (talk) 08:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * So does my DVD folder. --Itangalo (talk) 16:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * So is it fixed yet? Alphapeta (talk) 07:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Someone has already fixed it. 75.61.113.37 (talk) 05:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Trivia/Original Research
The inclusion of what each episode's title refers to, is trivia and also original research. As such it is not appropriate in an encyclopedia. 220.233.169.158 (talk) 10:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to say... maybe. The title references are mostly evident to anyone watching the show. They remind me of episodes from Friends (TV Series), in which it is obvious what the titles are referring to. As such, it doesn't look like "original research". It may be trivia, but huh... they sometimes are informative.
 * It's interesting to note that, in all this time, nobody has posted under this thread, which may mean that everybody is satisfied with the current situation.---201.127.206.217 (talk) 02:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Classified Materials Turbulence
An alternative interpretation of the title could include "classified materials" being a euphemism for feces and the "turbulence" a reference to the explosive blast by which they are expelled from the toilet after the 10 flush limit that Howard mentioned. It is doubtful that "turbulence" is referencing diarrhea because, while toilet jokes are littered throughout the episode, diarrhea or any gastric distress is not. "Turbulence" could refer to Lenard and Penny's relationship but considering there was no outright conflict, the reference to the disturbance of the waste material in the toilet is more likely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.102.151.80 (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This is original research and also trivia. As such it isn't appropriate in an encyclopedia. 220.233.169.158 (talk) 09:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * In any case, there is no need to give a lengthy explanation, just "the classified space toilet" suffices.---201.127.206.217 (talk) 02:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

This EP a connection to reality: :)

Two versions of episode 6 (1st season)?
When I got my DVD copy of the first season, I could have sworn the 6th episode had changed. Early in the episode, Koothrappali enters the apartment and concludes that Sheldon is dressed as the Doppler effect. As I remember this from watching it previously, there had already been a discussion (and Koothappali also says something like "Sheldon is obviously dressed as the Doppler effect, but he isn't a physical phenomenon"). Unfortunately I'm unable to verify this via downloads of the tv broadcasts. Anyone? --Itangalo (talk) 16:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have the High Definition downloaded copy of this episode and Koothrapalli's line is as quoted: "Sheldon is neither sound nor light but he's obviously the Doppler Effect." I believe the regular 480p broadcast is the same line.Blay.tenshi (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Many thanks! I got the same on the DVD I just got home. But there isn't any argument beforehand on whether anyone will understand that Sheldon is the Doppler effect. I'm starting to think I just imagined it. --Itangalo (talk) 18:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh? Leonard is the one that mentions that nobody will understand Sheldon's costume. It's there. What DVD? What region? What country? When it comes to films and TV series, there are always a million different versions on DVD.---201.127.206.217 (talk) 02:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The Hamburger Postulate error.
Just like in the movie Requiem For A Dream, a popular culture spread of misinformation: In this episode the Sara Gilbert character, who is supposed to be highly intelligent, says to the Johnny Galecki character something along the lines that "when you looked at her your pupils dilated, now either you like her or you're a heroin addict" while it is true human pupils dilate in relation to feelings to empathy and love, and many drugs dilate pupils: heroin in fact constricts your pupils into pin points due to the vasodilation effects, not eye dilation. 67.5.157.130 (talk) 05:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * How will we live with this travesty? Bumcheekcity (talk) 15:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. While it is interesting to note this, it really does not help the article in any way. So why bring it in this talk page?---201.127.206.217 (talk) 02:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Merger
I suggest that the season article be merged into this article. The article has no additional information other than expanded plot summaries, which can very easily be accommodated into this article. LeaveSleaves (talk) 17:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. I haven't seen season pages on any other TV shows, and The Big Bang Theory only has one complete season anyway.--Stu42 (talk) 13:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Smallville has a similar structure (Smallville (season 8)), however it has less plot information on List of Smallville episodes. However, I also agree that it should be merged, but preferrably with no information loss. ForgottenSin (talk) 01:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree, but make sure some of the expanded plot information is transfered. Million_Moments (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and did a full-content merge to List of The Big Bang Theory episodes from The Big Bang Theory (Season 1). I removed the cast section during the merge since it can be found on the main article anyway. I didn't modify any of the content from the season page so all the descriptions are exactly as they were from the source page. Bemasher (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC).
 * When this thread was originally made there was barely a complete season. Now, March 2010, there are three complete seasons. Should the seasons be separated? This is suggested in this very same talk page Talk:List of The Big Bang Theory episodes.---201.127.206.217 (talk) 02:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Motion To Improve Article
Inclusion of expandable boxes for each of the episode descriptions to reduce the visible size of the article, and improve the articles readability as most people will only want to look at a synopsis for one particular episode at a time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 0800abc123 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Template:Episode list doesn't provide for expandable boxes. However, as the article is now 95KB it would be appropriate to split the article into individual season articles and transclude the lists here. That results in a full listing in the individual season articles and a list here without episode summaries. See List of Hannah Montana episodes for an example of how the lists would appear here, and Hannah Montana (season 1) for an example of how the episode lists would look in a season article. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Are we waiting for anything specific before the split is carried on? It seems appropriate as of right now.---201.127.206.217 (talk) 02:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The Shiksa/Porkchop Query
There seems to be an inconsistency with the episode name of E17. Is it "The Porkchop Indeterminancy" or "The Shiska Indeterminancy"? ColinCameron (talk) 00:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Originally (before it was broadcast) the working title was "The Shiska Inderterminancy" as originally when Wolowitz was talking to Sheldon he said, "I'd do anything for that Shiksa Goddess!" However during the taping the writers changed it to "I'd kill my rabbi with a porkchop to be with her" thus the Shiksa thing no longer was in the episode and they changed it by the time of airing to 'The Porkchop Inderterminancy".  Similar thing happened with the time machiene episode.  It was originally "The Nerdmabilia Scattering" but they changed the joke so by the time of airing it became "The Nerdvana Annihilation".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maggiedane (talk • contribs) 06:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * However, the list of episodes on the iTunes Store still lists the episode as The Shiksa Indeterminacy.  While apparently, they did change Howard's line, the original title could still have worked since Missy fits the definition of a Shiksa. Interesting note about The Nerdvana Annihilation. R36 (talk) 19:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Does the DVD have the title of the episode somewhere?--Stu42 (talk) 13:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * My question to Maggiedane is, how do you know these facts? These are very specific comments regarding the show's production. Were you working with the show's producers? What is the status of this? No comments on this since July 2008. I'm thinking I'll just go out of my way and actually erase the old names. If any one complains, provide references.---201.127.206.217 (talk) 02:53, 13 March 2010 (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"  - 68.146.211.84 (talk) 09:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just realized, I should probably 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) 09:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see what was the point of this thread. In any case, there is no need to go running to twitter just to see if there is anything that deserves a citation.---189.235.132.234 (talk) 17:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Season 3, Episode 5: Description of Title
In the description of the title for this episode, it states "The title refers to Penny's description of Howard's looks, despite Leonard's best efforts convincing her that Howard really is a nice guy." I think it more refers to Howard's tendency to act like a pervert rather than his looks...hence the creepy part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.22.203 (talk) 05:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sigh. It's the same thing. Obviously, it's not only about his looks, it's the whole exterior of Howard that is "creepy". This doesn't even deserve discussion, and I doubt any reader would get a wrong idea or become confused with the way the summary is worded.---189.235.132.234 (talk) 17:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

First Pilot
Why isn't any mention of it? Paranoidhuman (talk) 02:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Why isn't any mention of it what? Alphapeta (talk) 07:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Why is there no mention of the first unaired pilot? Because it is obscure, and unaired. Will it ever air? Will it ever be included as a special feature in a DVD? I guess nobody knows at this time.---201.127.206.217 (talk) 01:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Probably because it never aired. (If it ever airs it probably will be mentioned) Sign My Guestbook! User:Sumsum2010 02:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Australian ratings
Can't see why these are needed, stopping the article being "US-centric" is pretty pointless considering its a US show, there are no sources for it so for all we know those numbers were just plucked out of thin air, and I'm not aware of any other list which feature the ratings from a country other than the country it comes from-- Jac 16888 Talk 20:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm Australian and I don't see removal as making the article US-centric. It's US ratings that drive the future of the program. Every person in Australia could be watching but if the US ratings are down, the program will be cancelled. Other than a comparison of international reception, which isn't in the article, there seems no encyclopaedic value in the Oz ratings. The lack of references are, of course, an important issue. The section is tagged but this is not justification for retention. It just gives somebody the chance to find references. It should probably be noted that Australian ratings generally have a lack of meaning. They're slanted to only provide a view of the coverage in 5 of the mainland capital cities, which reresents about 60% of the population. All up, less than 0.15% of the population is sampled and only in strategic areas where samples are likely to reflect better viewership for any particular show. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

So, can we get rid of them, since there's no objection?-- Jac 16888 Talk 13:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to revert if you remove it. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My apologies for this edit, I did not realize the subject is under discussion. To be honest, I don't quite follow the logic that ONLY the US rating should be listed because "It's US ratings that drive the future of the program". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a ratings report for the network executives to make decisions on programming. In my humble opinion, we should list the ratings in all the countries, to indicate how well received the program is in each country.
 * As for the fact that the ratings are not sourced, this is duly noted, and the US ratings have the same problem.
 * However whatever (talk) 01:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Trying to make an article global is all well and good, but the point is that this is an American TV show, it stands to reason that the only important ratings are the American ones in terms of the program and its future, if you want to include other countries, why Australia, did you just pick it at random. As for sourcing, as stated at the beginning of the section, most of the ratings come from and, perhaps not the best sources out there, but at least there are sources to back up the figures. With the Australian ones there was nothing of the sort, for all we know you just picked the numbers out of thin air-- Jac 16888 Talk 02:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I need to remind you of WP:No personal attacks? I didn't pick Australia, and I didn't pick numbers out of the air. Another editor added that data. If there are users out there who want to add ratings for other countries, as far as I'm concerned we should welcome their contributions. However whatever (talk) 04:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but could you please explain to me where in that post I attacked you? No, you didn't add them but you have reverted other users removing them several times and I wasn't saying you picked them out of thin air, I'm saying we have no way of knowing the figures are anywhere near what they're supposed to say-- Jac 16888 Talk 14:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If you read the rest of the post, you'll see that I went on to say that there's no encyclopaedic value in the Oz ratings. If there was a comparison of international reception there might be some value but, as it was, the Oz ratings breached WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Above all, the section was completely unreferenced. Of course, the US section is also largely unreferenced but, as the US ratings drive the future of the program, there is some encyclopaedic value in including them. The explanation of where the ratings come from, is inadequate. There should be specific citations for each rating so they can be verified. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If you agree that it "might be some value" to have "a comparison of international reception", how could having the Australian ratings "breach WP:INDISCRIMINATE"? WP:DEADLINE clearly states that "there is no deadline", which I take to mean for this case that we can present the ratings as they become available (in other words contributors add them). There is no reason to wait until we get ratings from all the countries in order to include the Australian ratings. In fact, adding the Australian ratings with the template, that may motivate others to contribute ratings from other countries. However whatever (talk) 12:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As I've already said, there is no comparison of international reception, just an uncited table of figures which has no value without the comparison. Excessive listing of statistics is right in the middle of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, literally and figuratively. WP:DEADLINE doesn't apply here, WP:GAME is getting close. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no dispute that at the moment there is "no comparison of international reception". The point is that the Australian ratings is the first step towards having such a comparison, which is where WP:DEADLINE comes in. Your accusation of WP:GAME is completely uncalled for. You are certainly not acting within WP:Civil and WP:AGF, and I call on you to keep the discussion at the top of pyramid. However whatever (talk) 15:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The main, but definitely not the only, applicable policy here is Verifiability, which states that anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed, which has been the case. WP:DEADLINE is an essay, not a policy. Dragging irrelevant policies and content up, such as when you raised WP:NPA because you didn't like something that somebody said, or raising WP:DEADLINE in an attempt to circumvent WP:V is getting close to gaming the system, which is why I subtly reminded you of that. Citing WP:Civil and WP:AGF is continuing that trend. If you believe that you can justify restoring the Australian ratings by the inclusion of a properly cited section comparing international reception then you should concentrate your efforts on creating that section, instead of finding ways of keeping the ratings without the effort. Ten points for checking out the policies though. Too many editors never bother.--AussieLegend (talk) 15:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * From this point onwards, I will ignore any and all arguments that fall below the 3rd level of Graham's Hierarchy.
 * Yes, Verifiability is very important. However, that does not mean that material that does not meet WP:V must be removed, and no proposal is yet on the table to remove the US ratings that fail WP:V. Negative information on BLP articles definitely needs to be removed. In this case, I think the tag is adequate to warn readers that the material is questionable. I think that including the material with the  tag may motivate some editor out there to find an appropriate reference, and fix the data if needed. It would seem that the  tag would serve the same purpose as a red link (red links are the biggest motivation for article creation). However whatever (talk) 01:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As I already explained, the us ratings do have some source to show the figures aren't just made up, look at the beginning of the section. The australian ones don't even have that. Unless you can give any evidence to say the person who added them didn't make them up, they're much worse. Futhermore would you note that nobody is attacking you or being uncivil, the fact that you are making those remarks weakens your position as it shows you're unable to give real responses to the arguments being made-- Jac 16888 Talk 01:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Splitting the article
This article is now at the point where it has gotten rather lengthy and splitting into separate season articles should be considered as per WP:SIZERULE. I thought that rather than being being bold I'd see if there was any opposition to this first. I'm happy to do the splitting and now, rather than later, seems a reasonable time to discuss this as we're so close to the end of season 3. When some cited information for season 4 comes along it will be a simple matter to create the new article. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think a good next step for this article would be to merge the ratings into the list instead of having them separate, then chopping the article into seasons as is done with HIMYM and Scrubs-- Jac 16888 Talk 02:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As well as many other programs. That will mean losing a fair amount of data though. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Vanity cards
I added info about vanity cards for each episode, but this change was rolled back by AussieLegend, labeling it Fancruft. It would seem if trivia about the title of an episode is significant enough to include, then trivia about the closing vanity card would be of interest, too. —Rob Zako (talk) 23:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The title is relevant to the episode and what you call trivia explains the source for the episode title. That said, it's of marginal encyclopaedic value and really doesn't belong in the field that is supposed to be dedicated to a summary of the episode. (Hint: the field is "ShortSummary") I'd be happy to see the explanations go but there seems to be some consensus for them to stay. The vanity cards, on the other hand, are outside the episode and even beyond the credits. What is contained in the vanity cards is irrelevant to the episode and has no place in this article. There is already a link to the vanity cards in the "External links" section of The Big Bang Theory. Furthermore, External links states, "Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia, but they should not normally be used in the body of an article." (emphasis added) Since the "ShortSummary" fields are in the body of the article, the links to the vanity cards, which are external links, should not be included in the "ShortSummary" fields. There is simply no justification for adding 5kB of cruft to an already lengthy article. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * If there is another field for the vanity card info, I would be happy for it to be placed there. Or the vanity card info could be included in footnotes. Or the links could be added to the "Weekly Ratings" section, which is less about the content of the show and more about production and broadcast details. But merely providing a link to Chuck Lorre's archive actually is not so helpful, as he does not link episodes to vanity cards. It is actually useful for an encyclopedic entry on all episodes to provide these links. Moreover, I disagree that the vanity cards are more "marginal" than, say, some of the production info. For example, Vanity Card #279 for episode 3.16 ("The Excelsior Acquisition") provides quite a bit of insight into Stan Lee, who is featured in that episode. More generally, The Big Bang Theory is a show about geeks with lots of references and inside jokes, and the vanity cards are part of that. You might see it as "fancruft" or marginal, and you are welcome to your opinion. But others have interests, too. —Rob Zako (talk) 06:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no field in the template specifically for trivia since trivia should be avoided. If you can find a way of incorporating the information encyclopaedically into the episode summaries then you should try to do so but simply adding a link to each and every vanity card is not encyclopaedic or appropriated, nor is reverting against policy while we're discussing the matter. The vanity card you've used as an example is possibly biographical information that might be useful in Stan Lee or Chuck Lorre, but it has no relevance to the episode per se. Episode summaries are about the actual episodes, not something that is tangentially relevant or simply mentioned in the episode. You'll notice a link to Mars Rover in The Lizard-Spock Expansion but there isn't a link to http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/home/index.html or http://www.startrek.com. Let's look at a few more of these vanity cards:


 * #182/episode 1 - George Foreman grill, Dharma & Greg
 * #184/episode 2 - Don't fall for a woman who has had sex with one of your rock n'roll heroes, Don't lurk around web sites where people comment about your work unless you're drunk, Don't use emoticons. You're too old to communicate like a twelve-year old girl.
 * #186/episode 3 - I'm not sure what that one's about. cats and crocs or something
 * #187/episode 4 - "I am da immortal spirit Sheldon Leonard and for da last few years I've been using da body of Chuck Lorre to channel my ideas for new sitcoms. For da record, he's a stinkin'" etc
 * #198/episode 10 - Censored
 * #198c/episode 10 - Although attributed to episode 10, this one didn't air at all.
 * #219/episode 20 - Rant about Las Vegas
 * #252/episode 40 - "an excerpt from my keynote speech at the 2009 SCIENCE FICTION AND FANTASY WRITERS OF AMERICA NEBULA AWARDS."
 * #285/episode 60 - The Sitcom Writers' Prayer
 * #286/episode 61 - public bathrooms, sex, delusions of turning into a teenage girl

Please explain to me how these cards are relevant to the episodes after which they were shown. (You'll notice that I haven't cherry-picked these, as you did to #279.) I picked the first four, then the ones picked at 10, 20, 40, 60 and finally #61, the latest episode. I could have added 30 & 50 but 10 examples seemed enough. They're obviously not relevant, they're trivia and they shouldn't be in the article. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to agree with AussieLegend on this. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not only are the actual Vanity cards irrelevant to the overall article, but there is no actual information being provided; just links to the cards themselves (and I won't bother bringing up external links again; AL covered it nicely).  At least the Title references manage to explain in some manner of detail their relevance to an intrinsic part of the article.  At best, a mention of the Vanity cards' placement at the top of the article is worth the conversation (though probably is still better suited to Lorre's bio-page), but the cards themselves, for Wikipedia's purposes, are trivial junk.  Not to mention, Two and a Half Men is about to complete 7 seasons, and the same conversation, while relevant to that show as well, has yet to take place.  Not to mention Dharma and Greg, which ended a five season run eight years ago without the matter coming up at all, and the full three years it took for the matter to come up on this page.  I'm afraid that silence helps go a long way towards reaching a CONSENSUS.  KnownAlias   contact  15:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

AussieLegend & Knownalias, thank you for your thoughts, here and on my talk page. I am not trying to be difficult, and won't revert again. And, yes, Knownalias, I did put a fair amount of effort into linking episodes with vanity cards—info that I am not aware is available elsewhere. It was discouraging for someone else to erase that in a heartbeat. To try to get to CONSENSUS, I propose the following: Let's agree that the vanity cards are not appropriate for the "ShortSummary" field (and agree that the title reference is of sufficient interest and relevance to be included in this field). But I submit that someone visits this page typically because they have just seen an episode and want to know more about it: original air date & time, title, writer, summary, ratings, etc. Among the things that someone might natural want to know about an episode is what the vanity card says—especially as it appears on screen too briefly to read (without pausing). So I ask you where in Wikipedia this encyclopedic, if trivial, information can appropriately go. Is there another section on this page? Or would it make sense to add a section to the Chuck Lorre page? Thank you. —Rob Zako (talk) 19:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * As I've already indicated there is already an external link at The Big Bang Theory. There are also links from Dharma & Greg and Chuck Lorre. Links to specific cards are at Chuck Lorre, Sheldon Leonard, French Kissin (song) and Ubu Productions. Since the link at The Big Bang Theory links to the vanity card index specifically for TBBT, that provides interested readers with the ability to view every card used in TBBT credits to their heart's content so there is no need to discuss it further anywhere on Wikipedia. Any content could only be a list cross-referencing vanity cards to episodes. Inclusion of content from the vanity cards would be a copyright violation. Without content from the cards, or discussion supported by citations from reliable sources, the list would breach WP:LINKFARM and fail WP:N. Information cannot be included solely for being true or useful. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Okie dokie, AussieLegend. You appear to be quite the authority on the rules of Wikipedia. So far be it from me to disagree. In any case, the issue is now moot—at least for this article—as I gather you have split it into three articles. It looks like you have quite the sense of ownership of this page. Good luck. —Rob Zako (talk) 03:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Two other policies you might care to look at are WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Original air date
I live in Chile, and I've seen some subtitled episodes at least a week before the supposed "original air dates" stated on the article, specificaly during the third season (so the "original" airing" is just the "USA airing dates"). This happens on other series too. Unfortunely I've been unable to find the Latin America's dates of airing of the series (which is a part of the programmation of "Warner Channel"). Usualy the episodes are aired first in USA, but on some hiatus this does't happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.90.237.24 (talk) 15:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Season 1 Ratings
Someone has changed the season 1 ratings so that it includes those who watched it on DVR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XtremeNerdz12 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Ratings restored for the first, second, eighth and ninth seasons. --  Alex TW 03:30, 29 October 2017 (UTC)