Talk:List of The Big Bang Theory episodes/Archive 2

What's with the "season #" column?
In the Season 1 section the "season #" column increments from 1 to 17 ... shouldn't they all be 1s? Same goes for other seasons as well. It looks like the "series" and "season" columns are some broken kind of mash-up of series, season, and episode (episode # within the season).

Also the table is made confusing/un-userfriendly by having the rows separated by a big blob of text with no repeat of the headers making it difficult to read/follow (yes I should be able to memorize column headings but I'm lazy...as are others). 206.47.249.252 (talk) 18:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * As indicated in the hidden comments relating to these columns, "Series #" is the episode's position within the series and runs (currently) from 1 for season 1 episode 1 to 47 for season 3 episode 7. "Season #" is the episode's number within the individual seasons. The first episode of each season is #1, the second is #2, the third is #3 and so on and the count resets at the end of the season. The "big blob of text" is the episode summary for each episode. Episodes are separated by a coloured bar which is unique for each season. Repeating the column headings for each episode would make the table unnecessarily large. The current layout is fairly standard across different TV programs and is based on Template:Episode list. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Series # makes sense. I can even agree with the idea of the episode summaries and non-repeating headings. But Season # != Episode #. I get that it may be done that way on other pages as well, but continuing a bad convention doesn't help it become correct in any way. Having a column called "Season #" that doesn't contain Season # seems illogical. Is there any hope of adopting a standard convention for Episode # (even if you want to put it under a Season # heading) that would make things more clear like S01E01 or 101 (Season 1, Episode 1) as seems to be used elsewhere on the web. Would I be better off taking this discussion to the Template:Episode list talk page? 206.47.249.252 (talk) 17:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with the original poster. The "Series #" column makes you think, but the "Season #" column is too puzzling for its intended purpose. List_of_M*A*S*H_episodes has done this better by replacing "Season #" with the obvious "Episode #". I'm happy to change it; anyone else? HWV258 . 10:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The contents of both the "Series #" and "Season #" columns are episode numbers. Calling one "Episode #" implies that the other isn't, which is misleading. Further, it's like saying "ATM machine", instead of just "ATM". "#" is generally taken to mean "episode number", as in "Series episode number" and "Season episode number", so the column would effectively be "Episode episode number". Doesn't really make sense, does it? --AussieLegend (talk) 10:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Nah, it's fine. I tell you what doesn't make sense, looking down the "Season #" column, finding the number "8", and thinking what does this row have to do with "Season #8". Could you point at other TV shows that have used this method (I'd like to do some more research/summarising)? I've looked at a few other series pages (and even though they are all different), none I've found use this method. HWV258 . 10:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have found other series that use this technique, but the number is still in the minority. I still find it awkward, but am happy to wait to see if other people agree. (P.S. I love the use of comments to explain what people should do when editing the number columns—which supports my point that the current system is not intuitive.) HWV258 . 11:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If it's going to stay as it is, it would be better to have headings of "Series Ep. #" (or "Total Ep. #" or "Global Ep. #") and "Season Ep. #". With the right formatting, it would take no extra width. HWV258 . 11:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I raised a question here: Template_talk:Episode_list. HWV258 . 11:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So you're one of those people who say "ATM machine"? Why would you think that it had anything to do with season 8 when "#" means "episode number" and therefore "8" represented "season episode number 8"? "Total Ep. #" doesn't make sense because there can only be one total episode number; for this program it's currently 63. "Global Ep. #" doesn't really make sense at all. As for "Season Ep. #", the "Ep." is redundant. When I've used that in the past other editors have removed it because "#" means "Ep. #". As for lists, you could look at List of 24 episodes, List of Lost episodes, List of The Office (U.S. TV series) episodes, List of Degrassi: The Next Generation episodes, List of Gunsmoke television episodes and List of 30 Rock episodes, to pick a few featured lists. There are a lot of other lists, but I thought I'd stick to the featured ones, and also avoid lists that I've had significant involvement with. Happy researching. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not correct to apply your "ATM Machine" to this case (and it is a very stretched analogy). The point being that "Season #" does not literally mean "episode number". I feel you are too close to the trees on this one, and have forgotten the likely target audience of the page (you know, the 99.999% of readers who haven't delved into the edit page to read the comments that explain how to interpret the column headings). Thanks for listing some pages, but as I pointed out, the episode articles that use the scheme on this page are well in the minority. HWV258 . 21:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I never said it "literally" meant; I said it "is generally taken to mean". There's a big difference there. If you think I don't know the target audience, I suggest you read the discussion that you initiated at Template talk:Episode list. It was made abundantly clear there that I know exactly who the target audience is. Regarding your claim about this method being in the minority, it's a big call to claim that unless you have been through every episode list. You earlier said that you hadn't found any lists that use this numbering system and I immediately found five featured lists that do so it's obvious that you haven't looked through every list. There are many that use this numbering system. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "it's a big call..."—no, it's called statistical analysis. I looked through ten, and found three that use this system. That might change with further looking, but it is enough to demonstrate a point. "..and I immediately found five.."—no, I posted that I had found some before you made your list. It's not necessary to look through every episode list to know that this isn't the only way of doing it, and posts at Template talk:Episode list are demonstrating that the system employed here is by no means universally accepted.
 * Look, this shouldn't be a big deal. I (and others) have commented that the heading of "Season #" is misleading. By your posts at Template talk:Episode list you have indicated that you also have (previously) tried to introduce the concept of "Ep." into that heading (so if you wanted to be fair on this issue, you should admit that even you realise that I and others have a point here). If others feel that the headings on the list at this page should be changed, then I will be very happy to support them. That is now on the record. Further, I would suggest "Series&lt;br&gt;Ep. #" and "Season&lt;br&gt;Ep. #" for the two columns (although I'm happy to discuss options). I really can't see how it hurts to work the concept of "episode" into something for which you have previously stated: "the contents of both ... columns are episode numbers". HWV258 . 00:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "no, it's called statistical analysis" 78.4% of statistics are made up on the spot. Using statistical analysis based on your data, 30% use this system, which is quite a significant percentage when you consider the number of different styles used in articles. Personally, I don't think it's 30% but that's what the statistics show.
 * "no, I posted that I had found some before you made your list" Yes, you posted that you found some but before that you said "I've looked at a few other series pages (and even though they are all different), none I've found use this method.''" (emphasis added)
 * "posts at Template talk:Episode list are demonstrating that the system employed here is by no means universally accepted." They're not demonstrating that your suggestions are universally accepted either. The fact is, there is no consensus.
 * "Look, this shouldn't be a big deal" You're the one making it a big deal. Nobody else has expressed any concern here for eight months and at other lists that I edit that use this heading style, I don't think I'd find any other discussions.
 * "By your posts at Template talk:Episode list you have indicated that you also have (previously) tried to introduce the concept of "Ep." into that heading (so if you wanted to be fair on this issue, you should admit that even you realise that I and others have a point here)." I think you should read WP:SYNTH. I prefer descriptive headings that provide as little ambiguity as possible. What I said doesn't mean that I see a problem with the current headings. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Why say "78.4% of statistics are made up on the spot" when that's clearly not what happened? Nothing was "made up". It's disingenuous of you to cast aspersions in a way that isn't representative of how things happened.
 * "..(emphasis added)": I hope you got this wrong by accident? I was of course referring to my post ("11:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)"): "I have found other series that use this technique..." (which was posted 36 minutes before you posted your list (at "11:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)").
 * I am not making it a big deal, just raising concerns in an area that is now starting to show ownership issues. All my enquires have been well-thought out, respectful, and fully in-keeping with WP procedure. At least one other person has asked the question here, and many are expressing similar concerns at Template talk:Episode list. I know you don't like it, but that isn't a reason not to explore and encompass change. As you have admitted previously trying to incorporate "Ep" into the column headings, you should welcome the opportunity to have another go now that your previous attempts have more support.
 * As there have now been two people questioning the column headings on this page (and more at Template talk:Episode list), I'd like to alter the headings (even if that is for a limited time) to see how other people react. Anyone else object?
 * HWV258 . 04:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * My point was that poorly captured statistics are pointless. Your posts have demonstrated this. First you claimed that "the episode articles that use the scheme on this page are well in the minority", as if only a very few articles use it, but then followed that up with a post that shows that it's actually a significant minority given the number of different styles used. The emphasis was not an error. I made up my list very soon after your post but, because I had other things to do, didn't get to reply for a while. How much looking did you do before the first post? One other person asked the question here eight months ago and he only posted 200 words on the issue. You've now posted more than four times that on a single column heading. That's about 604 characters per character in the heading and that seems like a big deal. Accusing somebody of ownership simply because they disagree with you is not "fully in-keeping with WP procedure". In fact, it's coming very close to breaching WP:NPA. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggested fix
Hi all. With the following three edits (,, and ), I've (boldly) had a go at fixing the misleading column headings on the three tables. Could I ask that these remain for a while in order to see what sort of interest or comments they generate? If there is a supporting consensus, I'm happy to apply them to other articles that have similar problems. I believe these headings deliver a better experience for the casual visitor (and don't detract for the experienced editor). HWV258 . 22:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What is this experiment supposed to achieve? How long do you want to leave the headings with your changes in place? If nobody complains in x number of days, will you take this to be consensus that your method is best? --AussieLegend (talk) 05:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * To address your edit comment of "what is this supposed to achieve..."—a better experience for the readers and editors of WP. I'm not going to pre-empt the discussion with time-based speculation. With this post you wrote "..on the occasions when I've tried to use "Season Ep #", it has always been changed to "Season #""—could you please provide links to some of those occasions? I'd like to see what problems you faced so that hopefully we can avoid them this time. Thanks. HWV258 . 09:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If only all television series, and not just ~70%, were done this way: it is so much easier for the readers to follow. HWV, please proceed. Tony   (talk)  12:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you're making an assumption. It's far from "~70%" who use HWV258's system. I'd be surprised if it was 0.7%. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The fundamental point remains—"...it is so much easier for the readers to follow". Discussion should now move forward and address the issue: the benefits of the new headings over the old headings. HWV258 . 21:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Without a clear indication of what you hope to achieve, how you hope to achieve it and a timeframe for the experiment, there's very little point in the changes you have made. As for your request, sure, I'll go through the last 22,000 edits that I've made (that's only to January 2009) and the subsequent edits made by others and see what I can find, if you answer the questions that I've asked. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * But whatever you find, we all want the best for our readers, yes? It is so much better than the confusion I see elsewhere. Tony   (talk)  15:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. That's why I have pushed this issue. HWV258 . 21:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a clear indication of what is hoped to be achieved—the replacement of the currently misleading headings with the ones now in place on this page. Please remember that there is no deadline at WP, so the timeframe point is moot. The process of consensus can take different amounts of time depending on the issue and the audience. Thanks for going starting to go through those edits—it will be useful to see what troubles you encountered the previous times you tried to introduce the concept of "episode" to the headings. HWV258 . 21:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If your aim with the recent edits is merely to replace the headings, then you've avoided gaining consensus for your change, which is inappropriate. The change should only be made after consensus is reached. Claiming there is no timeframe is a cop-out, you've just implemented your changes and now expect them to be left there forever. It's clearly not a "suggested" fix if you're going to implement the changes regardless. It's considered to be edit-warring when you implement un-agreed to, permanent changes in the middle of a discussion. I had hoped that you would have stated a time-frame for determining whether or not your changes had been supported and a method for determining how agreement to the changes would be identified but your post indicates that you're not interested in that at all and you just want your changes implemented regardless of what anyone else thinks. That's not how we do it. As for me going through my posts, I thought you would have recognised the sarcasm. I am certainly not going to go back through 22,000 posts and an unknown number of subsequent posts by other editors on god only knows how many different articles that I've edited just to find a few edits. I wouldn't even expect you to try something like that with your measly 2,200 edits. It's just not practical but, if you think it is, find that post where somebody said a number of editors disagreed and you didn't like what he said. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So your statement that you got resistance when trying to introduce "episode" into the column headings is unsupportable. My aim has always been the same: to improve the experience for the user of WP. No damage is done by having this page as an example of how things could be. As to the other issues (and rudeness) above: take it up in the forum selected for this: Template_talk:Episode_list. HWV258 . 06:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, all you have to do is look through every TV list I've edited if you really want the information, I just don't have the time to waste on that. You're missing the point regarding aim. (A touch ironic isn't it?) You obviously have an aim to "improve" headings. Good for you. That's as it should be and I don't disagree with the headings that you've added. However, replacing the headings here was supposed to be working towards that aim by seeking consensus for those headings. Seeking consensus for those headings should be the aim for this experiment, not "improving" the headings per se. There needs to be a method and a time-frame for determining that consensus, otherwise I can quite rightly argue that the previous headings were in this article for 13 months, during which time only 1 person actually questioned the headings despite 1,340 edits to this and the season articles, and since consensus can be presumed to exist until voiced disagreement becomes evident there is adequate consensus for the old headings, justifying reversion of your edits. Template talk:Episode list is not relevant to this issue of the headings here. --07:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I am voicing disagreement now with your line of attack. The resistance is becoming disruptive to our task of improving the layout for readers. Tony   (talk)  08:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What resistance? I am merely pointing out to HWV258 that he needs a plan, not just a vague idea. Vague ideas and forcing ones will upon others gets people topic banned, as you well know. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Attempting to smear people with snide comments will get you topic banned, Mr. Tony   (talk)  09:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I was simply pointing out a supported fact for the benefit of a less experienced editor. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

"...I don't disagree with the headings that you've added"—thank you; I knew we could work together to make progress here. As far as I can tell there is no one against changing the column headings for these episode lists, however I think we should give it a little while longer in order to see if anyone has any valid objections. It's going to be a bit of work to go through all the list pages in order to enact the required change, but I'm happy to help. Will you lend a hand when the time comes? HWV258 . 09:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've actually suggested that the headings be recommended in Episode list for standardisation, but we need sufficient consensus to justify that, which is why I've asked you about aims etc. Some time ago a group of editors decided that dates should not be linked and started changing the rules without appropriate discussions, causing a huge mess. While this change isn't as far-reaching, it's still significant and having supportable consensus makes it easier to change headings in other articles. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Story/Teleplay credits
It occurred to me that, since the majority of episodes have story/teleplay attributed to their writers, that it might be best to reformat the tables in the style of The Wire. This would free up a little room, eliminate most of the line breaks and make the tables much easier to read. It's infuriating trying to to do so with the current formatting. In the rare case of an episode with the traditional "written by" credit (I counted 10 out of 75), I think putting the writer's name in both columns will suffice, as was done with Treme. I was going to go ahead a just do it, but as it is a fairly major reformatting I thought I would see if anyone objects to such a change. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 09:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As a test I just temporarily reformatted season 2, but I don't see that much is gained. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Season 3, episode 15
Sheldon is talking to Penny about some strange Swiss candle. Did anyone catch what he is saying, sounds like "reibi litli" or "reiber lichtli" but I can't find it anywhere. Did the writers just make that up or does "such a candle" actually exist? -78.52.125.163 (talk) 05:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Sheldon is referring to "Räbeliechtli". Räbe = turnip, Liechtli = little light in the Swiss German dialect. There is a wikipedia entry for this in German and in French: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A4beliechtli85.1.155.225 (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

magnetic north pole isn't the artic
Hello in the Monopolar Expedition Sheldon explains to Penny that they are going to the magnetic north pole but it is not the geographic north pole, but they say they go to the artic or go to the north pole. Normally when referreing to north pole it is meant the geographic which is not the same: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Magnetic_Pole should be pointed somewhere, since Sheldon is doing there a huge mistake for a physics graduated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fernabenso (talk • contribs) 22:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * So your point is that every time they mention North Pole they don't necessarily mention "magnetic"? I think you're kind of grasping at straws here, it's a TV show written by people who probably aren't Physics grads (though I'm sure some of the script reviewers are). Really would it have added anything to the episode if they'd specifically said "Magnetic North Pole" every single time they mentioned the trip? Personally I don't think so, in fact it probably would have become kinda annoying. 206.47.249.251 (talk) 14:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I was just disappointed that Sheldon didn't explain it! It is typically the pedantic thing his character would describe. Since the expedition was in summer I think it was the geographic south pole. But there is night all the time (in the summer from north hemisphere), the magnetic south pole (near geographic north pole) is maybe not covered with enough stable ice to build a station on it. So there is a mistake and wanted to point out, hope they consult a student on physics at least next time (although they were right about string theory and monopoles). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fernabenso (talk • contribs) 22:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I just want to point out that actually the North pole (both the magnetic and geographical) are inside the arctic region. I can not remember in which order they reference the pole. But unless they have stated that they are leaving for the magnetic north pole and some time later in the episode stated that they are going to the geographical north pole, they are not incorrect later in the episode by simply referring to the north pole or arctic since we can assume that they themselves remember which one they are leaving for. But I'm also disappointed that Sheldon didn't make a big deal about explaining the difference between them for Penny, who we can assume could mistake one for the other. //Schweden (talk) 09:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * To clarify: the Magnetic North Pole is near the geographical North Pole, in the Northern Hemisphere. However, from Physics point of view, the Magnetic North Pole is actually a South Pole because the magnetic flux enters it, instead of leaving it. By the way, this is explained in the North Magnetic Pole article, but apparently the original poster of this thread failed to understand it this way. Essentially, calling the Magnetic North Pole, a "North" Pole is just a convention that agrees with the Geographic North Pole. This is done to avoid confusion by saying that the magnetic north is in the south, and the magnetic south is in the north.
 * In the show, the characters go to the Magnetic North Pole, but also to the Geographic North Pole, since they mention going to Alaska.---201.127.206.217 (talk) 01:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the producers/writers put into the show little items like this to add to the show, "easter eggs" if you will. Another simple one is from "The Zazzy Substituion" where Sheldon says something like "I don't relate to the rebel alliance, who built the death star. I am more of an empire man myself". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.40.2 (talk) 10:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Jim Reynolds
Just checking is Jim Reynolds of baseball fame (the page linked to on Season 5 writers), the correct page? Doesn't mention his writing on the baseball page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benj25 (talk • contribs) 13:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Episode Titles
The article says the episode titles start with "The" and a resemble a "scientific principle, theory or experiment" -- do they not also resemble the titles of Star Trek episodes? Many of them start with "The" also, and sound similar (e.g. "The Corbomite Maneuver"). I think this warrants a mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.121.69.204 (talk) 01:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * A lot of TV episodes start with "the" but use of "the" doesn't automatically make them sound like Star Trek episodes. I don't remember a Star Trek episode that sounded like "The Bad Fish Paradigm", "The One with the East German Laundry Detergent" or The Headless Witch in the Woods". --AussieLegend (talk) 11:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

SPOILER ALERT!?
'On May 10, 2012, Prady stated that "not all the characters will be in California when [season 6] begins" Yeah, thanks a lot to whoever ruined that for me... ¬¬ ElectricWizard 0 (talk) 20:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a fan site. We don't concern ourselves with spoilers, as per WP:SPOILER. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

episode 108
how did Sheldon come to get a restraining order from Carl Sagan? Kittybrewster  &#9742;  12:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that was ever explained. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

bad unaccessible sources
Hi.

The website ht*p://www.cbspressexpress.com/ here gives a "location-not-allowed", saying : ''Sorry. This site is not available from your location.'' (Well, screw you CBS dickheads!) So, sorry, but such stupid behaviour on CBS's site makes their website totally unsuitable to be used as a source or further reading. And as it seems to be a commercial, profit-oriented website, I see no reason why Wikipedia should honour their shitty behaviour with helping their google ranking at all. well … 46.142.12.220 (talk) 18:31, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, editors using cbsexpress are typically from the US and Canada where it can be seen, so they don't realise that the rest of the world can't see it. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 19:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I fixed the issue, replacing the source with one from The Futon Critic. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:22, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

(?-2014)
Because we don't have a firm end date, there's no actual guarantee that the series will extend through 2014, despite reports. Charlie Sheen had a firm contract for Two and a Half Men, but his contract was was still terminated and the future of the series was put in jeopardy. A year simply isn't good enough; we need a date. This is no different to any individual season, where we don't change from "(2013)" to "(2013-14)" until we have scheduled episode dates. Without the date, "(?-2014)" still violates WP:CRYSTAL. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 15:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have added a note in the heading stating this and directing to the talk page if users disagree. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm confused by this. If an episode were to air every week, then only 14 would have aired by the year's end. Obviously it's going to run into 2014, since the season has 24 episodes scheduled. 121.220.131.79 (talk) 13:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That's an assumption. There are any number of reasons why the series may not run into 2014 - there might be a writer's strike, the ratings could plummet and the show is pulled from the air and so on. Wikipedia requires firm evidence that the series will run into 2014 before adding 2014 to the heading. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 14:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh look. They all aired. What a surprise. Give it a year, and it'll be the SAME THING. :O 220.245.146.235 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:33, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That's completely irrelevant. Wikipedia doesn't assume things. Everything added to Wikipedia has to be verifiable and in January 2013 it wasn't. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 08:48, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, that's poppy. The Continuum issue on my talk page said he didn't need a source. And a lot is assumed. Oh, and TBBT is possibly one of the only shows that disallows the 20xx-20xy tag before it's aired. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.146.235 (talk) 09:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * We have a policy that disallows assumptions and no, The Big Bang Theory is not one of the only shows that disallows WP:CRYSTAL headings. The issue has even been discussed recently at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 11:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Since this Big Bang article - it lists scheduled episodes into early 2014 - and other TV episode guides on Wikipedia - which lists seasons with the 2013-2014 designation and lists episodes into early 2014, can it now be approved to add the "-2014" to the season listing, to be consistent? &#34;There&#39;s a mistake on the internet!&#34; (talk) 15:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC) User:Hotgardener
 * No. Those other articles are wrong. This only gets added ONCE an episode ACTUALLY airs in the intended year. Doing otherwise is WP:CRYSTAL. Many things can happen that can prevent the episodes from airing, so that is why it is not added now. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Season 1 Note
I think it should be moved to the season's article rather than being on the episode's page. It makes more sense and would make the table clearer, besides, that's what other shows which had their 2007-08 seasons reduced did. Thanks. - Artmanha (talk) 00:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think the note is needed in this article at all. It was added after a confrontational editor insisted on adding a note that the season was shorter than others. I added it to the lead, but he wanted it in the series overview table. The writers strike affected every series but it's rarely mentioned in articles like this. It is already mentioned in the season article. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 09:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I say we take it off, at least from the episodes section. And if the user insistes on it again we creat a RFC. - Artmanha (talk) 16:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * As long as it is on the individual season page I don't see a reason to have it in this table, as such I have now removed it. It is also already in the main season article. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 16:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Reverted what?
AussieLegend: Sorry, I don't get how you reverted a recent change I made to this article. My version and the "reverted" version seem identical. I must be missing something. It wouldn't be the first time. Cheers, AndyFielding (talk) 07:52, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You deleted "on", which shouldn't have been deleted. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 09:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Series Overview
I am here now if you're ready to talk about the series overview problems that you seem to be having. I would've come here earlier, but I spent most of today researching/finding/adding viewership ratings to ER season 11. I saw this page a while ago and thought that the format was confusing, so I decided to reformat it. While reformatting, I ended up finding some missing information to the table and added it. I didn't understand why the "ranks" would be in parentheses, as there were enough of them to warrant their own column. For some reason, you decided to revert my edit because of "two share columns" (which isn't true, there were actually two "rank" columns). Your revert ended up removing useful information, therefore, I reverted that contribution. Then I responded to the comment about how to differentiate the two "rank" columns, by creating two subsets of "Nielsen Ratings" to make it easier for readers to understand the relationship between the "ranks" and their respective column (18-49 vs. Viewers). As you can see, I didn't just revert my edits, I attended to each of your concerns about the table, and thought that we had reached a consensus. My question to you is, what do you not like about this table? What do I need to do to make it fit your standards? Rswallis10 (talk) 20:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)