Talk:The Big Bang Theory/Archive 6

Kevin Strussman
Kevin Strussman is NOT a part of the main cast! Delete him! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4647:95D6:0:90E6:4C66:329B:F5DD (talk) 10:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

❌ He has been a main cast member for series 6 and 8 (see List of The Big Bang Theory characters), therefore he should be there. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify for the IP, Sussman (not Strussman) was promoted to main cast in season 6 and was credited in seasons 6 and 8 as a starring character. However, he is only credited in the episodes in which he appears, he does not appear in the cast photo in the opening credits and is consistently referred to in press releases as "recurring". He's essentially a "starring recurring character", which is confusing, but that doesn't change his starring status. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 12:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Add Bob Newhart
Could someone, who can edit the Big Bang Theory (TV show) page, add some edifying words to the following line: "Professor Proton, hiring Bill to fill the void." The edifying words should be (or something similar:) "Professor Proton, hiring Bill to fill the void. Professor Proton is played by veteran comedian Bob Newhart, in his quintessentially low-key style." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.177.201.5 (talk) 18:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2015
The Big Bang Theory initially received mixed reviews[80] and originally received a score of 57/100 from review aggregator Metacritic, indicating "mixed or average reviews".

The characters represent a stereotypical representation of males being computer geeks.

Tom Shales of The Washington Post gave the show a positive review, saying "Big Bang is the funniest new sitcom of the season".[81]

Bennettwa (talk) 03:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * ❌ The section you've quoted is about reviews, not character traits. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 03:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Possible mistake
How is it possible that according the table found here the most viewed episode of season 8 has fewer viewers than the average for the entire season. That's not possible. --Wester (talk) 14:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Season average takes into account the live + DVR numbers, where the most watched ep only considered the live numbers. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The Penny issue
I propose that Penny's name in the character section be changed to Penny Hofstadter. Regardless of the "common name", it is the name of the character now, and other characters are calling her by her married name.--Asher196 (talk) 16:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that the character's name should be presented as it is at the beginning of the series, but I'm willing to be swayed based on how this discussion may evolve. DonIago (talk) 16:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * We generally use the common name as credited and/or used in episodes as articles must represent the entire history of a series. So far, out of the 185 episodes in which she has appeared, there was one mention of "Mrs Hofstadter" and one of "Penny Hofstadter", and I think on both of those occasions it might might have been Leonard who referred to her that way. Saying "other characters are calling her by her married name" is misleading. In all 185 episodes she has been called "Penny" without a last name. While Leonard called her "Penny Hofstadter", that doesn't mean that she has actually taken that name. We had the same problem with Bernadette, who isn't "Bernadette Wolowitz". It's OK to note that she has married Leonard but, at this point, we can't really refer to her as Penny Hofstadter until it's confirmed by her or in press releases. Using the common name and the requirement to represent the entire history of a series is also why we refer to Kaley Cuoco, and not Kaley Cuoco-Sweeting. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 17:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The simple fact is that it is now the name of the character. Not including it in the character section doesn't fully inform the reader to that information.--Asher196 (talk) 17:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * We can include the name in the character section but we still have to reflect the entire history, and for 98.9% of that she's been just "Penny". -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 18:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And given the up and down nature this relationship has taken, thanks to the writing staff, who knows how long the marriage/last name will last. "Penny" should be used, with a mention in the section that she is married to Leonard and has taken his last name. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * However, all of the characters are usually referred to by just their given names. How often is Johnny Galecki's character just called "Leonard" as opposed to "Leonard Hofstadter"? Granted, the ratio is greater than it is for Penny or Bernadette, but it is still overwhelmingly first name more frequently. So the argument that Penny or Bernadette are first-name-only more frequently would apply to all of the characters, not just those two.  → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 00:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * (By the way, as far as Bernadette goes, there was actually dialogue in the show about what her name was. In a conversation with Penny, she emphatically stated that she was using the hyphenated Bernadette Rostenkowski-Wolowitz.)  → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 00:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The last names of all of the main characters, with the exception of Penny, have been used on numerous occasions throughout the series' run. In the discussion with Penny and Amy, Bernadette was hardly emphatic about using the hyphenated name. She just said "I've actually been thinking I'm gonna hyphenate. Bernadette Maryann Rostenkowski-Wolowitz", with no real emphasis. However, yes the characters are generally referred to by their first names. The last names are generally not that important. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 12:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * My point would be, though, that if a character's surname is mentioned even once, it is therefore known and should be used. Quantity or percentage is not relevant. Mere existence is all that matters.  → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 08:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, this goes back to the common name. We cater for the average reader, not just for fans of the series. We don't need to include every little bit of information about a character. That's better left to fan sites and this is not a fan site, it's an encyclopaedia. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 10:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, the famous Wikipedia inconsistency! This practice is not done with other series. For example, the Star Trek character Hikaru Sulu is not only listed by that name, he even has his own article . This even though the character's first name was never used in any of the series or films (except in Star Trek Generations where it is only referred to, as Sulu is not even in that film). Wikipedia has a BLP policy; perhaps it needs a BFP policy.  → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 00:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sulu's first name is mentioned in his Captain's Log at the beginning of The Undiscovered Country, FWIW. DonIago (talk) 04:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Actors' Pay - Backend Money: What is it?
"By season seven, the three were also receiving 0.25 point of the series' backend money"

I think that this needs to be explained for people not in the entertainment business.

As far as I can tell, "backend" refers to some kind of royalty payment. Is this correct?

And "0.25 point"? Does this mean 0.25%? Or perhaps 0.25 basis points (0.0025%)?

I really this this requires a clearer explanation. Marchino61 (talk) 06:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Criticism of the show
Just wondering why some criticisms of the show were removed on grounds that the sources were "only blogs" or "only dealt with the criticism tangentially." F-bomb is actually a widely respected source of critical writing, and Science 2.0 is likewise not a personal blog, but a substantive source. Does Wikipedia rule out blogs as sources out of hand? What about genuine news blogs like HuffPo? This information seemed valuable; I'd argue for its restoration. Ssenier (talk) 01:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Who is Lucy Pegg and why would she be considered (see WP:BLOGS) as "an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". Absent any of that her blog comments are just random musings. The Science 2.0 article mentions the show peripherally and makes no substantive critique of the show itself, using it just to make a point on their larger thesis, the topic of the posting. Both those sources add nothing of value to this article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * But it's not a self-published blog; WP has a different policy for multi-authored commercial blogs, no? (see WP:NEWSBLOG) And does WP mandate that a particular percentage of source content must pertain directly, in order for the source to be used?  Again, this strikes me as fairly common here.  Ssenier (talk) 17:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not a blog hosted by a reliable source so doesn't fall under WP:NEWSBLOG. Even if it did, we are told to use newblogs with caution because of lack of fact checking and editorial control and opinion pieces, such as this one, must be attributed to the writer, not the host. Again who exactly is Lucy Pegg and can it be shown she is an established expert in the subject matter such that we might give any of her assertions any value. They don't even give a bio of her as part of her blog posting, they just call her "guest blogger". Web searches on the name give nothing that links that name to the article. The Science 2.0 article mentions TBBT once as an example and does not expand on it in any way other than describing the roles. Gets a headline from that that doesn't reflect article content but is only mentioned in passing in article itself. TBBT is a popular show. I am not surprised that some web articles mention it more to drive search results to their web page than any serious attempt to give a critique of the show itself. Note the Science 2.0 article itself stated "But if you are going to get surveys of undergraduates into a paper, it helps to have a topical hook in the press release." Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on The Big Bang Theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071213044026/http://tv.yahoo.com:80/back-to-you/show/41055/news/urn:newsml:tv.ap.org:20071106:hollywood_labor to http://tv.yahoo.com/back-to-you/show/41055/news/urn:newsml:tv.ap.org:20071106:hollywood_labor

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Did not fix the dead link. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 15:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Strange U.S. standard ratings numbers for season 8
I noticed for season 8, the average number of viewers is higher than the reported most watched episode. I tried to check the citation for most watched episode but it seems to be dead. Is there any way this can be accurate?

130.63.210.42 (talk) 16:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Legal fears of a SUSY diminutive
Frank Wilczek was to be mentioned with his diminutive full SUSY name: Sfrankino Swilczekino, but for legal reasons that was cut from the script. Add data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4101:8C00:B8AD:1307:BAB7:BBB2 (talk) 01:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Schedule on ratings table
As the editor who seemed to start something about the inclusion of the single episode time differences, I thought I would start the discussion. While the content had been there for a while, the conversion of the table to a template brought it to my attention which lead to me making the change. First, I note none of the schedule shows a reference, so how could anyone confirm the veracity of one episode airing at a different time. Second, unless the change is for some notable reason, ie Super Bowl lead out, there is no reason to make note of such details - this is not a historical TV Guide. As a minor other point, I notice that season 8 and 9 both have a Monday start and then a move to Thursday later - to me that seems like an odd coincidence if true, but I did not know where to locate a source to confirm. --Jordan 1972 (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's very easily sourced: The Futon Critic lists the times and dates each episode aired, and it supports everything in the table. Concerning the moves from Monday to Thursday, might I suggest bothering to check the season pages and finding out for yourself? The reason is listed on the pages for both seasons. I'd also note that hasn't bothered to contribute to this discussion - being an admin doesn't give you superior rights to us. If you wish to edit war, then you must discuss as well.  Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 01:11, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well. If there's no further comments, since no-one's replied in two and a half days, then I'll be reinstating it. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 06:52, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Cast sections on season pages
How and why are the cast sections on the individual season pages allowed to get so massive? We start off nice and small between Season 1 and Season 5, then it begins to expand from Season 6/Season 7, and then it just gets ridiculous from Season 8 to Season 10 (the latter of which hasn't even premiered yet). All of the information on these pages is already available at List of The Big Bang Theory characters and The Big Bang Theory, meaning the season pages should realistically only have the cast members and that's it, per every other season page. Would anyone object to me removing the character descriptions on the season pages? Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 03:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. The descriptions aren't necessary on season pages and they are far too long and detailed for a season page. Remove the descriptions. LocalNet (talk) 06:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Laura Spencer under Starring
Hi!

According to http://tvline.com/2015/10/12/big-bang-theory-season-9-laura-spencer-series-regular-emily/, Laura Spencer is a "fractional" starring actress in season 9. Should we keep her name in the Starring list now that we are in season 10 and she is only a noted "fractional" starring actress. Thoughts? LocalNet (talk) 09:20, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I've noticed a lot of back and forth over this... Per the MOS, she should only be added into the infobox once she has been credited in an existing episode as a series regular. This hasn't happened yet, so she should not be listed as such yet. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 09:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * But she has been credited in existing episodes since season 9, like "The 2003 Approximation" and "The Empathy Optimization".--Shoesquashfan5000 (talk) 00:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I have somehow missed your message. Sorry! I'm going to watch those episodes now and check. LocalNet (talk) 18:38, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

In season 9, the episodes she appeared in, she was credited as "Starring." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.140.84 (talk) 23:11, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Episode table
After looking through all the season pages, and other shows, I have noticed that only The Big Bang Theory includes recurring and guest stars in each episode in the episode table, in addition to title reference. I am wondering why? It is way easier to have cast lists of the regular, recurring and guest cast like most other shows have, and not include it in each episode which results in a pretty long episode table on the page. Title reference is okay to include if it is used to separate it from the episode summary. I believe this will clean up the page way better, and make the season pages look more professional made. I am also wondering on why only TBBT have paragraphs in the episode summaries. Why I might ask? It uses way to much space for something that could be written in one text, like most other tv series' pages. Twotimer17 (talk) 17:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Good questions! I haven't been here long enough to know why it is the way it is, but your suggestions do make a lot of sense. Does anyone reading this with a longer history want to come in and explain? Let's wait a little while to see if we get any replies. :) LocalNet (talk) 18:36, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * LocalNet, I have been on Wikipedia for about 3 years, so I have some experience with this. I have tried to remove the guest star list inside the episode table, but have been reverted. Btw I'm also norwegian! Hyggelig å møte en annen norsk Wikipedia-bruker! Twotimer17 (talk) 18:51, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. You don't just randomly happen to remember who reverted you, do you? I'd like to add that user to the conversation unless it happened ages ago :P and in Norwegian: Så kult! Utrolig morsomt og hyggelig! LocalNet (talk) 19:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I noticed that you have posted comments in a language other than English. At the English-language Wikipedia, we try to use English for all comments. Posting all comments in English makes it easier for other editors to join the conversation and help you. If you cannot avoid using another language, then please provide a translation into English, if you can. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 21:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't post a comment in another language. I posted all the important information in English with a simple Norwegian greeting that was completely irrelevant to the discussion. LocalNet (talk) 21:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Then keep this page for business. Take the "greetings" to your talk pages. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 21:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but we started a discussion and took a tiny fraction to say hi. You make it sound like we talked abour lives for 20 paragraphs. Don't rush in here and change the subject, contribute to the discussion instead. LocalNet (talk) 21:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian, okay, it's a little weird that you rather focused on the fact that we wrote in another language, which btw translated to "Nice to meet another norwegian Wikipedia-user", and not about the question I asked, which I would appreciate to getting an answer to. Twotimer17 (talk) 22:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the question at hand, the best answer I can give you, since I used to regularly edit TBBT episode tables each season around season 5-7, is somebody started that format and it stuck. It has always been on my "to-do list", though very, very low, to go through the seasons and at least remove the recurring and guest characters and place them how they should in the "Cast and characters" sections. So if you'd like to go ahead and start making some of those adjustments, be my guest. Though due now you'll probably get some editor resistance because, as I said, that's how it was always done and people don't like change, even if things are not correct. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:45, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I've been editing the articles for longer than I can remember (I created The Big Bang Theory (season 1) in 2010) and including non-main cast in the tables was pretty standard when I started. They weren't added to that article though, until August 2011. "Fixing" this is not as simple as removing the content from each episode (and I note that title reference notes have also been removed in some cases). There are issues that need to be addressed in the prose. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 04:05, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have now created the cast and character lists and removed the character notes in the episode table for each season. However, I have kept the title references and added a to have a line to separate it from the episode summary, in addition to add the notes about Emmy nominations and winnings for the cast, like Jim Parson, in the intro. I honestly think the pages looks better and more professionally made, instead of how they were before. The season pages has a better overview of information about the season instead of cramming everything in the episode table. Twotimer17  (talk) 12:13, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on The Big Bang Theory. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090227045510/http://ausiellofiles.ew.com:80/2009/01/big-bang-theory.html? to http://ausiellofiles.ew.com/2009/01/big-bang-theory.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101026221041/http://ausiellofiles.ew.com:80/2010/10/25/big-bang-theory-melissa-rauch-series-regular/ to http://ausiellofiles.ew.com/2010/10/25/big-bang-theory-melissa-rauch-series-regular
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140224213804/http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070924/ENT03/709240328/1035/rss04 to http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070924/ENT03/709240328/1035/rss04
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130502090706/http://www.ew.com/ew/tv/tonights_best_tv/0,,4,00.html to http://www.ew.com/ew/tv/tonights_best_tv/0,,4,00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130908075852/http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/495309-Syndication_Ratings_At_Syndie_Season_s_End_Phil_Judy_ET_Wheel_Big_Bang_on_Top.php to http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/495309-Syndication_Ratings_At_Syndie_Season_s_End_Phil_Judy_ET_Wheel_Big_Bang_on_Top.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090822072008/http://tvbythenumbers.com:80/2007/10/03/nielsen-top-new-shows-tv-ratings-sept-24-30/1032 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2007/10/03/nielsen-top-new-shows-tv-ratings-sept-24-30/1032
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100410073153/http://tvbythenumbers.com:80/2008/09/23/ratings-monday-september-22-first-night-wins-to-abc-cbs-nbc/5257 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/09/23/ratings-monday-september-22-first-night-wins-to-abc-cbs-nbc/5257
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6TMI50T4Q?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftvbythenumbers.zap2it.com%2F2014%2F10%2F12%2Fgotham-has-biggest-adults-18-49-ratings-increase-gotham-red-band-society-top-percentage-gains-in-live-7-ratings-for-week-ending-september-28%2F313337%2F to http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2014/10/12/gotham-has-biggest-adults-18-49-ratings-increase-gotham-red-band-society-top-percentage-gains-in-live-7-ratings-for-week-ending-september-28/313337/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://deadline.com/2015/05/2014-15-full-tv-season-ratings-shows-rankings-1201431167/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140225172059/http://www.wbshop.com/product/the+big+bang+theory+the+complete+fifth+season+bluray+1000246644.do?sortby=ourPicks&from=Search to http://www.wbshop.com/product/the+big+bang+theory+the+complete+fifth+season+bluray+1000246644.do?sortby=ourPicks&from=Search
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090718001718/http://cdn.emmys.tv/awards/2009ptemmys/61stemmys_noms.php to http://cdn.emmys.tv/awards/2009ptemmys/61stemmys_noms.php

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Major expansion of Critical reception section
Hi.

For fair notice, so it doesn't come as a huge surprise to anyone, I am going to be making a major edit soon. I am expanding the Critical reception section with subsections for each season, and snippets of reviews for several reviews in each. I feel the section is currently lacking a genuine look at how the series has been received by critics (for example, it hasn't received "very positive reviews" in every season, as the section states) so I will be making that change. Afterwards, I will be making a short summary for the lead. I wanted to write this here first so people know that a major edit is coming. LocalNet (talk) 09:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your edits. However, wouldn't these be more appropriate for the season articles, and an overall summary for this article? That is what the season articles are for - season-specific content. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 09:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Personally, I think both places would be okay, and I can also add each section to the season pages, but I think the main article should at least heavily expand on it from the current status. The series article does cover the whole series, and is the aggregated location for information in the season pages. I haven't written an essay for each season, though. For each season, I have snippets from three reviews. It's just that there are 9 seasons (I haven't included the 10th, as it is currently airing), so all of that put together makes up a big change. Having taken inspiration from other TV series articles, though, I have found most of them contain seasonal reviews in the main article. I know that WP:OSE says I shouldn't care about that, but it seems to be a general consensus... LocalNet (talk) 09:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how long I should wait in case you want to reply, but I'm going to assume silence means consensus and submit the edit shortly. LocalNet (talk) 11:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was re-watching Sherlock. Seems all good to me. Good work. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 12:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah. Thank you. :) LocalNet (talk) 12:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2017
Please change

' Qwerty12345567890 (talk) 23:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Jnorton7558 (talk) 23:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Use of abbreviations in lede
Can anyone explain to me why someone would deem "(often shortened to Big Bang Theory, and abbreviated to TBBT or BBT)" necessary in the lede to this article? These are common sense abbreviations and it's completely irrelevant to list them here. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Contradiction in salaries for Nayyar and Helberg
Currently numbered references 37 and 38 seem to suggest that Helberg and Nayyar are making much less than $1 million per episode, whereas currently numbered reference 39 seems to suggest that Nayyar's and Helberg's salaries has indeed climbed to $1 per episode. Perhaps sometime between 2014 and 2017 Nayyar and Helberg were able to get the raise that they were seeking in 2014, but I'm not sure how to find evidence for that. BarbadosKen (talk) 15:53, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * With this edit everything is now self-consistent, as it explains that by Season 10 Nayyar's and Helberg's did eventually reach $1 million. BarbadosKen (talk) 04:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2017
GBCProductions1 (talk) 23:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC) I wanted to edit this article, now!
 * ❌ Empty request. --  Alex TW 23:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on The Big Bang Theory. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080216054051/http://www.zap2it.com/tv/news/zap-cbsreturndates%2C0%2C7656374.story to http://www.zap2it.com/tv/news/zap-cbsreturndates%2C0%2C7656374.story
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://ausiellofiles.ew.com/2009/01/big-bang-theory.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://ausiellofiles.ew.com/2010/10/25/big-bang-theory-melissa-rauch-series-regular
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://tvbythenumbers.com/2007/10/03/nielsen-top-new-shows-tv-ratings-sept-24-30/1032
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/09/23/ratings-monday-september-22-first-night-wins-to-abc-cbs-nbc/5257
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101001090902/http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/09/28/tv-ratings-broadcast-top-25-sunday-night-football-glee-greys-anatomy-dancing-with-the-stars-top-premiere-week/65498 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/09/28/tv-ratings-broadcast-top-25-sunday-night-football-glee-greys-anatomy-dancing-with-the-stars-top-premiere-week/65498
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2014/10/12/gotham-has-biggest-adults-18-49-ratings-increase-gotham-red-band-society-top-percentage-gains-in-live-7-ratings-for-week-ending-september-28/313337/
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6YifxgqG8?url=http://deadline.com/2015/05/2014-15-full-tv-season-ratings-shows-rankings-1201431167/ to http://deadline.com/2015/05/2014-15-full-tv-season-ratings-shows-rankings-1201431167/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.canada.com/entertainment/Thursday%2BBang%2BTheory/7770195/story.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wbshop.com/product/the%2Bbig%2Bbang%2Btheory%2Bthe%2Bcomplete%2Bfifth%2Bseason%2Bbluray%2B1000246644.do?sortby=ourPicks&from=Search

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Emily Sweeney as starring role or not?
The article lists Emily Sweeney as promoted to starring role, but she is not listed in the infobox. Which one is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jan Sauer (talk • contribs) 04:20, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Emily Sweeney is the character name, Laura Spencer is the actress and she is listed in the infobox. I see nothing wrong in the article. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 09:20, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Bulleted list
Recently I added blank lines between the very long entries on each character, in order to make the article easier to read. But that change was reversed.

The editor who removed the blank lines said that the blank lines turned the single bulleted list into multiple bulleted lists. In response, my question is: so what?

Can someone explain to me what the issue is? Ferdinand Cesarano (talk) 23:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "So what?" is really not the best view to be editing Wikipedia with. The layout was a violation of the site's accessibility guidelines and policies; bulleted items should be included in a single list, instead of multiple new lists that all contain one bullet each. See WP:LISTDD and the link provided in the third point of the "Don't" list; more information is available at MOS:LIST. Yes, the bulleted sections are extremely bulky - they should be trimmed, rather than have unnecessary whitespace included between them. --  Alex TW 03:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I used the locution "so what?" simply as a means to ask what rule or standard is violated by the introduction of multiple bulleted lists. This is an entirely appropriate question.  Because I make only the occasional edit on Wikipedia, and because those edits almost always deal not with formatting but with factual matters or with grammar, I am admittedly not aware of every nuance of the rules.  But of course I intend to follow the rules; I'd just like to understand them.


 * So, then, the question becomes: what is the justification for this rule? What accessibility issues arise from having white space between several "lists" each consisting of a single bullet point, as opposed to having one list consisting of multiple bullet points?  Does the presence of several one-point lists somehow foul up the screen-reading software used by blind and visually-impaired people? Ferdinand Cesarano (talk) 14:47, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * As explained at MOS:LISTGAP, double line breaks disrupt screen readers, which will announce multiple lists when only one was intended, and therefore may mislead or confuse users of these programs. Such improper formatting can also more than triple the length of time it takes them to read the list. Every bulleted item becomes its own list. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Ah, I understand. It is indeed about screen readers.  Well, that makes sense.  Still, how unfortunate that there is no way to improve readability without creating difficulties for screen readers.  In this case, perhaps the text on each character should not be in the form of a bulleted list at all.  Perhaps this text should be presented as regular paragraphs; or maybe it should be presented as separate sub-sections, each having its own header.  Would either of these approaches be acceptable? Ferdinand Cesarano (talk) 17:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Per WP:TVCAST, the cast should be displayed as a list. I'd disagree with the paragraphs of prose for the characters, as this is the series' article, not the character's article. What the characters section needs is a severe trim of plot details; that would make it far more readable. --  Alex TW 00:25, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

There. Far more readable now. --  Alex TW 04:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Hypochondria?
The character Stuart Bloom is described here as "A mild-mannered, under-confident, hypochondriac", among other things. He certainly takes a lot of medication but is he a hypochondriac? Having watched the show for many years I have never heard this implied. Unless this can be verified through reliable sources I think this should be amended per WP:OR.  nagual  design   19:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Since nobody has responded in the last 24+ hours I'm going to be bold and remove the offending term. Sheldon is a hypochondriac, Howard is thought by Sheldon to be a hypochondriac, but Stuart is not. He has psychological issues and takes a lot of medication for them. I'm not even sure if hypochondria applies to mental illnesses. If you think you might have anxiety issues, for example, then you probably do have anxiety issues.  nagual  design   22:22, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2017
In the main article at the top of the page, it states a lot about the series itself and the characters and doesn't include any reception. After the second paragraph that talks about the supporting characters and the cast, we should add a paragraph about the reception the show. It should read:

"Although reviews were mixed at the beginning of the series, it quickly began getting more critical acclaim in the seasons following the first season. It ranks number 52 on TV Guide's 50 Greatest TV Shows of All Time. The show's explosive success quickly made it the anchor CBS's Thursday Night Comedy Line-up. The show has been the number 1 comedy on television since it's fourth season, and consistently ranks within the top 5 in the Nielsen ratings. Its extremely high ratings and critical acclaim has made it one of the most successful TV series of all time." 63.143.239.44 (talk) 12:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 14:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This request was mysteriously opened by another IP. Unfortunately, my answer remains the same here. If you would like to reopen this request, please do so in a new section rather than this one. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:55, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Ludlum-patterned titles
Seems like a core element of the show to me. Just saying.137.205.100.45 (talk) 12:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The Big Bang Theory. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110324182638/http://screenrant.com/raising-hope-season-2-big-bang-theory-season-5-mcrid-96256 to http://screenrant.com/raising-hope-season-2-big-bang-theory-season-5-mcrid-96256
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2014/10/12/gotham-has-biggest-adults-18-49-ratings-increase-gotham-red-band-society-top-percentage-gains-in-live-7-ratings-for-week-ending-september-28/313337/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://deadline.com/2015/05/2014-15-full-tv-season-ratings-shows-rankings-1201431167/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Ratings Graph
If someone knows how to make a graph on Wikipedia then can they make a ratings graph for this show? — Preceding unsigned comment added by XtremeNerdz12 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I can make graphs. If you can give me an example of an existing graph that you like the style of, and tell me exactly what data you want graphed and how, I'll cook you one up. ...Something like a scatter plot of Original air date against U.S. viewers (millions) from List of The Big Bang Theory episodes, in the same sort of style as File:Star Trek Enterprise ratings.png, perhaps?  nagual  design   22:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I made this graph of IMDb ratings instead, because it was easier. Will it suffice?  nagual  design   23:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe that they meant a graph for the "viewers" ratings, as constructed by Television ratings graph. However, I believe that these sorts of graphs are not required. --  Alex TW 02:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Do note that data from IMDb (such as ratings) are not allowed per WP:RS/IMDB and WP:CITEIMDB. The table Alex linked would be the one to use; however, like Alex, I don't believe it is required, nor should one be implemented. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair points. I'll just leave it there then.  nagual  design   16:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I've had that image deleted. I'm curious though; having looked at how Television ratings graph is used at Game of Thrones and Boardwalk Empire I think they make a nice addition to the articles, and being templatified makes them quite useful across Wikipedia. In contrast, the tabulated information at The Big Bang Theory and The Big Bang Theory makes for a very dry read. So why do the two of you deem it to be "not required"?  nagual  design   19:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You can see our opinions on the template and its usage at . --  Alex TW 23:26, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * @nagualdesign Can you make a US viewers ratings graph for this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by XtremeNerdz12 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Having read through some of the discussions linked to above I tend to agree that Television ratings graph doesn't work well with a long-running series. The resulting graph becomes far too busy. That said, I'm not averse to creating a graph (an image) as I did before, but using US viewers rather than IMDb ratings, provided that other users don't object.  nagual  design   16:16, 16 August 2017 (UTC)


 * If you go on Seinfeld or Friends, which are long running sitcoms, they have a ratings graph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XtremeNerdz12 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Only because you just asked another editor to create them. Don't lie. --  Alex TW 14:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Seinfeld (180 episodes) and Friends (236 episodes) have completed airing. The Big Bang Theory (235 episodes) is still running and it will surpass in episodes these two series, the ratings graphs of which i have created (the second one per your request) and personally consider a bit excessive. See also List of Seinfeld episodes and List of Friends episodes. I also noticed that in your most recent message (October 23) you have copied the date from the first post you made in this thread (August 10). I hope this wasn't done in bad faith to hide the fact that the graphs in Seinfeld and Friends were created only recently, but seeing how you are always leaving your posts unsigned, i believe you should take a look at WP:SIGNATURE. I would also like to say that i feel cheated, i regret responding to your requests for help and i consider this to be uncivil behavior. -- (Radiphus ) 14:59, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


 * @Radiphus Why do you feel cheated? All I did was ask you to make a few graphs. Also because I asked you to make the graph for Friends the page is now much better. XtremeNerdz12 (talk) 16:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


 * @ Alex  I didn't ask Radiphus to make the Seinfeld graph, only the Friends and Doctor Who graph. And I only wanted the graph so I could look at it for myself not to put it on the Dr Who page. XtremeNerdz12 (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Please just post my name, not my whole signature. And we don't ask people to make graphs just so that we can look at the pretty colours ourselves. If it's not going to be an article, there's no reason for it to exist. --  Alex TW 15:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Ratings Rankings
On one of the tables, the listings show the show's ratings rankings as total viewership, while the other table shows it as 18-49 demographic but doesn't specify which is which. It should be unified, so that both tables show the same rankings and so page reader won't be confused.

As you can see, here: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Bang_Theory#Episodes) shows both viewership and 18-49 rank, but here: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Bang_Theory#U.S standard ratings), it only shows viewersip. These two tables should be unified so that they both convey the same info. Personally, I think both should only show the 18-49 rank, since that's what advertisers and networks care about anyway.JosephTrem (talk) 20:25, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * We don't include information that "advertisers and networks care about", we, as an encyclopedia, include what information is necessary and relevant to the episodes and seasons. That information is the viewers and ratings. The ranks in the series overview table are for both, whereas the rank in the ratings is for the average viewers - I've added the ratings information to the U.S. ratings table with the respective rank in brackets. --  Alex TW 22:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2018
add  Sir Alan Dorwich29 (talk) 18:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ❌ Can be listed under the "For other uses" link if required. Not every "Big Bang" article needs linking in this article's hatnote. --  Alex TW 18:25, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note that there is already a hat note in the article linking to Big Bang Theory (disambiguation), and that has a link to Big Bang (disambiguation). As you can see, the two disambiguation articles have lots of entries, so it is not practical to list them all in hat notes for this article. BarbadosKen (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The requesting editor has been banned; they cannot reply here. --  Alex TW 22:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Episode Titles
As with Doctor Who, the episode titles contain no verbs. 86.8.145.87 (talk)


 * Incredible. You should write a song about that. nagualdesign 10:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


 * You hum it son I'll play it. 86.8.145.87 (talk)


 * I don't see the relevance in this; it's WP:TRIVIA. --  Alex TW 19:10, 27 January 2018 (UTC)


 * It's completely irrelevant, akin to saying that none of the episode titles are palindromes or "The Big Bang Theory" contains every vowel apart from u. nagualdesign 19:50, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think anonymous user 86.8.145.87 may be on to something. As stated in List of The Big Bang Theory episodes, all episode names, with the exception of the pilot, start with the word "The". This makes the episode name a noun. Perhaps it's worth bringing that sentence over to this article. BarbadosKen (talk) 22:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This is already commented on at List of The Big Bang Theory episodes. --  Alex TW 22:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with having the sentence in both articles. BarbadosKen (talk) 22:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see the point of mentioning it in either article. It's beyond trivial. <b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 23:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2018
Please change Barenaked Ladies. "Big Bang Theory Theme". Amazon Digital Services, Inc. Retrieved October 21, 2007.[dead link] and redirect to https://www.amazon.com/Big-Bang-Theory-Theme/dp/B0046X9EU4 SarahAnneFleming (talk) 13:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ❌ Unclear request. --  Alex TW 13:23, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2018
Reference is made to the original pilot of The Big Bang Theory merely as circulating on the internet. In fact, it's circulating as a playlist on YouTube, in seven parts.(linkvio removed) (This is my first time doing this, and I found the instructions incomprehensible. Please excuse any breach of procedure.) Manwithblackhat (talk) 01:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  JTP (talk • contribs) 02:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Not only is the unaired pilot available on YouTube but it can be downloaded in full from various torrent sites. However these are copyright violations and linking to copyright violations is not permitted. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 08:44, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2018
I propose the following additions to the "Critical Reception" section to fill out the well-documented pushback against TBBT's use of tropes and stereotype.

In addition to audience ratings, there have been several streams of cultural criticism about the show focused on its use of tropes and stereotypes: Viewers who have posted at TV Tropes have identified the following themes/tropes they consider problematic: • The Unfair Sex • Rule of Funny • the Jerkass • Women are Wiser • Closer to Earth • Informed Ability Nerds, Geeks, and Masculinity see https://www.patreon.com/posts/adorkable-of-big-14152660 and https://www.patreon.com/posts/complicity-of-14615238 Women in ScienceWomen in Science MTV India's commentary on racism in relation to Raj's character and similar commentary at Catapult
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --  Alex TW 22:53, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

i Want to edit the nielsen rating section in the episodes colum.
According to the nielsen rating page in wikipedia, TBBT was the number 1 rated show in the 2016/17 season and not the number 2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleonardis (talk • contribs) 17:13, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Million or Billion?
Do you hear "fourteen million" or "fourteen billion" in the theme song? I hear the former, which is off by a factor of 1000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Link (talk • contribs) 19:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed previously and widely elsewhere on the internet. It's billion. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 20:20, 14 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Can you refer me to any discussion in which someone has provided clear evidence that the recording has "billion" rather than "million"? I've listened to the line many times (every time I watch an episode as well as numerous listenings on YouTube) and I continue to hear "million". I plan to bring the audio into Pro Tools for more careful analysis. John Link (talk) 10:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Archive search box exists on this talk page. Search "billion" and you'll find the discussion. Can you refer us to any reliable source in which it provides clear evidence that the recording has "million" rather than "billion"? --  Alex TW 11:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * As internet memes have demonstrated, some people hear one thing while other people hear another (like all those weirdos who hear "Yanny" instead of "Laurel"). I hear billion, which is only natural as those are the words written by the people who sing the song. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 18:00, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Fair use images
Is there a reason why this article uses fair use images rather than File:TBBT logo.svg? There are also freely-licensed photos of the actors on commons that could be used in place of the fair-use cast photo. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2018
Sheldon and Amy were married in the season finale, with Mark Hamill performing the ceremonyEthyn Wu (talk) 07:56, 15 July 2018 (UTC) Ethyn Wu (talk) 07:56, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done DRAGON BOOSTER   ★  09:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2018
For Home Media section
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DRAGON BOOSTER   ★  09:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2018
Home media section edit: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.102.218.240 (talk • contribs)
 * Season 10 was released in the US (Region 1) on September 12, 2017
 * Season 11 is set to be released in the US (Region 1) on September 11, 2018
 * Season 10 region 2 released on September 11, 2017
 * Season 10 Region 4 released September 13, 2017
 * Season 11 region 4 is set to be released on September 12, 2018
 * Season 11 region 2 set to be released September 24, 2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.102.218.240 (talk) 20:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * These are spam links. Wikipedia is not a catalog. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 20:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Wrong look at the section marked home media. If this is not a catologue then why post home media releases? Why post thease releases and then claim wilipedia is not a catologue? I use the same sources that are in the home media section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.102.218.240 (talk • contribs)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: per WP:NOTACATALOG  spintendo   05:32, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Old, but already been added. --  Alex TW 08:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Notable Cameo Appearances
Adam West, Bill Gates, Bob Newhart, Buzz Aldrin, Carrie Fisher, Charlie Sheen, Christine Baranski, Christopher Lloyd, Ellen DeGeneres, Elon Musk, George Takei, Howie Mandel, Ira Flatow, James Earl Jones, Jeff Blum, Katee Sackhoff, Katey Sagal, Kathy Bates, Keith Carradine, LeVar Burton, Mark Hamill, Nathan Fillion, Peter MacNicol, Stan Lee, Steve Wozniak, Summer Glau, Teller, Yeardley Smith 96.19.104.118 (talk) 19:32, 18 September 2018 (UTC) John Kernkamp j.kernkamp@gmail.com
 * And? --  Alex TW 02:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * From reading this, it's seems like you want to add all these cameos into the cast and characters section. This is not needed on the show's main article as they are all credited in the article for the season(s) that they appeared in. Keith Carradine did not make a cameo appearance btw, he made more than a few appearances on the show. The Optimistic One (talk) 03:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Howard's mother
Shouldn't Carol Ann Susi be added to the cast list of BIG BANG THEORY? She was Howard's mother Her only crime was she died in real life. She is listed as part of the cast on IMDB. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.151.225.214 (talk • contribs)
 * As noted in the Cast section, we're only listing main cast members on this article. I imagine she's listed at the full list of characters article. If you believe she should be listed here because she was main cast, please provide a reliable source to that effect; IMDb is not such a source. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 13:14, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Addition of a Criticism Sub-section
The "Reception" section does not currently contain a section on the large amount of criticism the show has received, leading the section to be NPOV. In my conceptualization, this would include two/three sections: 1) making fun of geek culture 2/2&3) sexism and racism (often these two criticisms are mentioned alongside one another, so there is an argument that they should be combined) CLPond (talk) 00:34, 1 May 2019 (UTC)CLPond

Warner Bros. Studios
I came here, curious to know what soundstage the show was taped on. Missed watching the finale tonight.... :(

Maybe I didn’t catch it on the page, but according to VisitBurbank.com, Big Bang Theory was taped on stage 25 of Warner Bros. Studios. Thought maybe it should be added for future reference. JeremyCF1979 (talk) 03:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

big bang theory theme
at last episode and a special after last episode was a slow version of the serie theme..., who play that version? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.242.168.8 (talk) 21:02, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Howard's mother
This section currently reads in the first line: "In scenes set at Howard's home, he interacts with his rarely-seen mother..." It should read: "In scenes set at Howard's home, he interacts with his never-seen mother..." Carol Ann Susi never appeared on the show yet achieved great comedic effect by being heard in several episodes. She wonderfully portrayed a minor yet important character. Hatwoman (talk) 19:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2019
I suggest to add the paragraph 'Bibliography' to this voice. Three books worthy of being included are: Dean A. Kowalski (edited), The Big Bang Theory and Philosophy. Rock, Paper, Scissors, Aristotle, Locke, Hoboken (New Jersey), John Wiley & Sons 2012, ISBN 978-1-118-07455-8.

Nadine Farghaly, Eden Leone (edited), The Sexy Science of The Big Bang Theory. Essays on Gender in the Series, Jefferson (Nord Carolina), McFarland & Company 2015, ISBN 978-0-7864-7641-1.

Angelo Iermano, La scienza e il comico. La comicità di The Big Bang Theory alla luce delle teorie del riso, Avellino, Sinestesie 2017, ISBN 978-8-899-54173-6. 79.51.230.29 (talk) 13:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: This article is about the TV series, not the scientific theory. That article is called Big Bang. Cheers, Upsidedown Keyboard Twemoji12 1f920.svg (talk) 14:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Videogame refrences
In the begining of "The Cognition Regeneration" the guys are seen playing overwatch — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.186.135 (talk) 07:00, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

"CTV's The Big Bang Theory" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect CTV&. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 06:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Episode title reference
What's with the title references in each of the season episode listings? In most of the instances I checked, it's pretty self-obvious. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

The Big bang theory Ratings
The article currently puts that season 10 of the show was rank number 2 in tv ratings, but the nielsen ratings article put it number 1. The mistake has to be correted and also in the description of the show put that the show rank number 1 two times not one

Canadian ratings - edit request
The Canadian ratings section says "This is the largest audience for a sitcom since the series finale of Friends (12.4 million viewers)."

I am asking for someone to change "12.4 million" to "5.16 million". Or just delete the "(12.4 million viewers)".

A source is cited in the series finale article:

The 12.4 million number was invented by a serial vandal in 2016: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Big_Bang_Theory&diff=prev&oldid=735603728 --63.226.203.121 (talk) 20:50, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

12.4 million was 38% of the 32 million population of Canada in 2004. --63.226.230.153 (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

✅ Schazjmd   (talk)  18:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2021
My request is that you write under howard and bernadette's character descriptions is that they ended up having 2 kids together (Halley and Michael) 2603:6010:62A:5E00:7460:B5A4:DBFE:8481 (talk) 18:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: it's not very clear where you want the changes. Note that the section I think you may be talking about is just for character descriptions. —Belwine (talk) 20:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2021
The "Timeline of cast and characters" includes a link to singer Will Wheaton, but it should link to actor Wil Wheaton. (Lots of sources for this information, one is: https://www.cleveland.com/tv/2019/02/wil-wheaton-wraps-up-run-as-wil-wheaton-on-big-bang-theory.html ) -- Heath 216.30.158.175 (talk) 07:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Someone else has already fixed that link, but thanks for pointing it out. Schazjmd   (talk)  14:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Wrong link for Sara Gilbert
In the list of actors and roles, the link for Sara Gilbert goes to a British scientist with a similar name. This Wikipedia link does go to the Big Bang actress. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sara_Gilbert Wblisws (talk) 05:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Spelling error: Sara Gilbert vs Sarah Gilbert. Now fixed in the cast of characters table. — Ched (talk) 06:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Criticism
There has been racism stereotyping South Asian people, expressed by Rajesh Koothrapali. If you could add that, that would help. Printice111 (talk) 14:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2021
Add Steven V. Silver under cinematography because he was the primary director of photographer in The Big Bang Theory. 100.15.128.173 (talk) 16:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ◢ <i style="background-color:#F7E3F7; color:#960596"> Ganbaruby! </i>  (talk) 17:26, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2021
Request to add that The Big Bang Theory is a syndicated television show that also appears on the channel TBS. Julco82 (talk) 22:28, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The article already states that, at the top of the page

- FlightTime  ( open channel ) 22:36, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Origin of the TV Show?
I have a concern that the writers themselves may not realise that the character of Sheldon is likely based on the character of Mortimer in the Star Trek Voyager episode The Good Shepherd. Written by Dianna Gitto. This aired in 2000 some 7 years prior to the Big Bang Theory pilot. There is are obvious links that Mortimer was working on the Big Bang scientic theory. And the writers of the comedy show are Startrek fans. I'm unsure what impact this has if any on copyright? But I can find no information at all about Dianna Gitto as thar show seems to be her only writing credit? Has this topic been discussed previously by Star Trek fans? Here in NZ we are getting reruns so I noticed the similarities. Taggart52 (talk) 16:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

"Big Bang Theory" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Big Bang Theory and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 6 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 11:56, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Amy Farrah Fowler is a Neurobiologist not a Neuroscientist
We have many evidences that support Amy Farrah Fowler is a neurobiologist. In the article's description, the character's profession is written as a neuroscientist. I suggest to alter that as neurobiologist.

Proof:

S4E1 - "Sheldon: Well, my work in physics, her work in neurobiology, and most recently, the possibility of our having a child together."


 * - "Penny: So, um, Amy, Sheldon tells me you’re a neuro something-or-other. Amy: Neurobiologist. Your check engine light is on."

S4E3 - "Amy: I’m sorry, was I being too subtle? I meant compared to the real-world applications of neurobiology, theoretical physics is, what’s the word I’m looking for? Hmm, cute. Leonard and Howard together: Oooh! Sheldon: Are you suggesting the work of a neurobiologist like Babinski could ever rise to the significance of a physicist like Clarke-Maxwell or Dirac?"

S4E5 - "Amy: From a neurobiological standpoint, Leonard, you may be alone because your psychological state is causing an actual pheromone-based stink of desperation."

S4E24 - "Sheldon: Your doctorate is in neurobiology. I fail to see the distinction."

S5E6 - "Sheldon: Well, there’s actually big news on the Amy front. She’s been studying the neurobiology of addiction in lower animals. She is this close to getting a starfish hooked on cocaine"

S5E16 - "Amy: Hey, I’ve been training in the field of neurobiology for 12 years. You’ve been here for three hours, and you’ve spent one of them in the bathroom." Ibrahim Dede (talk) 22:13, 19 August 2022 (UTC)