Talk:Young Sheldon/Archive 1

Genre
Change genre description in first sentence of article. It's not sitcom. From sitcom entry in Wikipedia "A situation comedy television program may be recorded in front of a studio audience, depending on the program's production format. The effect of a live studio audience can be imitated or enhanced by the use of a laugh track. During filming productions, usually the laughing track is prerecorded however whether live audiences are there, the laughing tracks are live.". There is no fixed set or audience laughing.
 * Fixed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:13, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

The quote says "MAY be recorded..." that means it doesn't has to in order to be called a sit-com. Around half of sit-coms today do not have a fixed set or audience laughter. 77.106.147.150 (talk) 17:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * plus the show DOES have a fixed set! what is that guy smoking?!  209.172.23.238 (talk) 01:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Young Sheldon
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Young Sheldon's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "1.08": From Man with a Plan (TV series):  From SEAL Team (TV series):  From Superior Donuts (TV series):  From Kevin Can Wait:  From Bull (2016 TV series):  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Cameo/Guest
Per MOS:TV, we categorize cast into Main, Recurring and Guest. Sections like Guest Starring, or Special Appearance, or Cameo, they've always been merged into these other sections. As I stated, not all guests are cameos, but all cameos are guests, and the description for Elon Musk describes (or rather, described, since it was changed) it as "a cameo scene". How is it different? It was a guest appearance. I also recommend that BRD be followed, as the bold edit was moving him to cameo, and it was reverted, so it should stay thus until this discussion concludes. --  Alex TW 05:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The article List of The Big Bang Theory characters lists guests who appear as themselves differently than other guests, and that's because it's a different type of an appearance. Being in character is different from playing one's self. I am not seeing anything in MOS:TV prohibiting or discouraging listing cameo appearances separately from other guest appearances. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 17:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've adjusted the content to be with in the TVCAST guidelines, but still indicating the cameo nature. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That's because that article is specifically dedicated to list the character of the series, and can go into more detail on the types of appearances, and who and when and whatnot. On parent articles for series, we list by Main, Recurring and Guest. --  Alex TW 03:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. You war over the removal of Musk from the guest section, then when an editor makes a compromise by making him separate from the list, you ask "Why is Elon Musk not part of the list?" You're contradicting yourself. --  Alex TW 09:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not a separate list. This just looks out of place and tacky. Either we put Musk in a separate list, or we combine with the other characters. But we cant just leave it hanging. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 22:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The latter is what we were trying to do in the first place, to your opposition... --  Alex TW 02:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd rather have Elon Musk listed separately under the heading of cameo appearances. If that's not possible, then we have to list him with the other characters. The current "compromise" is not workable. It looks awful. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 07:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not a matter of whether it looks pretty or not, it's a matter of the importance of Musk within the series. He is not a guest, so we don't list him as guest. And we also don't use cameo sections. We don't have to add him to be a part of the list. --  Alex TW 07:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

So what policy prohibits a section heading of ==Cameo Apperances== ? Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 07:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC) The closest thing that I can see in MOS:TVCAST is this passage which states . I cannot see how this would be interpreted as a prohibition against listing cameo appearances as a separate section. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * You don't seem to understand the simple concept of edit-warring per WP:EW, so let me explain in simple terms to you. Your WP:BOLD was reverted. Per WP:BRD, after a bold edit is reverted, a discussion should begin and be resolved before reinstating the content, the WP:STATUSQUO remaining, after a needed WP:CONSENSUS is formed to keep it. Does that make sense to you?
 * Now. Tell me where in MOS:TV it states that a cameo section is supported. --  Alex TW 06:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I dont have the WP:BURDEN to show that the section heading is supported. The WP:BURDEN is for you to show that it is prohibited, or come up with some other reason why you think it should not be there. Frankly, when you cite a policy and then get called out that the policy you cited does not support your position, you should just step aside. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 07:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:BURDEN applies to verifying content, please try again. Especially when you just cited a policy and then got called out that the policy you cited does not support your position. Given that you've been reverted by three editors in total now, perhaps it's best to stick to the discussion page. Or maybe you should just step aside.
 * As for the section, they are not a guest character, and hence don't belong in guest, and a separate section is not required for one single entry. Meaning that prose at the end of the cast section is perfectly acceptable - I can provide other examples of this that have had no issue. --  Alex TW 07:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems that your objection to a section heading is because so far there has been only one cameo appearance. WP:EL specifically states  meaning that it is perfectly acceptable to have a heading with only a single entry. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 07:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not an external link entry. Please apply the correct guideline or policy (per before, the same case of using the wrong one). --  Alex TW 07:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter that it's not an external link entry — what matters is that it shows that it is acceptable to have a section heading for a list with only single entry.
 * I am confident that it won't be long before there will be another cameo appearance and then your objection will become moot. In the meantime, the article will just have to look tacky and badly formatted unless other Wikipedians join this discussion to support my point of view. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 07:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * For external links, yes. It doesn't support cameo sections. It's irrelevant what you think will happen - the only thing Wikipedia cares about it what has happened. You can hope all you want, but this layout exists on a multitude of other articles, and it's existed as such with no issue, so no, there is no issue of bad formatting. --  Alex TW 07:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring
Just popping in here as an uninvolved editor to say that I really hope I don't have to ask that this page be fully protected to stop the edit-warring. One editor has already breached WP:3RR and I have left a warning on his talk page. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 07:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I hope not, I wasn't planning on continuing, hence my return to the discussion. It seems your warning wasn't noted after it was reverted... --  Alex TW 08:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Removal of a warning is deemed to mean that the editor has read the warning. Since his edit summary seems to indicate he doesn't really understand what a revert is, I have clarified that for him. Hopefully that should stop the edit-warring and discussion should continue if necessary. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 08:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Appearances in the two shows as different characters
So far, there are two actors who appeared both in this show, as well as in The Big Bang Theory as two separate characters: I think it is worth mentioning in the article whenever such a case occurs. However, I believe it should be mentioned in a footnote, not in the prose. I made such an edit, but was reverted. Now another editor decided to eliminate those sentences under the justification that it is "trivia". (S)he eliminated the information for only one of the characters. I am opening up this discussion to try to come to a consensus about this. The options are: mention in the prose, mention in a footnote, do not mention at all. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Lance Barber plays George Cooper Sr. on this show (a major role) and as Jimmy Speckerman on TBBT (a minor character that appears in only one episode)
 * Melissa Tang has minor roles in both shows, appearing (so far) in only a single episode of each show.
 * Mention in the prose: Useful information, but not useful enough to be in the prose. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * comment: A similar situation occurs on The Big Bang Theory, in which Analeigh Tipton appears both as herself as well as a character seven seasons later. In the article List of The Big Bang Theory characters this is currently treated as a footnote, but that has not undergone scrutiny. Whatever consensus forms here, would probably apply there too. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 21:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

How old is Parsons' character in YS?
Currently, the YS article says that Parsons' Sheldon Cooper is "the older, present-day version of the character". I don't think this is correct. If we define "present-day Sheldon" as being Parsons' character on TBBT, then his YS character has to be a future version of the character. For example, in the YS Season 1 finale, Parsons informs us that he used written contracts for interpersonal interactions with his own children. But the "present-day" TBBT Sheldon does not yet have children, let alone any knowledge of having written contracts with them. Therefore, the only way for Parsons' YS Sheldon to know this, is if he is narrating the story not from the present, but from some point in the future. Specifically, if you assume that Sheldon and Amy won't have their first child(ren) until at least sometime around the TBBT Season 12 finale in 2019, and that Sheldon wouldn't start doing written contracts until the child(ren) was/were at least three, then Parsons' YS character must be speaking to us from at least 2022, and not "present-day".

Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.237.61.10 (talk) 19:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There's a lot of speculation there. If a reliable source has not discussed this theory of yours then it shouldn't be discussed here. That's not the purpose of talk pages. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 20:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * None of that is “theory”. In the story line, it is fact that present-day TBBT Sheldon does not know he will have children. It is also fact that the YS narrator Sheldon has this knowledge. So the two cannot be one in the same.  As such, if anything here is speculation and not reliably sourced, it’s the article’s current assertion that the YS narrator is “present-day”, despite significant evidence to the contrary.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.199.89 (talk) 03:59, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I suggest you familiarise yourself with WP:SYNTH. "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here." -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 06:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Series overview
Per MOS:TVOVERVIEW, When a television program has produced 2 seasons/series or more, it may be advantageous to summarize some of the episode data with a series overview table.. Please do explain why it is unnecessary. — Lbtocthtalk  06:16, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I see no problem with a series overview table and actually find it useful to the article. The Doctor Who  (talk) 06:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Just a small point but the MoS says it may be advantageous, not "it is necessary" or "it is advantageous", so the question here is really "why is it necessary?", not "why is it unnecessary?" Personally, I'm neutral on the addition. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 06:46, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly: it may be advantageous. Overviews are not always required, and this one is most definitely unnecessary at the moment, as there are only two seasons, one with only one piece of information (season 2's premiere), and there has been such little variation between the seasons - they premiered a day apart when considering the dates bar the year. Other similar examples include articles like Daredevil. When there's a third season, or the episodes are split out to a separate episodes list, then definitely. At the moment? It presents nothing new; in fact, it would be more beneficial using Television season ratings in the article, which presents the same information plus extra content. -- / Alex /21  06:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I added for accessibility as readers do not have scroll down page to see the end date, but it was quickly removed (technically, hidden in comments) as an editor deemed it unnecessary. There were 22 episodes the first season with summaries this is quite long. — <b style="color: #FF69B4;font-family:Georgia;">Lbtocth</b><sup style="color: #2D68C4F">talk  06:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Personally in my opinion it makes it beneficial to the reader by summarizing # of episodes, and start and end dates for each season without having to scroll through the episode section. was what I was in the process of saying but I ran into the edit conflict with Alex and accidentally got distracted elsewhere. The Doctor Who  (talk) 06:55, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * So, the lead? -- / Alex /<sub style="color:#008">21  07:42, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BOLD, I added the Rank and Avg. viewers(millions) with a reliable source for the Series overview. — <b style="color: #FF69B4;font-family:Georgia;">Lbtocth</b><sup style="color: #2D68C4F">talk  07:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As stated, even more information in Television season ratings. -- / Alex /<sub style="color:#008">21  07:37, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That is under the subsection Ratings under the Reception section, not the Series Overview. Not the same thing. — <b style="color: #FF69B4;font-family:Georgia;">Lbtocth</b><sup style="color: #2D68C4F">talk  07:41, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * And yet, it provides the exact same information while providing more at the same time. -- / Alex /<sub style="color:#008">21  07:42, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Television season ratings does not seem to fix the problem, if I'm a reader unfamiliar with Wikipedia or the series and was looking for a series overview about the series the ratings section would not be the first place I would look. It would actually be one of the last. The Doctor Who  (talk) 07:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned above, the lead still has all the content you mentioned about start and end dates, and episode counts. -- / Alex /<sub style="color:#008">21  07:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yet, you are missing the put of it, not the same section. This is accessibility for the Episodes list section, not the Reception. — <b style="color: #FF69B4;font-family:Georgia;">Lbtocth</b><sup style="color: #2D68C4F">talk  07:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That's exactly my point for the Series Overview. — <b style="color: #FF69B4;font-family:Georgia;">Lbtocth</b><sup style="color: #2D68C4F">talk  07:52, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No need to ping me, I'm watching this talk page. The overview isn't necessary in the episodes section. Nor is it required in the ratings section, but the ratings section provides more information. There's no reason for two tables with the same information. Besides, all the series overview data is available in the lead, the first section a reader typically reads (bar the finale date, but that can be added). -- / Alex /<sub style="color:#008">21  07:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * By your logic Television season ratings isn't necessary in the ratings section either because all the same information can be found either in the episodes section or in Television episode ratings under the respective seasons... (with the exception of the rank) The Doctor Who  (talk) 08:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly what I said. Nor is it required in the ratings section. But no, the desire here is to have some table that summarizes the seasons' start and end dates and episode counts. That means that the options are either Series overview or Television season ratings, as the episodes section and Television episode ratings only summarize the episodes, not the seasons. -- / Alex /<sub style="color:#008">21  08:23, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Or Both. I seen a lot of US TV series included both the Series overview and Television season ratings. — <b style="color: #FF69B4;font-family:Georgia;">Lbtocth</b><sup style="color: #2D68C4F">talk  08:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, because Television season ratings is typically on the parent article, and Series overview is typically on the "List of episodes" article and then transcluded to the parent article. Can you provide examples of where they both exist on the parent article, and if it has become a standard practice among a multitude of articles? If so, I believe that they shouldn't, as it is repetition of information, and only the table that provides the extra information should be used. -- / Alex /<sub style="color:#008">21  08:29, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * S.W.A.T. (2017 TV series), The Good Doctor (TV series), 9-1-1 (TV series), The Four: Battle for Stardom I acan also provide you plenty of examples where a series overview table exists on the parent article without a television season ratings table in similar situations: Grown-ish, The Resident (TV series), Better Late Than Never (TV series), Gordon Ramsay's 24 Hours to Hell and Back, Station 19. The Doctor Who  (talk) 08:50, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There is also Splitting Up Together. — <b style="color: #FF69B4;font-family:Georgia;">Lbtocth</b><sup style="color: #2D68C4F">talk  08:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, TheDoctorWho. I was in the processing of typing the TV series that you listed above. — <b style="color: #FF69B4;font-family:Georgia;">Lbtocth</b><sup style="color: #2D68C4F">talk  08:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Also noting that if you look at this old revision of This Is Us (TV series) it was accepted there until it's split to an episode article in September 2018. The Doctor Who  (talk) 09:00, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hm. Fair enough. I disagree with it, but I can see that it either is or is becoming a standard practice. I would recommend adding both tables then. However, I note that in only two of those cases is the episode count for the most recent season unknown (S.W.A.T. and Gordon Ramsay's 24 Hours to Hell and Back), hence for all the other articles, there is more info than just the start date in the row for the most recent season. -- / Alex /<sub style="color:#008">21  09:01, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Examples where a series overview table exists on the parent article without a television season ratings table include:Counterpart (TV series). — <b style="color: #FF69B4;font-family:Georgia;">Lbtocth</b><sup style="color: #2D68C4F">talk  09:04, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I see no problem with both tables, what about you User:Lbtocth? The Doctor Who (talk) 09:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I concur with U|TheDoctorWho. As I suggested in the first place: Or Both. Both are in different sections, I don't why it needs to be one or the other. — <b style="color: #FF69B4;font-family:Georgia;">Lbtocth</b><sup style="color: #2D68C4F">talk  09:18, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ both tables have been implemented in their respective sections on the article. The Doctor Who  (talk) 09:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Glad you concur with me. I don't see the need for duplicate information in two almost-identical tables, but it does seem to be a common practice. Though, common practices can be wrong. -- / Alex /<sub style="color:#008">21  10:07, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see WP:TV and/or MOS:TV are/is against having both. — <b style="color: #FF69B4;font-family:Georgia;">Lbtocth</b><sup style="color: #2D68C4F">talk  10:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see WP:TV and/or MOS:TV are/is for having both. It can go both ways. Just remember, in Wikipedia discussions, editors point to similarities across the project as reasons to keep, delete, or create a particular type of content, article or policy. These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid. -- / Alex /<sub style="color:#008">21  11:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * My point here is that there are currently no hard guidelines/rules for/against for having both. No need to become UNCIVIL. I am quite aware of WP:OTHER, no need to remind me. — <b style="color: #FF69B4;font-family:Georgia;">Lbtocth</b><sup style="color: #2D68C4F">talk  17:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As consensus has been reached, I will no longer respond to this discussion. All the best. — <b style="color: #FF69B4;font-family:Georgia;">Lbtocth</b><sup style="color: #2D68C4F">talk  18:29, 5 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - I personally have no issues with people adding them for shows with two seasons, but I wouldn't add them myself personally. I think they're more suited for articles that are several seasons in length on the same page, or shows that have been split. I don't think a two person consensus has much weight either, certainly not enough to act on should their be a dispute. However as this issue is so trivial I'd throw my support behind the series overview being there should this be disputed further, as it'd be such a waste of time for everyone should this to be continued. Esuka (talk) 19:19, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This was more a clear-cut BRD thing, made a bold edit adding it,  reverted it, so it was discussed here. I joined in and we all came to an agreement to include it.  The Doctor Who  (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * To be fair, it's two editors in agreement and another not wanting the hassle because the issue is trivial. It doesn't seem like a consensus with any weight behind it but one that has been reached. I just offered my thoughts on the issue that's all. Esuka (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well said. I see no need for the series overview here, as it only has one item of information for Season 2 and adds nothing further. Anyways, as they say, agreement and all. -- / Alex /<sub style="color:#008">21  23:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Is George the head coach or the assistant?
I'm sure I remember a reference to George not being the head coach.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  16:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * He is in the episode I just watched Cls14 (talk) 08:28, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Hidden text for Annie Potts
What is the purpose of the hidden text that is associated with Annie Potts' position in the infobox list of starring cast members? The list is ordered the exact same way that it is ordered on the show with the exception that in the infobox Jim Parsons is not listed as cast, but rather as narrator (I suppose because his participation is limited to voice only?) It seems that this hidden text would only be relevant if Jim Parsons would be listed with the cast because he would then be listed ahead of Potts and Hobby in the infobox list, whereas he is listed at the end of the list on the show. Banana Republic (talk) 14:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Parsons is credited in the main cast, and thus he should be listed both there and as narrator. It appears that he was removed in May with no reasoning. This edit should be reverted, and the note restored.
 * Also, please do not edit the page while logged out. -- / Alex /<sub style="color:#008">21  13:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The purpose is to discourage editors from moving Potts up the cast list above those who appeared in the first episode of the show, as she was not in that episode. RGCorris (talk) 13:12, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems Parsons should be removed as narrator (there should not be a narrator) and put back in the list of characters, above Potts. Banana Republic (talk) 13:39, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * He is both; that is, credited as main cast, and also the narrator of the series. -- / Alex /<sub style="color:#008">21  13:41, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The reference provided does say that he narrates, but I wouldn't use that verb because he does not provide commentary for each scene. In some scenes he gives a summary of a perspective of the adult version of the character. Banana Republic (talk) 13:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * narrate: "deliver a commentary to accompany (a film, broadcast, piece of music, etc.)." Nothing in that states it must be over every scene. He provides a commentary, therefore he narrates. It's even confirmed by reliable sources. -- / Alex /<sub style="color:#008">21  00:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I have reverted the article to the revision prior to the intial removal of the note, as that is the status quo. The removal was clearly opposed not long after the removal, so the status quo should remain while the matter is being discussed. Consensus is needed to remove the note, not to restore it so this edit by was inappropriate. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 13:43, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It was this revert without discussion in the talk page that was inappropriate and non conforming to WP:BRD. Banana Republic (talk) 13:51, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with that edit. The removal of the note had clearly been opposed and the IP should not have removed it again while the discussion was open. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 14:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * We'll have to agree to disagree regarding the appropriateness of this revert without a comment in the talk page. Banana Republic (talk) 21:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Your bold edit was reverted, so it was up to you to discuss it. -- / Alex /<sub style="color:#008">21  00:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * - Edit summaries are preferred but they are not mandatory. As I've already stated, after your edit was opposed it became the subject of a discussion and the IP should never have reverted. WP:BRD says "Discuss the contribution, and the reasons for the contribution, on the article's talk page with the person who reverted your contribution. Don't restore your changes or engage in back-and-forth reverting." This applies to all editors, not just the person who made the original change. WP:BRR says "Once discussion has begun, restoring one's original edit without taking other users' concerns into account may be seen as disruptive. These so-called "re-reverts" are uncollaborative and could incur sanctions such as a block." WP:STATUSQUO says "During a dispute discussion, until a consensus is established, you should not revert away from the status quo". Clearly, based on the above, the IP's edit was not appropriate and Alex 21 was simply reverting to the status quo. If that IP was you, as Alex 21 suggests, then the IP edit was edit-warring and more. Regardless, it should never have happened. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 03:54, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems like there is a misunderstanding. This revert by Alex 21 is not inappropriate because he failed to put an edit summary. It was inappropriate because he failed to participate in the discussion. It wasn't until I reverted him again that he entered this discussion, and at that point we were able to quickly resolve that the issue was an inappropriate deletion that happened last May. I therefore maintain that my revert was appropriate, and will not continue to argue with you because it's pointless. Banana Republic (talk) 04:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There certainly is a misunderstanding.
 * It was inappropriate because he failed to participate in the discussion - He doesn't need to participate in the discussion to revert to the status quo after an editor inappropriately reverted while the discussion is in progress. Please refer to the quotes I provided from WP:BRD, WP:BRR and WP:STATUSQUO.
 * It wasn't until I reverted him again - That was edit-warring.
 * I therefore maintain that my revert was appropriate - You have provided nothing to support this claim. Again, please refer to the quotes I provided from WP:BRD, WP:BRR and WP:STATUSQUO. Your edit was inappropriate because you reverted to your preferred version of the article while there was an open discussion. "Once discussion has begun, restoring one's original edit without taking other users' concerns into account may be seen as disruptive. These so-called "re-reverts" are uncollaborative and could incur sanctions such as a block." Discussion is deemed to have started once a discussion has opened, even if only the original post exists. "Other users' concerns" were demonstrated here. After that no reversions should have occurred. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 05:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

What Do You All Have Against 1990?
You guys accept my citing a script to confirm that Sheldon is 10 as of Season 2, but you refuse to accept that the show takes place in some year other than 1989 even after I cite a source confirming that the first episode of January is in 1990 from another script from the exact same Website. This show is supposed to take place in a fictionalized version of the real world, not in Pokémon (I'll never forget when some random kid who acted like she was all that and a bag of chips told me about that chronological nonsense as if Pokémon is a high work of art!), so realistically, you would expect the year to advance as the characters age.

And may I quote: "All right, everybody, welcome to the 1990 East Texas Baptist Olympics."

Read more: https://www.springfieldspringfield.co.uk/view_episode_scripts.php?tv-show=young-sheldon-2017&episode=s02e11

2601:646:C403:3616:2C7B:B946:6F8:527F (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't want to burst your bubble but Sheldon Cooper is not a real person. The program is a work of fiction based on another work of fiction. By its very definition it does not take place in the real world at all. In the fictional world, anything can, and does, happen. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 01:12, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


 * You may not know who I am, but I can tell the difference between fantasy and reality. And I know that, even if the program is a work of fiction, it is supposed to be realistic (hence my edit to my previous remark), so one would realistically expect a show that at least resembles the real world, even if it is not real, to advance realistically through time.


 * I'd hate to burst your bubble, but, for the final time, the show does not take place only in 1989. And I can only hope the source I cited ends this edit war before it begins. This is not a matter of what the rules of fiction should and should not be. This is a matter of common sense. All I want to understand is why, when I cite a valid source proving the year’s advancement and follow Wikipedia’s citation rules to the letter, it gets rejected by the Powers that Be.


 * That’s all. I don’t ask for much.


 * By the way, thank you for not undoing my edit. Much appreciated.2601:646:C403:3616:2C7B:B946:6F8:527F (talk) 03:58, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The last episode of season 2 confirms that it took place in 1990, and that is noted in the episode summary. Banana Republic (talk) 13:00, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

1990 Nobel prize winners
Not sure why the sentence the names of the Nobel Prize winners in physics are being announced, with the announced names matching the names of the 1990 prize winners along with two references, one for the names of the winners announced on the show, and the other being the names of the winners of the 1990 prize is considered WP:SYNTH. No conclusions are made that are not supported in either reference. If we were to split the sentence into two, one listing the names along with a reference to the names announced on the show, and the other sentence being the prize winners in 1990 along with a reference to the prize winners, then there would obviously be no WP:SYNTH. The question is therefore: why is combining the two sentences into one considered WP:SYNTH? Banana Republic (talk) 05:59, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem is with "the announced names matching the names of the 1990 prize winners." That is not explicitly mentioned in either source. To come to the conclusion that the names are the same you have to combine both sources which is classic WP:SYNTH. "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." It can't be more clear. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 06:16, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * So let me be explicit. If the text in the article said"In the episode, the prize winners are named 'Jerome Friedman', 'Henry Kendall', and 'Richard Taylor'. [reference 1] The 1990 prize winners are also named 'Jerome Friedman', 'Henry Kendall', and 'Richard Taylor' [reference 2]"
 * then there would be no WP:SYNTH violation. Why would it be a WP:SYNTH violation if the two sentences are combined into one sentence without actually naming the names? Banana Republic (talk) 06:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Because "the announced names matching the names of the 1990 prize winners" is one claim and neither source explicitly supports the claim. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 07:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * We don't need a full chronological list of events within the series, we just need a general time-frame of what happened when. He was nine then he was ten? That's enough. Why does it matter that the episode lines up with October 1990? What greater significance does this give?
 * Yes, you could list the text in the article as that. But the article doesn't need to say that, that's far too much detail. It's a SYNTH violation because, as has already been explained to you, you're combining two sources to make a connection. If you find a source that specifically states "The Young Sheldon second-season finale occurs in October 1990, given the names of the Nobel Prize winners from that year", then problem solved. -- / Alex /<sub style="color:#008">21  07:37, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I found two references saying that the names announced on the show are the same as the ones who won the prize in 1990. And yes, we do need to write down when the series is taking place, because it is intended to be taking place in the past. It should be noted when in the past it takes place. Banana Republic (talk) 14:08, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * In the first source, all I can see is "a young boy of nine in Texas was listening to a radio broadcast in October 1990 of the Nobel Prize ceremony". I don't see where it references the actual names. In the second source it says "it was the same time Sheldon wakes up to listen to the 1990 Nobel Peace Prize announcement". Again, nowhere are the names mentioned as far as I can see. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 14:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? or is this some kind of a joke? How do you think the references know that the time period is October 1990? But it doesn't really matter. The only thing that is important is that the time setting for the episode is October of 1990. Nothing else is relevant. So if all you want to say in the article that time period for that episode is October 1990 without giving details as to WHY that's the case, I suppose we could do that. We'd be doing a disservice to the reader, but the bigger disservice is to say nothing at all. Banana Republic (talk) 18:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course I'm serious. Sources need to explicitly support claims, as has already been explained to you. The sources support the time frame but they do not in any way support the names. Using the sources to support that claim is clear WP:SYNTH. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 18:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Splitting proposal
I propose that the Episode List and Ratings be split into a separate page called List of Young Sheldon episodes. The show already has almost 60 episodes, and it is renewed for another season. TheTVExpert (talk) 01:08, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Does it conform with Article splitting (television) and MOS:TVSPLIT? -- / Alex /<sub style="color:#008">21  07:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree it is time to split the episodes into it's own article. Most shows on here do split after two seasons, and some may do it after the first which is improper. Considering the show is renewed for another season, this artile could of been split after season 2. Sometimes common sence does play apart into splitting. Feenyfan2019 (talk) 23:47, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect. Per Article splitting (television) and MOS:TVSPLIT, if the main article has 50kB to 60kB of readable prose or 50 and 60 episodes, then it would warrant a split. Two seasons aren't going to make the cut. There are guidelines and policies on Wikipedia for a reason. —  Young Forever <sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)   00:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The show's going to be at least four seasons long; if it doesn't have 50-60kb of readable prose by now, it sure will at some point. Why delay the inevitable? It's just making the main Young Sheldon page unnecessarily long at present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.140.161.158 (talk) 01:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Linking the characters
I suggest we either link all the characters, only the main characters or only Sheldon Cooper. I prefer linking only Sheldon Cooper since the show revolves around Sheldon. Linking the main characters sounds like a good second choice. Most of the main characters allready have internal links (George Cooper, Sr., Mary Cooper, George Cooper, Jr., Sheldon Cooper and Missy Cooper). We could also link them all. The other characters could be redirected to this list. Bijdenhandje (talk) 19:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It is really only necessary to link characters that have their own articles. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 19:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The main characters allready have links, they don't need a seperate article unless they are a main character in multiple shows. There is no reason not to link the main cast. The previous version was a mess, it linked characters at random. Bijdenhandje (talk) 19:45, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't say main characters, I said those with their own articles. There are plenty of recurring characters in TV programs with their own articles. That may not be the case here but the principle still applies. Only the characters with their own articles need links because all of the rest are in the same article which is linked at the top of the section. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 04:06, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I did say main characters. There is no guideline that says you can't link to a redirect where the characters are summarized. What is wrong with the current version? Bijdenhandje (talk) 10:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You're misunderstanding what I said. It's not a case of linking main characters or recurring characters. It's about linking notable characters. Yes, you are correct that you can link to a redirect but it's not really necessary with at the top of the section. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 11:11, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The main characters are notable, that does not mean they need a seperate article. There is no reason not to link them as long as we are consistent. Linking only Tam Nguyen for example is not consistent (he is not notable either). Since you don't think it is necessarry to link, I take it you agree with the current version? Bijdenhandje (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Opening
Shouldn't there be a section on the openings. In the first two seasons, YS enters the final frame alone. Most of the openings have him reacting to a cow but a few episodes open with him reacting to a tumble weed.

In the third season, they have added the rest of his family and, so far, it's only been the cow but he is dressed differently in each one. In episode 1, he was dressed similar to the first 2 seasons. In episode 2, he was dressed as an astronaut. In episode 3, he was dressed as a Vulcan. In episode 4, he was dressed as The Flash and ends the opening by running away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.210.216.227 (talk) 02:06, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * In episode 5 he was dressed as Albert Einstein, so there is certainly a theme here (i.e. the costumes are not arbitrary). Banana Republic (talk) 21:01, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That's lovely. It's trivia. -- / Alex /<sub style="color:#008">21  22:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:SOFIXIT. -- / Alex /<sub style="color:#008">21  03:36, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * All the specific details that were added was textbook WP:TRIVIA. Are we really going to list every entry for this (likely) 22-episode season and beyond? 10 seasons in and we have 220 entries as to how the intro has changed? All this needs is a sentence of prose (and a source!) stating how the intro updated with the third season, that's it. -- / Alex /<sub style="color:#008">21  21:17, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Then why don't you add such a sentence instead of repeatedly reverting the edits ? RGCorris (talk) 09:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:BURDEN. -- / Alex /<sub style="color:#008">21  10:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a WP:NOTHERE answer, which is consistent with this annoying (and immature) behavior:, , . Banana Republic (talk) 16:46, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Annoying is when an editor falsely claims consensus to restore deleted information that has been been repeatedly removed. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Everybody here is in consensus that the fact that the title changed in the 3rd season is notable. Please do not edit war over this. Banana Republic (talk) 17:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No that's not the case and improperly using a warning template has earned you a warning yourself. Do it again and we'll have to continue this at WP:ANI. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 17:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "Everyone" Now, state how you believe this is not trivia, and why we should ignore WP:V and support unsourced content. -- / Alex /<sub style="color:#008">21  23:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, the only other show that has an opening scene that changes ever episode with The Simpsons. That article includes that fact. But I do agree that documenting every different opening would get to be tedious after a while if they keep doing a different one EVERY episode. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.210.216.227 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It certainly appears that having a unique opening title is notable since it is a technique that is very rarely used. For whatever reason, WP:RS has yet to report on it, but there seems to be a consensus that it is notable. The show itself serves as the reference for WP:V. Since this is not a WP:BLP issue, it seems that noting this in the article with a template would be in compliance with Wikipiedia's policies. Banana Republic (talk) 16:13, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The fact that something is rare doesn't immediately make it notable. If you add something with after it then it's clear that you can't support it with sources. WP:V is clear on this when it says "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." If you can't provide a source you can't verify it. WP:V also says "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." Since it's likely to be challenged you have to add it with a citation, not  and if it isn't sourced it can be removed. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:23, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The show itself is the reference, albeit a WP:PRIMARY reference. Although secondary sources are preferred, primary sources are not prohibited. That is why it should be OK to put the information in the article with the template. Banana Republic (talk) 16:51, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not how WP:V works. Whether a claim needs a source or not, if you add you are challenging the claim and it can be removed if it does not have an inline citation. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 21:29, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * We can certainly use the template instead of the  template. Banana Republic (talk) 21:36, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No we can't. As stated in the template's documentation, "This template is used in articles to identify sentences or short passages which have an inline citation but improperly reference a primary source." You can't use that template without an inline citation. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 21:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The idea is to use the template in conjunction with the  template. The show's episodes are the primary references, and a secondary reference is needed. Banana Republic (talk) 21:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That's basically gaming the system. Instead, just find a secondary citation at the beginning. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 22:04, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

That's not gaming any system. That's what we do when primary references are available, and secondary references are not. Banana Republic (talk) 22:30, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No it's not. What you are trying to do is get around the need for a secondary source by using a primary source and tagging it instead of supplying a secondary source in the first place. You've already tried adding the information with citation needed tags. When that didn't work you suggested improperly using Primary source inline. Now you're suggesting another alternative instead of just doing what you should be doing instead of arguing and add the secondary source. If one exists you should have found it by now. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 22:46, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it's gaming the system. Find a source. The request really isn't that hard. Given that you're dodging the request so, it's clear that you can't find a reliable secondary source in the first place. Thus, the content likely won't be added. -- / Alex /<sub style="color:#008">21  22:51, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

In response to "As far as I know, the only other show that has an opening scene that changes ever episode with The Simpsons," I think there are probably a lot of series that have different openings for individual episodes. An example off the top of my head is Growing Pains, which had unique openings for many episodes. IMO, it is notable enough to mention briefly (using one sentence) in the article that many Young Sheldon third season episodes have unique openings. Nine hundred ninety-nine (talk) 07:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree, and if an reference is found which details the different unique opening sequences we could expand upon that. Banana Republic (talk) 21:11, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

1991 indeed
episode 14 yeah the 9 and 11 thing about the taxes

> In episode 14 of the fourth season, it's revealed that Sheldon, who's now 11, has been filing the family taxes for the past 2 years. With Sheldon at age 9 in 1989, this implies the episode is set in 1991.

but also the following episode 15: beauty and the beast is what missy wants to watch and georgie's planning to be in the back

Thewriter006 (talk) 07:25, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

George Marshall Cooper
I just remembered that someone (I believe Meemaw) called Georgie "George Marshall Cooper". And when I try to add it, I see a message saying not to without a source, and his name is an anchor.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  17:57, 22 May 2022 (UTC)