Talk:Big Time Rush

Undue weight?

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

• The part that is critizing them for they're looks, etc, shouldn't be put in the article. It's unneccessary.LAUGH90 (talk) 21:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• The quotation is not criticizing anyone for being handsome or being not handsome. The quotation clearly says that setting up false standards of beauty for children may be harmful, even when done in a light-hearted fashion. And that's essential to the critique that the Boston Globe was making. The quotation absolutely did not criticize the actors on the show for being good-looking. I strongly encourage you to read the quotation again, and restore it. - Tim1965 (talk) 23:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

• Having a criticism/review section is unneccessary already. The other shows on Nickelodeon and Disney channel do not have a criticism/review page either.LAUGH90 (talk) 14:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Laugh90, such comments are absolutely necessary. The guidelines for good articles say that criticism sections should be included if the article is to reach B or Good Article status. The article for Big Time Rush should include critiques of the show, positive and negative. Other Nick, Disney, or Cartoon Network shows may indeed lack such sections; that only indicates that these articles are in poor shape and should be improved. Note the guidelines for writing a good television program article, specifically the "Reception" guidelines, which I will quote here at length:

...you should analyse how the television show was received. The reception information should include broadcast ratings (though it may be easier to maintain seasonal averages for the main page, while the season and episode articles could contain a list of ratings for all the episodes) and critical response. For the main article, it will be best to seek critical reviews that look at the series as a whole, while season and episode articles can use more selective reviews. Reviews should preferably come from the conglomerates (Associated Press, REUTERS, Canadian Press), major newspapers (USA Today, The Toronto Star, The Times [London]) and major periodicals (TV Guide, TIME, The Hollywood Reporter, Variety, Entertainment Weekly). These reviews can either critique the show, or comments on its impact. They should not just be descriptions of the episodes, and preferably should not exceed two or three sentences per critic, so as not to apply undue weight to any given reviewer.

Clearly, criticism should be included. - Tim1965 (talk) 14:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Fancruft and in-universe issues

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

Griffin?

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

• Look it up on IMDB or some other site. - Tim1965 (talk) 02:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Found it 75.69.239.55 (talk) 22:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Big Time Rush Songs

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

Big Time Rush theme

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

Jordin Sparks' brother

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

B.T.R. Album Track List

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

1. Til I Forget About You 2. Boyfriend (featuring New Boyz) 3. Halfway There 4. Nothing Even Matters 5. City Is Ours 6. Worldwide 7. Big Night 8. Oh Yeah 9. Count On You (featuring Jordin Sparks) 10. I Know You Know (featuring Cymphonique) 11. Big Time Rush —Preceding unsigned comment added by Husachi (talk • contribs) 17:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

HTML comments

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

Date of release of Big Time Rush in France

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