Jump to content

Talk:The Big Bang Theory/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:The Big Bang Theory

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 03:52, 3 November 2017 (Archiving 1 discussion(s) from Talk:The Big Bang Theory) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

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)

 Not done He has been a main cast member for series 6 and 8 (see List of The Big Bang Theory characters#Character appearance summary), 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. --AussieLegend (✉) 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)

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. --AussieLegend (✉) 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". --AussieLegend (✉) 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.[1] However, yes the characters are generally referred to by their first names. The last names are generally not that important. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "The Stag Convergence". The Big Bang Theory. Season 5. Episode 22. April 26, 2012. 07:41 minutes in. CBS. {{cite episode}}: Unknown parameter |episodelink= ignored (|episode-link= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |serieslink= ignored (|series-link= suggested) (help)
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. --AussieLegend (✉) 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)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Big Bang Theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk 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)

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 Edokter 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|The|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|The|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#Main cast, 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|The|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|The|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)

Information icon 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|The|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|The|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|The|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.[1] "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. --AussieLegend (✉) 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)

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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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)

@LocalNet: 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|The|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|The|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)

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!

 Not done Empty request. -- AlexTW 23:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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. --AussieLegend (✉) 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. -- AlexTW 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. --AussieLegend (✉) 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. -- AlexTW 00:25, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

There. Far more readable now. -- AlexTW 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. nagualdesign 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. nagualdesign 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)

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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Big_Bang_Theory/Archive_6&oldid=808484537"