Talk:The Big Bang Theory season 2

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of The Big Bang Theory episodes (season 5) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Speed definition error

The character of Dr. Leonard Hofstader makes a speed definition error in episode one of this season. Since this show is about scientists I belive it is notable enough that one of the scientist characters makes a serious scientific error in one of the episodes. It has been argued that mentioning something like that is personal commentary. I disagree with that, I think we're just mentioning a fact. I think that the error should be mentioned just like serious historical inaccuracies of historical films are mentioned in their respective articles. Nxavar (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Disagree as you may, if it isn't supported by a reliable source that specifically discusses the error that you perceive to exist, it's regarded to be personal analysis/commentary. This is a show about fictional characters, and fiction doesn't necessarily follow real-world paradigms so, in the context of the show, it's trivial content. You've been adding your analysis to a field titled ShortSummary,[1][2][3] which is supposed to be "a short 100–300 word summary of the episode."[4] While we often expand the use of this field to include non-plot information, content is restricted to that which is directly relevant to the plot of the episode (guest stars, recurring characters etc). Unsourced comparisons between what happens in the real-world and what happens in a work of fiction does not fall into that category. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

In addition to what Aussie said, even if we were to add it, (which we still couldn't because there is no reliable source saying this), would this allow us to go through each episode now and find any small factual error? At this point it would just be unnecessary trivia that is not directly helping the plot of the episode, and would be very hard to validate. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 12:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that the plot of the episode in question benefited or relied on this inaccurate definition. In fact I think its too streched to say that the writers did this knowingly or that they didn't care if the character of Dr. Leonard Hofstader used a reasonably accurate definition of speed or not. It's actually a mistake and to someone who can see through this really makes a bad impression. I don't say that we should pick on everything that's wrong but this is a mistake about a very common concept (everyone knows what "speed" is) and it strongly contradicts with the geek mentality of exessive attention to detail that the show tries to give to the scientist characters. Regarding the reliable source issue, I think we should be open-minded and don't take Wikipedia policies to extremes. After all, one can check the provided wikilinks and see for themselves. What can be better than that? Nxavar (talk) 16:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles can't be used as references and, in any case, they don't specifically address this issue. You still need a reliable source. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Citations needed for episode section title notes

You can't note where the title comes from unless you can source a RS that explains that; to do so is OR. I will wait about two weeks, as I am guessing that most of the season articles for the series do this. After that, I will remove them completely as unsourced OR. I welcome discussion on the matter until that time. Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:03, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

The MOS:TVPLOT guideline says Plot summaries, and other aspects of a program's content, such as its credits, may be sourced from the works themselves, as long as only basic descriptions are given. Exceptions to this include "lost" episodes (which are not available to the public to verify), for which editors are required to use secondary sources. I think the episode title falls into "other aspects of a program's content" as any reader can verify the information by watching the episode or checking the DVD listing. (reply copied from Talk:The Big Bang Theory (season 12) since Jack Sebastian suggests the discussion take place here) Schazjmd (talk) 16:12, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Hiya Schazmid. I think you may have cut off the guideline before it addressed the issue of concern (bold itals mine):

Plot summaries, and other aspects of a program's content, such as its credits, may be sourced from the works themselves, as long as only basic descriptions are given. Exceptions to this include "lost" episodes (which are not available to the public to verify), for which editors are required to use secondary sources. Any content that is analytical, interpretive or evaluative should not be in the plot summary, unless it is necessary to clarify an unclear or contentious plot point, in which case it must be accompanied by a secondary source.

As per a fuller reading of the guideline, as the interpretation of the title's meaning has no impact on the episode itself, it does not get a free pass from citation. Someone is evaluating/interpreting the meaning of the title, and as such is OR.

Look at this way - two people see a blue car and a pink car crash at an intersection. Both people agree that there was a crash, as well as to the colors of the cars. They can agree on other, observable facts, like if it was raining, or if one of the drivers was decapitated or whatever. They cannot speak to the mindset of either driver at the time of the crash, or where they were going, or an argument they'd had with their Tinder date an hour before. They can agree to events they witnessed. Anything more than that is evaluative extrapolation, and in the context of Wikipedia, is not allowed. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:27, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

The name of an episode is the name that the show producers gave to the episode. There's no interpretation involved. Schazjmd (talk) 23:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Oops, @Jack Sebastian! I just realized what you're referring to. I thought you were saying the episode names needed to be sourced. I just saw the idiotic Title reference line under each episode description (such as Title reference: Sheldon attempting to schedule his and Amy's conjugal relations.). I absolutely agree that those should be deleted. I never noticed them before. Sorry for not reading your comments carefully enough the first time. Schazjmd (talk) 23:58, 3 August 2023 (UTC)