Jump to content

Talk:Big Bang Theory/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Primary topic

The change in primary topic was discussed at the primary topic title. See Talk:Big Bang Theory. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a consensus there to have the TV show as the lead item on this page. That doesn't even make sense, given the nature of the scientific principle, and it is inconsistent with our tendency to avoid "in the moment" popularity. While the IP shouldn't revert repeatedly, I think their idea is correct. --Ckatzchatspy 07:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Consensus there is what the primary topic of Big Bang Theory is. The ambiguous title is "Big Bang Theory". Per WP:MOSDAB#Linking to a primary topic, we intro the dab for the ambiguous title with the primary topic for that ambiguous title. Primary topic of Big Bang theory is the theory. "Big Bang theory" is not ambiguous (no other articles would be titled with a lower-case 't'), but it still makes sense to include the entry for the theory on this disambiguation page. Our tendency is indeed to reflect the current primary topic, recognizing that it can change over time. If their idea that the primary topic of "Big Bang Theory" is no longer the television show, discussion at Talk:Big Bang Theory can determine if that's the new consensus. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I sure do love me a spirited debate, especially when both sides are right. Two separate disambiguation pages exist: Big Bang (disambiguation) and Big Bang Theory (disambiguation). As the article for the cosmological theory is titled Big Bang, I would agree that the primary topic for the page currently in question refers to the TV show. Thus, JHunterJ is correct, though the "consensus" is yet to be proven.
However, the real solution should be to consider the reader: How do we best guide the reader to the desired topic page? I suggest merging the two disambiguation pages, as the topics of both originate from the cosmological theory. Both pages contain links to the Styx and Harem Scarem albums. Only Big Bag (disambiguation) does not link to the Family Guy episode. As for the primary topic question, the search term "big bang theory" directs to Big Bang, hence this would be the combined page's primary topic. Cheers! Encycloshave (talk) 14:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Since the sets of articles that could have the ambiguous topics are distinct except for the primary topics (I missed the two albums when fixing the merge last year -- fixed now), keeping the disambiguation pages separate best guides the readers who reach the pages to the desired topics. Readers do not navigate based on the origination of the topic they're looking for. "Big Bang theory" has a primary topic. "Big Bang theory" is not ambiguous -- there aren't other topics that would have articles titled that, so there is no disambiguation page to list it first on. "Big Bang" has a primary topic, the theory, and it's ambiguous with many things, so the primary topic is listed first on Big Bang (disambiguation). "Big Bang Theory" has a primary topic, the TV show. "Big Bang Theory" is ambiguous -- there are other topics that could have articles titled that, two albums and an episode, so the primary topic is listed first on Big Bang Theory (disambiguation). Merging the two dabs would mean that readers who are looking for something that could be titled "Big Bang Theory" have to sift through a much longer disambiguation page to find the sought article, a drawback that is not balanced by any improvement for any other reader. The problem is only in the reading of a navigational page's layout as if it were a value judgement on the destinations, like if one were looking at a map to drive from Atlanta to DC and got irritated that there were a bunch of less important cities along the way, when clearly DC is more important and should be reached first. (And the consensus was "proven" at Talk:Big Bang Theory.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! Linking to Talk:Big Bang Theory earlier, either here or at the editor assistance discussion, would have made the consensus issue less, well, ambiguous. Three things:
1. I disagree that consensus was ever reached. JHunterJ, Jnc, and Beefcake6412 saw it one way. Flygongengar, an unsigned user, and Incnis Mersi saw it yet another way. What number defines the broader community?
2. I suggest, and this really is better mentioned at Talk:Big Bang Theory, the article be renamed Big Bang Theory (TV Series). I have no statistics, but the majority of film, TV, fiction, and music articles tend to contain a paranthetical disambiguation.
3. It appears Flygongengar suggested merging the two, thus you could say there is a growing consensus to merge.
The problem with consensus is that it is truly rare. Take any congress/parliament or the UN, for example. Five links seem sufficient to warrant a separate disambiguation page. Since consensus on the primary topic is ellusive, here are some points to consider:
The Big Bang Theory (TV Series) - Currently one of the highlest rated TV show in the United States.
Big Bang theory (scientific theory) - the article title is Big Bang, and it has it's own disambiguation page.
Big Bang Theory (Styx album) (2005) - They've been together for 30 years, 40 if you count the 10 year break-up. The album reached #46 on the Billboard Top 200 Albums, and it was Styx's highest charting album in 14 years.
Big Bang Theory (Harem Scarem album) (1998) - The group disbanded in 2008.
"The Big Bang Theory" (Family Guy), a 2011 episode - Also a highly rated TV show, but how often do people go searching for a particular episode of any show by name?
With the Styx album coming a close second, I'd say the TV show has primacy. After all, it's not "The Dark Side of the Moon." Cheers! Encycloshave (talk) 16:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
How much earlier that the very first line here would you suggest I link to Talk:Big Bang Theory? (I suppose I could move it above the project tag.) Consensus was reached in October.[1] A non-consensus attempt at merging was attempted by Flygongengar and reverted. Some questions about how disambiguation pages illustrate primary topics came up and were answered in accordance with the consensus at WP:MOSDAB#Linking to a primary topic. Consensus on Wikipedia is pretty common, though, since WP defines WP:CONSENSUS differently than Webster's. A WP:RM process can indeed help, but TV shows, etc., that are the primary topic for their title do not use qualifiers (WP:PRECISION, WP:COMMONNAME, and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC): Babylon 5, 3rd Rock from the Sun, Ally McBeal. They get qualifiers when the title is ambiguous and the TV show is not the primary topic -- we don't put qualifiers on all titles just for consistency. I take it that you disagree with my reasoning against merging, and would rather compel readers looking for one of the things actually titled with "Theory" to wade through the longer disambiguation page? I don't see a benefit to that arrangement, and I thought I explained it rather fully. Also remember that primary topic is not a measure of importance, but of (a) usage on the encyclopedia and (b) educational value. The cap-T topics are not much covered in academia, so usage does indicate the TV show pretty well. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Not sure how I missed that link at the top. Sorry (actually, replacing the Wikipedia logo woould have been better). While 17 days between any comments, from 10 Oct to 27 Oct, was ample time to hear any objections, it looks like consensus changed after that. As for Flygongengar, the words "I have to object" were reverted, but the wording "If anything the 'Big Bang Theory' disambig page should be merged into the 'Big Bang' disambig page," were written. Several days later, there were more objections. It's a pain, but that's the life of consensus.
Recall that I wrote that "five links seem sufficient to warrant a separate disambiguation page," so I'm no longer arguing for a merge. But I stll believe it would be better to add paranthetical disambiguation. You provided Babylon 5, 3rd Rock from the Sun, Ally McBeal as examples that do not use qualifiers. Those are pretty unambiguous. Should a music group record a song or album with any of those titles, I believe the qualifier would appropriate. Also, those three example don't have much chance of becoming ambiguous. Should we comb through Wikipedia and find all the titles that do have qualifiers and don't have qualifiers? Take a gander at List of American television series. Look at the links, and you'll find a good many have qualifers in their titles. Here's a slice for movie titles with common phrases:
Madman (disambiguation)
Impact
War Game - A redirect from the movie WarGames, which by your rationale should have its own disambiguation.
Daylight (disambiguation)
Arena (disambiguation)
Ash Wednesday (disambiguation)
Also, since I agreed the TV series should be considered the primary topic, as you have stressed quite often, it seems we are saying the same thing, only we are arriving at them from different directions. I actually agree with your logic for not merging, except I don't think the list is all that long, certainly not as long as the distance between D.C. and Atlanta. Cheers! (it's Friday) Encycloshave (talk) 21:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Adding a parenthetical qualifier to a primary topic is contrary to WP:COMMONNAME (the qualifier is not commonly used to refer to the topic), WP:PRECISION (the title does not need the qualifier, since it would be the target of the unqualified redirect), and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (primary topics are placed at the base name). Qualifiers are a technical restriction of Wikipedia, because two articles cannot have the same title. Trying to over-qualify titles in the name of consistency is directly contrary to WP:PRECISION; that a good many happen to be qualified means that a good many aren't the primary topic for their titles, not that "all" should be qualified. Some more titles with a TV series at the base name and a disambiguation page: The Simpsons, Survivors, Big Ideas, Lovejoy, The Twilight Zone, Big Love, King of the Hill, Strangers with Candy, Princess Sarah, McCallum, Too Close for Comfort, Gypsy Girl, Mine All Mine. Finding the ones that are ambiguous but disambiguated with a hatnote on the base name is harder. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Seeing that the article is "The Big Bang Theory" and only shares that name with a TV episode, it's not a big deal. If and when a movie, novel, or another TV series comes out with an identical name, we can hash this out again. Cheers! Encycloshave (talk) 20:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

prove words about big bang theory?

Can User:JHunterJ prove his words about big bang theory?

Dear User:JHunterJ, Prove your so-claimed neutrality, if wikipedia is to be a true reference tool, as you so claimed in your own words, then wikipedia should therefore strive to be accurate! support and execute the move! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Big_Bang_Theory#Requested_move

Rationale: 1) Precedents: e.g. Glee_(TV_series), Once_Upon_a_Time_(TV_series), Lost_(TV_series) 2) Speaking of precedents, the show owes its name to its namesake, not to mention that the cosmological model should have historical precedence. This is at the very least, I think, because I am sure there are still skeptics out there, and as a great wise man said, only one convincing experiment is sufficient to prove a theory wrong. 3) It is quite a shame that variations of big bang, big bang theory, the big bang theory redirect to the tv series without giving users a warning, or at least an unbiased choice. 76.70.89.12 (talk) 03:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.70.89.12 (talk)

Focus on content, not editors. Your precedents aren't analogous. Derivation isn't a criterion. All primary topics are "without warning". How are you going to prove your neutrality in the face of all the evidence for your ANTI-TV bias? There is obviously no consensus for your proposed move there. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
There will always be pro-TV readers/editors, anti-TV readers/editors, and readers/editors who just don't care. It's not so much an issue of accuracy as it is an issue of WP:BIAS. The WP:RM drama would not be necessary if an exception to WP:D could be made for this page. Since WP:MALDAB is an extension of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, the disclaimer at the top of WP:D should apply through inheritance: "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." In my opinion, the most reasonable thing to do would be to discuss whether an exception can be made for this page, not WP:RM. For now, I support the RM, but I'm willing to retract my vote if the interested parties were willing to begin a discussion regarding the possibility of making an exception to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC so that this page can have no primary topic. Convenience is a small price for some in order to eliminate bias for all. Jusses2 (talk) 05:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
If you could demonstrate the convenience for the readers that that change would yield, we could discuss it. Given the hatnotes on Big Bang and The Big Bang Theory that are already in place for the convenience of the readers, and the targeting of the redirects Big Bang theory et al. to Big Bang, I don't see how the exception would benefit anyone except editors who take umbrage that a TV show could possibly appear on a list above a scientific theory. Readers looking for either the theory or the TV show need never reach the disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Why is convenience valued over neutrality in this case? Convenience is a virtue, neutrality is a policy. Jusses2 (talk) 14:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
It is possible to identify a primary topic neutrally. As appears to be the case here. Neutrality does not prevent titles from having a primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
A primary topic is identified through consensus and applied if there are no major objections. From the edit history and current RM, it appears that the choice of primary topic is no longer undisputed. I was referring to neutrality in opinion among editors regarding the choice of primary topic, which is different from the inherent systemic bias that comes with the identification of a primary topic. However, bias is exacerbated if a disambiguation page is designed solely based on page view statistics (convenience). Jusses2 (talk) 15:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Several questions have arisen, sometimes along with bold edits, but no consensus on a new primary topic or on removing the primary topic entirely. To remove the primary topic entirely, WP:RM to move Big Bang Theory (disambiguation) to Big Bang Theory. The disambiguation page is designed on the arrangement of the articles (which one is the primary topic, i.e., reached via the base name Big Bang Theory, and then the others). As I explained above, "Big Bang theory" isn't ambiguous, but "Big Bang Theory" is. The problem here so far has rested only with editors who view the arrangement as some sort of value judgment instead of a navigational aid. And also please note that prior to the discussion of October 2011, I was also defending Big Bang Theory from undiscussed, non-consensus changes from the theory, and if new consensus is formed, I will happily return to that as well. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
If it's as simple as WP:RM from "Big Bang Theory (disambiguation)" to "Big Bang Theory", which does not affect "The Big Bang Theory" at all, it would seem that 76.70.89.12 proposed an unnecessary RM from "The Big Bang Theory" to "The Big Bang Theory (TV series)" if the goal were to remove bias from this disambiguation page. I'll wait for the current RM to finish before deciding whether to propose RM from "Big Bang Theory (disambiguation)" to "Big Bang Theory". Again, all this formal procedural action would be unnecessary if an exception to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC could be discussed for this page. Jusses2 (talk) 17:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I can't speak to what 76.70.89.12 expected here from the move there. The move there would involved the primary topicness for the title "The Big Bang Theory". There's no bias to be removed from this page; divesting language about "bias" or "neutrality" might help build consensus for an exception for dab page linking to the primary topic WP:MOSDAB#Linking to a primary topic for this page. Given the hatnotes already in place at The Big Bang Theory and Big Bang, what would be materially improved by varying from the usual primary topic linking? -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I see community cohesion as the main improvement. As long as there is a primary topic, there will always be editors who disagree, resulting in numerous less than constructive edits and reverts. I can't see how anyone would disagree if there were no primary topic, although I suppose this may stir up an angry mob of gnomes grasping tightly their laminated copies of WP:MOS. Objectively, a disambiguation page can be considered as merely a navigational aid, but the edit history shows a number of editors who see value in the choice of primary topic. An exception to WP:MOSDAB#Linking to a primary topic for this page requires merely a discussion and consensus. No moves are required, and it can be easily reversed should the consensus change. After a WP:RM to the base name, it would likely require yet another RM to undo should the consensus change. Jusses2 (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Describing the other side as an angry mob of gnomes grasping tightly their laminated copies of WP:MOS does little for community or cohesion. The edit history shows a number of editors who did not understand the disambiguation page formatting guidelines and would rather disrupt than discuss. I am one of the editors who see value in the choice of primary topic. Are you saying that if the list is reformatted so that no article appears to be the primary topic (and, I assume, that the scientific theory is listed before the TV show) that the disruptions would end? Are the other number of editors in agreement? -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
From WP:Gnome: "This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Please do not take it seriously." I apologize if you took it seriously. There are multiple possibilities for the order of entries as outlined in WP:MOS and the order should definitely form part of the discussion. Perhaps it may be logical to separate the entries into three sections:
  • Big Bang Theory: Styx album, Harem Scarem album
  • Big Bang theory: cosmological model
  • The Big Bang Theory: TV sitcom, Family Guy episode
As the albums have the exact same capitalization as the page title, wouldn't it be most precise for them to come first? I cannot possibly know for certain whether this proposal would end disruptive edits (I'm not a crystal ball) and I cannot speak for other editors. The only way to know would be to invite other editors to join the discussion about the possibility of granting this page an exception to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Jusses2 (talk) 18:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I see no mention of "angry mob" or "grasping tightly" on WP:Gnome. I have no problem with grouping the non-primary topic entries (music, TV), but the list is really too short to break into sections. Since this is the combined disambiguation page for the two ambiguous titles "The Big Bang Theory" and "Big Bang Theory" (which share a single primary topic), all of the entries match one of the ambiguous titles, with the possible exception of the little-t theory. We could split the dab into two dabs, one with the "The" and one without, but that does not seem to gain anyone anything either. Or we could move this page to The Big Bang Theory (disambiguation). I do not see the point of trying to back-door a change to the primary topic by inverting the order here, rather than actually changing the primary topic at Talk:Big Bang Theory if the primary topic has changed. And that does seem to be the crux here: what is the primary topic of "Big Bang Theory". We usually don't ignore rules just to placate editors who don't want to use the usual processes. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I've already apologized for WP:Gnome, so let it go and return to the topic at hand. This is not an attempt to "back-door a change". Please do not accuse me of not wanting to use the usual processes. Need I remind you of WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY: "Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures." This is a matter of precision rather than order inversion. It is most precise to place Big Bang Theory (Styx album) and Big Bang Theory (Harem Scarem album) at the top because they both share the exact capitalization of the dab page's title Big Bang Theory (disambiguation). Big Bang theory should follow because it only differs from the dab page's title by the capitalization of a single letter. The Big Bang Theory and The Big Bang Theory (Family Guy) are different from the dab page's title, so the proper place for them is The Big Bang Theory (disambiguation). Since The Big Bang Theory (disambiguation) is currently redirected to Big Bang Theory (disambiguation), it is most precise to place The Big Bang Theory and The Big Bang Theory (Family Guy) in a separate section titled "The Big Bang Theory". Of course precision is only one criteria, but this logic would be difficult to refute objectively without resorting to page view statistics. Jusses2 (talk) 20:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Your "apology" said "if", which I clarified -- it wasn't the Gnome part that was contrary to your picture of community cohesion, but the other snarky (or "humorous") bits, but sure, you could let it go. It's most precise to place Big Bang Theory at the top, because it is the primary topic for this exact title "Big Bang Theory", and it leads to the TV series. No statistics needed, just a click through the base name link. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
There is currently no article at "Big Bang Theory". It's merely a redirect (to an article of a different name). There are in fact two articles with the exact base name "Big Bang Theory": Big Bang Theory (Styx album) and Big Bang Theory (Harem Scarem album). Having a redirect at "Big Bang Theory" pointing to an article of a different name simply cannot be precise. Jusses2 (talk) 22:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
On the contrary, it can, and simply. That's how primary topics work. There is an article reached through Big Bang Theory, and it's the primary topic for "Big Bang Theory". Similarly, USA has a primary topic, even though it's ambiguous and the primary topic article is at a different title. "If a primary topic exists, then that term should be the title of the article on that topic (or should redirect to an article on that topic that uses a different, more appropriate title)." WP:PRIMARYTOPIC -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
That sounds like circular logic: "The Big Bang Theory" (in the most precise form of "Big Bang Theory") is primary on "Big Bang Theory (disambiguation)" because "The Big Bang Theory" is primary on "Big Bang Theory" (as a redirect). As the issue of primary topic is not isolated to Big Bang Theory (disambiguation), I cannot see this discussion progressing any further without a discussion of WP:RM to the base name. Jusses2 (talk) 04:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
That is indeed the logic, although it's not circular. For each title, there are guidelines (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) to determine which topic (if any) is primary. For each topic, there are guidelines (WP:NC) to determine which title should be used. If it's primary for any other titles, those redirect to the WP:NC-selected title, because it's primary. If any of the titles are ambiguous, the primary topic might be reached at the base-name article or through the base-name redirect. But we are agree, a WP:RM is the way to go to change from the primary topic to no primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Might I direct attention to the discussion at the top of this page. Remember that big bang has two disambiguation pages, one for Big Bang and one for Big Bang Theory. A merge has been discussed, and the outcome is to keep them separate. When we're discussing the primary topic for the disambiguation page titled Big Bang Theory and not Big Bang, how is it pedantic, i.e. grasping tightly to laminated copies of the WP:MOS, to insist the primary topic is one that closest reflects the article's title? When you review all the discussions and ad hominem attacks, you'll notice the real issue was over the fact that a scientific theory was getting second billing to an American TV show that "stole" its name from the theory. If that were happening on Big Bang (disambiguation), well that would be rediculous, but this is Big Bang Theory (disambiguation). Additionally, I think the move request is irrelevant to the primary topic, as the article title would just have the paranthetical qualifier attached, leaving the title of the disambiguation page slightly modified. By the way, as a disclaimer for those claiming this is about a bunch of TV-biased editors, I don't watch the show or much TV at all, and I consider myself a science dork (mostly Earth science). Cheers! Encycloshave (talk) 13:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
According to WP:MALDAB, a disambiguation page titled "Big Bang Theory (disambiguation)" should have a primary topic, but a disambiguation page located at the base name "Big Bang Theory" should not have a primary topic. This is why a move request is relevant to the current discussion about the primary topic. I'm not proposing a merge. Again, I apologize if you took the Wiki humor seriously. Jusses2 (talk) 18:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
There is at present a primary topic for Big Bang Theory -- it is The Big Bang Theory. As described at Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Redirecting to a primary topic, a primary topic may be a redirect to an article with a different title. On the basis of WP:MALDAB, there is nothing wrong with having Big Bang Theory redirect to The Big Bang Theory and with having separate disambiguation pages for both. It might not be the best possible arrangement, but it is in no way proscribed by WP:MALDAB or WP:DAB. I think it would be fair to say that one issue under discussion is whether that should be the case. Unfortunately, this issue has not been very clearly articulated and is somewhat lost amongst walls of WP:TLDR text. older ≠ wiser 19:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
But I agree, a move request (if made) would be relevant, and I've pointed to that process before for editors who feel that there has been a change to "no primary topic". -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Who's on first? Too many WP:RMs are getting volleyed back and forth. When I said a move was irrelevant, I was referring to The Big Bang Theory → The_Big Bang Theory (TV series). Were that move to happen, the primary topic for the disamb would remain the same. How about a chart? They're always nice.
Action Result Encyclo's vote
The Big Bang Theory is moved to The Big Bang Theory (TV series) Article name changes. No change to Big Bang Theory (dsiambiguation) primary topic OK
The Big Bang Theory (disambiguation) is moved to Big Bang Theory Disambiguation is literally deleted. No
Change primary topic of The Big Bang Theory (disambiguation) to Big Bang theory Disamb is same as for Big Bang (disambiguation), leaving Big Bang Theory (disambiguation) superfluous. See #2. No
Make an exception and remove the primary topic from Big Bang Theory (dismab) altogether Disamb becomes pointless. See #2. No
Everybody agrees to disagree and leaves both disambs alone, one for Sheldon and one for Fred, each with their own primary topic We shake hands Yes
Cheers Encycloshave (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Possibly the outcome or The Big Bang Theory is moved to The Big Bang Theory (TV series) entails also moving the disambiguation page to the "vacated" base name or retargetting the base name to the theory. That seems to be the goal of the anon's proposal, although it wasn't explicit. There is never any need to redirect a title to the same title with a qualifier. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved due to lack of consensus. Aervanath (talk) 18:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


Big Bang Theory (disambiguation) → Big Bang Theory – Many users aren't aware that Wikipedia searching can be case sensitive, and a capital T on Theory isn't enough to disambiguate this term from the other options. "Big Bang Theory" should be a disambiguation page, or at least redirect to the same article as Big Bang theory. 117Avenue (talk) 05:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Big Bang Theory may refer to:
(The) Big Bang Theory may also refer to:
When using page view statistics, it is important to consider the percentage of readers who are misdirected by the current page layout, not just the total number of views each page receives. As Big Bang Theory (disambiguation) is an unlikely search term, it could be argued that many of the readers looking for Big Bang Theory (Styx album) or Big Bang Theory (Harem Scarem album) by searching the base name are inconvenienced twice: first at the hatnote on The Big Bang Theory and a second time at Big Bang Theory (disambiguation). This is not the readers' fault: they searched the correct base name, capitalization and all. Even worse, they may leave Wikipedia after the first misdirect, thinking that an article about the album they were trying to find does not exist. And if they weren't looking for either of the albums, they would be one click away from the correct article. Note that page view statistics do not provide the full history of the user's activity. Page view statistics count both correct and incorrect arrivals. One desirable outcome of this discussion would be to minimize the percentage of incorrect arrivals. Jusses2 (talk) 00:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
On what do you base the assertion that "it is more likely that readers will look for Big Bang Theory (Styx album) or Big Bang Theory (Harem Scarem album) by searching Big Bang Theory than for readers looking for The Big Bang Theory to search for Big Bang Theory"?
In a Google search for "big bang theory" with "the big bang theory" excluded, the television program dominates (with some hits relevant to the cosmological model mixed in, partially due to the case insensitivity). Apart from Wikipedia's articles, neither album is mentioned until page 8 of the results.
And this far under-represents the commonness of referring to the TV series as "Big Bang Theory", as it omits all instances in which the phrase "The Big Bang Theory" appears on the same page. —David Levy 02:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Please turn off Google's "personal search results" (by adding &pws=0 to the URL) and try again. Here are the top 5 results from this non-personalized search, excluding image and YouTube results:
  1. Big Bang Theory: Fashion: Wmagazine.com
  2. ScienceDaily: Big Bang Theory News
  3. Big Bang Theory (Styx album) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  4. Vatican astronomer says Big Bang theory in tune with creation history
  5. ThinkGeek :: Interests :: Big Bang Theory
I'll let the search results speak for themselves. Jusses2 (talk) 03:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Those are exactly the same as the top five results from my original search. The only relevant disparity is that the albums' first non-Wikipedia mention occurs on page 9 instead of page 8.
Are you not seeing mostly hits related to the television program on your end (despite the fact that all pages containing its full title are omitted)? —David Levy 04:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Furthermore, "Big Bang Theory" is the base name for the albums. What else are readers looking for either of the albums supposed to search? Jusses2 (talk) 03:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
They're supposed to seek "Big Bang Theory" and either follow the direct link to Big Bang Theory (Styx album) / Big Bang Theory (Harem Scarem album) appearing among the suggestions below the search field or arrive at The Big Bang Theory and follow the hatnote to the disambiguation page. That's how Wikipedia routinely handles secondary usages. It inconveniences as few readers as possible (because most seek the primary usage). —David Levy 04:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per User:Jusses2. ApprenticeFan work 14:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
    As you're citing Jusses2's rationale, I invite you to address my response thereto. —David Levy 14:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support; the capitalization alone is not sufficient disambiguation, IMO. Powers T 16:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
    It's sufficient in Wikipedia's consensus opinion, however, per the above-quoted WP:AT. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
    A quick look over the above comments will show that the TV series may no longer have the consensus as the primary target. 117Avenue (talk) 03:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
    OTOH, my quick look over the above comments shows that there is no consensus to change the primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
    Consensus is that capitalization may be enough for disambiguation (as with Red Meat, but not if it might lead to confusion. A scientific theory is an example of something that someone might capitalize even though we don't do so here, so I consider the capitalization difference to be insufficient disambiguation for most readers. Powers T 04:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
    We're addressing two separate (but related) issues: "Is capitalization sufficient disambiguation in this instance?" and "Is the television program the primary usage of the phrase's capitalized form?".
    I believe that the available evidence answers both questions by showing that the TV series is the most common usage of "Big Bang Theory" by a substantial margin.
    I agree that the likelihood of readers typing "Big Bang Theory" seeking Big Bang probably exceeds the likelihood of readers typing "Red Meat" seeking Red meat, but the likelihood of readers typing "Big Bang Theory" seeking The Big Bang Theory appears to be significantly greater than that possibility and all others combined. Therefore, reassigning the title to a disambiguation page would inconvenience more readers than it would convenience. —David Levy 04:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
    I disagree, I don't think we can make any concrete assumptions about which topic is intended by "Big Bang Theory". Powers T 18:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
    I realize that you disagree, and I'm interested in your take on the Google search discussed above (in which mentions of the television program predominate, despite the fact that the results have been greatly skewed against it by the omission of all pages containing its actual title). —David Levy 07:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support move, though lukewarm. While I do agree that "The Big Bang Theory" (with title case and definite article) clearly refers to the popular tv show, "Big Bang Theory" is significantly less unambiguous. But either way it makes little difference as the use of hatnotes provides roughly equivalent navigational capability to readers looking for other meanings. older ≠ wiser 13:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. By far the most elegant and functional solution is to have the DAB at Big Bang Theory, the theory at Big Bang theory, and the TV show at The Big Bang Theory, as proposed. That plus hatnotes will work well. Andrewa (talk) 01:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
    Why would that be more elegant and functional? What is your response to the evidence that the television program is the predominant target? —David Levy 02:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
    Elegant: Because it looks like we know what we're doing. Functional: Because people can easily get to the page they want. Response: Much the same as to your assertion above that The television program is the primary usage of "Big Bang Theory". The other works listed are significantly less prominent.... I'm afraid I have difficulty taking that seriously! A sitcom (which I enjoy too) named after one of the most publicly discussed scientific theories of all time (second probably to Evolution) is now the primary meaning of the name? Ridiculous. If your figures tell you that, check your assumptions. There is something badly wrong. Aha, it's the capital T! Now, of course we at Wikipedia know that Big Bang theory and Big Bang Theory mean different things, and on occasions we disambiguate just by case, and in some cases that's valid. But not in this one. Wikipedia is optimised for readers, not contributors, and the discrepancy between the significance of this sitcom and the theory after which it is named is just too overwhelming. Readers looking for the sitcom will know of the theory, but not necessarily vice versa. Andrewa (talk) 03:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
    1. You clearly understood that I was referring specifically to the styling with an uppercase "T" (as indicated later in your reply), so there was no reason to pretend that I was suggesting that the sitcom is more significant than the cosmological model is (which would, indeed, be ridiculous). By "the other works listed", I was referring to the music albums and cartoon episode linked from the disambiguation page.
    2. By "evidence", I was referring to the Google search (in which mentions of the television program predominate, despite the fact that the results have been greatly skewed against it by the omission of all pages containing its full title).
    I'm absolutely not asserting that the sitcom is anywhere near as noteworthy as the scientific theory is. I'm asserting that most readers typing "Big Bang Theory" seek the article about the former.
    And if a reader seeking the Big Bang article does type "Big Bang Theory", he/she needn't even visit this disambiguation page. Upon arriving at The Big Bang Theory, he/she is presented with a hatnote linking directly to Big Bang.
    In other words, that article already is a single click away, so its accessibility would remain the same (while readers seeking the TV show's article would need to pass through an additional step). "People can easily get to the page they want" now, and the proposed move would only reduce convenience (excepting that of readers seeking the articles about the aforementioned "other works", which obviously are far less prominent). —David Levy 03:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Errm, in the Google search you give above, http://www.google.com/search?q=%22big+bang+theory%22+-%22the+big+bang+theory%22, the science theory is at least as prominent as the tv show. Hardly evidence of a primary topic. But if you look a books, the science usage overwhelms. Google results are inconclusive as far as I can tell. older ≠ wiser 03:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, Google tells us COMMONNAME, not PRIMARYUSAGE. 117Avenue (talk) 03:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Google won't filter the results for the uppercase-T version; you have to filter them yourself. Google is one of the tools in the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC toolbox. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Errm, in the Google search you give above, http://www.google.com/search?q=%22big+bang+theory%22+-%22the+big+bang+theory%22, the science theory is at least as prominent as the tv show.
1. You see as many hits pertaining to the theory as hits pertaining to the TV show (even after setting aside the instances containing a lowercase "t" in "theory")?
2. Again, this search greatly under-reports the extent to which the television program is referred to as "Big Bang Theory"; every page on which it's also referred to by its full title (The Big Bang Theory) is excluded. (Otherwise, instances of "The Big Bang Theory" would be counted as instances of "Big Bang Theory".)
But if you look a books, the science usage overwhelms.
Well, of course. There obviously are far more books related to the scientific theory than books related to the sitcom. In this case, that doesn't tell us much about general usage. —David Levy 04:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
1) If it takes such steps to "correctly" interpret the results, I stand by my assertion that the results are inconclusive for determining a primary topic.
2) A books search is also one of the tools for determining primary topic. Why should it be ignored just because it offers results that are inconvenient? older ≠ wiser 04:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
If it takes such steps to "correctly" interpret the results, I stand by my assertion that the results are inconclusive for determining a primary topic.
I don't follow. Are you saying that it's not worth the trouble?
I linked to that search to show that the television program comes out ahead despite being placed at a substantial disadvantage. (The alternative would place it at an unfair advantage.)
Even when numerous valid results are excluded, the sitcom still predominates. What's unclear about this?
A books search is also one of the tools for determining primary topic. Why should it be ignored just because it offers results that are inconvenient?
I didn't say that it should be ignored. I'm saying that the context shouldn't be ignored. In this case, a Google Books search's outcome doesn't accurately reflect the big picture (because it inherently favors academic usage).
Likewise, a Google News search (another of the aforementioned tools) under-represents the scientific theory (because articles about a weekly television show naturally arise more frequently). —David Levy 04:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
A first look at the google results shows the science theory is not overwhelmed by the tv show. It is only by applying some additional not terribly intuitive manual filtering that the results are skewed towards the show. I remain unconvinced. older ≠ wiser 04:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
...because you refuse to go beyond a "first look" to analyze the data in a meaningful manner. (Keep in mind that Big Bang theory already redirects to Big Bang and isn't affected by this discussion.)
But even without manually considering case, I just went through the first ten pages of results and counted 52 related to the television series and 40 for everything else combined.
And I reiterate that this search excludes all pages on which the phrase "The Big Bang Theory" (the program's complete title) appears. —David Levy 05:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Indications for a primary topic really should not entail such careful examination and selective filtering of evidence. IMO, the primary topic should be blindingly obvious to any reasonable person. older ≠ wiser 13:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough, but that isn't the standard to which Wikipedia adheres. (That a comic strip is the primary topic for "Red Meat" is far from "blindingly obvious to any reasonable person", but it nonetheless is an example cited in policy.) —David Levy 14:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
The situation is not quite analogous. Red Meat in title case would be a rather unusual way to refer to the dietary/culinary sense. But it is hardly unusual to think that people might use title case to refer to the theory. older ≠ wiser 18:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I think it's unusual. Google Ngrams does too,[2] with exceptions where "Big Bang Theory" is actually in a title (book title, chapter title, etc.). -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
At best, the ngram only shows that one form is more commonly than the other. If it were truly unusual, it would be closer to zero. And it is not like ngram is without problems. Previous discussions have raised significant questions about the measure. older ≠ wiser 01:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that anyone dismisses the possibility of readers seeking the Big Bang article arriving at the title Big Bang Theory. But given the fact that the proposed move wouldn't improve the Big Bang article's accessibility (and would worsen that of The Big Bang Theory), I see no sense in setting the burden of proof especially high.
Only if one or more of the three other entertainment-related articles were widely sought (in comparison to the sitcom's article) would the move be helpful, and that obviously isn't the case. —David Levy 03:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Page view statistics only show how many times a page has been accessed. It gives no information about how the user arrived at the page, be it by searching the correct article name or through a redirect. The number of times The Big Bang Theory has been viewed does not tell us how many times readers searching Big Bang Theory arrived at The Big Bang Theory incorrectly. Remember that every search for Big Bang Theory increases the view count of The Big Bang Theory because of the current redirect. I say again: "One desirable outcome of this discussion would be to minimize the percentage of incorrect arrivals." Jusses2 (talk) 04:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
1. In the above reply, I didn't mention (and wasn't referring to) Wikipedia's page view statistics.
2. You're mistaken in your understanding of how the page view statistics are calculated. A visit to Big Bang Theory is not counted as a visit to The Big Bang Theory.
A flaw to keep in mind is that the tool isn't case-sensitive. In other words, The Big Bang Theory and The big bang theory are treated as one and the same, as are Big Bang Theory, Big Bang theory and Big bang theory.
3. As discussed above, the only scenario in which the proposed move would "minimize the percentage of incorrect arrivals" (instead of increasing it) is one in which one or more of the three other entertainment-related articles are widely sought (in comparison to the sitcom's article). The evidence strongly suggests otherwise. —David Levy 04:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
If not by page view statistics, what measure are you using to gauge the concept of "widely sought"? Please clarify. Jusses2 (talk) 05:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have been clearer. In comparing the subjects' relative prominence, I was thinking of the Google search.
The page view statistics are useful too. Here are February's:
Interestingly, the Family Guy episode (which isn't titled "Big Bang Theory") received the most views, by far. —David Levy 06:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
(replying to you clearly understood above, the stringing is a little confused) 1. No straw man intended, do you intend to reply to the argument rather than just objecting to the phrasing? The evidence is full of holes, as one would expect when it leads to such a strange conclusion. 2. Readers searching for either are not going to distinguish between upper and lower case in their search terms. Note that Google does not, and nor under many circumstances does Wikipedia (type Big bang Theory in the search box for example). Andrewa (talk) 05:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
No straw man intended, do you intend to reply to the argument rather than just objecting to the phrasing?
I did address that argument (by explaining that it refuted one that I never made).
I also addressed your "because people can easily get to the page they want" argument by citing the Google search results and pointing out that the Big Bang article already is one click away for anyone visiting Big Bang Theory (so the proposed move wouldn't make it any more accessible).
To what other argument are you asking me to reply?
The evidence is full of holes, as one would expect when it leads to such a strange conclusion.
The conclusion that the television series is more significant than the scientific theory is? Again, I'm not claiming that.
Readers searching for either are not going to distinguish between upper and lower case in their search terms. Note that Google does not,
This is discussed above.
and nor under many circumstances does Wikipedia (type Big bang Theory in the search box for example).
No page titled Big bang Theory exists (because that capitalization is random and arbitrary), so MediaWiki interprets it as Big bang theory. This proposal has no bearing on that redirect or Big Bang theory (both of which lead to Big Bang and will continue to do so). Only Big Bang Theory is affected. —David Levy 07:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I did address that argument (by explaining that it refuted one that I never made).
I don't think it did, it just accused me of dishonesty. But if you think you've answered the argument, let's just agree to disagree on that.
I also addressed your "because people can easily get to the page they want" argument by citing the Google search results and pointing out that the Big Bang article already is one click away for anyone visiting Big Bang Theory (so the proposed move wouldn't make it any more accessible).
In turn, you're addressing a point I didn't actually make.
No page titled Big bang Theory exists (because that capitalization is random and arbitrary), so MediaWiki interprets it as Big bang theory. This proposal has no bearing on that redirect or Big Bang theory (both of which lead to Big Bang and will continue to do so). Only Big Bang Theory is affected.
Actually the capitalisation was carefully chosen to make a point. Andrewa (talk) 11:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it did, it just accused me of dishonesty. But if you think you've answered the argument, let's just agree to disagree on that.
What argument? You wrote the following:

A sitcom (which I enjoy too) named after one of the most publicly discussed scientific theories of all time (second probably to Evolution) is now the primary meaning of the name? Ridiculous. If your figures tell you that, check your assumptions. There is something badly wrong.

This misrepresents my position, as I've explained repeatedly. What "argument" do you believe I'm failing to address?
In turn, you're addressing a point I didn't actually make.
Please elaborate.
You stated that having the disambiguation page occupy the title Big Bang Theory would be more functional "because people can easily get to the page they want". You then wrote of the likelihood, in your view, of readers seeking the Big Bang article. But thanks to the hatnote, that article already is a single click away (just as it is on the disambiguation page).
Actually the capitalisation was carefully chosen to make a point.
Your point was that "under many circumstances", Wikipedia doesn't "distinguish between upper and lower case in [our] search terms". This is true (as it depends on the context), but your example ("Big bang Theory") contains arbitrary capitalization conveying no real-life linguistic distinction (so it's treated as "Big bang theory, which we do distinguish from Big Bang Theory). —David Levy 13:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the significance of the Google search results, allow me to offer an example: Apple. Clearly Apple Inc. dominates the search results, but Apple is about the fruit.
Note that I've opposed the proposed move from Apple to Apple (fruit). That situation varies significantly, as "Apple" is the natural title for both the fruit's article and the company's article.
Conversely, the cosmological model's article occupies the title Big Bang, and while that subject is commonly referred to as the "Big Bang theory" (which rightly redirects accordingly), we're discussing the title Big Bang Theory.
The Red meat article unquestionably pertains to the primary topic for that term, but this doesn't stop us from using the Red Meat title for something else.
Furthermore, from WP:GOOGLE: "On Wikipedia, neutrality trumps popularity."
That advice is irrelevant to the matter at hand. It pertains to a situation in which a title compliant with WP:NPOV is sought. (For example, on the subject of abortion views, a Google search might show that the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" predominate, but it can be argued that these are non-neutral. This is the subject of an ongoing RfC.)
Finally, a move to the base name is recommended by WP:MALPLACED if this discussion results in a change of consensus to no primary topic.
No one disputes that. —David Levy 07:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
The Red meat article unquestionably pertains to the primary topic for that term, but this doesn't stop us from using the Red Meat title for something else.
Not a good parallel. The article title is really red meat, and contrasts with Red Meat. Andrewa (talk) 11:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Is your argument that two capitalization differences suffice, but one doesn't?
MediaWiki ignores the first letter's capitalization, so from a functional standpoint, only the case of "m/"M" sets apart the two articles' titles. (A user typing red Meat arrives at the Red Meat article.) —David Levy 13:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Is your argument that two capitalization differences suffice, but one doesn't?
No, that overgeneralises (and I guess you'd therefore see it as a straw man judging by your earlier comment). My point in simply that there is sufficient difference in the way the brain processes the two cases that it's not a good parallel.
MediaWiki ignores the first letter's capitalization, so from a functional standpoint, only the case of "m/"M" sets apart the two articles' titles. (A user typing red Meat arrives at the Red Meat article.)
True. Andrewa (talk) 23:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
No, that overgeneralises (and I guess you'd therefore see it as a straw man judging by your earlier comment).
There's no straw man, as I haven't ascribed that position to you. (I asked whether it was what you meant, which was a sincere question.)
My point in simply that there is sufficient difference in the way the brain processes the two cases that it's not a good parallel.
This is subjective, so let's agree to disagree. —David Levy 00:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per evidence provided above. The television series clearly dominated the Google results for "Big Bang Theory" (with "The Big Bang Theory" subtracted from the query, which put it at a distinct disadvantage), and "apart from Wikipedia's articles, neither album is mentioned until page 8 (actually 9) of the results." Users typing "Big Bang Theory" in full, with such capitalization, therefore are most likely looking for the television show's article. Users who are seeking articles about the two albums named "Big Bang Theory", or the Family Guy episode, will see such results in Wikipedia's dropdown suggestions as they type "Big Bang Theory" - and if not, they'll be able to navigate to the disambiguation page from the hatnote (which also includes a direct link to the theory's page, so the proposed move wouldn't help users seeking that). There's no reason to add an additional click for users looking for the TV show's article who type "Big Bang Theory", when clearly that's what most users arriving there intend to see. -CapitalQ (talk) 00:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Bolding

Why is The Big Bang Theory being bolded in the first sentence? It is a list entry. This page is for the disambiguation of the term "Big Bang Theory", hence the title. 117Avenue (talk) 03:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't realize a discussion has been started already. From my edit summary: If "The Big Bang Theory" is a significant variant of "Big Bang Theory", MOS:DABINT recommends that both (in bold) be included in the lead sentence. This recommendation does not seem to be compatible with the current page layout. If strict accordance with WP:MOSDAB is desired, perhaps the following as the lead sentence:
Big Bang Theory may refer to The Big Bang Theory, an American TV sitcom first broadcast in 2007.
In my opinion, this layout with only one term in bold (the base name, i.e. the term being disambiguated) is the most clear. Furthermore, an illustrative example from WP:MOSDAB:
A cosmonaut or astronaut is a person trained by a human spaceflight program to command, pilot, or serve as a crew member of a spacecraft.
Note that the significant variant is not in bold. Jusses2 (talk) 04:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
The cosmonaut example doesn't work here, because the TV series is a different title than the one being disambiguated. However, the Mozart one does. 117Avenue (talk) 05:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Actually, the Mozart example would support this layout. The difference is that the case for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC at Mozart (disambiguation) is so strong that "Mozart" is more like an abbreviation of "Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart" than a significant variant. Jusses2 (talk) 06:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
If "Big Bang Theory" were to be considered as an abbreviation of "The Big Bang Theory", the following would comply with WP:MOSDAB (both the "Linking to a primary topic" and MOS:DABINT sections):
The Big Bang Theory is an American TV sitcom first broadcast in 2007.
Note how the term in bold (the term being disambiguated) is used as a redirect to the primary topic per WP:MOSDAB ("the primary topic line normally uses the redirect to link to that article"). MOS:DABINT ("The term being disambiguated should be in bold") is satisfied at the same time. There would be no confusion about what is being disambiguated. Jusses2 (talk) 12:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
With regards to this edit, there is nothing anywhere that supports not bolding the primary topic. Whether a redirect is bolded (ala cosmonaut) or the full title (ala Mozart) is a matter for editorial discretion based on consensus. But there is not one shred of guidance in MOSDAB that supports leaving the primary topic unbolded. older ≠ wiser 13:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
The Big Bang Theory is primary here because it is primary at Big Bang Theory as a redirect. With the last proposal above, the primary topic is in bold. Jusses2 (talk) 13:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Big_Bang_Theory/Archive_1&oldid=1092872441"