Jump to content

Talk:The Big Bang Theory/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 7

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: No consensus to move. Two major arguments are presented in this discussion: wether the current title meets WP:Disambiguation and WP:Primary topic. The answer to both is "yes", with the consideration that WP:Disambiguation outweighs WP:Primary topic due to the title being properly disambiguated as The Big Bang Theory, meeting WP:Article titles. With regards to primary topic, both criterions may seem to conflict, in which consensus is the only way to determin which topic is primary. In this case, the arguments citing page view statistics have demonstrated that usege outweighs long term notability. This could change in the future, but then the title is still covered by WP:Disambiguation. — Edokter (talk) — 13:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The Big Bang Theory → The_Big_Bang_Theory_(TV series) – 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 the very least a true unbiased choice. 4) Request for page move to minimize confusion. 76.70.89.12 (talk) 4:03 pm, 12 February 2012, Sunday (9 days ago) (UTC+11)— 76.70.89.12 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

For the users who oppose (or strongly oppose), if you are not scientifically inclined (hopefully you do not hate science), just try to move out of your comfort zone a bit and verify and confirm that great scientists, nobel laureates included, have referred to the big bang as both The Big Bang Theory, the Big Bang theory, the Big Bang Theory, Big Bang Theory, Big Bang theory and so on... if you are here in wikipedia, then the internet and good judgement should be your friend. If you live in a place with a decent public library, go browse a few books, magazine articles (scientific american, discover magazine, nature, science, new scientist etc. etc.) and check this out yourself.

If you are still emotionally attached to being "strongly opposed" to being clear, specific, precise, recognizable, unambiguous, natural and consistent, then please review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles#Deciding_on_an_article_title

The messages in your so called claim of canvassing were indeed posted, the intention was not for canvassing. I apologize for that.

As for the subject of being a primary topic, remember that in the first place the page was squatter-ed (sic) by a tv-biased user. I have nothing against that, I love tv, but I love science much more. But, as I mentioned, the current title of the article as squatter-ed (sic), doesn't this goes completely against WP:NOTADVERTISING?

I have been indirectly invited to participate in the discussion here, but I guess many people have closed minds. That is unfortunate. I thought wikipedia stood for higher things. I hope you review the concept of Notability is not temporary http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NTEMP I guess this would just be a popularity vote after all, I wouldn't be surpised to find out that all fans of the show would just vote against this. That would be easier than being bold and helping wikipedia be a better encyclopedia.

Your accusation and name-calling of being an sap is ungrounded. Some people just don't have the luxury or freedom of being so publicly well known. Should this deprive them of the privilege of being reassured that generations afterwards who use wikipedia would have to go through the maze of disambiguation pages before actually learning about the big bang theory, the real big bang theory?

By the way, for the people who casted other than supportive votes, why haven't you even tried to do a proper refutation of the reasons/claims presented. Where is neutrality? Where is the so called "non-promotion"? It is easy for you to throw around latin words, why not be bold and aim for higher goals? Remember WP:NOTADVERTISING? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.70.89.12 (talk)

  • Support the scientific theory is obviously primary, the most encyclopedic, the one with lasting notability instead of only recent notability due to the TV show being currently on the air, and a proper name. The current title should redirect there. 70.24.247.54 (talk) 05:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Just to clarify, is this a support from the same person requesting the move? The IP addresses and Whois seem to support my basis for this question.--Asher196 (talk) 05:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
No, I am not the same person, and you should be able to determine that from edit histories, since we've been editing at the same time (5am-hour UTC today, editing at different locations). 70.24.247.54 (talk) 06:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, this move should be made since Happy endings (tv series) has been done too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srkamal (talk • contribs) 06:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose for the same reasons as last time this was proposed only 5 months ago.[1] Nothing has changed since then, or the time 9 months before that.[2] The cosmological model is still correctly located at Big Bang, still with appropriate redirects from Big bang theory and similar. This TV program is called The Big Bang Theory and adding "(TV series)" is unnecessary disambiguation. Hatnotes already provide appropriate links and, as pointed out at the other discussions, WP:PRECISION applies. The "precedents" presented by the nominator do not apply, or maybe they do. Glee (TV series), Once Upon a Time (TV series), Lost (TV_series) are where they are because they are not the primary topic, while it has been demonstrated time and again that this series is the primary topic. The cosmological model is the "Big Bang" theory, while this article is "The Big Bang Theory" (note the capitalisation). At the last move discussion, page view statistics showe that this article had been viewed 1,124,295 times in the last 30 days and ranked 57 in traffic on en.wikipedia.org, while Big Bang was only viewed 171,908 times and was way down in the rankings at 1,572. The rankings remain the same, demonstrating that this article is still the primary topic. Since it is the primary topic, the article belongs here. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Having read WP:TITLE, I would be more likely to look for the scientific model at Big bang than anything else. The current title is the exact name of the show so is accurate and recognisable. I don't believe adding the word "the" to the scientific model will have any worthwhile benefit... And that canvassing AussieLegend referred to reflects negatively on those involved. pcuser42 (talk) 08:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As has been noted, the television series is the primary usage of "The Big Bang Theory". Other variants, such as Big Bang theory and Big bang theory, appropriately redirect to the article about the cosmological model. A hatnote accommodates the small number of users accidentally arriving at the TV program's article.
    I share the above-mentioned concerns regarding canvassing and possible sock puppetry, and I sense a bit great deal of argumentum ad hominem as well. —David Levy 09:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment This discussion is being made more confusing because 70.27.12.67 is inserting content prior to other posts, adding content to his earlier posts, after people have replied,[6][7][8] making the conversation difficult to follow. Not only that, he has taken to editing the nomination, changing the rationale provided by 76.70.89.12.[9][10] --AussieLegend (talk) 09:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
You are insinuating that the rationale and the case for the motion cannot be improved once submitted, where is the policy for that? As long as people's comments are not vandalized, shouldn't the community be allowed to make the arguments better? Isn't that what we should strive for so that every article whould have featured status? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.12.67 (talk) 10:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Evidence is being deleted! Help! SOS! Arbitration! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.12.67 (talk) 10:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Once discussion has commenced you should not change your posts after others have replied. I suggest that you familiarise yourself with Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Responses to the discussion are based on the rationale provided. If you keep changing the rationale, which you shouldn't be doing (see WP:TPO) then the responses may no longer apply. It's extremely poor form to do so. I've provided further guidance on your talk page. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
The spirit of the rationale was not changed, further evidence was merely presented. The responses still applied, you just have to read things like an editor should, in cold blood. I wouldn't be surprised if editors these days are unfamiliar with the expression.70.27.12.67 (talk) 10:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Further evidence should be presented further down the discussion. Changing the rationale makes it look like it was that way all along, which is misleading. Please follow well established procedures that have served us well. If you don't want to follow the procedures that we all do, then perhaps you be editing somewhere else. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The goal of the encyclopedia is to help people find the information they are looking for. If it so happens that 90% of people who type some variation of "big bang" are looking for the TV show and not the theory itself, then so be it. If years go by and the TV show falls into obscurity and that dynamic reverses, then it can be moved. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
So rather than have a win-win solution, you propose a let's wait for time to tell? I thought wikipedia is better than that?
  • Comment. Please consider that the Tv series titled "The Big Bang Theory" should not have been the primary usage topic for the wikipedia page "The Big Bang Theory" considering that the user who has created and squatter-ed (sic) the wikipedia page "The Big Bang Theory" is heavily biased in promoting tv shows as the person noted in the user page:
a) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Big_Bang_Theory&oldid=131490655
b) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Quadparty
c) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Quadparty
Doesn't this go against WP:NOTADVERTISING? and probably some other policies as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.12.67 (talk) 10:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
No it doesn't. There's nothing wrong with creating an article in an encyclopaedia. Regardless of whether or not you believe the TV series should have been the primary usage, on Wikipedia it is and our policies and guidelines say the article should therefore be here. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
How quick to judge? I hope you understand that is not the creation of an article page for the tv series that is at issue? The fact still remains that when the article was created, the title was squatter-ed (sic), and if you verify the contents of the page at the time using the link above, it was certainly an advertisement, more so because the title was squatter-ed (sic). Now, had the title been more explicit that it is for a tv series, then neither the Notability is not temporary nor the WP:NOTADVERTISING would be an issue now nor forevermore. Of course, if an experiment does nullify the big bang theory, the real big bang theory, then taht would be just a historical relic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.12.67 (talk) 10:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Your argument is, at the very best, irrelevant. What happened 5 years ago is of no consequence now. As a side note, you should probably read up on how sic is used. In short, don't use it on your own misspellings. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose; current title is sufficiently unambiguous due to the presence of both the definite article and the capitalization of "Theory". A prominent hatnote links to Big Bang; anyone who searches for the longer title is likely looking for the TV program. Powers T 14:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: The scientific theory is (a) far more important in every possible respect, (b) has precedence both historically and on wikipedia, and (c) the phrase "the big bang theory" is used in countless reliable sources to refer to the scientific theory. Wiki's guidelines state that in such cases the name should be changed: "However, when a topic's most commonly used name, as reflected in reliable sources, is ambiguous (can refer to more than one topic covered in Wikipedia), and the topic is not primary, that name cannot be used and so must be disambiguated." Also, note that the page on the cosmological model had "the Big Bang theory" as an alternative (bolded) title at least as far back as 2005. Waleswatcher (talk) 15:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I would be willing to entertain retargeting of the Big Bang Theory redirect to Big Bang, but the definite article is a different story. We only use the definite article for titles, so using the definite article (in a search or a link) is, to me, a clear indication that the series is being sought. Powers T 00:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I think it's easy for long-time wikipedia users, especially advanced users like editors, to assume that distinctions like that will be apparent to any random person searching for one or the other of these topics. But I don't think most people would think about or even notice the presence of absence of a leading "the", much less its capitalization. And since its presumably that large majority of users we're interested in serving here, personally I don't think that should play any role in this decision. Waleswatcher (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
And it's for that reason that we include hatnotes. pcuser42 (talk) 01:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
That's a different justification (not saying it's invalid or wrong, just that it's different). One argument is that the title is OK because of the "The" and the caps. I think that argument fails for the reasons above. Another is that it's OK because of the hatnote. That seems to be in conflict with what I read in the wiki naming guidelines, specifically the sentence where it says that if the name is ambiguous, it can't be used and must be disambiguated. Inexperienced users might not notice the hatnote, they might just start reading the article. I also don't understand what all the fuss is about - what's the problem with a disambiguation page? Waleswatcher (talk) 02:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Page view statisticts show that, in the last month, 1,718,471 people viewed this article,[11] while only 217,566 people looked at Big Bang.[12] To get to Big Bang, 158,071 went through Big Bang theory,[13], with thousands of others going through the other redirects that start with "big" or "Big". By contrast, only 7,175 went through the redirects starting with "The Big" or "the Big".[14][15] Clearly with only 3.2% searching for it, "the", or rather the lack of it, is a major factor in the search for the Big Bang. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the stats - but what they actually show is as clear as mud. Many users arrive at these pages via google or by selecting one of several options from an autocompleted search (either on wiki or somewhere else). In both cases the current names of articles matter for what options show up, and neither would register on those stats. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
They're only as clear as mud if you don't like the results. Regardless of how people get there, they show the TV series to be the primary topic; 1.7 million vs 200,000 is very tellng. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Your post purported to show that the "The" at the beginning of the article is important. It doesn't. As for overall usage, that's relevant in determining whether the TV show can be regarded as primary. It can't, it utterly fails one of the two primary requirements: "...substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term". See my comment at the end. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
1. I'm baffled as to how the statistics fail to show that the inclusion of "The" in the title is important.
2. You've apparently misunderstood WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (which I helped to write, incidentally). There aren't "two primary requirements"; there are two primary criteria, neither of which applies in every case (and even when both apply, one can outweigh the other). —David Levy 15:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
"I'm baffled..." - For the reasons I explained above. Regarding the two criteria, in this case one indeed outweighs the other. As you yourself stated, it would be absurd to assert that the TV show is more notable than the theory, and the theory obviously has greater long lasting educational value. Hence, it's a slam dunk based on that criterion, the scientific theory is primary, not the show. The other criterion (greater number of users) is disputed and much weaker. Waleswatcher (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
For the reasons I explained above.
I see no such explanation. The evidence clearly indicates that few readers arriving at the Big Bang article do so via a title containing "The".
Regarding the two criteria, in this case one indeed outweighs the other. As you yourself stated, it would be absurd to assert that the TV show is more notable than the theory, and the theory obviously has greater long lasting educational value. Hence, it's a slam dunk based on that criterion, the scientific theory is primary, not the show.
And if people searching for articles on the two subjects were commonly reaching the same page (and we had to decide what content should occupy it), this would be relevant. That isn't the case. Readers arriving at the page titled "The Big Bang Theory" overwhelmingly seek the article about the television program. Many people seek the article about the cosmological model, but few end up here (and those that do are a single click away, just as they would be if they'd reached a disambiguation page).
We aren't debating which subject is more prominent or noteworthy; we're debating which is more strongly associated with the specifically formatted title "The Big Bang Theory".
The other criterion (greater number of users) is disputed and much weaker.
Only if one ignores the clear evidence.
Please understand that it isn't the number of readers viewing each of the two articles that's most relevant; it's the number seeking each article and arriving at the page titled "The Big Bang Theory" that is. —David Levy 21:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
1. It's a related justification. The inclusion of "The" prevents most accidental visits (as clearly evidenced in the page view statistics cited above), while the hatnote takes care of the rest.
2. No, we have no blanket rule "that if the name is ambiguous, it can't be used and must be disambiguated." That's true when there's no primary usage. When there is a primary usage, it occupies the base title (with a hatnote pointing to one or more less common usages and/or a disambiguation page). That's why many disambiguation pages reside at names with "(disambiguation)" appended instead of base titles. It's also why Barack Obama is an article about the President of the United States instead of a disambiguation page.
3. Your assertion that "inexperienced users might not notice the hatnote" is an argument against hatnotes in general, not anything uniquely relevant to this article. The community obviously has decided that hatnotes work well, so your position doesn't reflect consensus (though you're welcome to propose that the use of hatnotes be discontinued).
4. "The problem with a disambiguation page", in this instance, is that most users arriving at the page seek the article about the TV series. If it were replaced with a disambiguation page, they would be inconvenienced for no valid reason. (Users seeking Big Bang wouldn't benefit, as they'd still need to click through to another page, just as they do now.) —David Levy 05:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the thoughtful comment. I'll respond at the end in a separate comment for clarity. Waleswatcher (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, please watch it and help maintain the consensus from last October, or use its Talk page to form a new consensus, but don't change it contrary to that last consensus without discussion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
However only titles with a "The" or "TV series" should redirect here, which means retargeting Big Bang Theory to Big Bang. 117Avenue (talk) 03:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Why? TBBT also redirects here, despite have neither "The" nor "TV series" in the title. Discussion for retargeting Big Bang Theory should be continued at Talk:Big Bang Theory. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Would you care to elaborate? The page view statistics cited above indicate that the article's current title reflects the overwhelming preference among readers. —David Levy 05:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I've just looked at WP:BIAS and for the life of me I can't see how it's clear at all. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
From WP:BIAS: "Articles where the article name can mean several different things tend to default to subject matter more familiar to the average Wikipedian." This RM had its roots from a disagreement regarding the primary topic at Big Bang Theory (disambiguation). An RM is required per WP:MALDAB to move "The Big Bang Theory" to "The Big Bang Theory (TV series)" so that "Big Bang Theory (disambiguation)" can be moved to the base name. Jusses2 (talk) 07:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't see how the section of WP:BIAS that you've quoted applies. The page view statistics clearly show that the vast majority of non-average Wikipedians, ie our readers, see the TV series as the primary topic. We average Wikipedians (well, you average Wikipedians - I don't fit a couple of the criteria.) are catering for the readers by having the primary topic here. There's no bias at all as far as I can see. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
That is exactly the problem with bias. Wikipedia should be written for all, not engineered to "cater" to a certain demographic. Page view statistics could also be influenced by the relatively frequent changes of the TV show (e.g. new episodes, guest stars, etc.) compared to new developments in the scientific theory (e.g. a computer simulation that took 5 years to complete). Our current readers may visit the TV show page weekly to stay updated, but only look at the scientific theory once or twice a year. This may change once the TV series ends (or it may go the other way if the scientific theory is disproven before the show ends). Nonetheless, page view statistics should not be the sole argument here. Jusses2 (talk) 15:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
1. AussieLegend mentioned "catering for the readers" (i.e. everyone visiting the site), not to "a certain demographic".
2. No one is arguing that the television program is more prominent or noteworthy than the cosmological model is (which would be absurd). The point is that readers arriving at the page titled "The Big Bang Theory" overwhelmingly seek the article about the former. —David Levy 15:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
1. "Cater" is an inappropriate word to use altogether. The contents of an encyclopedia are not decided by popular demand, just like the words in a dictionary are not selected by frequency of usage. What use would a dictionary be if it only listed words that you already know?
2. Wikipedia has an advantage over other encyclopedias in that it can track who is reading what, but using this information to influence content according to popular demand is an encouragement of bias. Jusses2 (talk) 18:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
This is a sweeping generalization that fallaciously lumps together articles' content with their titles. At Wikipedia, common usage (i.e. "popular demand") is one of the main criteria for determining articles' titles. —David Levy 21:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
You're not seriously claiming that the average Wikipedian is more familiar with the TV show than with the scientific theory, are you? Powers T 15:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Let me emphasize that - the fact that there are more pageviews for the TV series page absolutely does not establish that the "vast majority of non-average Wikipedians...see the TV series as the primary topic". I'm quite confident that if you took a poll, a large majority would agree that the scientific theory is the primary topic (for one thing, the TV series is named after it). Waleswatcher (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Straw man. Again, no one is arguing that the television program is more prominent or noteworthy than the cosmological model is (which would be absurd). The point is that the television program is the primary usage of the precise formatting "The Big Bang Theory". —David Levy 21:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment" Is the TV show primary? Above, David Levy argued that it was. If it's not primary, the article name is in violation of WP:PRECISION and a disambiguation page is required. So the issue to decide is whether the TV show is primary. Let's have a look at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC
  • "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term." Utter fail. The scientific theory is primary by that standard, overwhelmingly.
  • "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. " Maybe right now, in the US, more people are searching for the show. But that's not going to be the case in a few years, it wasn't the case a few years ago, and it isn't the case anywhere on earth (the vast majority of it, including English speaking areas) where the show isn't broadcast. Weak fail.
So: it seems to me the TV show cannot be regarded as primary. That reduces the justification back down to that "The". Waleswatcher (talk) 12:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
First, you'd need to show that the theory is referred to as "The Big Bang Theory" (with a capital T). The theory does not appear to be primary for that cap variation. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
You appear to have misunderstood WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (which I helped to write).
Firstly, neither type of primacy is relevant in every case (and even when both apply, one can outweigh the other). In this instance, the "long-term significance" criterion is largely inapplicable; it's too early to judge the television program's enduring prominence, and the cosmological model isn't usually referred to as "The Big Bang Theory" (so the connection is very weak).
Secondly, the second criterion refers strictly to current usage (so your observation about the past and speculation about the future are immaterial). That's what sets it apart from the first criterion. Your comment about "anywhere on Earth where the show isn't broadcast" is irrelevant too, as we go by our readership as a whole (and incidentally, the show is televised in numerous countries).
Also, your statement that this "reduces the justification back down to that 'The'" ignores the presence of an uppercase "T" in "Theory". —David Levy 15:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Again, two quite different justifications. One is the name - I regard the lead "The" and the capitalization as very minor and likely to be overlooked by a typical user. The other issue is primary-ness. You say one criterion can outweigh the other. In this case, the scientific theory (which is very often referred to as "the Big Bang Theory" in reliable sources) is overwhelmingly primary with regards to enduring notability and educational value. So, why doesn't that outweigh the fact that at the moment, more people are searching for the TV show than the theory? Waleswatcher (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
First-time Wikipedia readers are unlikely to know that article titles are case-sensitive. Jusses2 (talk) 17:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
If so, then they are unlikely to use capital letters frivolously, and so will land at Big Bang by searching for "big bang theory" (big bang theory). the big bang theory currently leads to the TV show; a separate consensus at Talk:The big bang theory might be reached if there is a concern that readers searching on "the big bang theory" are more likely looking for the theory than the TV show. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
It's good to know that there are no problems with all-lowercase searches. I was mainly concerned about the readers who follow The Chicago Manual of Style, where "Big Bang Theory" is the correct capitalization for a title. A new reader may not be aware that Wikipedia has its own manual of style and that "Big Bang theory" is not the same as "Big Bang Theory". Jusses2 (talk) 21:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
"for a title", yes. The name of the theory is not a title. Can you provide a citation for a reliable source that follows the CMOS that uses "the Big Bang Theory" when it's not in a title (of a book or magazine article)? The new readers will find that pages that they are looking for through the judicious hatnotes. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Here's a source (it took about ten seconds to find). Reliability by wiki's standards is dubious, but then I didn't look any further, because that's not what's at issue. What's at issue is that plenty of people out there routinely capitalize letters in a way that wikipedia editors don't regard as standard. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
OverclockersClub.com? "one of the most well known and trusted overclocking, hardcore enthusiast review sites"? But we were talking about the use of the Chicago Manual of Style, not blog posts that also capitalize "the Universe" and don't appear to follow a particular style guide. Is there a reliable source that follows the CMOS that uses "the Big Bang theory". I'm guessing not, since the CMOS says in 8.147: Laws and theories "Avogadro’s hypothesis (or Avogadro’s law). the big bang theory. Boyle’s law. (Einstein’s) general theory of relativity. Newton’s first law." -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I rather doubt anyone there has ever heard of the CMOS... but as I said, that's not the point. Waleswatcher (talk) 15:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
If you think that that wasn't the point, please go back and re-read: "I [wrote Jusses2] was mainly concerned about the readers who follow The Chicago Manual of Style, where "Big Bang Theory" is the correct capitalization for a title." And as I said, the Chicago Manual of Style specifies "the big bang theory" for the theory (but would use "The Big Bang Theory" for the TV show). -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
If you think that was my point, please go back and re-read: "Reliability by wiki's standards is dubious, but...What's at issue is that plenty of people out there routinely capitalize letters in a way that wikipedia editors don't regard as standard." Waleswatcher (talk) 16:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I understand the confusion now. At 12:38, 14 February 2012 I was responding to User:Jusses2 note of 21:27, 13 February 2012 (i.e., the point in question), and you tried to change the point at 13:43, 14 February 2012, but I didn't dutifully follow you. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
According to CMOS, "the big bang theory" is indeed the correct form to use in prose. CMOS does not explicitly state which of the two guidelines to follow when a law or theory is to be used as the title of an article. There is no evidence to suggest that CMOS would recommend the use of all lowercase for any title. Jusses2 (talk) 19:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
So you are proposing a change to WP:LOWERCASE that all Wikipedia article titles use Title Caps. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Not at all, read again: 'A new reader may not be aware that Wikipedia has its own manual of style and that "Big Bang theory" is not the same as "Big Bang Theory".' I was simply stating a fact: new readers may not be aware that WP:MOS exists. I'm not sure how you managed to interpret that statement as a proposal to change WP:LOWERCASE. Jusses2 (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
So we're agreed that the theory is not properly titled with an uppercase T, and so isn't ambiguous with this article's title, and that unaware readers are ably assisted by the judicious hatnotes on each article. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
You're quickly jumping to conclusions again. According to CMOS, "the big bang theory" is correct when used in prose. This in no way implies that "the theory is not properly titled with an uppercase T", the key word here being "titled". According to CMOS, "The Big Bang Theory" is the correct capitalization for a title (e.g. of an article about the big bang theory). Jusses2 (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
But Wikipedia doesn't use title case in that manner (and routinely relies on capitalization differences to distinguish between subjects whose names otherwise are the same, as indicated in policy). So your objection pertains to our naming conventions, not their application to this particular article. —David Levy 22:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Where did I make an objection to Wikipedia's manual of style? I merely pointed out that new readers who are used to CMOS may not be aware that article titles in Wikipedia are case-sensitive. Jusses2 (talk) 23:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
My impression was that you were citing this as a rationale for the proposed move (as Waleswatcher has). Looking back through the thread, it appears that I got the context confused. My apologies. —David Levy 23:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Neither Jusses2 or I ever objected to wiki's manual of style. What I am saying, and I think it's the same thing Jusses2 is saying, is that many readers might not notice or might not give any weight to the capitalization of wiki article names, or might capitalize said names in a different way themselves. As such, the argument that this article is sufficiently disambiguated from the science article by virtue of its capitalization is a losing one. But this has all been said over and over, to little or no effect. Waleswatcher (talk) 02:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
The argument that this is a problem is a losing one, as has been said over and over. Readers who are unfamiliar with the differences in caps are unlikely to use capital letters frivolously, and so will land at Big Bang by searching for "big bang theory" (big bang theory). the big bang theory currently leads to the TV show; a separate consensus at Talk:The big bang theory might be reached if there is a concern that readers searching on "the big bang theory" are more likely looking for the theory than the TV show. In either event, readers who land at the wrong pages will find that pages that they are looking for through the judicious hatnotes. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
I've responded over and over, to little or no effect, that differentiation by capitalization (e.g. Red meat/Red Meat) is a standard, policy-backed practice at Wikipedia. You are objecting to this convention, but instead of doing it on the policy's talk page, you're targeting its application here.
I've also noted over and over, to little or no effect, that the page statistics clearly indicate that very few Wikipedia visitors seek the article about the cosmological model at the title "The Big Bang Theory" (and of course, the hatnote accommodates them). So you're worrying about a nonexistent problem. —David Levy 02:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
No, I am not objecting to wiki's capitalization policy. How you could possibly have come to such a conclusion is beyond mysterious. In any case, I don't see the point in continuing this. Reading over (part of) it with fresh eyes, I see little evidence that anyone is listening to anyone else (and I'm not talking about anyone in particular, or even one side more than the other). Considering the staggering triviality of the issue under discussion, I'm going to bow out and spend my time more productively. Have a nice day, everyone. Waleswatcher (talk) 05:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Policy indicates that that differentiation by capitalization is appropriate. You assert that it's insufficient. How this doesn't constitute an objection to the policy is beyond mysterious. —David Levy 05:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
What's at issue is that plenty of people out there routinely capitalize letters in a way that wikipedia editors don't regard as standard.
The page view statistics clearly indicate that very few Wikipedia visitors seek the article about the cosmological model at the title "The Big Bang Theory" (and of course, the hatnote accommodates them). Again, you're trying to solve a nonexistent problem. —David Levy 22:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
To respond to the second point, that the caps aren't standard, lower-case t outstrips upper-case T handily. (also with "the", less so with "The", since that incorporates the title case when titled with chapter headings, article titles, etc.) So still an argument against the need for capital-T to lead to the little-t theory. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
We routinely differentiate between topics in this manner. (See the the Red meat/Red Meat example at WP:PRECISION.) The community has decided this works well (hence its appearance in that policy).
Your argument pertains to the practice in general (which you're welcome to challenge), not to this article in particular. —David Levy 21:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Again, two quite different justifications.
Again, two justifications that co-exist and complement each other.
One is the name - I regard the lead "The" and the capitalization as very minor and likely to be overlooked by a typical user.
As you did regarding our use of a hatnote, you're objecting to Wikipedia's standard practices, not no anything uniquely relevant to this article. As noted at WP:PRECISION, we routinely differentiate between topics in this manner. (The example of Red meat/Red Meat relies on a capitalization difference alone.) Again, you're welcome to propose that our naming conventions be changed. Until such time, your objection doesn't reflect policy.
The other issue is primary-ness. You say one criterion can outweigh the other. In this case, the scientific theory (which is very often referred to as "the Big Bang Theory" in reliable sources) is overwhelmingly primary with regards to enduring notability and educational value.
Again, no one is arguing that the television program is more prominent or noteworthy than the cosmological model is (which would be absurd). The point is that the television program is the primary usage of the precise formatting "The Big Bang Theory".
So, why doesn't that outweigh the fact that at the moment, more people are searching for the TV show than the theory?
It does. And if people searching for articles on the two subjects were commonly reaching the same page (and we had to decide what content should occupy it), this would be relevant. That isn't the case. Readers arriving at the page titled "The Big Bang Theory" overwhelmingly seek the article about the television program. Many people seek the article about the cosmological model, but few end up here (and those that do are a single click away, just as they would be if they'd reached a disambiguation page). —David Levy 21:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
"As you did regarding our use of a hatnote" I did no such thing. I'm trying to get wiki's guidelines followed, not the opposite. One major criterion for primary-hood is enduring notability and educational value, a metric by which the theory obviously should be primary. Details like a leading "the" - which appears in countless references to the scientific theory, for obvious reasons of basic English - and capitalization - which will not be noticed by the majority of users - cannot change the plain fact that wiki is giving a television show named after an important scientific theory precedence over said theory. When all that's at issue is a simple disambiguation page, which "inconveniences" readers only in so far as they have to click one extra link, that's really, really silly. Waleswatcher (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I did no such thing.
I'm referring to your statement that "inexperienced users might not notice the hatnote". If accurate, this applies to all hatnotes, not this one in particular. The same is true of differentiation by capitalization, which is a standard practice at Wikipedia. If you disagree with our conventions, please challenge them directly instead of targeting specific applications.
I'm trying to get wiki's guidelines followed, not the opposite.
You misunderstand some and disregard others.
One major criterion for primary-hood is enduring notability and educational value, a metric by which the theory obviously should be primary.
Again, no one denies that the cosmological model's prominence far exceeds that of the television program. It's simply uncommon for readers to seek the former's article at the title "The Big Bang Theory", so that criterion is irrelevant. You're trying to solve a nonexistent problem.
Details like a leading "the" - which appears in countless references to the scientific theory, for obvious reasons of basic English -
That doesn't mean that people commonly type it when seeking Wikipedia's article on the subject. The page view statistics clearly indicate that they don't.
and capitalization - which will not be noticed by the majority of users
Again, you're criticising a matter of policy, not something uniquely relevant to this article. If you disagree with the policy, you're welcome to propose that it be changed.
cannot change the plain fact that wiki is giving a television show named after an important scientific theory precedence over said theory.
No, we aren't doing that. We're recognizing the clear fact that the precisely formatted phrase "The Big Bang Theory" overwhelmingly refers to the former.
When all that's at issue is a simple disambiguation page, which "inconveniences" readers only in so far as they have to click one extra link, that's really, really silly.
Once again, you're criticising a standard Wikipedia principle (seeking to avoiding forcing readers to follow a link when it's feasible to send most directly to the article that they seek).
From the page view statistics, we can extrapolate that less than half a percent of users (> 1 in 200) arriving at the page The Big Bang Theory seek the article about the cosmological model. You want to add an additional step for 99.5% of the page's visitors (while the number of steps for the other 0.5% remains the same). Can you please explain how that isn't "silly"? How, in your view, would it benefit anyone? —David Levy 22:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
"If accurate, this applies to all hatnotes, not this one in particular." Not at all, every hatnote is unique. "You misunderstand some and disregard others." With respect, I think that's you. "The page view statistics clearly indicate that they don't." As I explained above, the page view statistics capture a set of data that's strongly biased by the current article naming scheme, and the current article naming scheme is precisely what's at issue. "From the page view statistics, we can extrapolate..." Nope, that's exactly what we can't do.
"How, in your view, would it benefit anyone?" A good question indeed. Those looking for the show would be forced to click on the link to the show and hence arrive at their destination approximately 500 milliseconds later than otherwise - a horrible inconvenience indeed, no doubt, but perhaps outweighed by the benefits. Some of those television fans might, in a fit of insanity, click on the physics article and learn something of substance. More important yet, those looking for the theory would click the correct link, thus avoiding the gut-wrenching disorientation of being confronted with an article on an American television sitcom while searching for information on big bang cosmology. In the process they, too, might learn of the existence of the show - a dubious proposition to some, but one that you perhaps attach great value to. And in the long term, when everyone has forgotten about the show (with your wise caveat "it's too early to judge the television program's enduring prominence" born firmly in mind, thank you), our future selves won't be forced to have this debate yet again. The karmic benefits of that are literally incalculable. Waleswatcher (talk) 23:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
"The karmic benefits of that are literally incalculable." I agree the benefits are incalculable, because there aren't any in further disambiguating an article which is sufficiently disambiguated. pcuser42 (talk) 00:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Not at all, every hatnote is unique.
Please elaborate. What sets this one apart? Why are readers especially likely to overlook it (as opposed to others)?
With respect, I think that's you.
I misunderstand a guideline that I helped to write?
As I explained above, the page view statistics capture a set of data that's strongly biased by the current article naming scheme, and the current article naming scheme is precisely what's at issue.
No. "0.5%" is a generous estimate.
In the month of January, the The Big Bang and The big bang (both of which redirect to Big Bang) were visited a combined 7,950 times. The Big Bang Theory (not including redirects) was visited 1,985,939 times.
For someone seeking the article about the cosmological model, The Big Bang Theory is a less likely destination than either The Big Bang or The big bang is (due to addition of "Theory" with an uppercase "T"), but let's assume that it nonetheless received as many visits from such readers as those two titles combined did. 7,950 is slightly more than 0.4% of 1,985,939.
Some of those television fans might, in a fit of insanity, click on the physics article and learn something of substance.
In other words, you're citing people's arrival at an unintended page as a good thing (because it might lead some of them to visit an article that you want them to read instead). You're arguing that we should deliberately misdirect them, in the hope that they'll set aside their desire to read about a silly TV show and expand their horizons with "something of substance".
Aside from the fact that Wikipedia doesn't work that way, we already prominently link to Big Bang at the top of the television program's article.
More important yet, those looking for the theory would click the correct link, thus avoiding the gut-wrenching disorientation of being confronted with an article on an American television sitcom while searching for information on big bang cosmology.
The few readers seeking the article about the cosmological model and arriving at The Big Bang Theory can simply click the correct link prominently displayed at the top.
In the process they, too, might learn of the existence of the show
They (the aforementioned "few") already do when they arrive at its article.
a dubious proposition to some, but one that you perhaps attach great value to.
No, I'm not interested in distracting readers from the articles that they intend to view. I want to ensure that as many as possible arrive there as easily as possible, as stated in policy.
And in the long term, when everyone has forgotten about the show (with your wise caveat "it's too early to judge the television program's enduring prominence" born firmly in mind, thank you), our future selves won't be forced to have this debate yet again.
In other words, "instead of basing our article titles on reality (thereby addressing our readers' needs), let's act now in anticipation of something that might or might not occur in the future (instead of waiting until it actually does)." —David Levy 01:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Obviously the theory of cosmology should be primary as the show is a direct reference to the theory of how the universe was created. The use of the word "the" not used at the start of the title of the cosmological theory does not as it implies to a certain extent that it is the only theory and as no theory about how the universe was created has been rightly proved the may be misleading. Also I think having "tv series" in brackets at the end of the article title would help people who search for the tv series as when the results are shown there will be no confusion as to which article they are clicking on. Also I believe that the majority of people who watch the show and therefore and more likely to read the article about the tv series will know about both the cosmological theory and the tv series and that the tv series is a reference the the theory. When searching for the tv series for the first time, when the results came up and the title didn't have "tv series" in the title I thought it may should have before this discussion was even created. For a more user friendly article I think it should be tv show changed to "The Big Bang Theory (TV Series)" and the cosmological theory should be named "The Big Bang Theory". Adamhill 1992 (talk) 00:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
None of your rationales reflect Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —David Levy 01:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Correction: none of those rationales reflect David Levy's understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, which appears to differ sharply from that of quite a number of others. Waleswatcher (talk) 01:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
By all means, please direct me to the policies/guidelines indicating that the television program's premise and its fans' awareness of it are relevant and that parenthetical descriptions should be appended to titles for the purpose of appearing in searches. —David Levy 02:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I think WP:BITE is most relevant here. Waleswatcher (talk) 02:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
How exactly does WP:BITE apply? It certainly doesn't apply to you, you've made over 1,000 edits since 2008. You're obviously not a newcomer so who does it apply to? --AussieLegend (talk) 02:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
1. How so? I didn't attack Adamhill 1992 for being unfamiliar with our policies and guidelines. I simply noted that his rationales don't reflect them.
That's how this works; it's a discussion, not a majority vote in which we blindly tally the "support" and "oppose" votes to calculate a "score" (as you did below).
2. So you concede that Adamhill 1992's rationales have no basis in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? —David Levy 02:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
(1) If you can't see how it applies, I doubt I can explain it to you. (2) Of course not - s/he's quite correct. The relevant policies have already been discussed to death. Waleswatcher (talk) 02:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
1. Please try (or withdraw the allegation).
2. Then I repeat: please direct me to the policies/guidelines indicating that the television program's premise and its fans' awareness of it are relevant and that parenthetical descriptions should be appended to titles for the purpose of appearing in searches. Those are Adamhill 1992's rationales. —David Levy 03:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, but no thanks. As I said, I don't think it would be fruitful. Waleswatcher (talk) 03:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 1

Two of the IPs, one of which is the nominator, have been blocked for a week for sock puppetry, there are 5 other clear support votes, but one is just a vote with no rationale, despite me having asked the editor to provide one.[16] There are 10 clear oppose votes, all with a rationale, but we don't use votes to determine conesnus. We look at the reasons that editors have provided with their votes, with greater weight being given to reasoning that is supported by established policy and guidelines. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
You claim that I misunderstand our policies and guidelines (some of which I helped to write), and now you're attempting to gauge consensus by counting votes (including those from sock puppets and one accompanied by no rationale) to calculate "the score". —David Levy 02:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that some of those IPs are/were socks. Regarding rationale, there's a very clear and simple rationale for moving the article: the scientific theory is obviously primary by the long-term significance criterion of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and the leading "The" and capitalization in the name of this article do not constitute a sufficient difference to ignore that. Some of you evidently disagree with that, but there's obviously not a consensus. Waleswatcher (talk) 02:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that some of those IPs are/were socks.
That leaves one vote without a rationale and another that you defended by citing WP:BITE when I noted that its rationales had no basis in our policies and guidelines (as though it was mean of me to do this instead of counting it toward "the score").
Regarding rationale, there's a very clear and simple rationale for moving the article: the scientific theory is obviously primary by the long-term significance criterion of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC,
...which I helped to write and have repeatedly explained you've misinterpreted.
and the leading "The" and capitalization in the name of this article do not constitute a sufficient difference to ignore that.
Policy indicates otherwise, as do the page view statistics (overwhelmingly). —David Levy 02:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
"...which I helped to write" - whether you did or did not help to write that policy or any other is immaterial. In fact, repeatedly bringing it up - is that the fourth time now? - rather than arguing the case on its merits based on the policy as written makes it harder to take you seriously. The policy doesn't belong to you - it's there for anyone to read (that's rather the point of having policies, isn't it?), it is what it is, and it can perfectly well be read and interpreted by anyone. Waleswatcher (talk) 03:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I've repeatedly argued the case on its merits based on the policies and guidelines as written. I mention the fact that I helped to write WP:PRIMARYTOPIC not to assert ownership, but to counter your assertion that I misunderstand it. You're quoting words that I co-wrote and telling me that they don't mean what I think they do. —David Levy 03:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
(after ec) The proposal is to move the TV show to a disambiguated title. There is no consensus for that move. It is incorrect to assert this discussion has any broader implications than that. older ≠ wiser 02:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)There's a very clear and simple rationale for NOT moving the article: the page view statistics clearly show that the television series is obviously primary by the usage criterion of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The page view statistics also clearly demonstrate that the leading "The" and capitalisation in the name of this article does indeed constitute a sufficient difference to our readers. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, that's a good summary and I think both positions are quite clear. Unfortunately those two criteria contradict each other here, leaving consensus as the deciding factor.... and there isn't one. Oh well. Waleswatcher (talk) 03:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Again, there's no requirement that both criteria be satisfied. In many cases, only one applies. This is such an instance (and I've repeatedly explained why). —David Levy 03:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
On the topic of using page view statistics to select a primary topic, consider the case Pink and Pink (singer). In January 2012, "Pink (singer)" had 215927 views and "Pink" (color) had 54936 views. Based on page view statistics, it would seem logical to request move "Pink (singer)" to "Pink" with a hatnote for "Pink (color)"? It is important to remember that there are limitations to page view statistics, for example:
  • View counts likely include multiple visits from the same person. From the information currently available, there is no easy way to gauge how many unique readers accessed the page.
  • There is less incentive for readers to return to a page that is updated less frequently.
  • These statistics may have been influenced by the article titles in use at the time the statistics were accumulated.
On the topic of common usage, imagine a young child came up to you and asked, "what is THE BIG BANG THEORY?" (all caps used here because so as not to distinguish between The/the and Theory/theory are irrelevant, remembering that this is a spoken question). Would you start explaining the scientific theory or the TV show? Jusses2 (talk) 05:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
"The" and "theory" aren't irrelevant but your comparison of Pink and Pink (singer) is. The colour and the singer have identical spelling, the TV series and the cosmological model do not. The colour is not "the colour Pink", it's just "Pink" and because the two have identical spelling, disambiguation is required. The cosmological model is "Big Bang", just like "Big Crunch". "The" and "theory" are not part of the name which is why they are relevant. If your young child asked me "what is THE BIG BANG THEORY?" I'd reply with "Please, don't yell. Do you mean the television series or the theory of the big bang?" --AussieLegend (talk) 09:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid you have misunderstood what I said above. Neither of the points I raised were about "The" and "theory".
  • On the topic of using page view statistics to select a primary topic, I offered Pink and Pink (singer) as an illustrative example of why page view statistics is not necessarily a strong argument in selecting a primary topic. Again, this has nothing to do with "The" and "theory", but it is relevant to this discussion with regards to the many instances where page view statistics were given to justify why the TV show is primary. Bottom line: one must be careful in the interpretation of page view statistics.
  • On the topic of common usage, perhaps the disclaimer in parenthesis for the use of all caps was not worded as clearly as I had hoped. First, let me be clear: the all caps were not intended to be yelling (but I do appreciate the humor in your response). All caps were used so as not to distinguish between the various possible forms of capitalization. Unlike written English, capitalization is not distinguished in spoken English. I have clarified the disclaimer above. Second, I said "a young child", not my young child. Third, posing the question "Do you mean the television series or the theory of the big bang?" to a young child who is aware of neither the scientific theory nor the TV show would not be helpful. The child doesn't know. That is why the child is asking you. This argument also applies to adults who are aware of neither interpretation (yes, they do exist). Bottom line: common usage (in everyday life) is not the same thing as popular demand (page view statistics).
I hope these points have been presented more clearly this time. Please let me know if further clarification is needed. Jusses2 (talk) 03:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I was responding to what you had written, ie "all caps used here because The/the and Theory/theory are irrelevant" before you chose to amend your post with this edit after I had replied. (see WP:REDACT). What I wrote is still valid. Regarding the colour and the singer, you need to apply some common sense, something that seems sorely lacking these days, when interpreting our policies and guidelines. "Pink", like "red", "blue" "water", and many other words that are in general, every day use, holds an enduring position as a primary topic regardless of how the word is used by somebody. If I say "That's pink", the overwhelming likelihood is that whomever hears me will assume that I'm talking about the colour, not somebody whose parents called her "Alecia". Unlike "pink", "big bang" is not in general use so there is no meaning of the word that is an enduring primary topic. If I say "That was a big bang", the overwhelming likelihood is that whomever hears me will assume I'm talking about a loud noise, and not that I'm talking about something that happened 13.7 billion years ago. On the other hand, if I say "Did you see the big bang last night?" they're more likely to assume I'm talking about the TV program than a noise. In cases like this, where there is no clear primary topic, we look at page view stats to see what the readers see as the primary topic. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
From WP:REDACT:
Before you change your own comment, consider taking one of the following steps: [my italics]
  • Contact the person(s) who replied (through their talk page) and ask if it is okay to delete or change your text.
  • Use deletion and insertion markup or a place-holder to show the comment has been altered.
I chose option #2. Apologies for missing insertion markup (now added). No one is denying the validity of your response. By quoting only part of my original disclaimer, you are purposely taking my statement out of context. You should be quoting: "all caps used here because The/the and Theory/theory are irrelevant, remembering that this is a spoken question", which is valid because "capitalization is not distinguished in spoken English" as I have clarified. Also mentioned above: "These statistics may have been influenced by the article titles in use at the time the statistics were accumulated." Hence my conclusion: "one must be careful in the interpretation of page view statistics". With regards to your statement, "you need to apply some common sense, something that seems sorely lacking these days, when interpreting our policies and guidelines", I refer you to WP:COMMON:
  • When advancing a position or justifying an action, base your argument on existing agreements, community foundation issues and the interests of the encyclopedia, not your own common sense. Exhorting another editor to "just use common sense" is likely to be taken as insulting, for good reasons.
  • Be careful about citing this principle too aggressively. While it's quite acceptable to explain your own actions by saying, "it seemed like common sense to me," you should be careful not to imply that other editors are lacking in common sense, which may be seen as uncivil.
I'm aware that WP:COMMON is not policy, but its wording is likely less disputable than anything that I write in this situation. Jusses2 (talk) 07:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
"Remembering that this is a spoken question" is irrelevant because we're not talking about spoken questions here. Wikipedia is a written-word medium and you can't apply written-word statistics to a spoken question. That page-view statistics "may have been influenced by the article titles in use at the time the statistics were accumulated" is also irrelevant, since these are the current article titles, so the statistics are current. The sections of WP:COMMON that you've quoted don't really apply here. I wasn't advancing an opinion based on my own common sense, I was advancing it as a general principle to follow, which is directly supported by WP:COMMON: "Why isn't "use common sense" an official policy? It doesn't need to be; as a fundamental principle, it is above any policy." --AussieLegend (talk) 10:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Why spoken common usage is as relevant as written common usage and why page view statistics should be interpreted with care have already been addressed in my comment at 07:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC). The sections I quoted from WP:COMMON were with regards to your statement "you need to apply some common sense, something that seems sorely lacking these days, when interpreting our policies and guidelines". WP:COMMON says that "it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing" as long as it does not "imply that other editors are lacking in common sense, which may be seen as uncivil." Jusses2 (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
On the topic of using page view statistics to select a primary topic, I offered Pink and Pink (singer) as an illustrative example of why page view statistics is not necessarily a strong argument in selecting a primary topic. Again, this has nothing to do with "The" and "theory", but it is relevant to this discussion with regards to the many instances where page view statistics were given to justify why the TV show is primary.
You've misunderstood the basic argument. While it's true that The Big Bang Theory receives substantially more views than Big Bang does, no one asserts that this makes the former subject "primary" over the latter.
The point is that of the readers visiting the Big Bang article (fewer than visit The Big Bang Theory, but still quite numerous), very few seek to do so via a title beginning with "The".
We can determine this by examining the page views of the The Big Bang and The big bang (both of which redirect to Big Bang). In the month of January, they were visited only 7,950 times (combined). Meanwhile, The Big Bang Theory (not including redirects) was visited 1,985,939 times.
For someone seeking the article about the cosmological model, The Big Bang Theory is a less likely destination than either The Big Bang or The big bang is (due to addition of "Theory" with an uppercase "T"), but let's assume that it nonetheless received as many visits from such readers as those two titles combined did. 7,950 is slightly more than 0.4% of 1,985,939.
So let's round up to 0.5%. That's a generous estimate of the percentage of visitors to The Big Bang Theory seeking the article about the cosmological model (and of course, the hatnote accommodates them).
The television program is the primary usage of its specifically formatted title. —David Levy 06:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
As I mentioned above: "These statistics may have been influenced by the article titles in use at the time the statistics were accumulated." This is not something that is easily quantifiable. My bottom line remains valid: "one must be careful in the interpretation of page view statistics." Jusses2 (talk) 07:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
As I mentioned above: "These statistics may have been influenced by the article titles in use at the time the statistics were accumulated."
As AussieLegend noted, that's irrelevant to the situation at hand.
It would be relevant if we were citing the data to establish that [article title] is more common than [redirect] is. That isn't what's occurring.
The point is that of the titles not in use for the Big Bang article, readers seeking it are unlikely to arrive at The Big Bang Theory.
My bottom line remains valid: "one must be careful in the interpretation of page view statistics."
We are being careful. You're complaining about our failure to consider irrelevant factors. —David Levy 20:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Unlike written English, capitalization is not distinguished in spoken English.
But we're dealing with written English, so how is that relevant? —David Levy 06:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
As you mentioned above, "common usage (i.e. "popular demand") is one of the main criteria for determining articles' titles." Common usage must therefore, at least in part, be established outside of Wikipedia (please correct me with references to policy if this statement is fallacious). Outside of Wikipedia, it would be difficult to assert that common usage in spoken English is not as relevant as common usage in written English. The response from User:AussieLegend above actually contains excellent examples of relevant common usages of "big bang" in spoken English. On the other hand, popular demand in this context is established purely within Wikipedia in the form of page view statistics. My bottom line remains valid: "common usage (in everyday life) is not the same thing as popular demand (page view statistics)." Jusses2 (talk) 07:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Spoken usage certainly is relevant to common usage in general (e.g. when assessing the extent of a subject's coverage by reliable sources), but ambiguities arising strictly in a language's spoken form are irrelevant to its written form (in which they simply don't exist).
We don't move the Ant article to Ant (insect) or the Aunt article to Aunt (female relative) on the basis that the spoken words "ant" and "aunt" might be mistaken for each other. The written words inherently convey the distinction.
And as noted repeatedly, differentiation by capitalization is a policy-backed Wikipedia convention. —David Levy 20:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit by block evading sock puppet removed) --AussieLegend (talk) 00:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
"Please see the proof about how the title for the current article was squatter-ed" - this is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. pcuser42 (talk) 20:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Actually TB was asked to ellaborate his vote Here
Did you read the above discussion (pertaining to the formatting differences and data clearly indicating that readers arriving at The Big Bang Theory overwhelmingly seek the article about the television program)? —David Levy 01:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: This whole "discussion" is a great parody of the show itself, folks. Anyone who argues that in 100 years, anyone would remember a TV series, compared to anyone remembering something called SCIENCE... is either Sheldon, or Idiocracy has come to full fruition. _(TV series) is a clear, regularly used descriptive modifier. The librarian side in me has no problem with it. The physicist that I am, I strongly encourage us to put a show -- which I thoroughly enjoy -- correctly as a TV series. However, the big bang theory is the nut here, and that nut is the scientific theory. There's no argument in favor of Oppose that doesn't either break Relevance, Priority, Primarytopic, or NPOV. Wikipedia isn't the "American television watchers' encyclopedia", it's the definitive shared "English language throughout the World users' encyclopedia". Get this fixed, and quickly... Regular NPOV editors... call in the cavalry and end this nonsense with Support.Sturmde (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Again, no one asserts that the television program holds primacy over the cosmological model.
The above is an ad hominem straw man combined with a call for canvassing. —David Levy 01:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: for all the above reasons, and on basic grounds of WP:COMMON. The TV show is named after the scientific theory, not vice versa, and there's absolutely no doubt that the theory should be the primary usage. GrindtXX (talk) 21:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Again, no one asserts that the television program holds primacy over the cosmological model. Did you read the above discussion (pertaining to the formatting differences and data clearly indicating that readers arriving at The Big Bang Theory overwhelmingly seek the article about the television program)?. —David Levy 01:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: The sudden, last-minute influx of support (from editors who appear not to have read the discussion, one of whom mentioned "call[ing] in the cavalry") is rather suspicious. Was this debate advertised in a non-neutral venue? —David Levy 01:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The scientific theory is at the most easily accessible title - "Big Bang" - and someone seeking it should have no trouble whatsoever locating that. Even typing "Big Bang theory" or "Big bang theory" into Wikipedia's search box will redirect there. "The Big Bang Theory", however, is more than likely to only be typed in full by someone seeking the television series. A quick Google search for "The Big Bang Theory" (in quotation marks) features only one result of the first ten that's not about the television series, and it uses "theory" with a lowercase "t". Additionally, the page view stats show that virtually no one at the English Wikipedia is trying to locate the "Big Bang" page at the title "The Big Bang Theory". And for the few that do, the hatnote makes it one click away. -CapitalQ (talk) 02:41, 21 February 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.

length?

This article is really quite unweildy, is it possible somebody with better knowledge of the show could recommend places where it could be split or shortened? --ProfPolySci45 (talk) 04:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

See Talk:Big Bang Theory (disambiguation)#Move request for a move request which involves a redirect to this article. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

With the correct section title: Talk:Big Bang Theory (disambiguation)#Requested move. Jusses2 (talk) 01:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Sara Gilbert as Leslie Winkle (again!)

See also: Talk:The Big Bang Theory/Archive 1 § Sara Gilbert as Leslie Winkle, Talk:List of The Big Bang Theory characters/Archive 1 § Leslie Winkle, and Talk:List of The Big Bang Theory episodes § Leslie Winkle

Since the question of Sara Gilbert being part of the main cast has been resurrected,[19][20] I'll go over it again......

She was part of the main cast in season 2. Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Style guidelines#Cast information states, "When organizing the cast section, please keep in mind that "main" cast status is determined by the series producers, not by popularity or screen time. Furthermore, articles should reflect the entire history of a series, and as such actors remain on the list even after their departure from the series." Some of the more important points to note from this are:

  • Main cast status is not determined by screen time
  • Articles should reflect the entire history of a series
  • Actors remain on the list even after departure.

Since Sara Gilbert was a main cast member at one time she remains listed as a main cast member even though she is not in that role any more. This is necessary to ensure that the article reflects the entire history of the series, as required by Wikipedia:WikiProject Television. It's really as simple as that. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with you. Sara Gilbert was in a total of 8, yes EIGHT episodes out of how many? 97? That does NOT constitute someone being part of the main cast. At best she was a Guest Star. She should not be listed as a main cast member. General Bozz (talk) 04:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that she was in eight episodes. MOS:TV, which is linked to, and quoted, above is clear. She remains in a starring role. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Leslie Winkle (October 2010)

Leslie Winkle is no longer a main cast member, so i feel we should place her into FORMER MAIN CAST, it does not make any sense to keep her there, but everytime i do so, it's reverted. I'm going to do it one last time and if it happens again, im gonna report it to WT. Rusted AutoParts talk 11:35 21 October 2010 (UTC)

As has been indicated twice now, by different editors,[21][22] we don't split cast members that way. This is also a discussion that was recently had at Talk:NCIS: Los Angeles/Archive 1#Unexplained/undiscussed cast table changes. This comes from Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Style guidelines#Cast information and is addressed above, at #Sara Gilbert as Leslie Winkle (again!). As a main cast member she remains a main cast member, not former main cast. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
You see, that's the point: SHE IS NOT PART OF THE MAIN CAST! She's amongst the many recurring now, she hasn't been billed as a main cast member since season 2, so i think you can finish the puzzle from here. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 12:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm really not sure what part of the above section is giving you trouble. "Articles should reflect the entire history of a series", means that her status as a main cast member has to be recognised. "Actors remain on the list even after departure" means that even though she's not a main cast member now, she still remains on the main cast list. We always treat fiction in the present tense, regardless of when an episode airs. When we talk about the first episode, we say Leonard and Sheldon visit a sperm bank, not "they visited" a sperm bank. Similarly, Leslie Winkle is still a member of the main cast, not "she was a member" of the main cast. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I mean no offense at all, but that's really stupid. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 13:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Not if you understand the principle at work here. We're not a fan site, writing in the moment about the characters as if they were in the real world. Fiction exists in a sort of permanent present, given that you can shift your perspective on it at any time. Watch the new episodes, that is the "now". Buy the DVD and watch season one, and your "now" changes. --Ckatzchatspy 18:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Could a reasonable middle ground be adding - "(Main Cast - Season 1, Recurring Season 2 - Present)" after her character name? This seems to be in place before the current lock and along with the description detailing the fact she was deomoted to recurring character as the writers couldn't provide quality material for her every episode. This is in keeping with Wiki's Cast Section policy and shows that she is no longer billed as a main cast member. If an actor is billed as main, even for one episode, they should be added to the "Main Character" list. Even if they are no longer considered a main character by the producers. SunGodRa (talk) 10:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
This article includes "Sara Gilbert as Leslie Winkle, Ph.D. (recurring seasons 1 & 3, occasionally starring season 2)" and at List of The Big Bang Theory characters#Occasional is "Dr. Leslie Winkle (Sara Gilbert) (appeared in 8 episodes total, 4 credited as main cast)". This has been in place for some time. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Starring roles

I have a remark about this:

Three other supporting characters have also been promoted to starring roles: Leslie Winkle, a physicist colleague at Caltech and, at different times, a lover of both Leonard and Howard who left the show after season 3; Bernadette Rostenkowski, Howard's fiancée and now wife, who is a microbiologist and former part-time waitress alongside Penny; and Amy Farrah Fowler, a neuroscientist who joins the group after being matched to Sheldon on a dating website.

At the end of season five, both Bernadette Rostenkowski and Amy Farrah Fowler have been in 40+ episodes, as seen at the actresses IMBD page. However the character Leslie Winkle has been on the show in 8 episodes, as seen on the IMBD-page of Sara Gilbert, therefore I believe that Leslie Winkle was never promoted to a starring role, but it remains a recurring role, furthermore, is it certain she left the show for good as the text says ? (source maybe) Ziyalistix (talk) 09:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you read the thread at the beginning of this page, as well as the three threads linked from it. Sara Gilbert's role as a main cast member is well documented and there are at least two references for this in the article, most notably this one. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:11, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed that Ziyalistix (talk) 10:21, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
I read the article and it says "they couldn’t write for her, so they changed her status to recurring,” Where is all the stuff proving she's a star? I'm prepared to revise the starring list, unless I can see why she should be included. She may have once been promoted to a starring role (so says the article) but clearly was reduced to recurring. Ottawakismet (talk) 02:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Somewhat ironically, it was only 5 days ago that I said that there was no need to keep the "Sara Gilbert as Leslie Winkle" section on this page as it seemed a dead subject.[23] That section is now archived. I suggest you read it and the related discussions, which may be found at:
As you can see, the issue has been discussed to death. In short, as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Style guidelines#Cast information, she remains on the list as a starring character, despite her departure from the series. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Big_Bang_Theory/Archive_3&oldid=1144723975"