Talk:The Big Bang Theory season 4

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

End of episode 2[edit]

Sheldon pulls out a flute and plays while Penny sings. Is it me or is this a reference to Star Trek: The Next Generation? LOL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.160.46 (talk) 02:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Robotic Manipulation[edit]

There were two separate plots that came together only in the beginning when they all had dinner together. The separate plots are Sheldon and Penny go out on a date with Amy, and Howard gets stuck in the robot, with Raj and Leonard helping him out. Although the episode went back and forth between the two plots, I believe in the summary we should separate the two and report on the two in separate paragraphs, rather than go back and forth in the same sequence that was presented on the show.
Any thoughts? However whatever (talk) 15:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Episode 5[edit]

According to main page of The Big Bang Theory wiki the 5th episode made (which admittedly will not necessarily be the 5th episode to air) is called The Desperation Emanation. I fully recognize a wiki does not meet the level of WP:RS, but would it not be better to list the episode in the article with a {{cn}} template rather than not list it at all as was done in this edit? However whatever (talk) 19:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you stated, there's no guarantee that the episode will air on that date. Nor for that matter that it will bear that title when it does air. It seems to me a {{cn}} template is for when the information is in an area of general knowledge that while known to editors, or likely in it's accuracy, is not supported by citation at this time. In the case of a television episode title, the information will be sourced soon enough, so it's probably better to just wait until then, especially given the possibility of changes to schedule or title. KnownAlias contact 19:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quite simply, we don't list information from non-reliable sources. If it isn't verifiable it shouldn't be in Wikipedia. It's one thing to add {{citation needed}} to something that is unsourced, but when we know that the information is coming from a source that is not reliable, it doesn't go in. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All I can say is that the Big Bang Theory Wiki is currently listed in the List of The Big Bang Theory episodes article. However whatever (talk) 22:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Listing and using as a source are two totally different things although, the wiki probably should be removed as WP:ELNO. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Cruciferous Vegetable Amplification[edit]

I'm not sure how to source this, but the MVPD is an actual product from Willow Garage. Dosbears (talk) 22:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the two are unrelated. According to the Willow Garage, they deal with robots, whereas the MVPD is not a robot. It is essentially a monitor and speakers with a camera and a microphone on wheels. However whatever (talk) 03:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a matter of opinion, Bill Prady stated that they used a Willow Garage remote presence system. There's a nice video of them at http://www.willowgarage.com/pages/texai/overview Dosbears (talk) 03:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added this factoid as a footnote. I worded this that the MVPD appears to be similar to the Willow Garage system. If you can find a reference where Prady says that it is indeed one in the same, we can reword to make the sentence stronger. However whatever (talk) 07:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was on Prady's verified Twitter account, but I don't think I've ever seen Twitter used as a source. Dosbears (talk) 19:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that, until such time as there is a citation showing a direct link, this is right in the realm of original research. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you, Aussie. Not each and every word on WP has to have a citation. In this case, it is obvious that the two look similar (if not down right identical). In this case a visual inspection by any reader is the reference. However whatever (talk) 08:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everything has to be verifiable. That's a core policy that can't be ignored. While it may look the same, saying "appears to be very similar" is speculative, and we don't speculate. It either is or it isn't. If it isn't, it shouldn't be in the article. If it is, then it needs to be verifiable and that requires a citation. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is suggesting that it's not verifiable. Here is the verification: photo of Sheldon's MVPD vs. photo of the Willow Garage device. You look at the two images, and the two look substantially similar. You don't need a reference to say that. You just can't tell from the photos that they are indeed identical, so that is left out. However whatever (talk) 11:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What you're missing is that there has to be a link between the two devices that is published in reliable, third party sources. If there is no link, ie you made the link yourself, it's original research. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added to the article after finding a reference. Victor Victoria (talk) 13:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. However whatever (talk) 16:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it? It seems a little fancrufty to me. Do we include mention of any of the other appliances used? OK, the Cylon toaster is there but do we mention the car that Penny drives? It's been in the series a lot more than this thing. So has the microwave, the TV, the assorted games consoles, laptops etc. And let's not forget Halo night. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just found out "Willow Garage was credited in the closing credits of the episode." Does that make it notable? Dosbears (talk) 01:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In a word, no. It's quite common for products to be credited at the end of TV programs or movies. That does not make a product notable. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious, or are you being facetious? Since the MVPD is discussed in the episode summary -- as it should since it was central to the show -- it is certainly notable to include who manufactured it (in other words, it is important to make the point that the device was not the creation of the writers of the show). The same cannot be said about the toasters and cars used on the show. It is fairly clear that the writers of the script did not invent the toaster or the car. Now if there is a reason to mention the maker of Penny's car (because it was central to a conversation that is being summarized) then it's certainly appropriate to mention it in the plot summary that way we are currently doing for the MVPD. However whatever (talk) 04:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is it any more clear that the Cylon toaster wasn't invented by the writers compared to the MVPD? Why is it important to know who invented it? How does not knowing who invented it negatively affect your understanding of the program? Who invented the robotic arm used in the previous episode? Does not knowing negatively affect your understanding of the episode? --AussieLegend (talk) 04:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you find out that the arm used in the Robotic Manipulation episode is a commercially available product, you may certainly add this to the plot summary. Do you really not see the difference between artistic creativity of building something specifically for the show vs procuring a commercially available product? However whatever (talk) 05:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I don't see is how it's part of a plot summary. Was the manufacturer mentioned in the episode? Did you know that one of the medical instruments used by Dr McCoy in Star Trek:TOS was actually actually one half of a pair of futuristic looking salt and pepper shakers? It's interesting trivia but I doubt that anyone has ever sought out the actual manufacturer of the product. Could you please answer the questions from my previous post? --AussieLegend (talk) 07:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they did not mention the manufacturer on the show, because on the show they passed off the MVPD as Sheldon's creation. That's the point !! Contrast this with the toaster. There is no claim on the show that Sheldon built the toaster which he uses to toast his English muffins. What question did I not answer? However whatever (talk) 12:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cast section[edit]

Did I miss a memo? Where, anywhere, does it say that the Cast section of this article is for main cast only? MOS:TV#Cast information certainly doesn't. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wil Wheaton[edit]

Yesterday, Wil Wheaton and Bill Prady confirmed via Twitter that Wil is being written into an episode. They did not specify if it was this season or next. 216.136.4.136 (talk) 15:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wil Wheaton tweeted that his episode will air on 11/11/2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.136.4.136 (talk) 13:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kaley Cuoco's broken leg[edit]

Twice in this article it is mentioned that Penny is working as a bartender instead of her usual job as a waitress in order to hide the broken leg. However, Penny has been seen working at the same bar many times before in the series, as far back as series 1 episode 8, The Grasshopper Experiment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.21.135 (talk) 22:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She hasn't been seen "many" times. Her usual job is as a waitress so I don't see what issue you have. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My issue is simply that the wording of the article seems misleading to me. It makes it sound as if the bar job was created specially to hide the cast. It wasn't, it has already been well established, it was simply utilised. Later in the same episode she was also seen sitting in the apartment, but the shot was framed from the knee up. Next week they will most likely utilise a whole series of other special camera angles in order to hide the cast on her leg. The bar job will then have only been one in a series of these.
I don't see why it's misleading. She was shown working as a bartender. Her normal job is waitressing at The Cheesecake Factory. Everything in the paragraph is fact. The source says "They're going to have her as a bartender now" and makes no mention of prior episodes where she was bartending. How would you word it? --AussieLegend (talk) 09:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well firstly, just because the source doesn't mention it is irrelevant. Anyone who actually watches the series will be aware of it. I'm not saying it shouldn't be mentioned, but I think it is only really relevant in the section of the article relating to that episode. Mentioning it twice more (in the opening paragraph, and then giving it it's own special section) is total overkill and makes it seem like a much bigger deal than it is. It might be better to include in each episode summary "methods used to hide Kaley Cuoco's leg this week." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.21.135 (talk) 09:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since the broken leg was significant enough to make Cuoco miss two episodes and resulted in changing Penny's job from waitress to bartender, and since it's the first time a main cast member has missed an episode, it should be mentioned in the article body. Mentioning it in the episode summaries is inappropriate because it affects multiple episodes. Mentioning it in multiple episodes is redundant and also inappropriate. Broken bones don't fix overnight so this is likely to affect every episode for many weeks. The purpose of the lead section is to summarise the rest of the article and since the leg is mentioned in the article, it needs to be mentioned in the lead. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the broken leg is significant enough. I'm not suggesting anything else. But the bartending job is not, and also it did not, as you say, result in changing Penny's job, she already had that job as anyone who watches the programme knows. Just because the source article suggests it is a change of job is irrelevant, the source for the fact that it isn't is the programme itself. What I'm saying is that this aspect is being made too much of in the article when it will undoubtedly turn out to be one of only many, many different methods used to conceal the cast on Penny's leg. If the article stated that "the first time she was seen" it was behind the bar, that would be accurate. But as it stands the article suggests that the bar only exists to conceal her leg, which is clearly not the case, it was an existing set which has been used many times before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.21.135 (talk) 10:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In what episodes has Penny been a bartender? I can think of two. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
She's been picking up occasional bar-tending shifts at the Cheesecake Factory since episode 8, where her learning to mix drinks for said job is the central plot of the episode. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.29.164 (talk) 08:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In order to properly balnce this we really need episode names. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can only think of two episodes that she was really a bartender, the first one is on the 8th episode, from the first season, The Grasshopper Experiment, I think that time is when she gave Sheldon that drink that I can't recall its name, and the second one is on the fourth season, The Apology Insufficiency.SyFuelIgniteBurned 11:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of the section[edit]

In light of Rusted AutoParts' presistent removal of the section,[1][2][3] even after a suggestion to move here,[4] I'll start the discussion by reiterating what I said 10 months ago. Since the broken leg was significant enough to make Cuoco miss two episodes (it would have been 3 if a week without an episode hadn't already been scheduled) and resulted in changing Penny's job from waitress to bartender, and since it's the first time a main cast member has missed an episode, it should be mentioned in the article body. Mentioning it in the episode summaries alone is inappropriate because it affects multiple episodes and doing so fragments the information. Mentioning it in multiple episodes is redundant and also inappropriate. The injury affected several episode for many weeks and resulted in a shift in Penny's employment - we see her now in more roles as bartender. There certainly seems justification to mention it in a separate section this season. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My reason of removing it is because it's already discussed about in the page header, and in the episodes on which the injury affected. I saw no real reason for a seperate section discussing something that was already discussed. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 12:11 9 September 2011 (UTC)
The "page header" (ie the lede) is only supposed to summarise the article, as I pointed out in the section above, and in a recent edit summary.[5] It's not supposed to replace content in the article body. The content in the episode summaries is brief and fragments the story of what happened and why Cuoco both missed two episode and changed her employment. The separate section contains a citation that, thanks to your removal, is no longer in the article. There's simply no reason why the consolidated content shouldn't be included in a separate, cited section. If anything, there's a better case for including the content in the casting section and abbreviating what is in the episode summaries. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is an important section which should not be removed due to the objection of just one editor. 173.202.215.219 (talk) 19:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it's important and should not be deleted. --SlashMe (talk) 23:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, you want repeated info to stay? It does not deserve a seperate attachment. It affected 3/24 episodes. If it were 17/24 0r all 24, it would make sense, but you three are being silly. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 10:56 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Let's get it right - The content in the episode summaries fragments the content that you want to delete. This section was initially added because there was a lot more duplicated content in the summaries, and the section reduced the level of duplicated content. More still could probably be pruned from the summaries. The broken leg didn't just affect 3 episodes. It made her miss two and has changed the whole direction of Penny's employment. Prior to this she was almost exclusively a waitress, having only appeared as a bartender in a single episode. Since this, she has spent more time behind the bar and her mobility was obviously impaired for several episodes, as we saw her standing or sitting rather than moving. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mere fanfluff. Nothing notable to allow it it's own section. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 22:44 11 September 2011 (UTC)
The matter was covered in multiple, third party, reliable sources. It meets the notability requirements. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Main characters[edit]

If I wasn't mistaken actress potraying Amy Farrah Fowler, Mayim Bialik name was included in the 8th episode at the beginning, does that mean her one of the main characters? SyFuelIgniteBurned 17:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it would. The articles have been altered accordingly. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question to episode 8[edit]

I know what Wikipedia is not, but both google and my dictionaries didn't help me, so I try asking here ;). My question is if nether-yaya (or whatever word Amy uses during the girls night) is another word for anus? If not, what does it mean? --93.219.179.38 (talk) 19:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps...I was wondering the same thing when I saw the episode.

another word for the anus; not to be confused with the nether eye (a word used by chaucer in the canterbury tales), which refers to a woman's genitalia (read: vagina). (I found the definition in the urban dictionary)

If you look up the old english pronounciations of Chaucer's time, the nether "eye" was the vagina, and the e at the end of eye was pronounced. So it would come out nether eh-ya, which when said together sounds much like nether yaya.

Season 4 Episode 17 "The Toast Derivation"[edit]

Hey all,

I've seen a photo of the front page of the script floating about on the various social networks saying the name of the 17th episode of season 4 is called "The Toust Derivnation" and guest stars LeVar Burton..

Clofts (talk) 00:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Social networks or blogs are not reliable sources. KnownAlias contact 00:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I know.. I just thought I would flag it in case someone sees it on the more reliable place.. :) Clofts (talk) 07:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just goes to show how well people on the social networks can type. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.234.185.70 (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures?[edit]

I often find it more helpful to find an episode by checking http://www.cbs.com/primetime/big_bang_theory/recaps/ simply because they have a picture of a memorable scene. Can't we link to this or perhaps add our own photos? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.23.27.137 (talk) 01:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The CBS link was an unusual omission from the article so I added it as a general reference since it applies to all episodes. All images of scenes from episodes are copyrighted and therefore non-free. Use of multiple such images in this article would breach our non-free content policy and WP:NFLISTS. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recurring characters[edit]

In a word: why? First, Amy and Bernadette have been elevated to main character status, so why are they called recurring? Second, I've never seen any other show on Wikipedia with such a listing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.234.185.70 (talk) 19:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Main characters are not listed as recurring characters. I've corrected the article accordingly. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Back to my second question, why are recurring characters listed at all? Is there any other Wikipedia pages that do this? I've never seen one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.234.185.70 (talk) 14:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are actually quite a lot of articles that list recurring characters. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

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

Three-Player Chess[edit]

I noted that Sheldon's experimental three-player chess in ep. 22 ("The Wildebeest Implementation") contains an element of chance. I figured that was extremely out of character. (That the game complexity is borderline unplayable, on the other hand, feels completely appropriate.) 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 12:26, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Rauch (Bernadette) is not in "The Irish Pub Formulation" and "The Apology Insufficiency"[edit]

Melissa Rauch (Bernadette) does not appear "The Irish Pub Formulation" and "The Apology Insufficiency" because these are probably one or two episodes of Series 4 in Big Bang Theory to which she is written out. plus Mayim Bialik (who plays Amy) isn't in the main cast until "The 21-Second Excitation". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.92.47 (talk) 23:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Citations needed for episode section title notes[edit]

I initially raised the following issue in the season two article discussion; perhaps further discussion/debate should occur on that page. This section serves as more of an outlining of the problem and a notification as to where it can be discussed.

We can't note where the title comes from unless we can source a RS that explains that; to do so is OR. I will wait about two weeks, as I am guessing that most of the season articles for the series do this. After that, I will remove them completely as unsourced OR. I welcome discussion on the matter until that time. Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Big_Bang_Theory_season_4&oldid=1216333601"