Talk:The Big Bang Theory season 10
Latest comment: 9 months ago by Jack Sebastian in topic Citations needed for episode section title notes
 | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
Christopher Lloyd edit
Hi! I just want to make sure we're only adding info that our sources - at the time we had them - told us. LocalNet (talk) 12:22, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- @LocalNet: It is typically the editor that has the issue with the content that is meant to begin the discussion, but I know that if I revert again, you'll undoubtedly willingly violate 3RR for your preferred version. In this version, I added the guest role and episode, then the TVLine reference, then the role name with the Futon source. How can you still disagree with that? It's what you wanted. Or are you complaining that it states it's the tenth episode rather than the December 1 episode? We don't need to list everything as we knew it at the time - that's what updating the article is all about. Updating the content as we know it. That's what updating the episode table itself is all about as well. Alex|The|Whovian? 12:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- That's a hell of an accusation about me you're making. Might try to stick to the content rather than imply things about me that you don't know. I have an issue with the fact that we're opening the sentence crediting TVLine, but adding info coming from other sources. The way it read, we looked like TVLine had all the info, but it didn't, and that's what we need to clarify. And yes, that it was the tenth episode is also something the source did not say. The table gets different treatment because it doesn't contain the history behind it. It adds all new info continously, without an emphasis on time of knowledge. If writing historical points on history on Wikipedia just rewrote old facts, Wikipedia would look completely different. LocalNet (talk) 12:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- Then by all means, revert your edit after being reverted yourself and restore the status quo while the discussion is in place. And that's what adding multiple sources to the end of a sentence implies - that the sentence itself contains different information from different sources; not everything needs to be separated. So, your only issue with the version I linked is "seasons's tenth episode" over "December 1 episode", which you had to revert instead of edit in yourself? Curiouser and curiouser. Alex|The|Whovian? 12:36, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- We clearly call TVLine the source in the beginning, adding contradictory information to the sentence only works when we credit other sources similarly with titles of the other sources, otherwise the sentence structure primarily weighs on the first source. It's common journalistic neutrality practice; credit contradictory pieces of info with names of each source, or a new sentence separating the origins of the information. And adding "tenth episode" adds information that our source doesn't even state, at all. And I reverted because I disagreed on the language used, and to get a discussion here. LocalNet (talk) 12:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, so you've said. So, again, you'd be fine with the content stating "On November 9, 2016, TVLine reported that Christopher Lloyd had been cast in a guest role for the season's December 1 episode;[9] the name of Lloyd's character was Theodore.[10]"? If so, that doesn't explain why one would revert instead of edit it in; discussions can be started without reverting. Alex|The|Whovian? 12:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- Yep, I realize my own error on that part and did revert my edit once I realized that reverting was not the right move. I'll happily admit reverting was a bad judgment call, although after your big (and wrong) accusation about me, I feel we both made mistakes. Do you want me to change "tenth" to "December 1" or do you want the privilege? LocalNet (talk) 12:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, so you've said. So, again, you'd be fine with the content stating "On November 9, 2016, TVLine reported that Christopher Lloyd had been cast in a guest role for the season's December 1 episode;[9] the name of Lloyd's character was Theodore.[10]"? If so, that doesn't explain why one would revert instead of edit it in; discussions can be started without reverting. Alex|The|Whovian? 12:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- We clearly call TVLine the source in the beginning, adding contradictory information to the sentence only works when we credit other sources similarly with titles of the other sources, otherwise the sentence structure primarily weighs on the first source. It's common journalistic neutrality practice; credit contradictory pieces of info with names of each source, or a new sentence separating the origins of the information. And adding "tenth episode" adds information that our source doesn't even state, at all. And I reverted because I disagreed on the language used, and to get a discussion here. LocalNet (talk) 12:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- Then by all means, revert your edit after being reverted yourself and restore the status quo while the discussion is in place. And that's what adding multiple sources to the end of a sentence implies - that the sentence itself contains different information from different sources; not everything needs to be separated. So, your only issue with the version I linked is "seasons's tenth episode" over "December 1 episode", which you had to revert instead of edit in yourself? Curiouser and curiouser. Alex|The|Whovian? 12:36, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- That's a hell of an accusation about me you're making. Might try to stick to the content rather than imply things about me that you don't know. I have an issue with the fact that we're opening the sentence crediting TVLine, but adding info coming from other sources. The way it read, we looked like TVLine had all the info, but it didn't, and that's what we need to clarify. And yes, that it was the tenth episode is also something the source did not say. The table gets different treatment because it doesn't contain the history behind it. It adds all new info continously, without an emphasis on time of knowledge. If writing historical points on history on Wikipedia just rewrote old facts, Wikipedia would look completely different. LocalNet (talk) 12:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
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) 15:14, 3 August 2023 (UTC)