Talk:List of The Big Bang Theory and Young Sheldon characters/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Rajesh Koothrappali in "The Bat Jar Conjecture"

The article currently says "In 'The Bat Jar Conjecture', he says a few words to Penny (sober) but then clasps his hands over his mouth. No one is shocked by this." I would contest the "fact" that nobody is shocked; Wolowitz definitely looks shocked, Penny and Leonard exchange surprised looks, and the audience laughs. Sheldon doesn't seem to care and continues with the conversation. I've deleted "No one is shocked by this", although I didn't realise I wasn't logged in at the time... R'win (talk) 13:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Shower

I removed the line in Penny's bio that states her shower is broken. Though this was true in 'The Pilot', in 'The Middle Earth Paradigm' her shower now works as she takes one when the guys arrive for the party.Ocelot (talk) 15:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Trivial Information

I feel that alot of trivial information is included about the characters in their bios, and that it is causing the article to lack an encyclopedic tone. Thus I am attemtping to remove items like this, and rewrite in places. If there is anything you think should go, or if you disagree with information I remove, please discuss it here. Million_Moments (talk) 19:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

"Jumper"

I changed the word "jumper" in Sheldon's profile to "sweater," since in the U.S. Jumper means something completely different, and, as far as I know, the show is produced in the states. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sailor Titan (talk • contribs) 16:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Joyce Kim

It should be pointed out that there is an error in series continuity regarding the character of Joyce Kim. During the first two seasons, there were occasional mentions of Joyce Kim's relationship with Leonard lasting a month. However, in the flashback episode (Season 3 finale), when Joyce is actually shown, Sheldon barges into Leonard's room and tells him that according to the roommate agreement, roommates must give at least twelve hours' notice before impending coitus. Leonard replies "I didn't even KNOW her twelve hours ago!" Joyce then leaves, apparently never to see Leonard again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.131.13 (talk) 19:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Asperger's Syndrome Diagnosis

I would like to remove the reference to Sheldon displaying symptoms of Asperger's Syndrome as I believe it is original research rather than something actually referred to within the show. Similar 'research' occasionally appears on the TBBT main page and is removed for the same reason. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. Agree or Oppose? Does anyone care? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EttaLove (talk • contribs) 22:47, 24 April 2008

First, no one cares. Second, if he were an amputee, would it be original research to mention it? Just say "displays signs of being an As$pie." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.79 (talk) 21:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Since AS is often undiagnosed, and a story in which it was talked about probably wouldn't fit in very well with a comedy, it's quite unlikely that it would be mentioned in the show. The most important rule in accordance with WP:VERIFY and WP:FICTION is whether it has come to attention in reliable sources. This could be either something along the lines of this:

[1] as long as it was serious and well-informed, or possibly a review of the show; the TBBT hasn't been around long enough for there to be books written about it to use as sources. Talk on the internet, or even a blog, wouldn't count.Billwilson5060 (talk) 16:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

As a person with Asperger's, I'd like to see the comment remain. I don't recall ever hearing anyone speak the name "Asperger" in the show, but there are quite a few "inside jokes" that most neurotypicals would not "get." For example, when Sheldon is talking with Leonard and get's asked "Did Penny look upset when you spoke with her?" he replies "No, did you ask her if she was upset?" When Leonard says "Yes, and she said she's not," Sheldon says "Oh, I got that one right!" When he confirms with Leonard that, indeed, Leonard is upset, he says "I've got it two for two" (or something like that). He then excuses himself because the next question about emotional perception is a "bonus question for extra points, and I'm quitting while I'm ahead."

As an Aspergian, I find that exchange very funny because being able to emphatically sense emotion in others is one of our issues, and the fact that Sheldon clearly knows he has a problem in that area, and jokes about it, is wonderful.

This is just one example, and while the actual name of the disorder isn't mentioned, I think it's very clear that the writers have created Sheldon as someone with Asperger's Syndrome. There's just two many comments made that are absolutely spot-on for an Aspergian that this cannot be accidental, and it's certainly not just "generalized geekiness." If you want to see someone's commentary on this topic, check out http://www.tvsquad.com/2009/02/09/does-big-bangs-sheldon-have-aspergers-syndrome/ The statement that it's like "attending an Asperger's meeting" is absolutely correct. 66.210.10.253 (talk) 22:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that the reference to Asperger Syndrome is okay as long as it's worded correctly. The article currently says "He displays characteristics common among those with Asperger syndrome:^[citation]...". I think this is fine because it provides a real-world, neutral point of view, and an external reference. The article doesn't say that Sheldon has Asperger's, but merely that he shows traits of it. Bad examples of wording would be "Sheldon definitely has Asperger's" or "it is quite evident to anyone that Sheldon has Asperger's", etc. If, at any point, the show writers confirm that Sheldon has or doesn't have Asperger's we could clarify this with a proper citation. 189.175.178.189 (talk) 18:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It should state, "Sheldon displays certain symptoms of Asperger's Syndrome [or "symptoms that lie along the Autistic Spectrum,"] such as _______." However, Sheldon has stated that he has undergone psychological testing and received no diagnosis of a mental disorder. Minetruly (talk) 14:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

What he says is: "I'm not crazy, my mother had me tested". AS is not a form of insanity but rather can be thought of as "social retardation" as opposed to "mental retardation". There is nothing in the AS spectrum which manifests as insanity.

He most certainly DOES exhibit behaviours consistant with AS including specific comfort zones (severely agitated when not in "his" spot), limited group dynamics (most tend to have a limit of about 5 or 6 people and when Sheldon is making friends with the other physicist trying to get time on the equipment he states that 5 friendships are too many and one of them would have to leave), failure to understand social cues and body language (especially when it comes to sarcasm), inadvertant offenses towards others, obsessive behaviour patterns and finding comfort in order and routine with corresponding severe discomfort when such order and routine is disrupted.

The main difference is that many adult Apies have learned various skills by which they can minimise the impact of their unique cognition. These must be learned analytically and are not innate. One may, for instance, keep track of eye contact in order to make certain that they are conforming to social expectations in that area.

Sheldon's manifestation is rather severe and his behaviour is more in line with an undiagnosed child than an adult. This may be the result of his past, moving directly into a university setting into a "hard" science environment. (For example, had he been studying anthropology or sociology his coping mechanisms would be better formed by this time.)

Aspergians and their families immediately identify Sheldon's behaviour. Since the article states "Sheldon displays characteristics common among those with Asperger syndrome" rather than an absolute statement of a diagnosis I believe that the statement is accurate and should remain. Frater SG (talk) 01:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Recurring characters

As three of the 'recurring' characters only appear in one episode, should this section be renamed 'Other Characters' or shouild they be removed? I would plump for the former 83.105.70.75 (talk) 09:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

oops, sorry, not signed in chrisboote (talk) 09:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Some of them may turn up again, so I'd say other characters. Million_Moments (talk) 10:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that the characters that have appeared in one single episode shouldn't be included, since there's not an objective reason to determine which ones to include. If they appear again we can always add them again. Perhaps the only exception I would make is with the family of the main cast, since they can be considered a significant part of the developement of their characters.--RR (talk) 14:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Now that the series has many episodes, I have reorganized the list of characters to include main, recurrent, guest and other characters. I think this should take care of most issues. New characters can be added to the appropriate section whenever is needed; however, descriptions of minor characters should be kept as short as possible, there is no need to quote the entire episode in which they appear. 189.175.178.189 (talk) 17:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Since many of the characters listed here have only appeared in one episode, if they stay in then Leonard's mother should be added.

Who plays Howard's mother? I don't think we havew ever seen her, but we sure hear her voice a lot! She sounds familiar, but I am not sure from where. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.67.9.204 (talk) 10:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Leonard's mother is already in. I also added an entry for Howard's mother, the "current" Mrs. Wolowitz. The name of the actress voicing her is still missing, however. 189.175.178.189 (talk) 17:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It is added now: Carol Ann Susi is "Mrs. Wolowitz". 189.175.178.189 (talk) 18:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Religion

How do we know that Rajesh's character is Hindu? He could very well be Atheist, as he's a scientist. Unless there's more information, please leave the religion blank 59.92.49.149 (talk) 12:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

He constantly refers to the hindu gods, and Sheldon once get's him to let him stay by saying hospitality is part of the Hindu religion. Million_Moments (talk) 16:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

That isn't evidence. His cultural background may be Hindu, which is why he mentions the religion. I can argue that because he's a scientist, he's and talks about evidence and rationality, he's an atheist. Unless it is explicitly stated that he's a Hindu, we should leave the religion blank. 59.92.39.45 (talk) 14:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I continue to disagree, as the same thing could be said about Wollawitz and Judaism but his infobox still contains that fact. He was certainly raised Hindu. Million_Moments (talk) 17:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree as well. I think his character is an atheist, and not Hindu. Unless you have a verifiable citation, I don't think you should add it59.92.83.152 (talk) 12:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Well the key there is that you 'think' he's an atheist. And as most stories, the characters in the The Big Bang Theory are held somewhat loosely in their characteristics so that more than one type of person can relate to each character. But the Show includes enough evidence to say he was raised Hindu, whether or not the fictional character believes in one or the other. At any rate, there are plenty of religious scientists (Einstein for example), and a good deal of them would tell you religion and science are really two sides of the same coin; One of which relies on faith and the other on knowledge, neither of which rely on being right. My point is the scientific background of the characters doesn't preclude the possibility of an associated religion with said characters, nor any real person. I vote Koothrappali is Hindu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RianC (talk • contribs) 22:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, Koothrapali is definitely of the Hindu religion. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`} 03:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Penny states in The Panty Pinata Polarization that Raj is "Suddenly back on the Hindu bandwagon". He was definitely raised Hindu, and definitely practices Hinduism, but just not all the time. All evidence from the show points toward him being Hindu. RianC (talk) 00:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

By the same token, we should not assume the Sheldon character is a Christian unless he has said that he is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.32.90 (talk) 01:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

It has been. He has mentioned his mother whacking him with a Bible, and I believe in the episode when she visited the apartment she alluded several times to religion. Xenon54 (talk) 02:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Being whacked by a bible does not make him a Christian. It makes his mother a Christian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.32.90 (talk) 11:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

In the Bath Item episode, he expresses discontent that a commercialized Christmas is just a "pagan ritual", and his expressions seem to indicate he is Christian. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`} 12:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

When Penny asks if he and Leonard are putting up a Christmas tree, he replies, "No, because we don't celebrate the ancient pagan festival of Saturnalia." He goes on to explain the customs of Saturnalia. Acknowledging that Saturnalia was appropriated and recast as Christmas would go against the beliefs of Christians. MultiPoly (talk) 13:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

You're talking about Leonard... it's Sheldon that's in question here. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`} 16:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

No, the 'he' in the exchange above is Sheldon. Penny is talking to Sheldon. Sheldon explains Saturnalia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MultiPoly (talk • contribs) 14:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Sheldon also says in episode 14 of Season 2 that his secret money stash in the peanut brittle container is protected by saints, adding evidence 67.194.167.97 (talk) 00:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Rachel

I find it very difficult to believe that a character such as Sheldon's would find anything in ANY religion, especially considering his distain for both his sister and mother's beliefs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.177.208 (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

He says it is protected by snakes, the ones that jump out of the can. MultiPoly (talk) 16:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I just realized this today and was about to update it. haha. I laughed pretty hard when I saw that today and realized that he said "snakes." Thanks MultiPoly 67.194.167.97 (talk) 06:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)Rachel

There are now separate articles concerning each of the main characters. Therefore, in the present article, List of characters in The Big Bang Theory, there is no need to mention the characters' religion or get into much detail with them. 189.175.178.189 (talk) 18:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I should point out that AFF seems to have a thangka in her apartment, in the episode "The Agreement Dissection", visible behind the smoking monkey Ricky. It is orange/red with a dharma wheel supported by two deer on a lotus throne, simlar to this. It may be decorative, but may also indicate that she is Buddhist. at least here, until she develops into a major character with a more complete entry, this information is at least somewhere for sepculation and debate.Vampromero (talk) 16:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Article Name

I assume this current page started off as a WP:LIST to list the characters in The Big Bang Theory. However, given the current state of the page, it is quite obvious that is page is no longer a List. I suggest we move the article from List of characters from The Big Bang Theory to The Big Bang Theory Characters or something similar. And if in the future, biography of the characters grows to a point where the page is too big as per WP:SIZE, someone should take the opportunity then to split the biography of Sheldon and Leonard into their own separate articles, and then keep the rest of the characters on this page. Personally, I think it will still be a little too premature to split Leonard and Sheldon's biography right now. Aly89 (talk) 18:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I think someone should go ahead and make this change RianC (talk) 03:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking of splitting the character articles, in particular Sheldon's in order to add information about the idea that he has an autistic spectrum disorder, as discussed here: [2] among other places. Billwilson5060 (talk) 11:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Splitting the characters into their own articles is a great idea. I will be bold and begin doing this now. You can help out. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`} 11:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: Actually, I don't have time to do it at the moment, and we'll need to create a new "TBBT character" Infobox template (similar to Template:Infobox CSI character) to use in the new articles. You can start this up if you'd like, if not I'll resume later when I have more time. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`} 11:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Since this talk page was started there are now separate articles, these are: Leonard Hofstadter, Sheldon Cooper, Penny (The Big Bang Theory), Howard Wolowitz, Rajesh Koothrappali and Leslie Winkle. As for the name of the article, I think there is no need to change the title "List of characters from The Big Bang Theory" unless there is a specific guideline suggesting that. 189.175.178.189 (talk) 18:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

References

For those watching this page, you will find a huge change being applied to this article. This was done by me to reference almost all the facts highlighted in the entire article. However, there were quite a few facts which I remember being addressed in the episodes, but couldn't remember which episodes. Hence, I have flagged them with the Fact template. Anyone who remembers these, please go ahead and feel free to add them. The referencing I did is in a particular manner where the references are properly named to be used throughout the article. Following is the entire dump of all the references which might have been used/might not. If you are referencing and you realize that the episode reference is not present, copy it off here. This list was generated from the List of The Big Bang Theory Episodes by running a custom macro on it.

<ref name="S01E01">{{cite episode|series=The Big Bang Theory|serieslink=The Big Bang Theory|number=1|season=1|title=Pilot|airdate=September 24, 2007}}</ref>
<ref name="S01E02">{{cite episode|series=The Big Bang Theory|serieslink=The Big Bang Theory|number=2|season=1|title=The Big Bran Hypothesis|airdate=October 1, 2007}}</ref>
<ref name="S01E03">{{cite episode|series=The Big Bang Theory|serieslink=The Big Bang Theory|number=3|season=1|title=The Fuzzy Boots Corollary|airdate=October 8, 2007}}</ref>
<ref name="S01E04">{{cite episode|series=The Big Bang Theory|serieslink=The Big Bang Theory|number=4|season=1|title=The Luminous Fish Effect|airdate=October 15, 2007}}</ref>
<ref name="S01E05">{{cite episode|series=The Big Bang Theory|serieslink=The Big Bang Theory|number=5|season=1|title=The Hamburger Postulate|airdate=October 22, 2007}}</ref>
<ref name="S01E06">{{cite episode|series=The Big Bang Theory|serieslink=The Big Bang Theory|number=6|season=1|title=The Middle-Earth Paradigm|airdate=October 29, 2007}}</ref>
<ref name="S01E07">{{cite episode|series=The Big Bang Theory|serieslink=The Big Bang Theory|number=7|season=1|title=The Dumpling Paradox|airdate=November 5, 2007}}</ref>
<ref name="S01E08">{{cite episode|series=The Big Bang Theory|serieslink=The Big Bang Theory|number=8|season=1|title=The Grasshopper Experiment|airdate=November 12, 2007}}</ref>
<ref name="S01E09">{{cite episode|series=The Big Bang Theory|serieslink=The Big Bang Theory|number=9|season=1|title=The Cooper-Hofstadter Polarization|airdate=March 17, 2008}}</ref>
<ref name="S01E10">{{cite episode|series=The Big Bang Theory|serieslink=The Big Bang Theory|number=10|season=1|title=The Loobenfeld Decay|airdate=March 24, 2008}}</ref>
<ref name="S01E11">{{cite episode|series=The Big Bang Theory|serieslink=The Big Bang Theory|number=11|season=1|title=The Pancake Batter Anomaly|airdate=March 31, 2008}}</ref>
<ref name="S01E12">{{cite episode|series=The Big Bang Theory|serieslink=The Big Bang Theory|number=12|season=1|title=The Jerusalem Duality|airdate=April 14, 2008}}</ref>
<ref name="S01E13">{{cite episode|series=The Big Bang Theory|serieslink=The Big Bang Theory|number=13|season=1|title=The Bat Jar Conjecture|airdate=April 21, 2008}}</ref>
<ref name="S01E14">{{cite episode|series=The Big Bang Theory|serieslink=The Big Bang Theory|number=14|season=1|title=The Nerdvana Annihilation|airdate=April 28, 2008}}</ref>
<ref name="S01E15">{{cite episode|series=The Big Bang Theory|serieslink=The Big Bang Theory|number=15|season=1|title=The Shiksa Indeterminacy|airdate=May 5, 2008}}</ref>
<ref name="S01E16">{{cite episode|series=The Big Bang Theory|serieslink=The Big Bang Theory|number=16|season=1|title=The Peanut Reaction|airdate=May 12, 2008}}</ref>
<ref name="S01E17">{{cite episode|series=The Big Bang Theory|serieslink=The Big Bang Theory|number=17|season=1|title=The Tangerine Factor|airdate=May 19, 2008}}</ref>
<ref name="S02E01">{{cite episode|number=1|title=The Bad Fish Paradigm|airdate=September 22, 2008|series=The Big Bang Theory|serieslink=The Big Bang Theory|season=2}}</ref>
<ref name="S02E02">{{cite episode|number=2|title=The Codpiece Topology|airdate=September 29, 2008|series=The Big Bang Theory|serieslink=The Big Bang Theory|season=2}}</ref>
<ref name="S02E03">{{cite episode|number=3|title=The Barbarian Sublimation|airdate=October 6, 2008|series=The Big Bang Theory|serieslink=The Big Bang Theory|season=2}}</ref>
<ref name="S02E04">{{cite episode|number=4|title=The Griffin Equivalency|airdate=October 13, 2008|series=The Big Bang Theory|serieslink=The Big Bang Theory|season=2}}</ref>
<ref name="S02E05">{{cite episode|number=5|title=The Euclid Alternative|airdate=October 20, 2008|series=The Big Bang Theory|serieslink=The Big Bang Theory|season=2}}</ref>
<ref name="S02E06">{{cite episode|number=6|title=The Cooper-Nowitzki Theorem|airdate=November 3, 2008|series=The Big Bang Theory|serieslink=The Big Bang Theory|season=2}}</ref>
<ref name="S02E07">{{cite episode|number=7|title=The Panty Piñata Polarization|airdate=November 10, 2008|series=The Big Bang Theory|serieslink=The Big Bang Theory|season=2}}</ref>
<ref name="S02E08">{{cite episode|number=8|title=The Lizard-Spock Expansion|airdate=November 17, 2008|series=The Big Bang Theory|serieslink=The Big Bang Theory|season=2}}</ref>
<ref name="S02E09">{{cite episode|number=9|title=The White Asparagus Triangulation|airdate=November 24, 2008|series=The Big Bang Theory|serieslink=The Big Bang Theory|season=2}}</ref>
<ref name="S02E10">{{cite episode|number=10|title=The Vartabedian Conundrum|airdate=December 8, 2008|series=The Big Bang Theory|serieslink=The Big Bang Theory|season=2}}</ref>
<ref name="S02E11">{{cite episode|number=11|title=The Bath Item Gift Hypothesis|airdate=December 15, 2008|series=The Big Bang Theory|serieslink=The Big Bang Theory|season=2}}</ref>

The season one and season two don't quite match up because both were put through different macros, but hopefully all the information should be present in all the references. Feel free to critisize on anything I have done. Also, please consider my previous proposal of a page move (the section before this). Cheers! Aly89 (talk) 21:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I will be checking the references. I'll use this format

<ref name="S01E01">{{Cite episode
|title=Pilot |episodelink=List of The Big Bang Theory Episodes#ep1
|series=The Big Bang Theory |serieslink=The Big Bang Theory
|airdate=September 24, 2007 |season=1 |number=1}}</ref>

as suggested in Template:Cite episode.

The "episodelink" field includes the link to the appropriate episode in this way List of The Big Bang Theory Episodes#ep1. The number in "#ep1" refers to the continuous episode number in the series, not within a season. For example, The Griffin Equivalence is episode 4 of season 2, but it is referenced as List of The Big Bang Theory Episodes#ep21. 189.175.178.189 (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Please note that {{Cite episode}} doesn't recommend citing exactly the way you've suggested. If you're going to use that format, you should be using one field per line, not two or three. ie:

<ref name="S01E01">{{Cite episode
|title=Pilot
|episodelink=List of The Big Bang Theory episodes#ep1
|series=The Big Bang Theory
|serieslink=The Big Bang Theory
|airdate=September 24, 2007
|season=1
|number=1}}</ref>

It's less confusing. You can also use <ref name="S01E01">{{Cite episode|title=Pilot|episodelink=List of The Big Bang Theory episodes#ep1|series=The Big Bang Theory|serieslink=The Big Bang Theory|airdate=September 24, 2007|season=1|number=1}} --AussieLegend (talk) 00:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your input and for the changes you've made. In my comment above, I was only trying to clean up the references, and establish the order of each field, since they were kind of messy before; I didn't care much about using exactly the "horizontal" or the "vertical" formats. Also, I did it that way so the entire code was visible in the talk page without the need to scroll. But yes, as suggested, in the final article the citation should be in horizontal format.

<ref name="S01E01">{{Cite episode|title=Pilot|episodelink=List of The Big Bang Theory episodes#ep1|series= ... etc.

189.175.178.189 (talk) 01:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

New TBBT character articles

I'm in the midst of creating the new articles for the main TBBT characters, as was discussed briefly on the "List of TBBT characters" talk page previously. I have a limited time to work with at the moment, and after my edits there are still a lot of cite errors on the new articles due to cites not being complete (as they were simply copied from the original article). I will continue to fix these issues later today into tomorrow, but in the meantime welcome all other users to assist in the transition.

The original article, List of characters in The Big Bang Theory, can either be merged into The Big Bang Theory, or better yet, changed to incorporate the new articles (i.e., the full descriptions are removed in favor of shorter descriptions, and the list of secondary/tertiary characters remains. I recommend the latter, which I will do upon return to editing tomorrow. Thanks. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`} 17:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I'd cut down the articles here to be very short, maybe just one or two sentences. Million_Moments (talk) 21:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

As of now I have further organized the list of characters. I don't totally agree with creating separate pages for the main characters because they may become very large and include a lot of non-encyclopedic content. If you can keep them sane that's fine. The current article, List of characters in The Big Bang Theory, is shaping nicely to hold the information on the rest of the characters, whatever you call them, secondary, tertiary, recurrent, guest, etc. 189.175.178.189 (talk) 17:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

As of now, the main articles and this list of characters are sane. So my previous comment (my dynamic IP was 189.175.178.189 above) does not longer apply. It is fine as it is. 189.250.141.78 (talk) 17:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Wolowitz's Ability to Speak Mandarin

Hi Guys, Wolowitz is listed as knowing Mandarin. However, in the Episode "the Dumpling Paradox" (S01 E07) the waiter at the Chinese restaurant asks "Where is your friend that thinks he can speak Mandarin?" Therefore, I believe his status as officially "knowing Mandarin" is most likely not true as this situation implied that he may just be simply overconfident in his language skills. This needs to be changed. What do you think? 67.194.167.97 (talk) 21:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Rachel

I think there is no need to change this without stronger evidence. It is true that his language skills haven't been explored much; nevertheless it has been stated in various episodes somewhat as a "fact" that Howard speaks 5 languages, and 6 if you count the fictional Klingon. I vote for not changing that unless there is an actual episode which confirms Howard's lack of fluency in languages, or the show creators state that. 189.175.178.189 (talk) 19:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Sheldon's romantic interests

The article mentions that Sheldon has none, yet he seems to take a great liking towards Lenard's mother. Further, when Lenard coerces Sheldon into leaving him and his date on their own, saying that he would return the favour when Sheldon finds 'a mate of his species', he agrees with the reasoning. Also, on a minor note, Sheldon expresses what could be interpreted as sexual attraction when helping Penny getting dressed after she dislocated her arm. I don't remember in which episodes these things happened, so I'm reluctant to alter this beautifully cited article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jan-da-man (talk • contribs) 01:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

"Sheldon expresses what could be interpreted... " I strongly disagree with changing the wording of the article based on personal interpretations. The content should remain encyclopedic and verifiable. Unless the character Sheldon mentions or actively pursues a romantic relationship, we, as outsiders, cannot assume such thing; that's just plain gossip. However, I agree that more can be mentioned on Sheldon's fondness for Leonard's mother, and overall the way he was raised. 189.175.178.189 (talk) 03:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

In relation to this, in one episode, Sheldon says about romantic attraction "if one is so afflicted" Phil Nolte (talk) 20:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Reducing the list of characters

I think we should stablish which characters are due to be included in this article. Right now, some of them (Dannis Kim, Lalita Gupta,...) are just characters with a single appearance and little impact on the show. I would remove all characters that have appeared to just one episode, thus keeping only Kurt, Dr. Gablehauser, Mary Cooper, Mr and Mrs. Koothrapali, Stephanie, Kripke, Beverly Hofstander, Stuart and Bernadette. Thoughts on this? --RR (talk) 12:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. I would recommend a list of main characters: the four guys, Penny and Leslie Winkle as it is now; a list of recurrent characters: those with more than one appearance; and a list of minor characters: those with just one appearance. The descriptions for the minor characters need to be cut down to one or two lines. I'm thinking about something similar to the list of characters in The New Adventures of Old Christine. 189.175.178.189 (talk) 04:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I did this already. I think it is more organized now. Further, I'll try to cut down the information on the main characters, since now each has an article of their own. 189.175.178.189 (talk) 23:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

As I'm saying below, Leslie Winkle is NOT a main character, she's not credited as a main character and she did not appear in the show in a long time. It makes no sense to have readers think this is a show about Leonard, Sheldon, Penny, Howard, Raj AND Leslie, because it is not and never was. This is a show with 5 characters appearing in each and every episode. All the other characters are recurring by definition. And the episode count (55 over 7) confirms this beyond any reasonable doubt. 93.33.2.76 (talk) 14:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

As I've indicated below,[3] the convention that we follow doesn't stipulate how long a person has to be in a starring role for them to be listed as a starring character. Once they've been promoted to that role they don't get demoted. It's explained elsewhere that she's no longer a main character. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I formally request to apply common sense here. And yes, as an actor is promoted to star role so it can be demoted too, and this is exactly the case, otherwise we still would have Sara Gilbert with a star billing. If you do insist to stick with the "once star billed, ever star billed" principle, please rename that list from "main characters" to "actors that received star credits at least once over the course of the series". Because being a main character in a series and receive star credits (out of a contractual obligation mainly) are two very different things who respond to very different principles and should not be confused. 93.33.10.187 (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

In-Universe style of the article

The page has an {{in-universe}} tag ("Articles that need to differentiate between fact and fiction"), added by Letuño on 12 December 2009. Does anybody care to discuss this? A few days later I started heavily editing the article, particularly shortening the description of the minor characters to avoid quoting entire episodes. Do you think the tag is still necessary? I'm tempted to remove it. 189.175.178.189 (talk) 04:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be removed. Any objections? Dosbears (talk) 23:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Spoilers

I think the Character summaries should be edited to exclude spoilers. There's a fine line between giving comprehensive information and spoiling episodes, and I think it's been crossed several times. In fact, I'm going to go do it now. If you think I've deleted information that's absolutely vital, consider putting it in that character's main article. Keep in mind that some people who read this article will be newcomers to Big Bang Theory who only want to know WHO people are, and their relevance to the storyline, but not the details of a plot and its conclusion. Minetruly (talk) 14:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Spoiler is clear on this:

"It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot."

We don't remove spoilers or add spoiler warnings. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, what do you consider a spoiler, Minetruly? Specific examples would help this discussion, otherwise I'm with AussieLegend. 201.127.204.84 (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Leslie Winkle

How can possibly Leslie Winkle be a main character? She only appeared in 3 or 4 episodes. She's a recurring character by both definition and billing. I think Bernadette is going to have a bigger episode count than Leslie (still remaining a recurring herself). The main characters are only the 4 guys and Penny, i.e. the ones featured in the opening title sequence of every episode. 93.33.2.76 (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Sara Gilbert has appeared in seven episodes according to IMDB and was credited as a main character for part of season two. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, questions: A. Is a 7-episodes count remotely comparable to 55? B. Is a 7-episodes count so much more than a 5-episodes count? (Dr. Gablehauser/Stuart/Bernadette) C. Is Sara Gilbert credited as a main character NOW? 93.33.2.76 (talk) 14:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The questions are irrelevant. She was credited in a starring role so she is listed as a main character, as per convention. The convention we follow doesn't stipulate how long a person has to be in a starring role. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

What about the official CBS website NOT listing Leslie Winkle as a main character nor Sara Gilbert as part of the main cast? Please, as I said above, just move Leslie Winkle to the recurring list or rename the main characters list as "characters played by actors that has been given star billing at least once over the course of the series". Because the definition of main character is totally different from the definition of star billed actor. 93.33.10.187 (talk) 00:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

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 Leslie Winkle 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. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Moved entry to recurrent, hasn't been seen on the show since 2009. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 10:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

As quite clearly stated above, supported by Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Style guidelines#Cast information, to which there is a link, Leslie Winkle stays in the main cast. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Mary Cooper

"Mary herself is not intellectual but is very wise". To me it appears that she is very religous, not very wise. Also, did they exchange the actress playing her, or is it just my poor recognition ability? -- Tcgit (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

A minor point if you ask me. The entire sentence could be left out with no problem, but since it doesn't disrupt the main idea of the character, I think it's fine as it is. About being the same actress, I wouldn't know. I assume is the same person. ---189.250.141.78 (talk) 17:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Dr. and Mrs. Koothrappali names, what is V.M.?

The article lists Rajesh Kootrappali's parents as "Dr. V.M. Koothrappali" (father) and "Mrs. Koothrappali" (mother). My inquiry is what's with the "V.M."? Are they initials? Why does the father have it and the mother does not?

I just saw the episode in which they are introduced, The Grasshopper Experiment, and Raj presents his parents as "Doctor and Mrs. V.M. Koothrappali". After that, in subsequent episodes, they are mostly referred to simply as "Dr. and Mrs. Koothrappali".

If "V.M." is part of the fathers last name, then I assume they should both use it as "Dr. V.M. Koothrappali" and "Mrs. V.M. Koothrappali", although it is not exactly clear to me if this is right.

Can anybody from Indian ascent clarify this? Is there something odd about this? I'm going to change the articles to add V.M. to Mrs. Koothrappali's name, but feel free to change it back if you can explain this or have a reliable source. ---201.127.204.84 (talk) 17:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

See Talk:Rajesh_Koothrappali#Dr._and_Mrs._Koothrappali_names.2C_what_is_V.M..3F for my answer. Flash man999 (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It's clear now. Further response: Talk:Rajesh_Koothrappali#Dr._and_Mrs._Koothrappali_names.2C_what_is_V.M..3F

Guest actors should be those that only appear as themselves

I am not totally satisfied with the new section Notable guest stars: Appearing as a character. How can we define if an actor is a "notable star" or not? In some way, every actor that appears in a TV show is a star. Imagine this scenario. What happens if the actor that plays one of the "minor" characters, say Brian Wade ("Kurt"), later on appears in a big budget film, or stars on his own TV series, and suddenly becomes famous? Are we going to move the character "Kurt" to the Notable guest stars section on grounds that now Brian Wade is "famous" and "notable"? This seems a little illogical.

Consider the extreme, what happens if "all" of the actors reprising the minor characters go on to have successful acting careers? Are we going to move all of their characters to the Notable guest stars section? I don't think so.

I think we should consider "Notable guest stars" only those people, actors or not, that play their real-life personas, hence making them stand out from every other actor that plays a character. A "famous" actor playing a character is simply that, an actor doing his job. It's just another entry in his resume. We shouldn't try to give that more importance than it actually has.

An example comes to mind in the sitcom Friends. In one episode Charlie Sheen played a character that dated "Phoebe" (Lisa Kudrow). Nowadays, Charlie Sheen is more "famous" and "notable" than he was back then, thanks to the sitcom Two and a Half Men in which he currently stars. Despite this, I don't think the Friends article gives Charlie Sheen credit as an extremely notable guest star; he was just playing a character and that's all.

In summary, I think the people currently in the section Notable guest stars: Appearing as a character should be moved back to the appropriate Recurrent characters or Other characters sections.

The user who created the Notable guest stars: Appearing as a character section gave this explanation to the edit: Moving a few of the more notable actors (if they have Wikipedia articles) into this section. Again, I don't think this is a good guideline. What happens if every actor gets a Wikipedia entry in the future? Are we going to move all of their characters to this new section?

If anything, we should use the same terminology used in production of the series. If the credits specify that a certain character is played by a "guest star" we could probably go with that. But in other cases, I think they should be listed as Recurrent or Other characters. ---189.250.141.78 (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I think having a Wikipedia article is a good notability test. In order to avoid being deleted, an actor had to have made more than one credited appearance (I dont think there is any dispute that extras are not notable). As for other issues:

• If an actor makes a reccuring appearance as the same character then they'd be moved to the recurring characters section
• If an actor who is currently non-notable (no Wikipedia article because this was their first credited appearance ever) makes an appearance, then they would be listed in the non-recurring section. Once they become more notable (gain credit roles in other projects) and have their own Wikipedia articles, I'd see no problem moving them to the notable guest stars section. The fact that they were not a star at the time of their appearance would then be irrelevant.

Hope that answered your questions. However whatever (talk) 23:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

My specific concern is the second point you make. Why do we need to care about an actor having a Wikipedia page or not? What if within the next couple of years, each actor in the non-recurring section gets a Wikipedia article of their own? Does that mean you are going to move every non-recurring character to the "Notable" section? That would result in an empty "Non-recurring characters" section, because every one would be "notable". Do you see the point I'm making here? Perhaps I didn't explain myself very well in the previous post.

I'll repeat myself: I think we should consider "Notable guest stars" only those people, actors or not, that play their real-life personas, hence making them stand out. A "notable" actor (with "credit roles in other projects", as you describe it) playing a character is simply that, an actor doing his job. We shouldn't try to give him or her more importance than he or she actually has.---189.250.141.78 (talk) 03:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Why do you think only guests who appear as themselves should be considered as a "notable guest star"? In other words, had Summer Glau appeared as a character rather than herself, why would it have been any less notable?

Regarding the Wikipedia articles as a guideline for notable guest, I think it's a fair guideline because Wikipedia has a very objective and fair criteria for notability.

Finally, I would not mind if one day there would be an empty "Non-recurring characters" section. What would be the harm with that?

However whatever (talk) 06:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes! If Summer Glau had played the role of "Alicia", or "Ramona Nowitzki", or any other "minor character", I simply would have included her in the list of "Non-recurring characters". She is just doing her job, we don't need to give her more importance than that. I think the focus of the article should be that of a list of "fictional characters" in a television show, which is a work of fiction. Therefore, we should focus in the character first, and then the actor who interpreted him or her. I feel that when you list someone in the "notable" section you are giving more importance to the "actor" rather than the "character". Now, people like George Smoot, and Wil Wheaton, they should be "notable" because they actually break the fiction by playing themselves.---189.250.141.78 (talk) 15:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

"I feel that when you list someone in the "notable" section you are giving more importance to the "actor" rather than the "character"."

I wouldn't say "more". I'd say "equal", and I don't think there is anything wrong with giving equal weight to the actors and acresses vs. the characters they portray. The actors and acresses are, afterall, the ones who bring life to the characters that would otherwise exist only in a script.However whatever (talk) 00:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we are pretty set on our own points of view on this matter, but I'll try to convince you with yet another allegory. Imagine this is an article about a recipe. We have the "main" ingredients and "minor" ingredients. In this particular recipe, I don't care if one of the "minor" ingredients has appeared as the "main" ingredient in several other dishes. In this particular "list of ingredients" it is just another ingredient.

Also, yes, actors bring to life the characters. But consider the show being a play. The characters exist in the script, without actors. I suppose in an article about an Oscar Wilde play, there should be a list of characters, not a list of the actors who have played them in many plays. This example is a little exaggerated, since a TV show is not the same as a written play; nevertheless, I think it serves to explain that they are both works of fiction.---189.250.141.78 (talk) 05:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

You kinda lost me with your analogy of the ingredients, because unlike people, all ingredients are notable and would be eligible for a Wikipedia article (unless it's an ingredient which you invented yourself).
All I'm trying to do with this section of notable guest appearances is to separate the minor characters played by notable actors from the minor characters played by non-notable actors. Yes, there is a "flaw" if you will, as exposed by the discussion in the subsection below, that this system could create the "illusion" that at the time the minor character was played the "now notable" actor was not notable, but I suppose those who really care to investigate can look up at List of The Big Bang Theory episodes when the episode aired and then look up the actor's Wikipedia article history to see when the actor became notable (using our definition of notability). But what difference does it make whether a notable actor was or was not notable at the time that he/she portrayed some minor character on this TV series?
This conversation almost makes me feel like I'm talking to the fictional Sheldon Cooper. However whatever (talk) 06:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

You got confused by the ingredients allegory? Really? I'm trying to simplify this as much as I can. In my opinion:

• The "flaw" you mentioned should not exist. No "illusion" should be present.
• The flaw essentially is "historic bias". Future readers to the article shouldn't be misguided into thinking that a certain character was more relevant to the story just because it was played by a certain actor. Apparently, you are okay with this bias.
• I do not suppose that interested readers will want to go through the entire List of The Big Bang Theory episodes just for a small clarification. I specially liked the way the list of characters was before (which I mostly organized to its present state), because characters were ordered in chronological order of appearance. That meant that by reading the article I could easily determine when a character appeared, and what was it's role in the story. With the current "Notable" section that is lost, since now they are in alphabetical ordering and have that "bias" I mentioned.

I'm not trying to pull a Sheldon Cooper on you (I don't think I'm being irrational). I'm just trying to convince you that there is merit in what I'm proposing, and reach a consensus if more editors would care to read this discussion.---189.250.141.78 (talk) 15:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

If you prefer to sort chronologically, rather than alphabetically, that's perfectly fine with me. Just add the episode number to the list, so that it's clear how it's sorted. Without the episode number, the order seems arbitrary (AKA chaotic). However whatever (talk) 17:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

On the question of whether notability is static

Moving somebody to the notable section if they become notable in the future is misleading because it implies that they were notable when they appeared on the program. If they weren't notable when they appeared on the program, their appearance wasn't notable and doesn't become notable in the future just because they do. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Notability can change. Just because an event wasn't notable at the time it occurred, does not mean it cannot become notable in the future under different circumstances. However whatever (talk) 14:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you on this AussieLegend. Even if the actor becomes "notable" in the future, we shouldn't try to retroactively apply his "notability" to his previous works. One of the guidelines in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Television#Style_guidelines mentions "articles should reflect the entire history of a series". If we look back at a TV show article and see that everyone is a "notable guest actor", we would have no idea who was notable at the show's airing, thus changing the historic point of view of the fictional work. Even if I become famous in the future, that doesn't mean everything I touched suddenly becomes gold.---189.250.141.78 (talk) 15:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I think this question is still unresolved. The new section I created allows for inclusion of any actor who has a blue link. It would not distinguish between those who had blue links at the time of the original broadcast vs. got a blue link later. But I guess we can postpone this discussion until such a case actually happens. However whatever (talk) 14:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Mmm. In my opinion, the new section should distinguish between those two group of people you mention. The new section should be only for those notable people at the time of original broadcast. What kind of unnamed character with only a few words of dialogue, with currently no blue link could eventually get a blue link? Answer: an extra, which we are not considering. This is in keeping with my view that we shouldn't try to retroactively apply notability to characters; that is, once the show ends, the list of characters should remain mostly unmodified, without us needing to expand it just because one or two actors are suddenly famous.

Of course, this is something that can be discussed when the case actually happens.---189.250.141.78 (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

List of characters vs. list of actors

Perhaps I was dense, but this edit summary finally made me see the point (much better than the ingredients analogy). Now I finally see why you would like to group all the minor characters together regardless of the notability of the actors who portrayed them. I also see why guests who play themselves are listed as such, because under that condition the guest and the character become one in the same.
I do have one question. Does this mean that appearances by actors such as Yeardley Smith and Danica McKellar should not be listed because their characters did not have names?
Sorry for being so dense. Go ahead and regroup however you like. However whatever (talk) 00:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad I was able to transmit my idea. This was especially shocking for me since the new "Notable... appearing as characters" section was created a day after my last edit (my IP is dynamic), and then I didn't saw it for another week.

As for Danica McKellar and Yeardley Smith, their characters cannot be nameless; if they don't have proper names they would appear in the credits as "Raj's date" and "Interviewer" or something similar, as is common in other shows.---189.250.141.78 (talk) 04:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

This brings up an interesting point. Do all characters that are not extras (i.e. they actually utter a word or two) get listed? For example, in the The Bozeman Reaction episode, there was a cop who took the crime report, and the thief in Montana who stole Sheldon's luggage. Both uttered no more than a couple of sentences. Even Yeardley Smith uttered no more than 4-5 sentences as Sheldon's interviewer. In fact, had I not recognized her, she would not have been listed here, as evidenced by the fact that I was the one who added her. However whatever (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a very sensible topic, indeed. My approach would be to use personal judgement, which implies some level of subjectivity. Are the cop and the thief central to the plot of that episode? Are they given proper names? Is Yeardley Smith's character central to the episode? Currently, all of the "minor characters" listed are important in the episode in which they appeared. The exceptions are "Joyce Kim", "Captain Sweatpants", and "Lonely Larry", which are more like "recurrent really-minor-but-sufficiently-distinguishable-characters". On the other hand, an important omission is that of "Christy" (Brooke D'Orsay) in The Dumpling Paradox. Following this guideline strictly, I could say that Yeardley Smith's character is not important enough to receive a mention. However... bending a little the rules, I figure her inclusion would be informative for those reading the article since, we want it or not, she is a famous voice actor (Lisa Simpson in The Simpsons). So, to answer your question, I would include Yeardley Smith, but I wouldn't include the cop or the thief.

The show is relatively young, presently with only three seasons. I think we need to consider this when going into detail with the different articles. Once the show ends, we will have a better way to gauge the importance of every piece (character) that was part of the show. Currently, the appearance of actors or real-life people involved with the main characters' interests, portraying characters or themselves, seems like a relevant aspect of this TV show, so we must give it the appropriate importance.---189.250.141.78 (talk) 16:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

How minor is minor?

Given that the only agreement is that extras are not included, perhaps we should propose something to establish a standard for when to include minor characters. Below is my proposal for inclusion:

• The character was somewhat important (it was given a name)
• The actor portraying the character is notable.

This will allow including Yeardley Smith's character as the interviewer in The Einstein Approximation episode, but exclude the thief and cop in The Bozeman Reaction episode. However whatever (talk) 19:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It sounds about right. The current list of characters was written to its present state essentially following those guidelines.---189.250.141.78 (talk) 03:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Stan Lee?

Stan Lee appeared in 3.16 and thus should be added to "appearing as himself" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.109.130.94 (talk) 08:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Mmmm... yes? Just because a character or notable guest is not listed immediately after the episode airs, it doesn't mean it won't be added later. There doesn't need to be a discussion about this, just add the proper entry.---189.250.143.51 (talk) 15:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

In fact he has already been added.[4] --AussieLegend (talk) 16:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

A section for each recurrent character

Just as is done in other articles, it may be necessary to create individual sections (=== Character ===) for each recurrent character. This, of course, depends on two main factors:

• That the series becomes sufficiently long, for example, longer than five seasons.
• That the role of the recurrent characters becomes more notorious that complete information on them doesn't fit well in the bulleted list format.

I'm not saying this needs to be done now, just that in the future, if the information on some characters keeps growing, it may be necessary to create sections for them. This would also help to link directly to that character from other articles ([[List of Show characters#Mr. Character]]) without needing anchors.---189.250.217.149 (talk) 04:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Three Characters' name at the end of the big bang theory season1 episode 7

Who know that Three Characters' name at the end of the big bang theory season1 episode 7 ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.140.130.171 (talk) 10:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

There are four characters:

• Brooke D'Orsay as Christy
• James Hong as Chen
• Carol Ann Susi as Mrs Wolowitz
• Kimberly D. Brooks as Automated Cell Phone Voice

--AussieLegend (talk) 10:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I mean penny's three girlfriends at the end of the big bang theory season1 episode 7. Who know their name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.22.77.177 (talk) 03:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

They weren't credited. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Wil Wheaton

I believe we should move Wheaton to recurring character, seeing as the show's creator is intent on keeping that rivalry going. Rusted AutoParts talk 14:32 17 Septmeber (UTC)

Although that certainly makes him recurring, the problem I have with it is that he is not really a character, as he's playing himself. I therefore would support returning him to the section reserved for "Notable guest stars appearing as themselves" where we can mention all his recurring roles appearances. However whatever (talk) 04:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

True, but he has appeared in enough episodes to determine himself a recurrent character, so i'm going to duplicate his entry, keep one in Notables and another in recurrent. Rusted AutoParts (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC).

There's no rule that says that people playing themselves can't be recurring characters. Take, for example, Lou Ferrigno's role as himself in The King of Queens. There's obviously an ongoing story-line that has turned Wheaton into a recurring character so he should be in that section. As for duplication of sections, that's not a good way to go. There only needs, and only should be, one section per character/actor. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there should be only one detailed section for him, but we should link from the guest stars appearing as themselves section to the recurrent characters section. However whatever (talk) 16:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Althea

Although the character Althea, and the actress portraying the character, Vernee Watson, appear in 3 episodes, each appearance is very very minor, and not very memorable. 3 or 4 lines at best. In fact, the name "Althea" is not really used on the show, only in the credits. This is why I believe it is best to keep that character in the minor characters section. However whatever (talk) 18:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Red links of actors

One editor took it upon himself to remove all red links from the article. In one particular case, (Brian Thomas Smith), the editor claims that the subject "has already had two articles deleted". What this editor fails to mention is that those articles were deleted 4 and 5 years ago, and the notability status could have changed since then. In removing the red links, the editor cites WP:REDLINK as his/her justification, but reading that policy seems to me a misapplication of the policy. Is there anybody else who supports removing the red links? However whatever (talk) 15:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Red link says "Do not create red links to articles that will never be created". The links that were removed were from non-notable individuals and the likelihood of those articles ever being created is so low as to be effectively never. This is certainly the case with Brian Thomas Smith. While the articles may have been deleted a long time ago, the simple fact is that he's not notable enough to have had an article created since then. One of the concerns expressed by WP:REDLINK is that "a red link to a non-notable person can end up being a link to a different person of the same name" and that was also a possibility here as most of the links were just redlinked names. In dealing with existing redlinks WP:REDLINK says, "in general, a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article". While any link could plausibly sustain an article, we have to be practical. The likelihood of any of those articles being created is exceptionally low and the links should never have been created. I'd suggest that you read the end of the first paragraph in WP:REDLINK, which states "editors are encouraged to write the article first". If you want these links restored you should write articles for each actor first, but if you can't establish their notability then the articles should not be created and the redlinks stay out. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: The links that were removed were from non-notable individuals and the likelihood of those articles ever being created is so low as to be effectively never. I strongly disagree with that premise. In my opinion, any actor who has appeared in a major production is likely to have an article, and therefore it is legitimate to give that person a red link. Heck, the actress playing Althea, Vernee Watson, has an article. However whatever (talk) 19:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that your opinion isn't supported by history. There are plenty of actors who have appeared in a "major production" who simply don't meet the notability requirements because their involvement in other productions has been limited or non-existent. Vernee Watson has an extensive bio, the actors whose redlinks were removed don't. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The Agreement Dissection

IMDB has an error with regard to the above titled episode [5]. Jeff Blum was not credited in this episode. I also do not remember any scenes with a waiter.

Apropos not being credited. There was an old Korean man in the scene where Penny, Amy, Bernadette, and Sheldon danced. The old man first asks Bernadette to dance, but she points out that she can't because she is engaged. He then asks Penny, and she agrees. He is later referenced by Amy who says that she found a "Korean man's business card" in her cleavage. I'm a little surprised that he was not credited, as he had a bigger role than the taxi driver (Arnold Chun) and the dispatcher (Tom Yi). However whatever (talk) 13:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Recurring vs. minor characters

There are several characters listed in the recurring characters section that have had very little exposure in the show. Specifically, I'm thinking of Stephanie Barnett (Sara Rue) who appeared in only 3 episodes, Mary Cooper (Laurie Metcalf) who appeared in only 3 episodes, and Beverly Hofstadter (Christine Baranski) who appeared in only 2 episodes. My proposal is to differentiate characters who are "recurring" from those who are "minor" by the number of appearances, which would be set at an average of at least one episode per season. At the moment, this is 4, and by the end of the show will most likely be 7. At the moment, there are 87 , so 4 episodes amounts to just under 5%.

I believe that in order to have a "recurrent character" status, the character has to have made a "significant impact" to the show. An average of one show per season is a good low threshold.

Recognizing that characters introduced in later seasons do not have as much opportunity to make as much of an impact (requiring 7 episodes for characters introduced in the 7th season is a high threshold), I would propose for characters introduced after the 4th season to have had at least 4 appearances.

Any thoughts? However whatever (talk) 23:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

"Regular" and "Occasional" main characters

Amy Farrah Fowler and Bernadette have appeared so many times now that they have become regular characters, making the use of the "Regular" and "Occasional" headings for main characters inaccurate. For this reason I have changed the heading names to "Original" and "Additional" as these more accurately represent the characters. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Many episodes, but not every episode. For example, Melissa Rauch did not appear in The Infestation Hypothesis. However whatever (talk) 13:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

How does this make "Occasional" any less ambiguous? Both Melissa Rauch and Mayim Bialik have appeared in the vast majority of episodes that have aired since they became main characters. This is very clearly "regular" and not "occasional". Since there is a "Regular" heading and these are both regular characters, we need some way of categorising characters that is unquestionable. Since the characters currently in the "Regular" section are all original characters, renaming the sections "Original" and "Additional" seems the most logical way to do it. We shouldn't have to rely on disclaimers at the beginning of each section to compensate for ambiguous headings. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

"Occasional" means on the occasion that they appear. How is that ambiguous? However whatever (talk) 22:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you check a dictionary. Occasional means "occurring or appearing irregularly from time to time". It doesn't apply to characters who appear regularly. (Obviously) --AussieLegend (talk) 02:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The dictionary definition you quoted sounds consistent with what we have. Rauch's, Biyalik's, and Gilbert's appearances are not regular. Sometimes they appear, sometimes they don't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by However whatever (talk • contribs) 05:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't believe you're arguing that their appearances aren't regular. They've both appeared in almost all of the episodes that have aired since they became main characters. That's the very essence of regular. Being regular doesn't mean appearing in every episode. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess we have hit an impasse, because I believe regular means every episode, and occasional means NOT every episode. The creators of The Big Bang Theory have clearly demonstrated that they treat Johnny, Jim, Kaley, Simon, and Kunal differently from Mayim, Melissa, and Sarah in that

a) the former are written into EVERY episode, the latter are NOT.

b) when the former have to be written out of an episode due to injury, they still get credited, whereas the latter do not get credited in episodes that they not appear. It is fairly clear.

However whatever (talk) 01:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Regular does not mean always. "I regularly fill my car's petrol tank on Wednesday" does not mean "I always fill my car's petrol tank on Wednesday". Regular characters do not have to appear in every episode to be regular characters. It's a simple dictionary meaning. If you have a problem with that, discuss it at WT:TV. However, be warned that the CBS press releases refer to Rauch and Bialik as regular characters.[6][7][8][9][10] We have to do the same. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:56, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Remove subheading

FYI, I've pulled the sub-categories. By convention, we don't separate main cast in this manner. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Where is that convention written? However whatever (talk) 22:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

MOS:TV#Cast information says that "main" cast status is determined by the series producers, not by popularity or screen time. It doesn't matter how much air-time a character gets, they're as much a main cast member as any other main cast. The logical extension of this is that we don't split them up into groups. MOS:TV also says that we treat fiction in the present. If you're watching an episode in which Rauch and Bialik appear, they're not "occasional" or even "additional" main cast in that episode. They're just main cast, so that's how we list them. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the conflict with the quoted convention. All we are doing is saying some of the "main" cast appear on a regular basis, while others do not appear on a regular basis. However whatever (talk) 05:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

All of the main cast listed, with the exception of Sara Gilbert, are regularly appearing. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Sheldon Cooper

Interested editors are invited to participate in a discussion at Talk:Sheldon Cooper. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Amy Farrah Fowler

A couple of editors are suggesting that Amy won't be recurring. Bialik has, in fact, announced that she signed a new contract on Sept. 24th, and we'll be seeing a lot more of her on The Big Bang Theory. Dosbears (talk) 03:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Source please. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 21:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Nothing really citable, Bialik's mentioned on her facebook page that BBT is basically her day job now, after the contract she signed, and that she isn't auditioning for anything else. Amy's in the episode that is filming next week. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dosbears (talk • contribs) 02:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Is Amy's name Amy Fowler or Amy Farrah-Fowler? Billzilla (talk) 06:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Anyone? Billzilla (talk) 14:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

REALLY minor characters

I have removed the names of really minor characters who appear in one scene with only one or two lines, such as waitresses or cab drivers. Feel free to discuss. Czolgolz (talk) 05:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this. The inclusion of such minor characters is bordering on fancruft. This is an encyclopaedia, not a fan site. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. It is not up to Wikipedians to arbitrarily determine notability. If this is a comprehensive article about all the characters that appeared, then any character that got credited should be listed. It's up to the creators of the show to determine notability, and all actors who got credited are notable. However whatever (talk) 15:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

If you want to talk about notability, application of Wikipedia:Notability would clearly show that none of these characters are notable. The creators of the show don't determine notability at all, they determine who constitutes a main character, as per MOS:TV#Cast information, which says "remember to follow the notability guidelines when creating a cast list: Not every fictional character ever created deserves to be listed". Cast lists should be limited to main and recurring characters. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

By arbitrarily selecting a criteria that only characters whose name appeared on the show get listed then Athena would have to be deleted because even though she appeared 4 times, all 4 times were small appearances in which her name was not used. I think it's best to list all characters that got credited, as they are considered members of the cast. However whatever (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I said, "Cast lists should be limited to main and recurring characters". Since Althea is a recurring character, she wouldn't be deleted. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The Girlfriends

Since both Bernadette and Amy have been on the show fairly regularly for two years, they really need their own articles. Amy's summary is getting long and needs the organization of her own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardy1956 (talk • contribs) 11:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I totally agree with this. Both characters have been on the show for a while now, surely they both, I guess, deserve there own character pages?

- JMJ

Just wondering, why do these characters not have separate Wikipedia pages?

I would of thought by now, them both being in The Big Bang Theory for quite a while now; They would have there own character pages?

- JMJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.141.148 (talk) 17:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not simply a case of creating a separate article. Real-world notability has to be established and the only references in the sections currently are references to episodes. If anything, there is a case for creating Main characters of The Big Bang Theory and merging all the main character articles into that, as the articles are mainly filled with fancruft referenced to primary sources with little or no real-world discussion. Leslie Winkle was redirected here for that very reason.[11] --AussieLegend (talk) 01:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

What's the difference...

between Cameo appearances and Notable guest stars appearing as themselves ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.91.19 (talk) 10:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Does this really need to be cited?

"When Penny or Bernadette is around, Raj usually whispers what he wants to say to Howard or Leonard, who then repeats or responds to what Raj says out loud.[episode needed]" Since it happens in pretty much every episode i dont think it needs to be specified which. Betelgeuse (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Characters named under a single scene

Hi "Mr. Rostenkowski (Casey Sander): Bernadette's father" is currently under the characters who only appear in a single scene but he was in two scenes. One when Howard talks to him about how he is going into space before the wedding and again at the wedding on the roof. Shouldn't he be put else where? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.111.195.95 (talk) 06:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see "Mrs. Gunderson" (Lauri Johnson) listed for episode S03E23 "The Lunar Excitation", when she says, "Good morning, Leonard. Or should I say, yeehaa." Hunpecked (talk) 01:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Such silly tags!

This article has been tagged with some of the silliest criticisms I've ever seen in many years with Wiki. It's perfectly serviceable and informative as it is. As for too much detail: nonsense. People who come looking for this sort of thing are looking for just this sort of thing. Original research??? Don't the editors have anything better to do on Wiki? NaySay (talk) 00:06, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Joshua Malina and Regina King

Why is there no mention of Joshua Malina who played President Siebert in at least 4 episodes, and Regina King who played Human Resources Director Janine Davis in at least 2 episodes, in the Recurring Characters Section of this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.172.172.40 (talk) 04:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Minor point

Missy Cooper is obviously Sheldon's dissimilar twin, so why does he say he should have 're-absorbed' her during their shared time in the womb. As dissimilar twins they came from two separate eggs, not one common egg. 62.151.204.68 (talk) 08:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Fiction doesn't have to follow real world rules. Howard never actually went into space, or crashed the Mars rover either. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure the original commenter's presumption is correct. While apparently extremely rare, human chimeras are not unknown. A chimera can result from the absorption of one foetus by its fraternal twin in utero. The possible remaining problem with Sheldon's statement is the use of the word "re-absorption." Only a mother can RE-absorb a foetus. I'm guessing a twin can be said to absorb a twin, but not re-absorb a twin. Pugetbill (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Main Characters

I updated the list of main characters. In terms of "main characters", why are we including Leslie Winkle and Stuart Bloom as main characters? Leslie was only in 8 episodes, and was never really one of the primary characters (even in Seasons 1 and 2). I think she should be in the recurring character category with individuals like Stephanie Bartlett and Zack Johnson who dated main characters in a few episodes. Additionally, most other TV show articles do not break up main characters into two section - original and later-added. This article should have one section for the 7 main characters. DavidinNJ (talk) 16:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Please read the FAQ (it's the banner heading above that says Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)) as the issue has been discussed at length. 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. This has been discussed at length. Previous discussions may be found at:

• Talk:The Big Bang Theory#Starring roles
• Talk:The Big Bang Theory/Archive 3#Sara Gilbert as Leslie Winkle (again!)
• Talk:The Big Bang Theory/Archive 1#Sara Gilbert as Leslie Winkle
• Talk:List of The Big Bang Theory characters/Archive 1#Leslie Winkle
• Talk:List of The Big Bang Theory episodes#Leslie Winkle

I really don't see why you keep removing the sections explaining the original main cast and those that were promoted to starring status. They're there to clear up confusion. They weren't added by me but I, and other editors who have been watching the article for a long time agree they should be there. The way in which recurring cast have been promoted to main cast, and the way that they've been credited has lead to several "heated discussions" and the explanatory notes are there to avoid confusion that has been seen too often in the past. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

AussieLegend, We can keep Leslie in the main character section, but there is no reason why the main character section should be splt into two sections. That is not Wikipedia policy, and most other TV articles do not use that format. While I understand that there may have been previous disputes that resulted in the current verbiage, WP:BOLD and WP:DRNC permit modification of an article regardless of past compromises. DavidinNJ (talk) 16:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

As I've explained above, there have been some heated discussions about these characters long before you edited the article and that was the best way to handle it. People have come along, just as you did, and moved Leslie Winkle into the recurring character section because the notes weren't there, which is why the notes were added, and there has been quite a bit of discussion about it, as you should see from the number of discussions. Everything that has been done in the article until now has been done for a reason. The section is still main cast, it's just split into two sections to identify characters who have been promoted since the series began and there is nothing wrong with that. I resent the WP:DRNC implication. That certainly is NOT the case or what happened. Please assume good faith. While modification of an article is permitted, other editors have the right to revert those modifications especially when the edits don't seem constructive. Based on the past history of this article, many of the changes that you made weren't. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

AussieLegend, I reversed your language for the recurring character section. To be listed as a recurring character requires some degree of significance in more than one episode. A person with a bit role in two episodes is still a minor character. Althea, Jeanine Davis, Captain Sweatpants, President Siebert, and Mr. Rostenkowski are in more than one episode, but they are listed in the minor character section. DavidinNJ (talk) 17:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Being in more than one episode doesn't necessarily mean the individual has a significant role. Althea and Capatain Sweatpants have never had significant roles, they've just been in more than one episode, which is why they are listed as they are. Althea is just a repeat, background character who keeps appearing in different situations from time to time. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

AussieLegend, You define 'recurring character' as "these characters appear in several episodes." My proposed definition is that "these characters have a significant role in multiple episodes." Based on your definition, Althea, Jeanine Davis, Captain Sweatpants, President Siebert, and Mr. Rostenkowski should be recurring characters as these appear in multiple episodes. However, you have them in the minor character section. DavidinNJ (talk) 18:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The two points that you are missing are (1) the characters did not have significant roles, so your claim is factually incorrect, and (2) recurring and minor characters are not mutually exclusive. Althea is a nurse who has generally appeared in a single scene, usually in different circumstances (in the pilot she was at a sperm bank, in a later episode she was in a hospital) but in more than one episode. Her role is minor (she doesn't even get credited) but she is recurring. She is a recurring minor character. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Dr prefix in headings

The "Dr" title is only included in the headings for some characters who have this title, to wit:

• Leonard Hofstadter
• Sheldon Cooper
• Rajesh Koothrappali
• Leslie Winkle
• Bernadette (Dr. Bernadette Maryann Rostenkowski-Wolowitz)
• Amy Farrah Fowler

• Dr. Barry Kripke
• Dr. Beverly Hofstadter
• Dr. Eric Gablehauser
• Dr. and Mrs. Koothrappali
• Dr. Stephanie Barnett

Why this inconsistency? Is there a magic age after which one's "Dr" title is acknowledged in a heading? Or is such recognition forfeited for more central characters? —sroc 💬 14:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Bernadette was originally a waitress at the Cheesecake Factory but part of the character's development was that she gained her "Dr.", while her husband is "only" an engineer and doesn't have one. This has been an ongoing joke of sorts during the series' run, so it's noteworthy. Dr. Eric Gablehauser is referred to as such during the series, generally just as "Dr. Gablehauser" so it seems more appropriate to refer to him as "Dr." than "Eric". Similarly, "Dr. and Mrs. Koothrappali" are referred to as such during the series. I don't think their actual names have ever been mentioned. These are the only cases where "Dr." should be used as far as I can see, but changing the others will require use of {{anchor}} to avoid breaking incoming links. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Dr. Mayim Bialik

This article refers to "Dr. Amy Farrah Fowler (Dr. Mayim Bialik)..." A footnote provides a source for the "Dr." preceding the character name but not the actor. The actor's article, Mayim Bialik, does not credit her with this title, although it does claim that she "completed her PhD in 2007" (citing her own website, but also followed by other sources regarding her dissertation). AFAIK, she is not credited as "Dr. Mayim Bialik", at least not in her capacity as an actor. Why is there such inconsistency between this reference and her article? —sroc 💬 14:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:HONORIFIC says "In general, styles and honorifics should not be included in front of the name, but may be discussed in the article", which is why it's not in front of her name in the BLP. In this article though, attention is drawn to the fact that both the character and the actor have a Ph.D in the same science, so use of "Dr." here seems appropriate, since it is discussed. Bialik was mentioned in an early episode, as mentioned at the end of her section here, drawing attention to her Ph.D, so it's a notable part of the character, providing real-world discussion. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

For "Dr", refer to WP:CREDENTIAL, not WP:HONORIFIC.

Academic and professional titles (such as "Doctor" or "Professor") should not be used before (or after) the name in the initial sentence or in other uses of the person's name. Verifiable facts about how the person attained such titles should be included in the article text instead.

It is enough to refer to Bialik's Ph.D in the text; we should not refer to her as Dr. Bialik. —sroc 💬 23:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

It's important to remember that this is not a biography for Mayim Bialik, it's a description of a fictional character portrayed by her, so we shouldn't spend too much time in this article explaining "how the person attained such titles ... in the article text." The use of "Dr." here reduces the need to go into unnecessary detail that doesn't belong here. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

As it is, the article contradicts WP:CREDENTIAL which requires that the title not be used; moreover, it is inconsistent with how Bialik's name is referred to at Mayim Bialik and with how she is credited in her capacity as an actor. The "Dr." must be removed. If it is relevant to note her Ph.D in the text, then do so; if not, then leave it out; but this decision does not warrant contravening the guidelines just because it's a fun tidbit. —sroc 💬 23:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Removed a lot of unimportant characters

I removed all the characters who appeared in very minor roles in one episode. Do we really need a two sentence description of a cab driver, barrista, or 'fat woman' who has no lines? Czolgolz (talk) 20:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Bernadette and Amy articles

I really think these two deserve there own wiki articles, and not just whats on the characters page, they are regulars for seasons now. I think its time we made one, and even update the photo at the top with any photo with all 7 cast members. Buffyfan123 (talk) 14:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. -- BlueResistance (talk) 15:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed.   → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 14:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I think they (and Stuart) should also be placed more prominently in this article than Leslie Winkle, who hasn't appeared for several seasons (and was never really a main character - 8 episodes is far less than even Stuart). Bilorv (talk) 18:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

According to MOS:TV#Cast information (see the FAQ link above) Leslie Winkle was most definitely a main character. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Sara Gilbert (Leslie) was included in the main credits. Kevin Sussman (Stuart) has not.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 04:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Applying REDNOT

I was looking at this edit, and I'm not quite convinced that WP:REDNOT applies. REDNOT says "Do not create red links to articles that are not likely to be created". The problem that I see is that the actors appearing on TBBT do not fit the category of "articles that are not likely to be created". I would say that no name actors appearing on TBBT are likely to get noticed and may certainly become notable enough to have Wikipedia articles. They are certainly more likely to have articles created than the example given at the top of the page like this one. Furthermore, the nutshell states "Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on that subject." Something that is certainly not clear as to at what point in their career will the actors' notability cross the threshold for a Wikipedia article. Ricardo Santiago (talk) 06:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

You need to read beyond the first sentence. Paragraph 4 says "Red links to personal names should be avoided" and explains "Frequently a red-linked name has been placed in an article, and subsequently a different editor has created an article about an entirely different person with the same or a similar name. Aside from the basic misidentification this causes, red-linking has led to people being incorrectly identified on Wikipedia as accused or convicted criminals, sex workers, or being involved in other forms of conduct that might be considered harmful to the subject's reputation. The risk of misidentification is especially concerning when dealing with living people." Because it's "especially concerning" we err on the side of caution and don't redlink personal names. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Minor Error

In the section on recurring character Lucy, there is a slight inconsistency, which I have been unable to find is an intentional mistake copied from the related episodes or a copy-error. ...and breaks up with Raj in a text message at the end of the episode and ...to apologize to Raj for breaking up with him via email contradict one another. I've seen both episodes but am unable to recall if this is from the episode or from translation onto the wiki. --KizC (talk) 23:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)