Talk:List of The Big Bang Theory and Young Sheldon characters/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

People who can control Sheldon

Yesterday, FleetCommand removed a portion of content from the article with the edit summary, "Deleted factually inaccurate sentence. Feel free to prove me wrong if you can. But here is hint if you are actually looking into it: Sheldon's mother is the only one who can control Sheldon."[1] I cited the actual episode that appears to have prompted this addition,[2] but FleetCommand reverted, this time claiming "Reverted WP:SYNTH. The citation gives one instance. It does not show several instance nor excludes others".[3] FleetCommand sbsequently started a discussion on his talk page,[4] but since article content is involved, it should really be discussed on the article's talk page, so I'm moving the discussion here. For the record, I've restored the edit and changed the text to address FleetCommand's latest concerns.[5] The discussion copied from FleetCommand's talk page follows:

@AussieLegend and Codename Lisa: Alright. I'll start by discussing the contribution, okay? Article has this unreferenced sentence: "Most notably, she is one of the only characters in the series who can control Sheldon, mostly because of her knowledge in dealing with stubborn children." I believe this sentence is outright wrong and must be removed. AussieLegend contests this by adding a source that shows one instance in which "she" (Bernadette) ordered Sheldon and he obeyed. I contend that this type of source is WP:SYNTH because it does not bar out the possibility that others may have done the same or the possibility that Bernadette have attempted doing so on other occasions and failed. Indeed, Sheldon's mother has trice directly interfered in Sheldon's life and has successfully ordered him to do something. (In addition, once in the show, the Department of Homeland Security called Sheldon's mother and Sheldon implies that this dissuaded him from buying enriched Uranium.) Penny has twice successfully made Sheldon do something. Leonard has once succeeded in season 7. What do you think? Fleet Command (talk) 05:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you re-read WP:SYNTH because there is no synth involved. Episodes are reliable sources for content within episodes and the citation used directly referenced the episode in which Bernadette showed she was able to control Sheldon because of "her knowledge in dealing with stubborn children". I even included the relevant quotation. That the source "does not bar out the possibility that others may have done the same or the possibility that Bernadette have attempted doing so on other occasions and failed" is not even close to WP:SYNTH. That it "does not show several instance nor excludes others" is also not SYNTH and it's not even relevant. The citation only needs to support the claim being made and it does show that she has been able to control Sheldon, which is what the claim said. We can't deal with what we haven't seen in other episodes. That itself is WP:OR. The claim doesn't say that others cannot control Sheldon, it says that she is one who can and that has been demonstrated. That Sheldon's mother can control Sheldon does not preclude the possibility that others an ontrol him. Your original reason for removing the claim included "here is hint if you are actually looking into it: Sheldon's mother is the only one who can control Sheldon" in the edit summary.[6] Clearly, that isn't correct. Your claim now that the citation "does not bar out the possibility that others may have done the same" is inconsistent with that. If others an control Sheldon then "Sheldon's mother is the only one who can control Sheldon" is wrong. We've seen very few instances where Sheldon can be controlled and this was one of them, so saying it's notable and that Bernadette is one of only a few people who can control him is, based on what we have seen and what we have sources for, is very correct. Even assuming that Sheldon's mother, Penny and Leonard have also been able to control him, although we've seen numerous times where Penny and Leonard have tried but been unable to control him (especially Leonard), that's still only a few people, so the claim that was made is still valid and the citation still supports the claim. However, a minor rewrite of the section you're having issues with should address your current conerns. Wholesale deletion is ompletely unnecessary. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

So much text... Anyway, your source gives backup for the one time Bernadette managed to control Sheldon. It does not give backup for Bernadette being able to do so "whenever necessary", nor does it backup that she is the only one being able to control Sheldon. Doing it once isn't the same as always able to do so. Being able to do a somersault flawlessly once doesn't mean you can always do it flawlessly and at command. -Rinellie (talk) 13:43, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

That's a fair enough evaluation and your edit seems reasonable. I would point out that the claim never said she could do it every time, just that she could control Sheldon.[7] The recent edits were only made to address FleetCommand's concerns. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks good here but I have to ask if there are sources for anyone else being able to do what Bernadette did? --49.180.163.35 (talk) 14:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi guys. I'd say that restoring this sentence in the first place was inappropriate, even with a source. "She is one of the only characters" is a weasel word fiasco. It does not bar out the meaning of everyone can do it, including the "characters", and "she" is one of them; yet, it gives the impression that she is the only one! FC, AL and Rinellie have all treated the "she is the only one" point of view, meaning that the weasel word trap was skillfully baited. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

No, "one of the only" is far from "is the only". --AussieLegend (✉) 12:15, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

And "most notably" is a WP:PEACOCK. It is not notable at all that she once controlled Sheldon. Everyone can; and everyone has done, including Miss Riley's chicken. (An ordinary chicken that drove him up a tree in fear.) One of the comic premises of the show is that Sheldon is half-robot half-infant. There are two ways of controlling him: Bullying him or persuading him with the right words. Now, if people did any of this, the show would be a documentary about bullying or subversion. It is a comedy because people consistently try to treat him like an actual adult (despite having discovered times and again that the resemblance is just superficial).

By the way, do you have any clue as to why AussieLegend is replying himself? (See his post below). Fleet Command (talk) 15:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

It should be obvious that I was replying to Codename Lisa and simply stuffed up the indenting. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I run a Whois on this IP address and guess what I found? It is exactly from the same region that AussieLegend's user page says he lives in. The service provider is located in New South Wales. Fleet Command (talk) 16:25, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The IP's address geolocates to Chippendale which is most definitely NOT my region, nor is Optus my ISP. It's about 170km from here by road. Are you suggesting I posted here, then somehow drove 170km, signed up with Optus (which is not my ISP!) and posted, all in only 16 minutes? If you're going to suggest sockpuppetry, there are other edits we can examine. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Back to the disussion, I've reverted FleetCommand's latest reversion. I disagree with FleetCommand's edit as does the IP. I won't speak for Rinellie but he/she has provided some constructive input and edited accordingly. There's also another editor actively editing all over the page and, while he hasn't seen fit to comment here, he hasn't seen the need to remove the content. We should continue to discuss this with the aim of improving the article. Perhaps, per WP:STATUSQUO we should restore the status quo if FleetCommand is not happy with the changes that have been made. That would be this version of the text, noting that Andrewbarker1995 has made numerous unrelated edits that should not be reverted. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:53, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion FleetCommand's latest edit made it worse than it was. (Removing 1 of 2 sentences that were linked.) Anyway, if what FleetCommand writes is true, then it isn't too noteable she did it, but it might be worth it as a fun-fact kind of mention if the sentence gets reworded. Is she one of many, or one of a few? How many other people are shown as able to do it? I haven't watched any old episodes of the show in months so I can't remember who did what and when. Also, all the IP said was that the revision at the time looked ok and asked a question... Are you maybe assuming a bit much?

Unrelated to this, I can understand people that won't touch long discussions with a 10-foot pole. Especially when they get bombarded with WP-policy links. -Rinellie (talk) 20:25, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

@Rinellie: I must commend you on your observations, though I feel I am obliged to say that the issue of due weigh (mislabeled as notability here) is an ever-present concern in every discussion that cannot be simply dismissed. These two editors (both highly distinguished old timers) are evidently past that point. Now, we can just remove the word "most notably" alone to service the peacock term issue (instead of the whole sentence). But please consider this: I perfectly understand if one said "Bernadette once climbed mount Everest alone" because it is a feat of supreme magnitude for any human-being. But what about controlling this Sheldon person? Was it very hard? (I assume it is not very hard to force a person as cowardly as FC describes into submission; just show him an ordinary chicken.) Or was it very significant insofar as it impacted the course of story? What else makes it stand out from that of other people controlling Sheldon?

Maybe I must try to get my hands on that certain episode. TV.com seems to let me watch it for free. But again, since I don't watch TBBT, I might not understand at all. (Or is it a bad thing? After all, NPOV needs distinction between a fan POV.)

@FleetCommand and AussieLegend: Both of you two are engaged in edit warring. I'd like to emphasize that AL's questionable past conduct as well generally stronger argument in favor of FC's position is no excuse for FC engaging in edit warring. Please take the issue to WP:DRN.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 01:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Getting Sheldon to do anything is virtually impossible so, when somebody actually does, it's a big deal. As for your other comments, I've addressed these on your talk page. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

1. Let's assume you are right. The burden of elucidating this and providing source for the elucidation is on you. The only thing we have here is your word and it is not a WP:RS. After so much heated debate, an in-prose elucidate is mandatory, unless you decide to delete the sentence.

2. Regardless of #1, it is still all relative: Have others succeeded in doing such a thing? FC contends that it has occurred more often and more successfully in case of others. In fact, I studied several sources on TV.com and MSN as well as the TBBT wiki on Wikia. It appears Sheldon, apart from being arrogant, misguided, immature and full of psychological disorders, is a pushover. I also watched that certain episode: Bernadette just sent him to sleep. He himself was half-willing. Not an extraordinary feat.

3. Regardless of #2, it is still all relative: Again, my reading of several sources show that Bernadette is in fact far more adept in bossing her father around. This is very significant because she is very tiny and her father is a frightening ill-tempered monstrosity who carries a gun and drinks. Basically, the ability to boss The Iron Giant has far more due weight than the ability to send a half-willing pushover to sleep.

I think these hints should be enough for you guys to negotiate a compromise of some sort.

Oh, and by the way, as for your communication in my talk page, you might want to re-read this portion of my message: "...no excuse for FC engaging in edit warring."

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 14:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

There is a citation in the article that is a reliable source and this supports the claim currently in the article. It's not my word and it's verifiable. Bernadette's father is is an incredibly minor character in the series, while Sheldon is one of the main characters, so Bernadette's ability to boss her father around is trivial at best. Far more significant than "no excuse for FC engaging in edit warring" is "AL's questionable past conduct". As I indicated to you, it's hypocritical to accuse somebody of concentrating on the editor and not the edits and then do exactly that yourself. I did that on your talk page because this is not the place for it so can we please not continue this. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Refusing to get the point, aren't we? Fine. Continue to edit war and I will report you to ANI without a warning. FYI, if anybody asked, I think your stance is born out of childish stubbornness, similar to Sheldon.

No regards what so ever,

Codename Lisa (talk) 01:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

You have done nothing but attack me since you entered the discussion, first on FleetCommand's page and now here. You chose to extend your attacks to another editor who hasn't been party to this discussion, simply because he used a word that you didn't like. If you want to report somebody to ANI, please look in your own back yard. I've asked you above not to continue this line. If I have to ask again, I will take it to ANI. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:02, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

On the second thought, I'd better explain that Sheldon is not a major character and Mike is not a minor character. These are weasel words for "part of the main ensemble" and "a recurring character". But the real weasel word lies in the fact that act of bossing around Mike has much more due weight than the act of bossing around Sheldon. I don't see anyone going to Bruce Lee articles, deleting all records of his fights on the pretext that all those who fight him (and are summarily knocked out) are minor characters.

Codename Lisa (talk) 02:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

You are being pedantic. Sheldon has been in every episode including the unaired pilot. He is one of the two central characters in the series and has a significant role in every episodes. As such that makes him a major character. By comparison Bernadette's father has appeared in only 5 of the 163 aired episodes. His role in the series has, by comparison to Sheldon, been exceptionally minor. Bossing around a character who has appeared in only 5 episodes is trivial by comparison to bossing around one of the two central characters. It doesn't even bear mentioning in the article. Bossing around Howard though, who is one of the main characters, is a different story. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:02, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, implemented this more significant ability with actually a source that, if referred to, contains one instance in which Bernie failed to control Sheldon. Would you say I edit-warred, CL? Fleet Command (talk) 05:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Fleet Command, you of all the people on Earth should know that once, an editor reverted me 56 times in the same article in the same day, right under the nose of no less than six administrators and nobody (including he and I) think there was any edit warring there. Edit warring is not about forth-and-back reverting alone, but a pattern, in which you may find blanket reverting, assuming bad faith, COI, tendentious editing, personal attacks, Little Suzy argument, gaming the system, lying, sock-puppetry, meatpuppetry, canvassing "being dense", "being a dick" and lots of other bad behavior. What you don't see in an edit war is compromise, love, respect, collegial editing and lots of other good things. Your edit has research and actual due diligence behind it, shows that you are willing to traverse other avenues than just plain reverting and is an attempt to implement a compromise that already has some support in talk page. But make no mistake: You are in an edit war. Please calculate your moves carefully.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 09:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Edit warring says "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement through discussion." If somebody reverted you 56 times in one day, that's edit-warring and if it was the same editor, he/she also broke 3RR many times over. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

This is one magnificent message! This person gives himself the right to judge the action of five admin (@CL: Not six) in a case of which he knows nothing! Seriously, CL or anyone else, is it even possible to have a discussion with such a self-centered person who thinks he is the king of the world?

For the record, I am open to an actual discussion but all I see here is vilification, bullying, edits whose only purpose is hostility, ignoring and stonewalling my arguments and distorting my words. Seriously, is it even possible for me to stop and have an actual discussion if I wanted to? And you CL, you're not making things better; just be a man and take a stance. Fleet Command (talk) 06:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Given your continuing aggressive and confrontational edit summaries and edit-warring, I'm having great trouble accepting that. To date your contribution to the discussion here has been a single paragraph,[8] followed by an accusation of sockpuppetry, then a statement to odename Lisa.[9] There has been plenty of opportunity to discuss but instead you've just attacked me in edit summaries. If you're really willing to discuss then we can do that. It's the reason that I opened the discussion here. I do agree with you that Codename Lisa is not making things better, so at least we see eye to eye on one point. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Because Codename Lisa has chosen to make threats,[10] I'm not going to fix recent problems introduced by FleetCommand, but simply document them.

With this edit, FleetCommand removed content that had been edited by other editors who had reached a tentative compromise on content. The original text was:

She is of Polish origin and Catholic upbringing, and is frequently seen wearing a cross necklace. Most notably, she was once able to control Sheldon.^[20] She put this down to being able to control stubborn children.^[20]

Fleetcommand's edit turned this into:

She is of Polish origin and Catholic upbringing, and is frequently seen wearing a cross necklace. She put this down to being able to control stubborn children.^[20]

As well as deleting the reference, which AnomieBOT had to fix,[11] his edit incorrectly attached "She put this down to being able to control stubborn children" to "is frequently seen wearing a cross necklace" when it was actually attached to the content that FleetCommand had deleted. This was noted in a subsequent post by Rinellie who said "In my opinion FleetCommand's latest edit made it worse than it was. (Removing 1 of 2 sentences that were linked.)"[12] Today's edit, which was supposed to be "Removed "most notably" per WP:PEA", has made virtually the same change as previously, although at least this time he fixed the reference. However the text still says:

She is of Polish origin and Catholic upbringing, and is frequently seen wearing a cross necklace She put this down to being able to control stubborn children.^[20]

This has confused at least one editor, who added tags to the content.[13] I don't really have an issue with FleetCommand removing "most notably" but there is no reason to delete "she was once able to control Sheldon" and repeatedly inserting the same error is inexcusable. I've already given FleetCommand a warning about edit-warring and, sine he's chosen to make effectively the same edit, I don't see why I shouldn't report this at WP:AN3. --AussieLegend (✉)

Wow! So much text for saying "you forgot to remove the second sentence". (And he called me pedantic!) On a related note, in this same post, you accused me of making threats and revealed that yourself did such a thing to both FC and I. Yes, if you take it to WP:AN3, you risk people seeing right through you.

Now, I don't know the reason as to why you and FC haven't started proper DR action yet, but know that I am not going to do it for you. I haven't made a single edit in this article and I am not planning to make one either.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 01:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I wasn't saying "you forgot to remove the second sentence". I was saying that FleetCommand was continuing to edit-war. Normally, I wouldn't have seen the need to document that in such detail but your threat necessitated it. Sine you refuse to cease the attacks and stay on track as I've requested, I don't think DRN will be helpful at this point. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Note on allegation of verification failure: Checked the source; verification succeeds at 3:54. (Also at 16:47, she does quite a good bit of scolding.) In case the {{failed verification}} also applies to the previous source as well, that's is evidently false. I checked the dictionary on overrule. It means "disallow the arguments of (a person)" which is exactly what Bernadette does. And in any case, bad choice of word doesn't mean warrant {{failed verification}}. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Bernadette did not overrule her father. The father walks in with two six packs of beer and the subsequent conversation goes:
Bernadette: Oh, you brought beer for everybody
Father: (hesitates) uh, okay. Yeah, it's for everybody.
Nowhere in that did Bernadette "disallow the arguments" of her father, because he made no arguments for her to disallow. She simply assumed that the beer was for everybody and he went along with it. Note that {{failed verification}} also applies to the preceding reference. Bernadette did not overrule her father in that episode either. When he started to express his reluctance to say that he loved and cherished Howard, she warned him. That's all, and it's not overruling any one. If Bernadette had said "daddy loves you and cherishes you too", or something along those lines, that would have been overruling, but that never happened. FleetCommand has now added yet another unverified claim to the article, that Bernadette "has complete influence over both her father and her husband".[14] This was formally "has significant influence", which was tagged as weasel words in this edit by an IP. It's not a supportable claim at all. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

And you are arguing what? He clearly doesn't dream of disputing his four-feet-tall daughter while he does not hesitate to scare off Leonard. Find a better word if you wish; verification doesn't fail.

Concerned, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Please look at the instructions for {{failed verification}}:

Use this tag only if:

1. an inline citation to a source is given,
2. you have checked the source,
3. the source does not support what is contained in the article, and
4. despite the source not supporting the article, the source still contains useful information on the topic.

1. an inline citation was given
2. I checked the source
3. The source does not support the claim that Bernadette overruled her father (using the definition that you provided)
4. The source still contains useful information on the topic.

Per the instructions, use of {{failed verification}} is entirely appropriate given the circumstances. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

It has now been a week since the last comments were made in this discussion. No credible explanation has been forthcoming that explains how the changes in this edit are supported by the sources that have been presented. The sources do not support a claim that Bernadette has "complete" influence over Howard and her father, only that she has some influence over them, something that is not notable because it os generally the case in any relationship. Nor do the sources demonstrate that Bernadette "overrules" her father, as has been explained above. At best these claims constitute WP:SYNTH and so need correction. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Since there has been no further discussion in the 3 days since my last post, and apparently no more opposition to doing so, I have removed the WP:SYNTH from the article. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

My what a lengthy debate. I'm not going to read all of it, i don't expect anyone ever to care enough to do that. That was a dangerously absolute statement (therefor coming across unkind). The statement that Sheldon's mother is the only one who can control him is too absolute as well imho. At least as it's currently phrased in the section about her. The world is full of professionals who are trained to deal with people with traits of ocd and Asperger's. Also, in s01e15, the pork chop theory, his sister successfully controls him, albeit in a forceful way. In the next episode penny successfully gets him to celebrate a birthday party. Controlling someone is an ambivalent term anyway. Everyone is constantly influenced by their surroundings, even Sheldon. How about something along the lines of "Sheldon's mother is one of the few people shown to be able to tell him what he should or shouldn't do."PizzaMan (♨♨) 00:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

@PizzaMan: I agree completely. Fleet Command (talk) 03:27, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to seem rude, but did either of you check the article before posting? Shortly after PizzaMan's removal of "ever",[15] I changed the text citing this discussion.[16] What originally said "She is a loving mother and the only one who has ever been able to control Sheldon" to Penny" now reads "She is a loving mother and has been able to control Sheldon". It no longer says that "Sheldon's mother is the only one who can control him".[17] --AussieLegend (✉) 08:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Mix-up with two and a half men?

In the description for Leonard's mother Beverly Hofstadter the sentence "In one episode she also relates to Leonard that his vague memory of living with an ape and learning sign language was part of an experiment she conducted during Leonard's early years. Beverly reunites Leonard with his long-lost ape friend after Leonard's insistence that she do so" is used. I do not recall any of this from the big bang theory, but it is the plot for season 9; episode 12 of two and a half men ("One False Move, Zimbabwe!"), between Walden and his mother. Can someone please check and change accordingly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:FD51:AA60:A874:E3DA:F907:1015 (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I also do not remember that in a conversation, and think it would've stuck out, so I removed it. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 23:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Missing Last Names: Penny and Bernadette

Good evening. Just want to bring to someone's attention that listing Penny and Bernadette without their last name in their "header" is really bad form. In manner circles it would be considered sexist. Is there a way to correct that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:A:1A00:4D6C:A9BA:E12E:7966:5E48 (talk) 20:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Penny's surname has never been revealed, so cannot be added. Bernadette's name has a comment by it saying "<!-- Please leave the heading of this section as "Bernadette", the name she is commonly known as, and credited in episodes and press releases. -->". So, whilst I agree that Bernadette's name should be changed, there seems to have been a consensus not to do it. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that Bernadette's full name should be used as a subheader, consistent with other character's names. While originally she was simply listed in the credits as "Bernadette", that was when she was just a minor character. Since being elevated to main character status, her full name has become known and used on the show. Also, I see no evidence of a "consensus" to leave it as is. Perhaps there should be some discussion before accepting the hidden note.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 04:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and we cater for the average reader, not fans. The average reader is not necessarily aware of intricate detail, like last names, unless they're commonly used, so we generally list characters by their commonly credited name. Since Bernadette's last name is rarely used, and press releases list her simply as "Bernadette",[18] that's what we use here. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

There is not a single last name in that press release so should we remove the others then? --Jnorton7558 (talk) 04:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not just that press release. I had considered removing the last names of the others but the last names of the original main characters are mentioned quite often and they have articles under their full names, so I decided not to. Amy is often referred to as Amy Farrah Fowler and has been since her first episode so that seems reasonable. By contrast, Bernadette's last name wasn't mentioned until some considerable time after she first appeared. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Still, I disagree. If we were not using the last name at all, your argument would make sense. But the fact that the name is included in the text means that we know it, therefore we should be using it. And as for catering to the average reader, to me that suggests including more information than a fan would know, not less. Finally, a press release from CBS or the producers is what I would consider a primary source. And here on Wikipedia, we are supposed to use secondary sources, not primary sources.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 13:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

We're certainly supposed to provide information, but there is a point at which we start providing that. The average reader is not going to know the last names unless they're regularly used on the show. The average reader will come here having heard "Bernadette" and will be looking for that, not "Bernadette Rostenkowski". It's fine to introduce the last name in the prose, but in the heading we use the common name to least surprise the reader, and that is simply "Bernadette". We let the reader find the information easily and then hit them with her last name. As for primary sources, it's entirely acceptable to use primary sources. WP:PRIMARY says, Unless restricted by another policy, reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. ... A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The average reader is not going to be confused if the come here looking for "Bernadette" and find the heading saying "Bernadette Rostenkowski" or even "Bernadette Rostenkowski-Wolowitz". I watch the show every week and don't ever remember knowing that Stuart's last name is Bloom yet its not confusing that that section is "Stuart Bloom". --Jnorton7558 (talk) 15:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The difference is that you're a Wikipedia editor and obviously a fan of the series, not the average reader or viewer. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry I just don't see your argument that a viewer who has seen the show once, or just sees "Bernadette" in something, and comes here looking for more information will get confused when the section has a last name with it. If sources used the nickname "Bernie" for her then your argument would make sense but not with just adding a last name to someone's first name. And your argument that I'm a "Wikipedia editor and obviously a fan of the series" while true does not change what I said about Stuart where I don't ever remember his last name yet have no issue here with it being listed. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 16:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybe this is something you'd like to take up at WT:TV, where others may be able to explain it differently. As a start, there was this discussion just last year. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Bernadette isn't a nickname though so that discussion isn't really comparable. The headings already don't follow that conversation with using "Rajesh Koothrappali" instead of just "Raj Koothrappali". --Jnorton7558 (talk) 17:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

See the comment by Bignole about "Philip 'Phil; Coulson, versus Phil Coulson", which seems on point. The common name in the series is "Raj", not "Rajesh", although the press releases call him "Koothrappali". You've got to use some commonsense when naming characters. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:MOSTV, you treat character sections like mini articles. In such a case, the header acts in the same way as an article title. So, in this case you would follow COMMONNAME in the section header status. She is commonly known as simply "Bernadette". This is a regular problem with SOAP articles, as many of the characters marry and remarry all the time. The article title typically stays the same, and the lead can reflect the name of the character when appropriate. That doesn't mean that we include a full name (i.e., middle names are rarely important, and since they aren't real it isn't needed), but often times a first and last name are given. So, if the character is known primarily by a single name, and that was their original credit, then that is what you use. We're not here to retroactively change character names just because TV shows can do that. We take an historical perspective, which means that her original credit of simply Bernadette is what should be in the header.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

My point is that if we're going to do it with Bernadette we should do it with the others too. So change the heading on this page from Rajesh to Raj, remove Bloom from Stuart's heading, and probably remove a bunch of the last names from the minor/recurring characters as well. Right now we just aren't consistent. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 11:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

That may be true. I don't watch the show well enough to know more than a few character names. I can say that I only know Bernadette and Raj as that. I am aware of Sheldon, Leonard, and Howard's last names.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

It's an unfortunate fact that if we do follow the spirit of WP:COMMONNAME, the article will still appear inconsistent. I agree with removing Stuart's last name, but there are others that aren't so obvious. As examples, "Mary Cooper" is probably best changed to "Mrs Cooper" but "Beverly Hofstadter" is never called "Mrs Hofstadter", she's most often referred to as "Leonard's mother". We can put a list together and suggest the best options. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I continue to disagree, and I believe full names should be used where known. And if I were bold enough, I would change it so. However, I think that would only lead to an edit war, so I will leave it be, not acknowledging that it is correct, but merely to avoid conflict.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 13:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

If they did not have full names to start, then that would be an incorrect approach. These are not real people, so the idea of retconning the name of an article (or section) to coincide with the additional knowledge of one's last or middle (or, I guess, in some instances first) name is inappropriate. Wikipedia is based on historical perspective, and historically these characters did not "have" or go by their full names. This is the reason why WP:COMMONNAME exists, and the reason why Lady Gaga goes to that name, and not Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta, her actual name.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Todd Zarnecki error

Todd Zarnecki is not the same guy that shows up at Howard's Bachelor Party and later at a party at the comic book store. Different actors: Christopher Douglas Reed / Jesse Heiman http://bigbangtheory.wikia.com/wiki/Jesse_Heiman http://bigbangtheory.wikia.com/wiki/Todd_Zarnecki — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.152.202.195 (talk) 05:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I removed it as those statements had been sitting there close to a year now with a {{cn}} tag. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 11:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

President Siebert as an unseen character

Based on the definition of Unseen character − "characters that are 'heard of, but never heard from'" it seems that President Siebert does fit the bill as he is mentioned by the other characters on the show. Ricardo Santiago (talk) 20:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The actual definition is An unseen character or invisible character is a fictional character referred to but never directly observed by the audience. They are characters that are "heard of, but never heard from". They are continuing characters—characters who frequently interact with the other characters and who influence current story events. Note the definition says that unseen characters are "never directly observed by the audience". President Siebert has been "directly observed by the audience". The definition also says they are "characters who frequently interact with the other characters". In seasons where he was referred to, he didn't interact with other characters at all. Simply referring to him doesn't make him an unseen character. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Seems like an overly rigid interpretation of the "definition" to prohibit characters from going back and forth between seen and unseen. In some episodes (seasons) the character can be seen, and in other episodes (seasons) the character can be unseen. The definition requiring the unseen character to "interact with the other characters" seems to be satisfied because Sheldon talks with President Siebert on the phone but President Siebert's side of the conversation is not presented. Ricardo Santiago (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

If we were to use a looser interpretation then pretty much every character would qualify as an unseen character at some point. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, if we were to describe the characters' role on a scene by scene basis. But given that we are describing the characters' role on a season by season basis, that is not true. For example Leslie Winkle has never been brought up since Season 3. Another example: Priya Koothrappali has never been brought up as an unseen character. Even Missy Cooper is not really an unseen character in Season 7 (despite what the article says) because her name is not specifically mentioned (at least as far as I remember). Ricardo Santiago (talk) 00:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Again, simply referring to somebody does not make them an unseen character. Mentioning somebody at all requires more than one or two references in an entire season. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Where did you come up with the rule that "Mentioning somebody at all requires more than one or two references in an entire season"? There are lots of actors up there who made an appearance only once or twice per season. Ricardo Santiago (talk) 03:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not a rule, it's common sense. As I said earlier, if merely referring to a character in a season qualified them as an unseen character, then pretty much every character would qualify as an unseen character at some point. Charlie and Jake harper have been referred to numerous times since they left Two and a Half Men, but nobody has referred to them as unseen characters. Please note, I've opened a discussion regarding this at WT:TV to gain wider opinion. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

According to our own definition: "An unseen character or invisible character[1] is a fictional character referred to but never directly observed by the audience. They are characters that are "heard of, but never heard from".[2] They are continuing characters—characters who frequently interact with the other characters and who influence current story events." - That means the President could not be classified as "unseen". An "unseen" character is always that...unseen. The President has been seen, and thus he can no longer be that. That pretty much ends that discussion.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Just to make it clearer, the cause of their argument is this edit:

Character	Portrayed by	Appearance count	Seasons
			1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
President Siebert	Joshua Malina	3	—			Recurring		—
President Siebert	Joshua Malina	3 (seen)	—	{{CUnseen}}	—	Recurring		{{CUnseen}}		—

-Rinellie (talk) 14:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm very much aware of the argument. I saw the edits. If they are not part of the show, but only for a select season, then they are still "seen". You have a face to the character and the character has had dialogue. The definition of "unseen" is pretty clear.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

In that case, I contend that during Season 2 he was an "Unseen character" because at that point in the life of the show, the audience never sees his face. Ricardo Santiago (talk) 01:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Once a character has been seen in the series, the character can no longer be regarded as unseen. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

That rule applies from the point at which the character is seen. I don't think it applies retroactively. Ricardo Santiago (talk) 15:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it does apply retroactively. There's no mystery to the character once they appear; as Bignole said, they have a face and have been given dialogue. An unseen character is talked about, but never seen by the audience. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 19:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I think this means that prior to the first appearance, there was mystery, which means that prior to the first appearance, the character was unseen. Ricardo Santiago (talk) 22:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

As everyone else has been saying, it applies retroactively, so he can't be considered to be an unseen character. Fiction remains in a perpetual present, so characters are either unseen or seen, they can't be unseen for part of it. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Hopefully this edit is the proper compromise to convey to the readers that the character's name comes up in other seasons without calling him an unseen character. Ricardo Santiago (talk) 04:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the footnote is necessary at all, but if others are happy to leave it there then I'll be okay with it. I've edited its content, though, because I can't see how Siebert's mentions in season 6/7 are relevant. It's only important that he was mentioned in season 2, before he was introduced (and even that might be a bit of a trivial fact to include). — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 13:22, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a need for it either. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps if more characters were mentioned after leaving the show then it would not be notable, but since the case of President Siebert is unique, I would say it is worth mentioning in the note that he was mentioned in seasons after he left the show. Ricardo Santiago (talk) 13:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

"Unique" does not mean "notable". I can think of lots of characters on the show who are unique in some narrowly defined way. The actor for Siebert was not hired for episodes after he left the show; no reliable sources / episode reviews (I assume) have found it noteworthy that his name has been used a couple of times since his last appearance. This does not need to be mentioned in a footnote, especially in a footnote that probably doesn't belong in the article in the first place. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 20:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Sheldon Cooper and Norber Wiener

I see that many details in the life of the character of Sheldon Cooper coincide with the biography of the scientist Norber Wiener. Both were child prodigies that entered at the University at roughly the same age, both loved chinese food and tried the chinese language in the restaurants of America, both had childish aspects of their personalities, both looked suspiciously to other scientist for possible appropiation of ideas, etc. Does anybody which are the source of inspiration for this character? Is there relationship with the life anecdotes of Wiener? --Davius (talk) 19:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Removal of minor characters

Although appearing in only one scene, some of the characters removed in this edit were rather memorable and noteworthy. For example, Joyce Kim was mentioned in several episodes besides the one scene in which she appeared. Additionally, Becky O'Donohue as Siri, Rick Foxx as Professor Glenn, and Lewis Black as Dr. Crawley were quite noteworthy. All the minor characters who are relatives of the main characters (Amy's mother, and Raj's cousin) should also be listed. Finally, Vanessa Bennett, played by Analeigh Tipton, should also be listed given that Tipton appeared on the show in a different capacity. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 19:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Characters who appear in only one episode can't contribute significantly to a series. The inclusion is pure fancruft. Similarly, appearing twice as two different characters is not significant as that happens all the time in TV series, especially Chuck Lorre productions. Notability is not inherited, so simply being a relative of a character is also not a good criteria for inclusion. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

This conversation will now move to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Severe fancruft at List of The Big Bang Theory characters, and the funcruft will continue to be cleared until there is a resolution. There have been maintenance tags on this article for almost four years now - if that is not an indication that something is being done wrong on this article, then I don't know what is. Alex|The|Whovian 05:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

These are the diffs of when each tag was added: February 2012 – {{overly detailed}}, July 2013 – {{refimprove}}, November 2014 – {{tone}}. Notice that there's less content then than there is now? Alex|The|Whovian 05:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Missy Cooper

Why isn't she listed? She was Sheldon's birth partner and appeared in only one episode that I know of but it was a major part.66.237.94.67 (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Not every character has to be listed. We don't list exceptionally minor characters and the fact that she was only in 1 of the 196 episodes that have aired to date demonstrates that she is exceptionally minor enough not to include her. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:05, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Chen appears in two episodes

Chen (the waiter at the Chinese restaurant frequented by the guys) appears in two episodes. He waits on Leonard, Sheldon, and Raj when Howard is occupied with Penny's friend from Omaha, then later, he argues with Sheldon in Mandarin concerning the character of the citrus peels in the "tangerine" chicken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.204.54.2 (talk) 18:54, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Kripke: should mention the S09E05 episode where he teaches a fencing class, and attempts to date Amy. (This episode seems to contradict Kripke as presented in S05E17.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.208.61 (talk) 04:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

President Siebert

"Although not seen or heard prior to season 4, President Siebert's name is mentioned in season 2." The president of the university is seen with the board of directors and addressed as Siebert by Kripke in the season 3 episode "The Vengeance Formulation", although he does not speak. Obahn (talk) 07:07, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The actor in that scene is not Joshua Malina. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

This doesn't sound right...

She manages to convince Sheldon to apologize and he gets his job back, and she becomes romantically interested in him. This makes it seem like Mary Cooper is romantically interested in Sheldon, her son. Should I change this or am I missing something obvious? SGPolter (talk) 14:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

nothing more than very shitty writing. Pronoun "he"'s antecedent is not "Sheldon", it's "Dr. Gablehauser", but no one on earth would get that reading that sentence in isolation. So the "he" ought to be replaced. Xenon54 (talk) 19:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Appearances as self

As I wrote in the edit summary, Wil Wheaton's performance is different. Wil Wheaton performs a character, similar to the way Stephen Colbert performs the character Stephen Colbert (character). The others on the list perform as themselves. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Missing character

Am I missing something? I can't see the character Alice (Courtney Ford), the sexy artist who puts in a memorable appearance in "The Good Guy Fluctuation". Darorcilmir (talk) 18:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Good point. I have added her. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 19:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Who plays Halley?

I wasn't sure where to put her. I added the name of the actress that does her voice according to imdb to Howard's section.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Given that there is a credited actor doing the voice (and according to IMDB in no fewer than 6 episodes), I would say that the character should be listed in its own right. That's what I did Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 20:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Young Sheldon characters

These characters are still introduced from the BBT point of view.

If we are going to have a single section on any given character, and present some of them as "Young Sheldon characters", we need to present them as such, and only add BBT-specific information about them at the end.

For instance, in the Mary section, George Sr is described as an "rambunctious alcoholic". This is clearly the BBT version. Yet, we are in the "Young Sheldon characters" section! This series does NOT present him as such, at least not in the seasons broadcast thus far. CapnZapp (talk) 13:53, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Edited the Missy Cooper section to show you by example what I mean CapnZapp (talk) 10:11, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Big Bang Theory Minor Character not listed

Rick Fox (former NBA player) portrayed Bernadette's former colleague and lover "Glenn" in one episode. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:F7F0:4E20:A1A0:2762:5A78:A204 (talk) 04:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

We do not list every one-shot character. Dimadick (talk) 22:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Appearance of Leonard, Penny, Raj, Howard, Bernadette, and Amy in Season 2 season finale of Young Sheldon

It seems to me that since the characters Leonard, Penny, Raj, Howard, Bernadette, and Amy made appearances in the Season 2 season finale of Young Sheldon by child models who had non-speaking roles and shown only one or two seconds each in a montage, there is no need to have a table entry for that appearance, and a footnote is sufficient to document the appearance. Banana Republic (talk) 21:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Cast table too wide

Can the cast table be split for TBBT and Young Sheldon recurring cast separately. It's way too wide to read at the moment, as you have to scroll across to read it (and then can't see the names in the first two columns when you do so). Joseph2302 (talk) 14:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)