Template talk:The Big Bang Theory episodes

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Television This template is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. For how to use this banner template, see its documentation.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles

I added to the template links to the actors' articles, but was swiftly reverted with the stated reason being that goes against consensus at WP:ACTOR. I would appreciate a direct quote from WP:ACTOR that explicitly prohibits it. All I can find at WP:ACTOR that remotely addresses this issue is the following paragraph:

Per extensive determinations of consensus as summarized here, navbox templates containing filmographies are not supported by this project. Such templates should be nominated for deletion as unusable. Note that filmography navbox templates for work by film directors are not covered by this consensus.

I fail to see how this sentence says that adding the names of the actors is prohibited. Is there another quote at WP:ACTOR that I missed?
However whatever (talk) 13:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See TfD's here along with the following discussion. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 18:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I wasn't clear: I'm looking for the specific quote which prohibits this inclusion. At the moment, I can't find anything. However whatever (talk) 21:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a quote, there is a discussion about it. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 23:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions are not policies. Therefore, unless you can clearly state why you object to including links to the articles in the template, I see no reason to exclude those links. Please note that "goes against consensus" is not a legitimate reason. I need a legitimate reason as to why those links should not be included. However whatever (talk) 00:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus still should be observed, other wise what is the point? Try actually reading the discussion that took place. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 00:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The burden is on you to specify the consensus. Telling me "go fish" is insufficient. If you agree with the consensus you should be able to paraphrase it, or at the very least, link to it. However whatever (talk) 00:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I linked to the discussion where the consensus was stated. Actors/crew members should not be included in navigation boxes. Navboxes are supposed to group together tightly related articles. Actors and crew members are not limited to one series or film. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 01:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your links got me nowhere. Nonetheless, I don't see how linking to the pages of the actors deviates from the consensus "Navboxes are supposed to group together tightly related articles". Actors the the life of the series/film. They are therefore tightly related to the series/film, especially in the context that I presented them, using paranthesis after the name of the character.—Preceding unsigned comment added by However whatever (talk • contribs) 01:15, 12 February 2010

This link may be a bit better, sorry if the other wasn't working for you. I understand your reasoning, though. Actors are integral to the show for sure. But you can talk about a show without mentioning the actors at all. And we can run into trouble when a character is played multiple actors, do we include all of them? Or which one is more important, which could lead to issues in POV. Hope that makes sense. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 01:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. Now I finally have something that I can follow.
First thing first, until it makes it to an official policy page, the consensus is non-binding, as it only applies to the page in question. Second, your slippery slope concern seems to be easily resolved with limiting the navbox to just actors whose characters have articles, and each actor would have to be listed alongside his/her character. When a character is played by multiple actors, they can all be listed (example, Lionel Jefferson played by Mike Evans and Damon Evans) However whatever (talk) 01:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage you to bring it up on WT:ACTOR. But as far as I am concerned, since everything is debatable, there is nothing official other than policies established. So I think that consensus has been reached and I could point to several users who would agree. And of course characters with articles should be included, but that doesn't necessarily mean the actor is more notable than any other actor on the show. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 02:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw the tag in the template. Well I think it's pretty obvious what the inclusion criteria is - the episodes with individual articles are listed there. As that's quite simple enough, I'm going to go remove the template now. Miyagawa (talk) 09:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say, the new layout on the template is much better. Miyagawa (talk) 17:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should be updated to reflect that the template is about wikipedia, more than the big bang theory, looking at the current format it appears no episodes where produced in season 3. When in reality the exclusion is that no episodes in that series are worthy of inclusion by the internal standard of this particular site 94.196.29.150 (talk) 14:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of a navbox is to facilitate navigation between related articles, it's not the place for disclaimers or explanations. I don't see how what you suggest can be achieved. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose should be made clear, at the moment reading it suggests that season one only consisted of the pilot 94.196.29.150 (talk) 14:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are links to the main episode list and to each season article that clear show that is not the case. What it shows at the moment is that, despite the episodes listed in the main episode list the season one article, only one episode article exists for that season. This is fairly common in these templates because not all episodes are notable. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're getting at with this edit, but "Articles related to" is redundant as, by definition, all articles listed in a navbox are related to the navbox title. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there are episodes that should have articles on them, that are yet to be written they shoud be added in per WP:REDLINK 94.196.67.77 (talk) 17:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, no. Per Wikipedia:Navigation templates, specifically the section titled "Navigation templates provide navigation between existing articles", "Red links should be avoided unless they are very likely to be developed into articles, and even if they do, editors are encouraged to write the article first." The key here is "very likely". It's not "very likely" that any of the "missing" articles would be developed into articles. It's a remote possibility at best for most of them. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My preference would be work within official wikipedia guidelines that have community support, rather than an essay that is nothing more the opinion of a single author. 92.40.216.180 (talk) 22:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Navigation templates is hardly the opinion of a single editor and it does have wide support, which is why it is linked from WP:NAVBOX, which is an editing guideline. WP:NAVBOX says "Navigation templates, sometimes called navboxes, are boxes containing links to a group of related articles." Redlinks are not articles, which is why they aren't normally included in navboxes. WP:REDLINK doesn't say redlinks should be included, it says "Do not create red links to articles that will likely never be created". Most of these episodes will never be created, so redlinks shouldn't be included. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The links to the articles Bazinga (genus) and Euglossa bazinga were recently removed from this template, in this edit. The question was posed, "in what universe are these articles "related"?" . These two articles are for things whose scientific names were at least in part inspired by the show. To me, this demonstrates the cultural impact of TBBT in the scientific community and beyond. Additionally, if the asteroid 246247 Sheldoncooper ever got its own article, I think a link to that article should go in this template as well. Based on this, I would like to see the two links back in the template. I will, however, wait a day or two before I do this so as to allow for responses here from the rest of the group. Let's discuss further as needed. KConWiki (talk) 05:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored them. They should never have been removed. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:53, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AussieLegend, I disagree with the statement that it's better to have empty sections than "duplicate" headers. For one, we try to remove whitespace where possible (this include empty sections), and given that the seasons are only linked once, they are barely duplicated. Also, having the latter over the former makes the template smaller and removes excess space. The season "subheaders" could even be shortened down to reduce any mistake of "duplication"; realistically, the episodes don't even need to be under separate sections. Alex|The|Whovian^? 09:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Navboxes shouldn't contain text only "links". In a navbox like this it's unavoidable as they have to be used as section headings, but before your edit there were only two. After your edit there were eight. You removed two empty sections and replaced them with ten links, seven of which duplicate already existing links. A little bit of whitespace is far less undesirable than much duplication. The size of the navbox is really unimportant as it sits at the end of the article, and your edit only saved a single line, because the two sections that you removed had to be replaced by a line. No, the episodes don't need to be in separate sections but navboxes are supposed to aid navigation between related articles, and sectioning the episodes into seasons allows readers to identify and navigate episodes more easily. Theoretically we could leave the navbox as this:

That removes all unnecessary whitespace and duplcation, but we don't do that. We try to make navboxes easier for the reader to use, and sometimes we have to compromise. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was originally going to let this be, but now, I'm not seeing how the version I implemented is any different to the one you have implemented at {{Bones}}. Both contain a row of the seasons, linked, and also row(s) of episodes with unlinked seasons. And also, I didn't duplicate any links. I simply moved them to the one row, and the seasons in the headers were unlinked. Alex|The|Whovian^? 12:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make the change to {{Bones}}. That was another editor.[1] However, it's a significantly different situation to here. At that template there are a lot of episode for season 1, a single episode for season 2 and none for the other 9 seasons. It wouldn't make sense there to have empty rows for 9 seasons. This is not what I preferred. Sometimes we have to compromise.

I didn't duplicate any links. I simply moved them - You moved the blue links, but your edits resulted two of each of "Season 1" to "Season 9". That's duplication. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AlexTheWhovian and MarnetteD: please stop edit warring and discuss changes. I was about to restore the version that has been established for many years now but I see another editor has. The best solution is for someone to actually start creating episode articles as there are ~200 notable topics which we don't have articles on. But if a discussion must be had on the layout then here is the place for it.

AlexTheEconomicDoctor: creating another account is sockpuppetry and not allowed here. You need to log into your old account, AlexTheDoctor, and request to change your username, and then you will be unblocked. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 10:19, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to appeal the block on my account, as well as including a message on the talk pages of both accounts so I'm not hiding anything. I don't think I should have to change my username. AlexTheEconomicDoctor (talk) 10:28, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your username was too similar to another user's; in fact, at least one user has already confused your username for theirs. Per our sockpuppetry guidelines, creating another account to evade a block is not allowed. Log into the other account and request another name to change your username to (on your talk page). I suggest something completely different to the form "AlexTheX". — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 10:32, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of AlexTheWhovian before I created my first account. He doesn't own every username related to his. AlexTheEconomicDoctor (talk) 12:05, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My name is Alex and I have an economics doctororate, friends call me AlexTheDoctor. I didn't create the name just to annoy the other user. AlexTheEconomicDoctor (talk) 12:07, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilorv: Pray tell, how am I edit-warring? I reverted once. I recommend you strike that accusation. However, I believe AlexTheEconomicDoctor's edits can be reverted as the edits of a blocked editor (WP:3RRNO: Reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of their ban, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users.) -- Alex^TW 12:00, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree you edit warred because you added the BOLD content and reverted an IP removing it once. You should have started a discussion here instead of reverting though. AlexTheEconomicDoctor (talk) 12:05, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted it once. You have reverted it thrice (you're very likely the IP, your "denial" would mean little here). I strongly recommend you learn Wikipedia's policies, you've violated both edit-warring and sockpuppetry. Best to get your shift on. -- Alex^TW 12:07, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the IP but you're free to believe what you want. You violated WP:BRD. AlexTheEconomicDoctor (talk) 12:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. BRD is an essay. You've violated SOCK and EW, two policies. Keep trying, IP. -- Alex^TW 12:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the IP. You love accusing me of making a personal attack and yet actually do it to me, hypocrite. AlexTheEconomicDoctor (talk) 12:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed you could, but that doesn't seem constructive; offering a policy-based or common sense rationale for your preferred version would be much better. You know very well that edit warring is not about a specific number of reverts, and regardless of whether the other user is acting in bad faith or not, they are correct when they say "This version is established so per WP:BRD you need to stop reverting and discuss". As WP:BRD says, "If your edit gets reverted, do not revert again." — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 12:12, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BRD is an essay. SOCK, NPA and EW are policies. I think I know who should be focused on. offering a policy-based or common sense rationale for your preferred version would be much better - sure, it's 3RRNO. -- Alex^TW 12:15, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No one has breached 3RR, you may believe I'm the IP but you have no evidence so can't make that claim. AlexTheEconomicDoctor (talk) 12:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who said that? I said 3RRNO and EW, not 3RR. Try again, WP:DUCK. -- Alex^TW 12:21, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pretend instead that I had reverted your edit with the summary "this is the established version and the standard formatting for television show templates". It's an edit I considered making four days ago when I first saw your change. How would you counterargue? — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 12:26, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quite the same. Am I meant to act differently between IPs and editors? I thought we were against that sort of thing. -- Alex^TW 12:30, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You should act the same for IP's and users, maybe assume less knowledge for IP's. The IP reverted your BOLD edit and you responded with a hostile attitude instead of starting a discussion here which you should have done. You shouldn't use that attitude for anyone. AlexTheEconomicDoctor (talk) 12:33, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is noted; thank you, IP. -- Alex^TW 12:36, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion, you broke WP:BRD. You have no evidence that I'm the IP so stop making that false accusation. AlexTheEconomicDoctor (talk) 12:41, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BRD isn't a policy, IP, but SOCK, NPA and EW are. -- Alex^TW 12:41, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Policy or not, it's exists and accepted. You can either abide by it or not use it against others. You have no evidence that I'm the IP so stop making that false accusation. AlexTheEconomicDoctor (talk) 12:46, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep trying. Your opinions are always noted, thanks, IP. -- Alex^TW 12:47, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have no evidence that I'm the IP so stop making that false accusation. AlexTheEconomicDoctor (talk) 12:50, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-pasting won't help you, sock. Anyways. This particular discussion needs to be closed so that a new one can open about the actual edits, instead of the policy-violating behaviour. -- Alex^TW 12:51, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, you should have created a discussion on the actual edits much earlier. AlexTheEconomicDoctor (talk) 12:54, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As should you, IP. -- Alex^TW 12:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting socks is not edit warring. MarnetteD|Talk 12:36, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. -- Alex^TW 12:36, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And now ATED has been blocked. Since the IP and two versions of the named editor have yet to cite any policy for the changes to the template IMO this thread can be closed. If anyone wants to start a policy based dscussion that will be fine. MarnetteD|Talk 13:21, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was my reformatting edits that began this "controversy". I do agree that this thread needs to be closed, though. -- Alex^TW 13:25, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't really want to get involved in this but since my name has sort of been mentioned at WT:TV,[2] I thought I would address some things since this has gotten well off track:

• creating another account is sockpuppetry and not allowed here. - This is not actually true. Creating a second account for nefarious purposes is but second accounts are permitted under certain circumstances. In AlexTheDoctor's case, he was blocked specifically because his name was too similar to AlexTheWhovian. The block notice on his talk page specifically says "You are welcome to create a new account with a username that is easily distinguishable" so creating a second account was permissible. Requesting a change of username was an option to creating a new account. It wasn't, and isn't, the only option.
• I believe AlexTheEconomicDoctor's edits can be reverted as the edits of a blocked editor (WP:3RRNO: Reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of their ban, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users. - AlexTheDoctor isn't banned and wasn't blocked for sockpuppetry. As I've already pointed out, the block notice invites him to either create a new account or request a change of username so reverting the edits is not a 3RR exception.
• As WP:BRD says, "If your edit gets reverted, do not revert again." - Absolutely correct but if you look at the edit history, it was AlexTheWhovian's edits that were reverted.[3] He then reverted to his version.[4]
• Reverting socks is not edit warring - Again, not a sock.
• And now ATED has been blocked - And not for sockpuppetry. ATED has been blocked for the very same reason that ATD was; the name is too similar to AlexTheWhovian.

Note that I'm not saying that I believe either of the AlexTheDoctors. I think the choice of name was deliberate and support the blocks. Still, there is nothing stopping the IP creating a legitimate account with a different name. That said, the IP's edit was a legitimate opposition to AlexTheWhovian's edit whether anyone likes it or not. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:18, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the IP's edit was a legitimate opposition to AlexTheWhovian's edit whether anyone likes it or not – This is precisely my position and both AlexTheWhovian and MarnetteD are yet to explain why their changes are an improvement. They are the ones who reverted against the long-term consensus. I've undone the latter user's latest change because the established version is the one we've used for about six years, not the one we've used for four days. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 19:39, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, it does seem pretty radical to have four empty placeholder headings, which I don't think I've seen before, and don't like. Would anyone who is defending the current layout explain why they think it is a good idea? There should be a better way to include the season links that don't have episodes.— TAnthony^Talk 03:00, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, AlexTheWhovian's last version seems great. It includes all the seasons without the ridic empties.— TAnthony^Talk 03:03, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this version is that it will be confusing to readers. I can guarantee that most people glancing at that template would think TBBT is 8 seasons long, not 12. The empties are there not because there are no articles to be written, but because there are no articles yet. Messing around with the template is treating the symptom not the problem: someone should create those articles. If not, let the blank cells signal to readers and editors alike that there are still articles to be written. This is the same reason we not only allow but encourage redlinks. There are over 200 notable topics ready to be created. Copy the wikitext from another episode article, write a plot description, look up a couple of reviews and fill in the infobox and extras. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 03:17, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First and foremost, the series is about the characters, which is one of the reasons that we generally place information about the characters first, not way down in the list where the latest change placed them. As Bilorv said, the change also makes it look like there are only 8 seasons, when there are 12. Adding a header row containing the LoE page and links to all seasons gives the LoE and seasons some unexplained and unwarranted elevation in status over other content in the navbox, including the characters. The links to the LoE page should be in the body of the navbox, and the extra links are redundant as there are already links in the body of the navbox. WP:NAV-WITHIN clearly says "Avoid repeating links to the same article within a template." We simply don't need two links to each season, nor should we have them. Ironically, I've already mentioned this aboveOverall it makes no sense to eliminate 4 blank lines by adding 8 redundant links. Regarding Bilorv's assertion that the blank cells signal to readers and editors alike that there are still articles to be written this seems to have had an effect at other templates where editors are filling in the gaps. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:29, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nav boxes are for navigation among existing articles, not for showing how many seasons a show has. This is not the same as redlinks, no one is saying not to include all seasons. The last few season articles should be included as links, but not as headings. They are not headings of anything at this point. How about something normal like this? I don't think the currect format will fly if this gets escalated to the mainstream, non-TV Project community. — TAnthony^Talk 22:35, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This navbox does provide navigation between existing articles, so that's not an issue. There's no guideline on how this should be done and certainly none on whether or not each season has a row, regardless of whether there are episodes for the season or not. There is a guideline that says to avoid creating multiple links to related articles. A quick check shows that there is no real consistency in how these navboxes are laid out. For example, {{Twoandahalfmen}} doesn't list the episodes per season because there are only 6 episode articles for all 12 seasons. {{Bones}} takes a slightly different approach because there are a lot of episodes for season 1, a single episode for season 2 and none for the other 10 seasons. Your suggestion is one that is used elsewhere, although I wouldn't duplicate "Season". The approach at {{Bones}}, where each season is represented by a number, is preferable. That said, your suggestion is certainly better than the edit that resulted in this discussion. I'd be interested in Bilorv's comments regarding this. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:31, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know I'm sounding like a broken record but there simply is no substitute for creating the articles. I'd prefer the status quo, but I don't object to that change particularly strongly. It does seem like a useful layout in other cases. For instance, with Bones, I'm not sure whether all episodes are notable or just the ones that have articles; but consider How I Met Your Mother. This show's Wikipedia coverage has the opposite problem: a lot of non-notable episodes have articles (the earlier ones, which received fewer reviews). Were these to be deleted, that would leave gaps in the navbox that shouldn't be filled. In that case, I would suggest a layout like the one TAnthony suggests. But here, the navbox isn't supposed to look neat and completed because it is incomplete. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 12:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The latest version from TAnthony (talk · contribs) is the best alternative to the status quo using the contents of the templates as they are but the best solution will be filling the rows with episode articles. I have started Draft:The Matrimonial Momentum, need to finish. Matt14451 (talk) 12:29, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With the latest additions to the template by Matt14451, this discussion is now moot. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:37, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AussieLegend, it is indeed mute now, but I do find it interesting how you said supported this edit of TAnthony's by saying your suggestion is certainly better than the edit that resulted in this discussion, when I had already implemented that same change before only to be reverted by you. -- Alex^TW 01:54, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the same edit. Note that TAnthony's says "Other seasons" while yours just says "Seasons". There's a big difference in that one word. "Seasons" on its own implied that Season 8 and 9 were the only seasons. Note that I didn't say that TAnthony's edit was ideal. Something can be better than something else without being the best. English is a complicated language. It's a shame they don't teach it in schools any more. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then change the text. Identical layout. You still supported it, but the conflicting reasoning behind the identical layouts was what I needed, cheers. On that last bit, I guess that's the sort of response I should expect when being referred to as a millennial. If only we could afford schooling... -- Alex^TW 07:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I reverted you was stated in my edit summary - it was inconsistent with the format of the navbox. Also, I didn't refer to you as a millenial. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And now apparently it's consistent enough for support. And no, just a whole generation. -- Alex^TW 08:02, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

now apparently it's consistent enough for support -- I never said that. I just said it was better than your recent change, which is true. Even if I had supported it, am I not allowed to change my mind after more than 3 years? Have you ever read WP:CCC?

And no, just a whole generation. - Well, they do seem surgically attached to their phones and have to have everything 5 minutes ago, which is why I wrote this. They also tend to take far too much personally. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:34, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilorv: Moonpie is referenced multiple times in both The Big Bang Theory and Young Sheldon and therefore can be considered to be significant. Nerd271 (talk) 20:39, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hundreds of things are referenced multiple times across the shows. However, the article Moon Pie is not substantively about The Big Bang Theory. It mentions it in a single sentence. It is not feasible to link in this template every article that has a sentence about TBBT. We would need a much closer connection to include this in the navbox, such as the product being named after TBBT. — Bilorv (talk) 20:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sheldon Cooper is one of the main characters of both television series. So the connection is there. Of course the article "Moon Pie" only briefly mentions The Big Bang Theory because it is not the main focus. But there is more than just a casual name drop or mention. So it deserves to be put in the "Related" section of this template. Nerd271 (talk) 21:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I still disagree that this is any more significant than a myriad of things—say, 73 (number) off the top of my head. If you want to include the link, you can solicit more opinions (bearing in mind canvassing rules), such as by posting a {{Please see}} notice at Talk:The Big Bang Theory or WikiProject Television or wherever. — Bilorv (talk) 17:15, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]