Talk:Big Love

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Television, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

Contents 1 Future Plans 2 possible merge 3 Criticism 4 Episode synopses 5 Douglas Smith 6 Request: Lock Edit 7 Response to "Request Lock Edit" 8 Removal of links 8.1 Other fansites 9 User Breaking Rules... again. 10 Deleted sections 11 Family Tree 12 Jtrost if you are going to delete one fansite 13 Vandalism? 14 Big Love - Australia

[edit] Future Plans

Great job on the show main page. I see ther are links set up the in the main page to planned individual episode guides. I hope to contribute to them one day soon. Are there plans to create character pages for anyone other than Bill, or a list of characters? --Opark 77 07:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] possible merge

I don't think it's a good idea to merge Bill Henrickson with this article. We've only had one season so far, but if the show continues to multiple seasons as expected, then there will likely be much more info about the main characters (see Category:The Sopranos characters). So I'm suggesting that we will have to split them up again if we merge them now.--Mike Selinker 20:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I tentatively agree. So my question is, why is Bill Henrickson the only character so far to get his own page? Surely his other family members (as well as the secondary characters) warrant articles as well; even if its info gleaned from HBO's site? Then again, it is only the first season, and not a lot of information (apart from on the HBO site) has been fleshed out on the other wives, kids, Don Hendrickson, Roman, etc. --Micahbrwn 03:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

I have no criticism, but does there exist criticism about the accuracy of the show? I ask because 2 LDS types came to my door, and claimed the show was false. Mathiastck 21:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Since I've seen the show on television, I can guarantee you that it does in fact exist! Toward which criticism are you referring? It doesn't portray members of the LDS church; rather, the cast are adherents to a splinter group following the same basic principles.

The aspects of the Mormon religion it does depict though, are amazing accurate - including shaking the dust off one's shoes, etc.148.177.1.219 20:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Episode synopses

Can someone please expand the episode plot guides so they include the entire plot?

• That's what individual episodes are for. The table is just an abridged summary of the plot which leads into the full article if it is already written. I plan on writing a few episode articles soon. If someone would like to get started that would be great too. Sfufan2005 23:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • A separate article for each episode really is unnecessary. I think putting them all in Episodes of Big Love would work better. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 23:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I truly think individual pages are necessary because (1) individual pages cut down on the article size whereas a season page contains more memory (I do grasp the concept that Wikipedia is not paper though), (2) each episode has different plot lines and events unlike Lost which is a continuation or chapter of the previous episode, (3) I understand a season page keeps things more "organized" and easier to "maintain" however most television articles on this site with the exception of a few have individual articles for their episodes and most people seem fine with it. I'm not saying all of them are fantastic or well written but I would much rather have individual pages then season pages if everything is done right and correctly. Sfufan2005 02:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Douglas Smith

Please, pretty please write an article about Douglas Smith. He is very cute and he made a series in Australia too. Ramseystreet 21:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request: Lock Edit

Hello, I am co-owner of the BIG LOVE LOVERS website <http://biglovelovers.proboards49.com> and we are very pleased and honoured to have the opportunity to link to our site here at the Wikipedia. However, the vandal/owner of the other Big Love Fan Forum, which I believe is at www.biglovefans.com or something or other, continues to remove our link and replace it with ONLY their own. I hope that perhaps editing of the Links section may be locked or perhaps moderated so that everyone has an equal opportunity to get exposure for their site. It's unfortunate that some trolls cannot handle a competiting board.

Thank you so much, Ian Owner, Big Love Lovers

I have removed all fansites per Wikipedia's external link policy. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 20:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to "Request Lock Edit"

Here's the REAL story.

People can check the history to see evidence.

You anonymously removed my established Big Love forum/message board link & replaced it with your own. That is a fact and is in the Wiki history for this page. If you had simply added yours below mine, I would not have done anything.

I would recommend that your forum NOT be added because it does not even have its own domain name. U actually PAY for my hosting & domain name to run my BigLoveForum.com website

Also, Wiki rules states that exceptions can be made to Fansites and Forum listings. I have had no complaints about my BigLoveForum being listed.

The main issue is your anonymous REMOVAL of my external link and your replacing it with your own new free ProBoards message board.

--EmmSeeMusic 09:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not engage in an edit war. None of the fansites added to this article meet the external link policy. Paying for a domain and hosting does not make your website notable. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 11:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of links

Reading the RFC, I've removed the following two links:

• http://biglovelovers.proboards49.com
• http://www.bigloveforum.com/forum/ BigLoveForum.com

Both of these sites seem to be very minor and non-notable. That's judging by a variety of measures including usage, membership and google links from other sites. The conduct of both editors is also questionable, with several Wikipedia standards being relevant.

Edits such as this, by user:EmmSeeMusic:

• "You anonymously removed my established Big Love forum/message board link & replaced it with your own. That is a fact and is in the Wiki history for this page. If you had simply added yours below mine, I would not have done anything."

are in breach of WP:POINT ("Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point")

Edits such as this, by user:Aurora1979:

• "the vandal/owner of the other Big Love Fan Forum, which I believe is at www.biglovefans.com or something or other, continues to remove our link... It's unfortunate that some trolls cannot handle a competiting board."

are in breach of the Wikipedia policies WP:CIVIL ("civility") and WP:NPA ("no personal attacks")

Finally, the writer of this post:

• "I hope that perhaps editing of the Links section may be locked or perhaps moderated so that everyone has an equal opportunity to get exposure for their site."

and indeed both writers, need to be aware that the purpose of Wikipedia is as an encyclopedia, and not as an advertizing or exposure medium. Would your site be considered for inclusion by an academic thesis on the subject? Would it be cited as a credible and noteworthy place for information by Encyclopedia Brittanica? Probably not, for either. That is why other editors have referred to WP:EL and removed such links. This is not critical of either site, since obviously everyone hopes both sites do well. It's a reflection on the purpose of Wikipedia, and that it is WP:NOT not a collection of advertising or other links.

Last thought: as fans who both care that much about the series, if you have useful material on "Big Love", why don't you both contribute to the topic so that others can learn more, instead of both equally seeing an article on the series as an opportunity to market and promote yourselves and your websites?

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC).

While I agree with your general reasoning, it would have probably been better to add a note in each user's talk page as well. They have few edits, and are probably not used to the concept of "Talk pages". By posting in their talk pages, there will be a better chance at reaching them before the exchange becomes too harsh to go without punishment. With a small exchange I have found EmmSeeMusic a good faithed contributor. Maybe contacting Aurora1979 (talk • contribs) at her talk page will get an answer and a change of her behaviour. If she does not respond there after several attempts, and continues to modify the article trying to make a point, other measures could be agreed upon. Remember, we are not talking about long-term wikipedians, but people who just joined, willing to help, and still not "wet" with Wikipedia policies, style guides and guidelines. -- ReyBrujo 06:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Good point and advice, I'll remember it for future. Thanks. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright... I think that this may be a potential candidate for the Lame Edit Wars page, hehehe. --Prezboy1 11:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other fansites

Found this fansite too: http://www.biglovinit.net/ signed: Travb (talk) 23:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User Breaking Rules... again.

Aurora still can't play by the rules... --EmmSeeMusic 06:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Then folks here'll deal with it. It's not something to worry over. Right now probably a few dozen people are watching how this article's going, and will step in if they feel the need. And yes, the revert was a fair one... because its likely to be the consensus on the subject. But no need to say "One user doesnt get it".. that's unnecessary since some people may wonder if its an attack (however mild). So just say something like "revert - ad link, see talk page" explains it cl;early for anyone reading the page history. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted sections

Going through the edits, I noticed some interesting edits, which I agree do not belong in the article, but I think should be on the talk page, for those in the future who read this article:

The theme tune is unique in the sense that it matches the show's plot in certain ways. For instance, the line 'I may not always love you' reflects the Bill's shift in affection between wives. Also, 'If you should ever leave me, life would still go on believe me' highlights the fact that even if both wives, let alone one were to leave Bill he would still be married.

Signed: Travb (talk) 22:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Family Tree

Inspired by Kennedy_family#Fourth_generation, I made a family tree for Big Love, hope everyone likes it. (It was very hard to format this section). Travb (talk) 02:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jtrost if you are going to delete one fansite

RE: [1]

To be fair to those who have interests in this site, Jtrost if you are going to delete one fansite, you have to delete them all (except for the official HBO one).

As a third party neutral, with no big love site of my own, I think that http://www.biglovinit.net/ should stay. Thus I reverted.Travb (talk) 20:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

That is the only fansite currently listed. Please read #Removal_of_links. There was already a discussion about this. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 21:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Kewl, thanks for your hard work. Travb (talk) 01:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism?

Anybody else see a massive picture of a penis and testicles when they look at this page? specifically, this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Testicles_marked.jpg ?? can't find it in the code... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.220.251.100 (talk) 02:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

Never mind, it's gone now

[edit] Big Love - Australia

It says in the International broadcasting area that Big Love has been shown in Australia on SBS on Wednesday 8:30.

Is this a future broadcast? I don't remember it being shown or advertised and I can't find any reference of it on the SBS site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.245.207.188 (talk) 16:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC).