Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2

Taking the idea from a number of other WikiProjects, I think that we should have an Article for Improvement every month. What does everyone else think of this? Geoking66_talk 20:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly... my main concern is that the WikiProject itself doesn't receive much activity, and most effort tends to go towards the articles about series that are currently airing. Tra (Talk) 21:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if this is off topic in this section, but how can I join this WikiProject? Can I just add my name to the list on the project page? I'd like to help keep the US BB page up-to date :) --CamsWatchin 05:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the BB8 UK page there is a number of changes that editors are trying to make, and are making them to the one page (the current series) unilaterally, not taking in to account that these changes will then affect all 10 previous BB and CBB series. The debate hinges on whether Walked is clear enough for people to understand and whether Ejected conveys someone being removed from the house accurately enough. The language of BBUK is clear enough but these changes could lead to edit wars if the consensus is not established early on (there are eleven more weeks to go). As this affects so many project pages I felt the discussion should be brought to the project page rather than taking place on one series talk page. Darrenhusted 14:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems from the consensus reached on Talk:Big Brother 2007 (UK) this should be "Ineligable". John Hayes 14:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer "no nominations" because it looks nice on the table but also it's because that's what's been used for previous series. "Not eligible" is OK but it's not as accurate and "Ineligible" looks stupid. If we can't agree on terminology, then it should just be a grey square. Geoking66_talk 20:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"no nominations" implies that there were no nominations at all, which is not the case. Also the previous series have been changed as well.John Hayes 23:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It only technically implies no nominations if it is a rowspan of all the housemates combined. By simply putting it in one of the boxes, then it says that there were no nominations from that particular housemate that week. Geoking66_talk 04:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a personal level I agree with you, but it seems that's not so clear cut for everyone, so if it could potentially confuse, then it shouldn't be used for that. Also there is some value in keeping "no nominations" for when there are no nominations at all (as Xy says below). John Hayes 07:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer either "not eligible" or "ineligible" – both are grammatically correct, the first being the dictionary definition of the latter. So, I think it's safe to use either of them in the article. However, I think "not eligible" does look better when in the table. Also agree with John; "no nominations" makes it sound as if there were no nominations for the entire week, so the terminology "no nominations" should be reserved for cases like those. Just my thoughts. — Xy7 05:31, 15 June 2007

We could use something like "can't nominate", couldn't we? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.66.2.250 (talk) 08:45, 15 June, 2007 (UTC)

If we used that it probably should be in past tense though, so "Couldn't nominate", or "Could not nominate". John Hayes 10:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer "not eligible", and "no nominations" only for when nobody nominated. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 10:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think "Not eligable" is what should be used. Reason being, compared to "Ineligable" it shows that there were some housemates who were eligable, but they were not one of them. It's certainly clearer than "no nominations" (as they were nominations), and is much better than "can/could not nominate" which could indicate they were banned, and is pretty elementary english anyway139.184.30.16 11:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could not nominate is clear enough, if someone is banned then the legend Banned is used, and the box is coloured red. Darrenhusted 11:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every week most housemates receive nominations from other housemates and most housemates get "nominated". Even though the though the two housemates with the most nominations are "Against public vote", Big Brother, Big Brother's Little Brother, other associated shows and the Big Brother website always refers solely to these two housemates as the "Nominated Housemates". Therefore I think "Against public vote" should be changed to "Nominated" as this is the way the terminology is used by Big Brother and all associated shows and its website. Also, the box with the list of housemates at the top of Big Brother articles says "Nominated" in the legend and not "Against public vote".

I'm happy with either, but what Big Brother uses is not important to this discussion, but rather what someone who has never seen Big Brother is most likely to understand. I would suggest that while most people would understand what Nominated means, they might not understand what the effects of Nominated are, whereas Against public vote clarifies this. John Hayes^talk 12:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should be changed in the nomination tables to something different because anything that's different to the norm isn't always a twist set by Big Brother but sometimes a result of new housemates not being eligible or people being banned from nominating, etc. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 21:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How would you suggest it should be changed? John Hayes^talk 23:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno. "Nomination note"? — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 14:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds better to me. John Hayes^talk 14:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed in Big Brother 2007 (UK). John Hayes^talk 16:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the other relevant UK Big Brother, Celebrity Big Brother and Teen Big Brother articles. John Hayes^talk 16:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that older Big Brother series articles which are largely unreferenced are actually a liability as far as WP:BLP is concerned. Since they contain information on multiple living persons, some of which is controversial, they are one to watch for BLP violations already. For example, the Big Brother UK 2005 article states that Kinga Karokzak is "infamous for, at the peak of her drunken craziness, lying in the garden and masturbating with a wine bottle." This statement is not cited. Incredibly bad BLP violation, even if it is true.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I cited it, but these types of statements are worth looking out for and sourcing if necessary.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree, this year and last year are not perfect, but much better than the rest.John Hayes 10:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last year's one is GA, so pretty much as good as a BB article is likely to get.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Big_Brother#Housemates a lot of the information in the housemates section on the Big Brother 2007 (UK) shouldn't be included. Either the guideslines need to be updated, or the article stripped down. I feel there is a case for sexuality to be included, where known, as this can have a relevant impact on events in the house, but things like Seany attending the Michael Jackson trial are irrelevant. John Hayes 16:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prune away, we're only three weeks in, with ten to go, this article can't expand fives times to what it is now. Darrenhusted 16:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if there would be any value in creating a housemate template, with variables for name, full name, dob, etc. John Hayes 22:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, the list of housemates at Big Brother 2007 (UK) has recently been resorted by surname instead of first name (see discussion). For consistency, the lists for other series should probably be sorted that way too. Does anybody object to this? Tra (Talk) 14:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. John Hayes^talk 08:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As consensus regarding this matter has since changed, I think I'll leave them for now. Tra (Talk) 01:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've brought this up on the Big Brother 8 UK Talk Page, but I would like to put it here. I do not agree with arranging the housemates by their last names. Big Brother does not release their last names, and orders them by their first names, which is why I see no need for us to do otherwise. Also, fansites, and dedicated Big Brother sections, such as those by Virgin Media and Digital Spy also organise them by their first name. Just my two cents.Babygurl1853 17:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but it is wikipedia policy to order by last name. John Hayes^talk 08:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with arranging them by last name either. I agree with Babygurl1853. Also I can't find who I'm looking for because I only know them but their first names. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 22:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say it's that clear-cut. The page I think is being referred to is a guideline about how to sort categories. Since this is a set of sections and not a category, it would have slightly different characteristics etc so the guideline is useful but it's not binding in same way as e.g. WP:3RR. Tra (Talk) 01:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, I didn't actually check it in any detail. I think though, as the arguement is that Big Brother only uses the first names, we should only refer to them by their firstnames, with the exception of the first line of the info in the housemates section, but all infoboxes and headings should be first name only. That way a good compromise is reached (and probably makes most sense). John Hayes^talk 09:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to remove the total number of nominations table from the Big Brother articles. I suggest this as I think it adds nothing to the article, total nominations is not a concept which is used in UK Big Brother, or in other Big Brothers as far as I am aware, and isn't even that useful, as by it's nature it will tend to be biased (at least at the lower end) towards housemates who have been in the house longer. If anyone really wants this info they are able to quite easily find it out from the nominations table. If there is a Big Brother series which does use this concept then it should remain, but otherwise I do not see its benefit to the article. John Hayes^talk 16:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, and think it should either be removed, or changed to show how many nominations each person got each week, like the second table suggested here. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 21:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if we could simply add a column for each week to the nominations table, to list how many nominations they got. John Hayes^talk 22:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What would that look like? — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 21:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has set up a copy of Big Brother 8 (US), known as Big Brother 8 (US/CBS). A speedy deletion tag has been placed and we need to work together to make sure that the original article remains intact and that this new one be deleted ASAP. I thought that I'd inform everyone (and thanks to Jeeny for delivering the news to me. Geoking66_talk 03:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to say that as it's creator, I take personal resposibility for creating it. Reading the talk pages it seemed as if a second artical be the only solution for those that wanted a referance to the show but not unaired information material on the regular show. As the show wraps up the two could be merged and this one deleted. This is done as a proposal to release tension in the community.

The other proposal if using after hours for this would create the same reasoning for the deleation of this artical. This is just my rebuttal, and reasoning.Thee17 03:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are housemates "evicted" at the Finale? They all get to leave anyway. --Howard the Duck 16:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK version, Channel 4 classes all the housemates in the finale as 'evicted' apart from the winner, with the housemate in second place referred to either as the runner up or as evicted. On Wikipedia, this classification is also used in the infoboxes, but in the nominations table they're listed as first,second, third place etc. I don't know about other countries. Tra (Talk) 16:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone who knows how, fix this template so that the text does not butt up agains the infobox. For example See here. I think it looks bad, and makes the text hard to read when it butts up against it. Thanks in advance for any help on this. - Jeeny ^Talk 17:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]