Changes within the Big Brother Category

Having problems getting this to work, if anyone with some foo can figure out what's up, I'd be grateful :) -- 9cds^(talk) 21:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this will be a very useful project. There are a couple of issues that we get every year that can now be solved in one place:

• we should create redirects for all of the new housemates, in an effort to prevent the copyvios/AFDs, etc...
• make use of genuine screenshots, using {{tv-screenshot}}, rather than copyvios from the Ch4 and The Sun websites (which used a liberal interpretation of {{promophoto}}). We have guidelines for promotional photos at Wikipedia:Publicity photos.

The JPS ^{talk to me} 22:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, the underlying idea is to keep copyvio out of pages, and to have them all looking good, and the same. Of course, personally I'm concentrating on BB7 UK at the moment, but there's lots to do. -- 9cds^(talk) 09:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some kind of disagreement with the season 7 nominations table - myself I don't care how it's done, as long as it looks good and is easy to understand. What's everyone's opinion on this? -- 9cds^(talk) 16:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering if it's worth putting the results of this poll up (assuming someone has them?) Essexmutant 18:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, that'd just make it a list of information. -- 9cds^(talk) 18:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Time to make a precedent for what should be split in series articles? Should the nomination tables always be split, and the chronology? -- 9cds^(talk) 18:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is Pinoy BB included, or is this just for the British one? --Howard the Duck 17:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, all Big Brothers around the world are included :) -- 9cds^(talk) 17:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Already posted the Big Brother project template at the talk pages. --Howard the Duck 05:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (people) is the guideline to use for determining inclusion. Citing examples of poorly written, unrefenced articles, doesn't mean much. Many BB articles, are written by bias fans, during the show, and contain attacks and/or trivial gossip. Those hardly count towards precedent when deleted. Numerous articles have been kept. --Rob 22:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is regardless essential to reference those previous AFD discussions. These articles are always going to be targetted by fans wanting to add trivial gossip. The JPS^{talk to me} 18:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a proper representation of what's happened in AFD. Also, it ignores the fact that WP:BIO has been expanded to include "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person", which many BB contestants meet. Your preferred version didn't mention that even the first eviction of BB6 in the US was kept. And it is absurd to delete articles, as a means of dealing with gossipers. WP:BIO is the standard, and we should not pretend there is any other consensus rule. A huge portion of BB bios have in the past been utter garbage. That doesn't set a precedent for new good ones. --Rob 00:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You think The Sun is non-trivial? ;) -- 9cds^(talk) 02:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The housemates are 99% of the time not the "primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works" – Big Brother is, as someone said on Grace's AfD. — FireFox 12:06, 16 June '06

Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. -- 9cds^(talk) 11:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think compiling a list of AFDs, artificially slanted, is making a point. You ignore keeps of early evicted people, and a number of others, and then include a cluster of non-keeps for a season of just one BB. This page is not a guideline page. What you've done in the UK BBs, is make overly large "composite articles". They are essentially full articles within over-sized articles. Biographical information is mixed into with show information. I find it pecular you wish to treat BB contestants worse than fictional characters. Although BB is "real", we can look at WP:FICT. It suggests, that if an article on a work (e.g. TV series) is too long, and there's sufficient material, a major character can be spun-off into a separate article. BB contetants are simultaneously "characters" in addition to being real people. It's good to have lists of who's in a show, with *concise* descriptions. But when those descriptions become multiple paragraphs, they aught to be trimmed and/or spun-off. --Rob 15:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simple and obvious wording, which we should have: Individual contestants should not have individual articles unless they satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (people)". This seems obvious. For instance, there's little challenge to at least having winners, who are notable for the show specifically. The idea of ignoring being on the show, is just silly. That's like saying we should ignore an actor's acting, or an athlete's athletics. --Rob 16:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that most copyrighted images from the web, can never be used. However, its false to say any image taken from a copyright holder's web site, is invalid. In fact, fairuse exists to use material without the copyright holder's permission. In fact, its better to have an official source, than an unofficial source. Taking a screen cap from a show one's self, is not any "safer" legally, than taking the same image from the TV show's web site. In fact, if the TV show releases a still from the TV show, for promotional purposes, there may be a better claim for fairuse, than if somebody takes a screen cap of the TV show from home. --Rob 22:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have had this argument many times - may I derict you to Talk: Big Brother (UK series 6) -- 9cds^(talk) 18:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rob makes a couple of good points: it is important to remember that fair use is not a get out of jail free card. There must be a fair use rationale on the image description page for each article it is used in. The JPS^{talk to me} 18:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, he doesn't. Screenshots containing contestants are fair use. They shouldn't be removed. We've already almost lost editor because of this, lets not lose more. -- 9cds^(talk) 23:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshots can be fair use. It depends on the context in which they are being used. The JPS^{talk to me} 16:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The precedent is not verified by the AfD's that were quoted and it has been severely challenged at the latest round of AfD's by 9cds. Because of this it should not be there as it has been used as the basis for AfD's with people following without investigating the precedent evidence properly. Ansell 06:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

What, exactly, is your problem with it? What dont' you like? Why do you not like the fact I put a few housemates up for AfD, and some are being voted as keep because they are notible? -- 9cds^(talk) 12:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, almost none of the "delete examples" were actually delete. They were merges. When content is merged, the article can not be deleted. It is a violation of GFDL to merge substantial content and not retain the article, for attribution purposes. I also added clarity on the different experience with the U.S. show. 9cds, the four AFD nominations were based entirely on the old wording of this page. Obviously, that blanket wording has been rejected. People are clearing applying WP:BIO to each individual case. --Rob 16:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which is exactly what we want. -- 9cds^(talk) 16:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad we agree. I hope this means we can keep the link to Wikipedia:Notability (people) this time, making clear that is the official guideline. --Rob 16:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can't see anything wrong with it now, it isn't based either way imo. -- 9cds^(talk) 16:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to suggest we add something about sourcing. Ideally we should reuqie that all information added be cited independently of the actual show, so that people can confirm it, without watching the show (the show's web site may be ok for certain things, but not the show itself). This is particurlarly true, of negative information about contestants (which we should remind editors, to remove instantly if it's unsourced). The various guidelines, like WP:LIVING should then be linked to. We need to discourage people who just write about what they saw on a live feed, which non fans may not easily verify. Big Brother (UK series 7) seems to be doing this properly now (which is good). --Rob 20:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea -- 9cds^(talk) 20:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We need to find a standard title for nomination table articles, such as Big Brother 7 nominations table to be used as a standard, that will be used for all serieses and countries. -- 9cds^(talk) 13:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the U.S., as you know we nominate and vote differently. Should the U.S. have its own Voting History Page or should I even include that into each season's article? FireSpike 16:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How does voting work? -- 9cds^(talk) 17:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Get Ready, it's long-winded and confusing. At the beginning of a "House-Week" (Thursday) a competition for "Head of Household" is held. The winner of this challenge gets their own bedroom and perks, as well as the right to nominate 2 houseguests for eviction. Nominations occur on Friday, but on Saturday another competition called "The Power of Veto" occurs in which the Head of Household and two nominees each pick one other person, making the 6 play for this power. If won the housegues has the option to veto one of the Head of Household's original nomination, forcing the Head to nominate someone else in place. Then, on Thursday, the housemates who aren't nominated or aren't Head of Household vote to evict one of the nominees. If the vote is tied, the Head breaks it. That person is evicted, and the cycle starts over. FireSpike 17:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, interesting. I'm assuming something similar to the UK tables can be used? I don't think we can easily standardise the tables, I just think we ought to standardise the name, if they're in different articles. -- 9cds^(talk) 18:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd assume the best way to do it would be to first point out the Week, Head of Household, the Pre-Veto nominations, the Post Veto nominations, then how each individual houseguest voted. FireSpike 18:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. -- 9cds^(talk) 18:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and Season 1 in the U.S. used the same system as the UK. It didn't really work here so the concept was retooled. I tried looking for a who nominated whom type of thing, but most treat season 1 as non-existant. FireSpike 18:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I constructed this mock-up chart to try to get approval with. FireSpike 23:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FireSpike, I like the mockup! My suggestion for improving it would be using "HoH", "Jury", and "Nominee" instead of asterisks for voting table. If not the words, then colors instead? Also, as nomination tables are usually on seperate pages, how would we title the US nomination tables? Currently, the nomination table for UK series 7 is titled Big_Brother_7_nominations table. (PS: New to Wikipedia, great work on this WikiProject so far!) --Fmmarianicolon 23:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've decided on a naming scheme now - "Big Brother (USA Series 5) nominations table", or something similar :) Welcome to Wikipedia! -- 9cds^(talk) 01:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've constructed the nomination table I've created for Big Brother (USA season 3). The table is at Big Brother USA season 3 nominations table. I also found season 1's nominations, and constructed the kind that is used for the British version. The table is at Big Brother (USA season 1) nominations table. Will make other seasons later. Also, I'm no expert on charts, but if there's a person who can figure out why there's a little white box that goes vertically down the end of each chart I make, please tell me so I can correct it for the future. FireSpike 01:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, good job :) I think you have one extra column, hense the white box. -- 9cds^(talk) 13:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that a nominations table is being built right on Big Brother (USA season 7) shouldn't that get its own seperate page? FireSpike 16:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Akthough it's not complete (almost there), Big Brother (USA season 6) voting history should give an idea of how this will work out. 18:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

As much as I really dislike this thing, I think something needs to be said about the way Day numbers are written. In a previous edit on the BB06, somebody changed every Day number and eviction percentage to words; even those in the infobox. I'm assuming the standard is to write them in numbers, but if not, then it's just as important that it's included on the Project's page, I think. --JD^talk_email 08:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, and where does it say that a shortened table of contents must be used? --JD[^talk|_email] 16:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

here. -- 9cds^(talk) 17:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That says housemates, not everything else. And if you gave people half a chance, you would have seen that I was going to do something about the housemates being in the table anyway. But now I shan't do it. --JD[^talk|_email] 17:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What else has been cut off? -- 9cds^(talk) 17:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing got cut off. It was all intentionally left out when you designed the new table of contents. --JD[^talk|_email] 17:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The legend is currently being discussing on the Big Brother (USA season 7) talk page, but wanted to ask here as well since it may affect other countries articles: is the legend at the top of the articles standardized, or can it be adjusted for each article to include Head of Household in the current US version? (I'm having trouble reading the code for the table, so I was not sure.) --Fmmarianicolon 05:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to work out a consensus for a strict criteria for what should be in the chronologies, and what shouldn't. Remember, include too much and it will become too long. My suggestions are:

• Evictions
• New housemates
• Warnings from Big Brother (assuming they don't happen every week)
• Special events, such as fights.

-- 9cds^(talk) 08:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tasks, FNL, Nominations, Evictions, strikes, and birthdays. --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 11:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is 'FNL' a weekly task? What are strikes? -- 9cds^(talk) 13:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FNL is a programme broadcasted on Fridays, and it focuses on the housemates playing live games in an arena. The winner gets four prizes, one of them affects Nominations. Strikes are official warnings awarded to housemates by Big Brother. If a housemate receives three, they face early eviction or the public vote. --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 14:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with JD and say that tasks are definitely worth noting. FireSpike 17:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as long as it's very brief. Not convinced about birthdays (unless something important happens during the party). The JPS^{talk to me} 17:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think birthdays should go on; I don't know about Big Brother in other countries, but in Big Brother Australia, they have quite big parties for every birthday. --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 17:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only if something notable happens at such a party. IIRC, "Fight Night" from BB5 was someone's birthday. The JPS^{talk to me} 23:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you include only certain parties, people that didn't watch the series are going to be uninformed, and those that did might wonder why not all the parties were included. It's not even as though all details need to be included; only the fact that a housemate had a party, and what the theme was. That's the basic information, really. --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 23:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. That's what the many other sites are for. A birthday party is not exactly an ideological issue. Informing about some political or corporate issues in and not others is misinforming. Not including yet another party at which nothing happened is hardly a problem. Leave it for the fan sites -- not an encylopeadia. The JPS^{talk to me} 14:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying Wikipedia is an indiscriminate collection of information, but not including birthdays, that happened in the house, on the sole basis that nothing interesting happened, doesn't seem logical enough a reason to not include the birthday at all. A person's birthday a notable event in itself. --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 14:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A person's birthday is possibly notable to that person, but since everyone has one once a year (and many of mine haven't been notable), it's not notable enough for Wikipedia. The JPS^{talk to me} 15:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the US edition, I think the most important events are

• Competitions (weekly: Head of Household, Veto, and Food; sparingly: Luxury and America's Choice)
• Ceremonies (nomination, veto, and eviction)
• Alliance shifts and strategies of the week
• Twists (two Heads of Household, DNA twist, etc).

There are no tasks, and birthdays are not nearly as grand as in Australia. --Fmmarianicolon 23:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with leaving the colour coding on an infobox after a Big Brother series ends? --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 16:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it will be 99% red, and the fact that it doesn't follow past precidents. It adds nothing to the article at all. -- 9cds^(talk) 16:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can it follow past precedents when the colours were implemented last month? --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 16:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox has actually been in use for a long time, it has only recently been turned into a template. -- 9cds^(talk) 16:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have colours been used on the infobox in the past? --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 17:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. -- 9cds^(talk) 17:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How could it have taken precedence in past articles then? Colours shouldn't be removed from the template; it shows people how the housemates left the house. --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 17:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The colours could easily have been added :) Check out other implementations of the infobox to see how that is shown. -- 9cds^(talk) 17:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The colours may have been added easily, but the point is they weren't. This isnt 5 years ago, this is now. I am proposing that the colours remain on infoboxes when a series has ended. --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 17:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]