Talk:Big Brother: Celebrity Hijack

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Big Brother: Celebrity Hijack article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Television: British / Episode coverage / Reality Low‑importance

	Television portal This article 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. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the British television task force.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.
	This article is supported by the Reality television task force.

Big Brother: UK Mid‑importance

	Television portal The Big Brother WikiProject aims to improve articles relating to Big Brother, and Big Brother: Celebrity Hijack has been identified as one of these articles. Anybody can help the WikiProject by trying to improve existing articles. Please add your name to the list of participants, if you are committed to helping out.Big BrotherWikipedia:WikiProject Big BrotherTemplate:WikiProject Big BrotherBig Brother articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Big Brother UK task force.

(UK)

Is this needed in the article title? There aren't any other Big Brother: Celebrity Hijack shows and the article should say it's a UK show. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 18:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just added it since all BB UK articles have (UK) it is the same case with Big Brother Panto. The UK is the only BB to have a Panto season but the article still has (UK) after Big Brother Panto. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 19:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really needed either, but I suppose it helps to have all UK Big Brother pages in the same format. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 20:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because another article has it doesn't mean this should, it might mean they both shouldn't have it. I agree with Anemone, it is unnecessary. IMO they shouldn't have the (UK) bit at the end and instead have those articles redirect to the same name without the (UK) bit. --Lorian^T_C 09:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By having (UK) at the end it helps to distinguish it. Plus it goes by the guidelines established by WP:BIGBRO that all UK Big Brother articles have (UK) at the end of their titles. I agree right now it doesn't need the (UK) at the end since this is the only version with this format and name but it must go by the naming scheme as all UK articles do, its no exception. Neither is Big Brother Panto. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 05:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The established guidelines are that we do not pre-emptively disambiguate. We are left with the ridiculous situation of the 'real' title redirecting to the disambiguated one. What on Earth is the point of that? If you want to know about something, you should read the article, not the title- in a best case scenario, every article about a television show, book, band, town, album or whatever would use the actual name as a title, with no disambiguator. I am moving this article now. J Milburn (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the page back to Big Brother: Celebrity Hijack (UK) all UK pages need to follow the same naming format regardless if one country has a certain show not in other countries. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 20:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, they don't. Not all albums have '(album)' at the end of the article name, not all soccer players have '(soccer player)' at the end of the name and so on. We disambiguate only when the original title is not needed, so we do not end up with the ridiculous situation of the real title redirecting to the disambiguated one, and so that as many articles as possible have the real title. Ironically, I can not give a proper explanation now, because I want to watch the eviction! I will outline my reasoning better in a few hours, or tomorrow morning at the latest. J Milburn (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIGBRO doesn't supersede WP:MOSDAB. J Milburn is absolutely correct. ^anemone│_projectors 21:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have any arguments as to why we should ignore the established guidelines in this case? J Milburn (talk) 22:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's extremely important that we don't start disambiguating pages that don't need disambiguated. -dannerz (talk) 02:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, having looked at the guidelines on WP:BIGBRO, the only thing it says about structure is in relation to the standard Big Brother series, to ensure that countries are not mixed up - "Big Brother UK articles, which should be named Big Brother year (UK)". Guidelines are not in place for seemingly one off programmes. I am moving the article again.-dannerz (talk) 02:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I set up a request to have an administrator help move the page back to Big Brother: Celebrity Hijack (without the .) ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 03:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an administrator, I can do it. J Milburn (talk) 11:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article and talk page in the correct place, all double (and sometimes triple...) redirects fixed. J Milburn (talk) 11:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"It is replacing Celebrity Big Brother in 2008"

Is it really a replacement? I mean, Celebrity Big Brother would have been shown on Channel 4, BB: Celebrity Hijack will be shown on E4. 86.10.194.199 20:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is and it isn't, because CBB isn't on in 2008. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 21:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it has been confirmed that CBB has been axed for 2008 and Celebrity Hijack will be airing in its place on E4. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 21:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious, is it still a charity event? 86.30.9.128 (talk) 22:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes money still goes to charity, 10p of each call goes to charity and the two charities are listed on the official site. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 20:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Logo

Shouldn't it be noted that the eye has a star in the middle? ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 20:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add it in. Or I will if you like.--Hiltonhampton (talk) 14:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spiral staircase

I was wondering. How do we even know if the pics of the staircase are in the house. Whoever took the could have just taken a pic of any staircase and said it was in the house. should we include it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiltonhampton (talk • contribs) 14:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A spiral staircase was shown on 13th January when the 'Interrogators' took Amy and Anthony back in the house, this led them to the 'Interrogation Rooms' as part of Andy McNab's task —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.221.15 (talk) 11:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible format change

Digital Spy reports that celebrities may now be entering the house and living alongside the housemates. Unfortunately they cite the Daily Star as their source (which gets its info from a "show insider"). I'll leave this link here in case a better source corroborates this. Brad (talk) 13:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should wait until the show begins and then if there is a drastic change in format then we can add note it later.--Hiltonhampton (talk) 22:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the Daily Star usually unreliable? From what I have heard they usually are. But I agree unless something from Channel 4 is released prior to Thursday we should leave it alone for now. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 04:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Housemates

I was wondering about whether to put the housemates names into the infobox when they are released tonight? I think I will but would like to hear what you think just in case.--Hiltonhampton (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hijackers or Celebrity Hijackers?

Which should be call that section? I would say hijackers due to the fact that of the Myspace contest means that a nobody will be entering the house. Also the like of Keith Lemon and the McQueen Sisters aren't celebritys they're characters.--Hiltonhampton (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amy was born in 1986 not 1987. I changed it but someone changed it back. please leave it alone!! 82.38.83.222 (talk) 08:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Length

Does anyone know how long this is lasting? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.202.57.170 (talk) 10:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be up to 3 weeks (CBB UK 2007 was 26 days...) 172.213.70.210 (talk) 23:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jake and Dinos

Time to discuss. I'll go first. The official press release and any other website has them listed as "Jake and Dinos". They will enter together and do everything together presumably. Also to make it equal you would have to put the Mc Queen sisters the same way and that would just make it untidy. It's just going to redirect.--Hiltonhampton (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First point is the there was no official press release, i think you are referring to the news story on the website www.heatworld.com which is not official. My second point is that they are separate people and not siamese twins In23065 (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a official press release listing the people taking part which you can access via the C4 site. --Hiltonhampton (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a link to this press release then In23065 (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Young's business career

I have twice had to remove poorly sourced claims about Liam Young under biographies of living people policy. Please check the policy and provide reliable sources for any controversial claim. Persistent addition of unsourced claims can result in editing privileges being removed. Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent warnings to all of the people who added those claims you removed. Tra (Talk) 22:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would this National Student Article serve as a sourced claim? Jinxed - talk 18:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the way that article is worded, it could possibly be used to source a statement that 'claims have been made in forums about the nature of the business'. I don't think it could be used to directly state that 'he has been lying', however. In fact, looking at WP:BLP#Reliable_sources, the source does not appear to be totally confident about the validity of these claims so given the nature of the claims, it would probably be better to wait until multiple sources have covered the issue. Tra (Talk) 21:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the quote about turnover it has been changed from 'hugh' to 'huge', I think that it's more likely that the original word was 'high' and if changed at all it should be this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.222.125 (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Liam, there's no mention of his rather frank, open bisexuality. Erasure much? ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it actually true that he is known to his family and friends as a male prostitute - seems like vandalism to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.8.99 (talk) 22:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Celebrity Hijackers

I was just wondering if the list of upcoming hijackers is correct. I know about this weekend as Chris Moyles has been promoting his appearance and everything. However, is there a link that says that Brian Sewell will be on Monday and Joan Rivers on Tuesday? and what about the list of other potential hijackers. I know some of them were confirmed by Channel 4 last month but where is a link to the fact that The Hollyoaks Girls, The Mighty Boosh or Paula Abdul will be hijacking? I'm just curious as I have been googling these names and have not read anything confirming this.69.28.232.96 (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)samusek2[reply]

Well I'm not sure about Mighty Boosh but it comfrims on the Hollyoaks website the they girls will be doing it and Dermot said on the first episode of BBLB that Paula Abdul would be doing it too.--Hiltonhampton (talk) 01:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be wise to add links then to show sources? 69.28.232.96 (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)samusek2[reply]

Citations really needed for upcoming celebrities..

I have tagged a lot of the references to upcoming celebrities.. as they really do require citations. I'm a fairly big BB fan, and I follow a lot of the news for such things.. and I haven't heard anything about a lot of these celebs hijacking the house in the future.. :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvmedis (talk • contribs) 02:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations announced

Nominations have been announced on c4 website, jeremy, liam, amelia and victor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.191.27 (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remaining hijackers

With the days winding down there are about 6-7 days left. (Will there be a hijacker on Monday or will it be highlights from Sunday. Is Monday a live final?) There are 7 names left on the list, however all of them are not 100% confirmed for this week as some may have dropped out. I read on Big Brother Direct that Melanie Blatt and Natalie Appleton from All Saints are hijacking tomorrow. and they are not on the current list. I know that they will have the Myspace Winner and Roseanne Barr and Jimmy Carr were mentioned on Digital Spy, but as for the rest, I am not sure. Should we erase all the potential hijackers for the remainder of the week and add them as soon as we know for sure who is hijacking on what day? Just a thought. 69.28.232.96 (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)samusek2[reply]

Hijackers

Is it necessary to have information on hijackers in the daily summary section? It's just a duplication of the list of hijackers, only with less information. ^anemone│_projectors 22:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we could scrap the hijacker's section and just leave the list of hijackers in the daily summary. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 04:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No dont scrap the hijackers section it tell you why they are famous and is easy to read —Preceding unsigned comment added by In23065 (talk • contribs) 08:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dermot O'Leary's hijack

Surely his hijack was on the last day, when he went into the house to do the interviews? ^anemone│_projectors 16:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Should we add Anthony nomination for Victor in The second round when he had to put up 1 housemate for automatic nomination? --BigOz22 (talk) 16:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]