Makosi Prostitue?

According to this link MAkosi later revealed it was all a publicty stunt: http://www.newzimbabwe.com/pages/fame39.13959.html

Should some ambiguity be included in the article as apposed to "The sun revealed Makosi has been working as a prostitue" ?

Move?

I think this article should be merged with Big Brother (UK TV series) until after the seriesends, SqueakBox 23:52, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Please object there, as I have one support, and if noone else minds I will do it tomorrow, SqueakBox 02:03, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

I have commented there why I think it should stay separate (i.e., I mind! ;-P ) --Vamp:Willow 12:06, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It should definately stay separate. It looks much cleaner on the main page and will get ginormous one might imagine. Celestianpower 21:57, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It should stay seperate. As above. Also, if we are out-voted you will still have to wait two years (as of 2005) until it can fully be merged becuase Channel 4 has deals with local councils etc to keep it running 'til 2008.Read here, at question #2 Thanks 14:30, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Kinga's status

I'm reinstating Kinga's status as ejected. I agree with VampWillow that the term is normally associated with wrongdoing, the previous ejectees have been "Nasty" Nick in BB1 and Kitten in BB5 but Channel 4 are officially using the term ejected and we should too. DM Andy 2 July 2005 19:22 (UTC)

Apologies for that, I noticed that Channel 4 are now calling it an eviction so have reverted my previous edit DM Andy 2 July 2005 19:39 (UTC)

Orlaith McAllister VFD / merging of articles

Just bringing it to the attention of those who have an interest in this article: the article Orlaith McAllister has been listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, with people opinions currently split between deleting the article, and merging it into the main Big Brother article. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Orlaith McAllister for the discussion.

Given that there have been some ugly scenes regarding issues like this before (see Talk:The Apprentice 2..), I thought I'd come and float the idea of merging of the contestant articles into this one. The great majority of them are only a single paragraph, and it seems to me that they'd fit quite nicely as subsections of this page, that this would put all information of interest to people interested in Big Brother 6 into one place, and that the article would not be unreasonably long even after doing this.

What does anyone else think? —Stormie 11:09, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

I often wonder if it's appropriate to have articles about individual contestants in an encyclopedia such as this. Some of them won't ever have any other claim to fame than appearing on the show. Others, like Craig Phillips and Jade Goody, have become celebrities in their own right, and so it could be argued such entries are worthy. We had this situation before with several articles such as those about Michelle Bass and Stuart Wilson from BB5, and they were eventually slotted into the article about Big Brother 5. -TonyW 14:45, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

I think that the winner of a series should have their own entry, as well as any notable contestants (such as Jade Goody from BB UK Series 3). For this series, I think that it should be the winner, plus Derek if he does not win - as he has more of a 'public' history. All other contestants should just be merged into this page. If any of them become 'famous' in their own right after the series has ended, a new article for them can always be created. Phantomsteve 20:09, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have made all of the individual contestants redirects to this article except for Derek Laud (another batch of them went through VFD last week with a consensus to merge & redirect), and I have reworked the list into a set of subheadings to make it clearer that if anyone wants to add any detail, they should do so. —Stormie 21:56, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Science

I'm a little uncertain over the word "born..." - this suggests a change of name rather than a nickname. I can't think of any better words though. 9cds 01:16, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree. It was put there as 'aka', but a persons really name isn't exactly aka. Maybe just (Keiron Harvey) in the sub heading then? — CuaHL 01:35, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems that past pages had Firstname "Nickname" Lastname - I wonder if it will be too vague though. 9cds 01:44, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New Housemate

As of now, the identity of the new housemate remains UNKNOWN. Kinga has not been confirmed to be re-entering the house, and nobody has entered the house as of yet. FireFox 19:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is confirmed. BBC News are reporting it (here) and so are many other places. violet/riga (t) 19:19, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It had to be Kinga as I doubt they would have put someone totally new in at this late stage in the game. --TonyW 21:30, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Everyone knows what Big Brother is like, 'he' can change things at a moments notice. In my personal opinion, I wouldn't trust non-official big brother sources until it is confirmed by the official website. FireFox

I wouldn't trust The Sun. I would trust the beeb, and even Ladbrokes are saying it's true. We'll find out for sure in around 30 minutes anyway. violet/riga (t) 19:36, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I myself think it is highly likely Kinga is going back in but none of the links on the BB6 page have confirmed it. (Nominations page will also have to be updated) FireFox 19:40, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Secret garden

Where is some information explaining about the secret garden in Wikipedia? --Commander Keane 13:05, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

There isn't as far as I can see. I'll make a seperate page anyway. FireFox 13:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New page has been created, and can be found here. FireFox 13:57, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse to the article

This article needs to seriously be monitored for the time being. I found a pice on the article - I quote...

"Anthony is also really really really fit!!"

This doesn't sound very professional does it? Silly teenage girls are vandalising this article.

What do you expect? Annoying, I know, but get used to it. There's enough people, I think with the article on their watchlists for vandalism to be spotted and quickly reverted. The JPS 16:34, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Placings

There's a minor edit war going on... perhaps it's one for the talk page rather than spending all day reverting each other's edits? My inclination is that Orlaith isn't plaecd anywhere because she quit the competition. The JPS 16:34, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to revert anymore cos I can't be bothered. The proof is here. States clearly that she finished 7th. [1] I also think that there is no point putting everyone's positions in the table in the first place, as none of the other series' articles do. FireFox 16:50, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for providing a source - they are a refreshingly good addition to a dispute!! One of you is right to leave it alone - which ever one of you it may be. It's not really that important. The 'day left' column fulfills the same purpose, tho' Kinga does complicate things. The JPS 18:34, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Craig's Eviction

The article says "Craig was evicted on Day 76 in a surprise mid-week eviction, whilst the housemates were having dinner." - the timing may have been surprising, but the actual act of a mid-week eviction wasn't a surprise... the housemates had discussed it as something they expected to happen, as they knew that they wouldn't all be there on the last day. Phantomsteve 17:10, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are the rankings necassary?

Big Brother UK
Series 6 (2005) (with day of exit)
Anthony Hutton	Day 78 (Winner)
Eugene Sully	Day 78 (Runner-up)
Makosi Musambasi	Day 78 (3rd)
Kinga Karolczak	Day 78 (4th)
Craig Coates	Day 76 (5th)
Derek Laud	Day 71 (6th)
Orlaith McAllister	Day 65 (Walked)
Kemal Shahin	Day 64 (7th)
Kieron "Science" Harvey	Day 57 (8th)
Vanessa Layton-McIntosh	Day 50 (9th)
Maxwell Ward	Day 43 (10th)
Saskia Howard-Clarke	Day 36 (11th)
Kinga Karolczak (re-entered on Day 66)	Day 32 (4th)
Roberto Conte	Day 29 (12th)
Sam Heuston	Day 22 (13th)
Lesley Sanderson	Day 15 (14th)
Mary O'Leary	Day 8 (15th)

Are all the rankings really necassary? It's never been done for Big Brother 5, 4, 3, 2 or 1. It looks neater without the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th and 15th. We should keep 'Winner' for Anthony, 'Runner-Up' for Eugene, 'Walked' for Orlaith and 're-entered on Day 66' for Kinga. Squidward2602 10:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, and at least losing them would solve the Orlaith dilemma! The order in the table says it anyway, the the placings does make the table look a bit cluttered. The JPS 11:46, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have done the deed and erased 3rd-15th, leaving only 'Walked' and 're-entered on Day 66'. If, however, it is agreed by a majority the rankings should return, then change it back. Squidward2602 14:41, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Images

User:Squidward2602 has uploaded images for each housemate. Although the article looks fantastic, unfortunately these images, taken from http://www.channel4.com/bigbrother/ is a copyright violation. I've reported it on the relevant page - they need removing from this article :( If you want, I guess screenshots can be used as fair use: if you do, make sure you use the tag {{Screenshot}} There are screenshots here - warning adult content (best also to cite the URL on the image description page) The JPS 15:31, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted and removed. violet/riga (t) 16:29, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I caused any trouble, I'd just like to point out though that the screenshots link in The JPS's comment has pornographic material, and all the BB pictures seem all to be of the same nature, just pointing it out to anyone following the link. Squidward2602 14:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry - I've now put a warning in that link. There are many screenshots there, though, that can be used without controversy. They aren't all boobs and ass. There's much, much worse on wikipedia! The JPS 14:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the few I saw were boobs and ass though. I am in the process of trying to find some screenshots though. Squidward2602 14:42, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Press publicity images of the contestants were added by a Wikipedian. They would therefore seem to qualify for fair use. Commments? --luke 02:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've written to User:Ross-1989 to try and explain what's going on with the pics he tried to include - I'm only a newbie, so correct anything that is wrong. This can't have been a pleasant intoduction to Wikipedia if it was his first time--luke 07:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Publicity pics which User:Ross-1989 uploaded at the same time for the BB5 article have been marked for deletion soon. Any possibility of keeping them and using in the article, as they would make it more useful?--luke 05:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting for comments here on the BB6 publicity pics, and have been waiting for over a month. Is there any reason why the pics should not be included in the main article. They were uploaded a while ago, and I was waiting for User:Ross-1989 - but he seems to have gone. They are tagged for fair use as I tried to explain to Ross on his talk page. J-P calls them "those dammed photos," but why shouldn't they be included please? Maybe you think it will make the article worse, or there are other reasons. Please let us know quickly--14:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of 'publicity photos' is a very complicated one. I know it sounds odd, but just becasue it's a photo publicising the show doesn't make it a publicty photo in the legal 'fair use' sense. See Wikipedia:Publicity photos. There are simple guidelines, specifically that fair use promo photos should come from only a press kit. "Most photos that are found on the Internet are not publicity photos."

The pictures that are being uploaded/deleted/uploaded/deleted etc. are not publicity photos in this sense. They are not part of a press kit. They are simply found on the website. Regardless of whether we think it will make the article look beter, they are owned by Channel 4/Endemol, and it is not up to us to use them wherever we want.

I called them 'those dammed photos' because it takes a lot of time to go through them all and tag them for deletion and notify the uploader. Then an admin has to go through them all again and delete them (which involves checking the history, etc). I've resorted to using those system messages to try to stop yet another newbie uploading them again and wasting yet more time. The message, though, could be revised to something like "Please do not upload copyrighted images from Channel 4's website: see talk page".

I suspect no-one replied sooner because we have already been through this issue in the last few months. The JPS 15:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi J-P, I'll reply in more detail late tonight, but meantime can you look at the source identified for each of the pics uploaded...You may be surprised--luke 18:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to your more detailed reply. I have rechecked the sources, and there is still no mention of an electronic press kit. The JPS 00:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, It seems that you are only concerned about copyright. Now I noticed that you say "we have already been through this issue in the last few months" - to me this means that the copyright issue has been debated, but this is obviously not true. And the fair use claim was left unanswered for over a month.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
the nature of the copyrighted work;
the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

It seems overwhelmingly likely that these photos (or their originals) were intended (whether explicitly or implicitly) to be reproduced to publicize the programme. Suppose eg that a CD of the pictures was received from Endemol by the News of the World just before Big Brother 6 was starting, but without any explicit statement of their purpose or copyright status. If they were then to be included in the paper on the Sunday before BB6 started, any claim as to copyright would surely be laughed out of court.

I asked you to look at the source identified for each of the pics uploaded. You should have seen something like—

pic is from http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/story_pages/showbiz/showbiz2_bb.shtml

This publicity image of Mary in Big Brother 6 was widely disseminated in both electronic and print media (many national newspapers carried the picture) by Endemol/Channel 4 in May 2005 to advertise the TV programme

13 of the 16 pics uploaded were taken from that News of the World link. The other 3 were from Channel4's BB website, but were similarly disseminated in June 2005 in print and electronically.

Now about the pics, you state that you called them 'those dammed photos' because it takes a lot of time to go through them all and tag them for deletion and notify the uploader. Then an admin has to go through them all again and delete them (which involves checking the history, etc). Yet, as you can see from Ross's talk page, the BB6 images which he uploaded were deleted without any notice whatsoever. They simply disappeared from Wikipedia.

Taking all these matters into account, I think a claim of fair use can be reasonably sustained by the four-factor test--luke 05:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what do you make of the specific guidelines about Publicity Photos to which I've already linked? Although it is indeed best to notify the uploader (so they don't make further breaches), there is no strict need to do this. There was, and is, no need for a debate. There are guidelines laying out what can be classed as fair use publicity photos. These photos breach those guidelines.

The News of the World probably did get them from an electonic press kit -- that does not give Wikipedia the right to use them. The source must be a press kit with information on their copyright. No information = no use.The JPS 09:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that the guidelines to which you linked are a proposal, and not Wikipedia policy. It is strange then that you say there is no need for a debate, and that you don't condemn deletion of images without any warning, done simply on the basis of a proposal. The proposal is an attempt to put into effect fair use--luke 19:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

J-P, I gave a counter-example (Endemol and News of the World) where reliance on explicit information given by the publicist seems to be foolish, since taking account of the surrounding circumstances can show the truth. So in my view the Publicity photos proposal should be more clearly worded so as to take account of a broader range of cases, and relying on reasoned judgement in each case.

The four-factor test seems to allow the use of the pictures I uploaded, do you not agree?--luke 04:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I sympathise with your interpretation, which does invite your conclusion. Fair use also requires a link to the copyright status so that other users can assess the status. It is not unreasonable Or "foolish") to request information provided by the executives who own and control these images. The JPS 12:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As requested, I have provided a link to support my statement. This was incredibly easy to find on the Fair Use page. The JPS 22:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've customized the copyright tag specifically for the Endemol/Channel 4 promotional pictures to take account of your concerns. You can see an example on Derek's pic. It's the second of the three tags at this moment. Any comments please? Responses will be appreciated--luke 19:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hope no one is offended by the screencap of Ant and Max. I think it's better for the article to use interesting screencaps if we can--luke 07:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony

Maybe an individual article should be made for Anthony, as has been done for the previous five winners here, here, here, here and here. Just a suggestion but I think it would be a good idea to take it up. FireFox 15:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Once he's done something that transcends this article then he can have his own page. The Nadia article is a bit iffy, but the transsexuality stuff gives it a bit oomph (technical term!). When there's more to be said about Hutton, and we can expand it beyond one sentence ("he won Big Brother 6") without having to resort to using the series itself for the bulk of the article... Even Cameron has presented a couple of programmes. The JPS 17:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

External links

Perhaps we should remove the link: "Up to date odds with Paddy Power", because now the series has fininshed, it just links to a near-to-blank page as there are no odds to show anymore. FireFox 12:40, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely! The JPS 13:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This external link seems to be phrased as more of an advert than anything neutral - All the latest updates on Big Brother 6 from the Jade Goody website ... comments? Mewcenary 14:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Extermination of the linkspam complete! --Cel e stianpower ^hablamé 16:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Sully

I noticed a change made by 139.184.30.18 which changed Eugene's First class honours to third class honours. This user has been blocked for vandalism several times, although I am unsure whether it is in this case or not. Can someone take a look? --FireFox 13:47, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to have been changed again, however it was already on third class and now it says first class. Do we actually know which it is? Tescomarc 21:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to find out the information. If no one knows for sure, I suggest that it could be changed to 'honours degree' without specifying the class luke 22:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I contacted Sussex University and their press office tell me that Eugene got a third class degree and NOT a first class degree. They also made a point of saying that he was a great student and made a valuable contribution to the student radio station luke 12:12, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I remember it saying here that Eugene was going to take part in Sky One's Braniac show - was there any truth in that matter? Cheers

Karolczak vs. Karokzak

Which is it? I remember wikipedia always had Karokzak, until it was just changed to Karolczak - I searched the internet and found websites varied in the spelling. I recall the BBC spelt it with the 'lc' but other sources, eg. The Sun used just a 'k' - I think Karolczak, but does anyone have any evidence? Squidward2602 14:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would side more with Karolczak, but I've even seen her name spelt Karolozak. I must admit it would be helpful if the C4 website gave their full names. I remember Kinga spelling her name out once but unfortunately I can't remember anything else :o( --FireFox 14:43, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Right, here is proof from the Channel 4 BB website. Paragraph 3 says: Joining Russell are TV presenter Sarah Cawood, ultimate Big Brother obsessive John Connell, and Secret Garden nymphet Kinga Karolczak. As this is the official website, I would call that proof. :o) FireFox 15:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well she is half-Polish, and even though I don't know the language, I do know that cz is a digraph in the language, and I've always seen it spelled Karolczak. Geoking66 21:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Racial Abuse

Didn't Channel 4 say that on their last series that they would never do BB ever again, beacause racial abuse] was seen and heard in front of millions. Even some residents called the police! But obviously they never stuck to what they said. Anyone confirm? 14:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Tagging

I think it could be useful to put this: Template:TotallyDisputed either just under the heading for housemates or at the top of the page, because a lot of it is either roumers, biased or both. It's only an idea. What does everyone else think? File:Smily.jpg FireFox 19:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - that's better than cleanup. I'll do it now. —Cel es tianpower ^háblame 20:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC) 19:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Derek - why I think it is very relevant to mention his BB6 House quizzes.

During his time in the House, Derek often attacked other housemates as having low intelligence. When she entered the House he asked Orlaith if she was intelligent: She replied that she had been to university and Derek responded that this wasn't necessarily a sign of intelligence. He often dissed housemates in the Diary Room as well.

There were many examples of Derek's own lack of general knowledge and poor judgement during his time in the House, both in the quizzes he set and elsewhere. One example was his asking a question about a film (a figment of his imagination) supposedly starring John Wayne and called 'Hey Ho'. This fiction was compounded by his then asking Craig to spell 'Hey Ho' for an extra mark!

A reasonably high percentage of Derek's answers were incorrect, I estimate around 20%. Nevertheless his quizzes were appreciated by the housemates. His answers were nearly always accepted as being correct.

In Britain, a person's way of speaking still can have great impact as to how they are perceived, and it seems Derek has made use of this.

I hope the above lends weight to my addition, and that it should be restored

edit @ 17.45 UCT by shojo - sorry I forgot to sign

luke 17:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Makosi's Driving Offence?

Is there any truth to The Sun's article on Makosi's driving offence? It also says that she was taken in for questioning, and the subject of deportation was brought up ... anyone know of any truth in the article, or can it be added to Makosi's section on the BB6 page?

EDIT: Sorry, it wasn't The Sun, it was BBC Teletext. Squidward2602 11:45, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is confirmed here luke 14:15, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Makosi's Deportation?

Does anyone have any information on whether Makosi is being deported? She was told she had 10 days to appeal, and that was 19 days ago! Has anything been revealed or is it all being kept secret? Squidward2602 17:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Derek - why I think the section on BB6 House quizzes should be removed.

1 Derek was only one of three house mates acted as quizzes mast on BB6 House quizzes. Then other two quiz masts being Kemal and Eugene. All three housemates thought up the questions for the quiz

So what? He organised the quizzes and was by far the main quizmaster.

Leaving out the fact that Derek was not the only quiz master is a misconception of what really happened. The fact is that the all the quiz masters organised the quizzes and there was never a main quizmaster. If there were two quizmasters

If there were two quizmasters, Derek was always one of them.

As Eugene did not enterer the house until halfway through serious and Kemal was evicted a week before what do you expect

2. Only a small percentage of Derek, Kemals and Eugene’s answers were incorrect, I estimate around 20%. This is a very good considering that they had no reference books to refer to and had to depend solely on their own general knowledge

20% is a substantial percentage to get wrong. If you are not certain of an answer you should not pose the question in a quiz.

80% is a substantial percentage to get write when all you have to rely on is your own general knowledge.

3. the attacks on Derek’s BBC English Accent is Inverse snobbery

Derek's accent is described as prestigious. Why do you believe that it is inverse snobbbery or an attack on his accent?

Why do you believe that Derek accents prestigious?

The word describing Derek's accent was first incorporated into this article on 1 September 2005 by a sociolinguistics lecturer.

I asked why you believe that Derek accents prestigious. I did not ask when the word describing Derek's accent was first incorporated into this article or who incorporated into this article.

Just because one sociolinguistics lecturer uses the word it dos not make it correct

All the housemates had different accent so why refer to Derek’s accent and not to any of the housemate’s accents?

Derek's accent is very unusual in today's Britain.

All the houses mates’ accent could be said to be very unusual to some one depending on in what part of Britain you. So why refer to Derek’s accent and not to any of the housemate’s accents.

Derek's was the ONLY accent that was principally class-based, rather than regionally based.

Firstly your statement about Derek’s accent being principally class-based, rather than regionally based is not only a class stereotype but it is also in correct as most millionaires in Britain do not have Derek’s accent.

Secondly why should it mater if his acct was class based or regional based

What has Derek’s accent got to do with his role as quiz master?

Derek was the only housemate never to be subjected to quiz questions, but only to set them. Many people believe his accent and demeanour bamboozled the others (and some viewers) into thinking he was more intelligent and was in some way superior.

Anyone who makes assumption about some one on the ground of the way they speak is prejudice and you can’t blame Derek for they way some ignorant prejudice people think. Derek has never said he was more intelligent or that he was in any way superior. In fact when Kinga said she thought that Derek was intelligent he replied’ I’m not intelligent and then he Pointe over at Eugene and ‘said he is intelligent’.

I don't think that associating a prestigious accent with intelligence would normally be described as prejudice. However, on one occasion - when the housemates were sitting around a table - Derek asked Craig for a chocolate and Makosi offered to pass one over to him, and Derek told Makosi to keep her filthy black hands off - that is what most people would think of as being prejudiced.

To be prejudice is to have a preconceived preference or idea.So anyone who makes assumption about some one on the ground of the way they speak is prejudice

The occasion that you are referring was during the spy task - when the housemates were sitting around a table they where all PLAYING THE ROLE OF WW2 SPYS. What Derek, Craig and Makosi did or said when they where in character are what most people would think of as acting.

Many people were appalled to hear Derek's words and I still find them appalling. It's almost impossible to think of circumstances where racist language is justified. Not only that, but Derek has used racist language on serveral other occasions as you know luke 20:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This discuss is not about whether or not Derek has used racist languageI will be quite happy to it with you when you create new subjected heading

This discussion is to do with people making assumption about Derek one on the ground of the way he speaks. It's almost impossible to think of circumstances where any form of discrimination is justified which includes assumption about people on the grounds of the way that speak.

You are the one who raised the issue of prejudice. Don't you think that Derek's language is comletely unacceptable?

As regards Derek's accent, although you assert that it shouldn't change the way he is perceived, you haven't denied that it may do so. Furthermore you have completely dismissed the views of someone familiar with this field, the sociolinguistics lecturer who contributed to this article. luke 22:57, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I have this discuss is not about whether or not Derek has used racist language. I will be quite happy to it with you when you create new subjected heading

As regards Derek's accent: If you read my posts you will see that I have answered this.

With regards sociolinguistics lecturer I did not completely dismissed his/her views; if you where familiar with this field then you would know that for every Sociolinguistics who says one thing you will find one who says the opposite. And as I have said I asked why you believe that Derek accents prestigious. I did not ask when the word describing Derek's accent was first incorporated into this article or who incorporated into this article

You imply that you are very familiar with the field of sociolinguistics and that you know there are opposing opinions on voice perception. We have already heard from a sociolinguist that there is evidence in academic texts to support the article as it now stands. Can you then please name a recognised expert in the field who believes that a person's accent has no effect on the way they are perceived? luke 10:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the above lends weight to my changes, and that the section on the quize should be removed

funny comment

this comment is funny:

"Davina McCall had been hinting at it being a "popularity contest", "...

What, didn't the housemates already know that before these hints? Asa01 22:34, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cant add Sam's Wikipedia page?

Hi, I was trying to add Sam's wikipedia page to every sam text on the Big Brother UK series 6 similar to Derek's link but a message came back saying I was spamming or something, could anyone who can edit the page link Sam text to this page please... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Heuston

Thank you.

Hello, A consensus was reached on individual contestants having their own wikipedia page. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Orlaith McAllister for the vote, and item 3 above for the discussion. So you must give a good reason for granting Sam her own page.

I don't see why your two Sam fansites should not be included in a separate 'Fansite' section at the end of the main article, although it seems from the above that there is opposition to this.

Comments?--luke 03:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fansites

I've seen fansites already listed on wikipedia for Nadia Almada, Brian Dowling and Kate Lawler. Any comments on whether they should be limited to winners?

The Sam ones I mentioned earlier are:-

--luke 16:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add them tonight, there being no objections--luke 19:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IP's claim

the section about derek in non-NPOV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.13.196.15 (talk • contribs) 23:07 24 May 2006

Kinga in the ranking table

Should Kinga's stay in the Secret Garden be counted in the table of housemates? BB made it clear to the Secret Garden trio that they were "not housemates yet". I'd say she only became a BB6 Housemate on Day 66, so the reference to her earlier stay shouldn't be on the chart. Jess Cully 18:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would certainly make it more sane... -- 9 cds^(talk) 18:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bit about lowest viewers figure

This bit has been added Unfortunately the show surpassed the fourth series for receiving the lowest viewer ratings of all the Big Brother series due of having housemates who were considered unlikable. as it was from the series 4 entry and isn't that latter bit true to reasons why series 6 was unpopular.

Full Names

Should everyone's full name appear on the Big Brother endgame infobox? I think so, like all other articles. Geoking66 05:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Big Brother#Surnames or not?, but only barely... --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 21:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maxwell and Saskia split

It was reported in the sun on 18th July 2006 that friends of the pair have stated that Maxwell and Saskia have split and are no longer together. I can not find the link to back this up but as I am writing this statement the small article is in front o me - Jezabelda 09:34, 20 July 2006

Surnames in the article

I've asked this before, and I'm asking it again, as I'm hoping this time there'll be more of a response. Should the way last names are used in the UK articles stay the same, or should they be as they are used on the Big Brother Australia articles? (examples at BB06, BB05, BB04)? --JD ^{don't talk} _{email me} 00:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO they should be left in. If an article says "George" then there are thousands of George's in the world. If surnames are included then it narrows that down to a few hundred... godgoddingham333 00:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm interesting idea. The Australian ones look quite neat, and the surnames never seem to be mentioned in the show. Certainly on the List of Big Brother housemates (UK series 7) would be good. --Alex⁹⁸⁹¹ 00:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:) Glad I'm good for something. That damn infobox ({{Big Brother housemates}}) causes problems with that, as sections are automatically linked to. The only way that could be solved with that above infobox, without removing automatic linking or changing the template to {{Big Brother endgame}}, is to remove the surnames from the main BB7 page. --JD ^{don't talk} _{email me} 00:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you removed that, I reckon there would be uproar from some other major BB7UK contributors... godgoddingham³³³ 00:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, your signature's died on you. I could bring this up on the BB7 or BB7 Housemates article, and see what responses the topic gets there. --JD ^{don't talk} _{email me} 00:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea... (Also testing signature...) godgoddingham³³³ 00:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Test it in a personal sandbox (User:godgoddingham333/Sandbox), it's less embarrassing! --JD ^{don't talk} _{email me} 00:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lol! --Alex⁹⁸⁹¹ 00:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. godgoddingham³³³ 00:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use images

There's ten of them. Unfortunately, I think they need to go as per Talk:List of Big Brother housemates (UK series 7)#Removed images. Tra (Talk) 01:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eleven... I say get rid of the screenshots, leave the eye. _JD^talk 01:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot about the eye... Yep, the housemate images need to go and then their image pages can be tagged with {{subst:orfud}} Tra (Talk) 02:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't believe there is a settled policy on this question of removal...eg see: Too many images..., limiting screenshots, particularly the current discussion on this proposal for images in lists which touches on the issue and my proposal on images of living people. As far as I can see, no decision on removal of multiple images was reached, eg "..you use as little images as needed to aid the article in whatever way that the fair use rational claimed. As such, this is not a set number."--luke 04:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC) ps I hope you guys can add your thoughts on the last two, which are currently being debated.... luke[reply]

"unsuccessfully managed"?

"all contestants have unsuccessfully managed to sustain a long term showbiz career"

What is this supposed to mean? -- Smjg 23:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it means that none of the contestants were famous for a long time after the show. It is a bit POV, however, so I've trimmed down the introductory paragraph. Tra (Talk) 23:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took that bit about what they are doing, as isn't it right, these people are a bunch of losers, I mean a bunch of failures, none of them have gone anywhere beyong BB since they ahve left these contestants deserve to end up stacking shelves at Tesco, well theres nothing else they deserve apart from sweeping floors at the streets of London —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.82.139.5 (talk) 18:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Nominations table

After the series is over, should this page be kept? If so, then surely we need similar pages for Big Brother UK Series 1-5? What do you think? Phantomsteve 20:23, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I should say this page should definitely be kept. As for the others, if you wish to create them then go for it (obviously)!!! I however cannot remember that for back. --Celestianpower ^talk 21:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have created Big Brother 5 nominations table, feel free to edit, tidy, or do anything you need to do to it. Squidward2602 13:57, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now I've created Big Brother 4 nominations table. Squidward2602 15:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Table tidy

I made a few changes to the table.

changed the fonts etc
brought in a colour scheme
used colspans for evicted contestants
turned the notes into footnotes

If it causes any problems, revert it, or ask me on my talk page. You have to admit it looks much nicer now, and definately should be kept ;) — CuaHL 01:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Final Positions

Is it really necassary to have the positions in the name boxes? Saying who came 16th, 15th, 14th, etc. isn't really how you know the housemates, the only positions that are ever counted are 1st - 4th. Perhaps the final four positions could be written in the housemate's Week 11 boxes - see Big Brother 5 nominations table or Big Brother 4 nominations table to get the idea of what I'm suggesting.

I get what you mean. The only problem with this is that Week 11 is actually being used for the mid-week eviction on Wednesday. If we were to follow the same pattern as BB5 and BB4, a new final column would have to be created. (This cannot be named Week 12 because there isn't one. Possibly week 11, second half. These are only ideas but I think that putting final positions in Week 11 as it is, would not work very well. FireFox 17:36, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It worked OK for the Big Brother 5 nominations table, in which Stuart was evicted half way through the final week. Just do the 'evicted' boxes the same as Derek's and then write Winner, 2nd, 3rd and 4th in the housemates respective boxes. Squidward2602 12:23, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]