Talk:Big Brother (British TV series) series 8/Archive 6
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Big Brother (British TV series) series 8. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Ziggy
were is he on the list of housemates at the top? someone should put him in it user:coolchris99
Charley's 'Fake Evicted' Colour
Looks an awful lot like the 'ejected' colour in the housemates table. Could be confusing to a non BB viewer... 81.159.81.203 16:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- The nominations tables and housemate table use different colour schemes though. For example, walked is yellow on the housemate table and pink on the table. Ejected is orange/yellow on the housemate table and pink-ish on the nominations table. Squidward2602 18:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- What about if the nominations was changed to something like this? http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y35/binssey/?action=view¤t=table.jpg I know it's always been the pink colours, but seeing as everything else in the housemates table is the same colour (namely, the "nominated" and the "evicted"), I don't think the ejected and walked colours looks so bad (The "Fake Evicted" colour was just a random one I chose) 81.159.81.203 09:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- No colour would be fine. Darrenhusted 11:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Confirmation of 6 newbies on Friday
This needs to be added somewhere, as confirmed on Tues 24/7 edition of BBLB. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 10:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- It's mentioned at Big Brother 2007 (UK)#Housemates. Tra (Talk) 11:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
BB Australia phone call
Where shall we put this infomation, the weekly table? Source-[1] Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 14:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- If it was part of the task. Darrenhusted 14:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- No, just a random treat. The task is over. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 14:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Part of the weekly summary should suffice. Darrenhusted 14:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- I added it to the weekly summary.Babygurl1853 04:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
The Half-Way House-Mates
None should be added to any tables until they are eligible for nominations/nominating, otherwise we will end up with 3 blank rows (I don't think the new two will be able to nominate/be nominated on Monday so they will only be part of the process in Week 10), which will say "not in house" "not eligible" "evicted day 62" and they will never even cast one vote. Darrenhusted 23:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- I personally think that they and Pauline should be added to the nominations table, because in previous series, housemates that aren't 'full housemates' are included in the nominations table, e.g. Jon in BB4 is included when he returned as a guest; Jonathon in BB7 is included though he never nominated and never entered the main House; Grace/Mikey/Lea are included in their second time in the House though they weren't elegible to win. I don't think lack of nominating is a good reason on its own to exclude someone since Emily, Lesley and Shabnam never nominated yet they are still shown. Tra (Talk) 23:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Tra, and instead of saying 'not eligible' this week, the table should read 'Halfway' like 'Next Door' last year... godgoddingham 333 00:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- Pauline was a task and never a housemate. She was never eligible to win or nominate, so therefore she shouldn't be added to the nomination table. Also, for the time being I would keep the 5 in the housemates list, and then class the ones who are not selected as evicted (as they would have technically been voted out by the other housemates, as they werent picked) and then add the remaining two to the nominations/nominating tables. As they will most likely not nominate on Monday, I would class that one week as 'next door'.Babygurl1853 04:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- I would say that Pauline is in some ways a housemate because although she was not eligible to win, she still slept in the House and interacted with the other housemates. There is also precedent of Jon in BB4 having his second time in the House shown in the nominations table despite being inelligible to nominate or win. On the other hand, she could also be compared with Jade's grandparents in CBB5 who entered the House but were not housemates. Looking at other lists of housemates available on the internet, there are a lot of inconsistencies. Channel 4 show her in their list of housemates but not in the scrolling banner at the top; Digital Spy show her in the photos at the top; the BBC do not show her in their list; The Sun don't show her in the gallery of photos although they have show her before in their "BB Bitch" column.
- As for the halfway housemates, this article suggests there may be some swapping taking place between the two Houses before the mass-eviction so theoretically, more than just two of the halfway housemates could become full housemates. Tra (Talk) 12:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- Pauline was a task and never a housemate. She was never eligible to win or nominate, so therefore she shouldn't be added to the nomination table. Also, for the time being I would keep the 5 in the housemates list, and then class the ones who are not selected as evicted (as they would have technically been voted out by the other housemates, as they werent picked) and then add the remaining two to the nominations/nominating tables. As they will most likely not nominate on Monday, I would class that one week as 'next door'.Babygurl1853 04:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Tra, and instead of saying 'not eligible' this week, the table should read 'Halfway' like 'Next Door' last year... godgoddingham 333 00:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- I just wanted some discussion before massive changes were made to the tables. Previous years should guide us. Darrenhusted 00:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Jon and other returning housemates are not really relevant to this discussion since (a) they were proper housemates to begin with and (b) their inclusion doesn't increase the size of the table. It seems pretty silly to include people who couldn't nominate or be nominated in a nominations table. - LeonWhite 17:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- Although Lesley could have been nominated by Zach in Week 1, so it makes sense to keep her and Emily in, even though they never nominated. I don't see the point of keeping people on the table who will never do either, and maybe this needs to be looked in to for previous years (like removing Jonathon from last year's table). Darrenhusted 20:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- Jonathon was nominated, since Aisleyne had to choose between him and Spiral for immediate eviction. For this year's twist, there would need to be some method of deciding who is and isn't evicted, and this could be decided perhaps by a group decision or by individual nominations. Maybe it would be better to wait until the decision is actually made so that we can find the best way of presenting it in the table. If all else fails, the twist could perhaps be explained by a nomination note at the bottom if there's no easy way of showing it in the table. Tra (Talk) 20:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- As we are unsure of what is going to happen I figured it was best to wait until Monday night before any changes are made. Darrenhusted 01:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Shanessa had to choose a housemate to swap places with her and enter the Halfway house, She chose Liam. Should this be added to the nominations table? 12bigbrother12 16:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- It's not a nomination, so no. John Hayestalk 16:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Podcast 9
This week hosted by all the housemates in succession. Darrenhusted 20:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- Added that, I think, the other day? If not it's there now :)
"Up For Nomination" colour being used for "Halfway House"
I'm not too sure of this personally...It could confuse people who will assume, before reading, that all these people are up for nomination.Babygurl1853 13:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Chanelle
Chanelle is still in the house (after going in and out of the Diary Room like three times now [2]) - but due to walk. Should Chanelle be listed as walked, or should she still be listed as a normal housemate? She might change her mind. Squidward2602 16:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- The article on the Ch4 website implies there's still the possibility of her staying. I think the article should list her as a normal housemate until she actually has walked. Tra (Talk) 16:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
BBC and Daily Mail say she's gone now although the Sun live blog says she's still inside. Ho-hum, thank god Wikipedia isn't a news aggregate site, we'd be screwed with the level of some of the journalism out there. Foxhill 17:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Can we stop revert warring over this issue, please? If you disagree about the exact whereabouts of Chanelle, please discuss it here rather than constantly reverting. Tra (Talk) 18:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- As it stands, Chanelle is reviewing the situation on Tuesday. Until then, she is still a housemate. The article that explains that is here: http://www.channel4.com/bigbrother/news/newsstory.jsp?id=17181 And I do not appreciate being threatened with warnings just for telling the truth.Babygurl1853 18:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- And she's gone. Again. Probably. There is no news article on the official website, but her profile picture has switched to 'walked' and from what I've read about the live feed, she's definately gone. Should we wait for confirmation? Squidward2602 15:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- EDIT: Confirmation (though Channel 4 did this yesterday when she 'walked').
- Considering that, it would be best to wait for an independant source, which is what we should do anyway. John Hayestalk 15:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is that independent sources can get it wrong, since when she went in and out yesterday, the BBC initially reported that she had walked and later had to update their article when it turned out she hadn't walked. Tra (Talk) 16:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- She's officially gone. Her pictures been updated to "Walk", she hasnt come out of the Diary Room for hours, and I bet Little Brother will confirm it tonight.Babygurl1853 16:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Tra, I agree, but ideally (at least according to the Big Brother Wikiproject) we should avoid using Channel 4 as a source, and only once enough (usually) reliable sources have confirmed it, should it have been added. I can't remember which policy, but somewhere it says verifiablity is more important than truth. John Hayestalk 18:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is that independent sources can get it wrong, since when she went in and out yesterday, the BBC initially reported that she had walked and later had to update their article when it turned out she hadn't walked. Tra (Talk) 16:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Considering that, it would be best to wait for an independant source, which is what we should do anyway. John Hayestalk 15:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- EDIT: Confirmation (though Channel 4 did this yesterday when she 'walked').
- And she's gone. Again. Probably. There is no news article on the official website, but her profile picture has switched to 'walked' and from what I've read about the live feed, she's definately gone. Should we wait for confirmation? Squidward2602 15:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Nominations table
Regarding choosing from the halfway housemates, I don't think it is necessary to list the 'nominations' in the table. The main reason for this is that they weren't actually nominations at all - they were unofficial, organised by Carole and Gerry (see this article). As a side-note, do we have any source that confirms that there will be no eviction this week, as the current table seems to suggest? — Xy7 10:39, 31 July 2007
- I understood that they were evicting the least popular Half-way House-mate. I guess Dermot will confirm tonight. Darrenhusted 10:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Nominations Week 9
Are the housemates going to nominatate who they want to evict this week? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.241.9 (talk • contribs)
- We'll get back to you in about five hours time. Darrenhusted 13:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
This[3] new news story from the channel 4 website says that all those Halfway will face the public vote. Should we add them to the table, and remove the noms, as they were unofficial nominations instigated by the HMs. we should replace it with "No nominations", 'cos there aren't officially this week... godgoddingham 333 15:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- That link doesn't really make anything clear. We will know for sure after BBLB when voting lines open. Although I do agree the unofficial votes should come of with No Noms note added, as they did not vote to get people out but bring people in. Darrenhusted 15:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
To those who keep altering the table I say this, you keep missing the last bar on Jonty and Shanessa, plus there were no nominations yesterday, even though the housemates did a quick straw poll they did not vote for those who will be up for the public vote. In fact the opposite, they voted for those who will not be up for the vote, so there is no need to keep adding votes in, if you want to summarise the voting somewhere else, maybe on the Halfway house section to say that the housemates voted for whoever to move then that would be the best palce for the information. Darrenhusted 20:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- If u look at previous nomination tables, they are not always who they want to evict. Series 6, week 9, it was who to save. Series 5, week 1, was who didn't receive their suitcase. That's why the nominations when housemates were nominating to who they want from the halfway house to join them, should be added the nominations table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.240.55 (talk) 21:37, 31 July, 2007 (UTC)
- Just because something has been done that way in the past doesn't mean it's right. Personally I would tend towards not listing it, as they weren't nominations. John Hayestalk 21:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- In a way they were though, even though they weren't official, i think they should be added — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.240.55 (talk)
- We do not run this page by what anon IPs think. Darrenhusted 23:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Unregistered users are just as welcome as anyone else to make suggestions here as to how the page should look. In fact, since Big Brother 2007 (UK) is semi-protected, this talk page is the only way they can make suggestions on the content of the article. Tra (Talk) 23:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, if i forget to sign my comments, and thank you to Tra for sticking up for me.--81.145.240.83 15:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Darren, remember WP:BITE John Hayestalk 16:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- And also remember WP:OWN, Darren. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 17:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Unregistered users are just as welcome as anyone else to make suggestions here as to how the page should look. In fact, since Big Brother 2007 (UK) is semi-protected, this talk page is the only way they can make suggestions on the content of the article. Tra (Talk) 23:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- We do not run this page by what anon IPs think. Darrenhusted 23:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- In a way they were though, even though they weren't official, i think they should be added — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.240.55 (talk)
- Just because something has been done that way in the past doesn't mean it's right. Personally I would tend towards not listing it, as they weren't nominations. John Hayestalk 21:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
No nominations rowspan
What happens when some people get evicted etc, and it moves around? Personally, I think it looks better before. Otherwise, do we do the same with the not eligible, and do rowspans in chunks? godgoddingham 333 20:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- It looks fine but Chanelle walked before the to-ing and fro-ing, so her walked row should start at Week 9, rather than Week 10. Darrenhusted 20:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- I suppose it's personal opinion, but I prefer it before, when everyone had their own box. The "not in house"s look OK cos they're columnspans, but I don't like the rowspans. Chanelle walked after normal nominations would have taken place, so I think it ought to be this way...godgoddingham 333 20:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Chanelle should be walking from week 9 not week 10 as she walked before we knew who would face the public vote, and it should say which housemates were halfway, the same as last year when some housemates weren't in the big brotherhood and thus faced eviction. — AnemoneProjectors (?) 20:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Chanelle was in the house for the beginning of the week, therefore the "Walked" is in the correct place12bigbrother12 21:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- She wasn't able to be put up for the public vote because she walked before the final halfway house swap, so I still think it should be from week 9. — AnemoneProjectors (?) 21:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, but nominations should have already taken place. This is a nominations table after all, and not to do with the transfers... And there may be more swaps to come yet, we don't know... godgoddingham 333 21:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- The discovery of who is in the halfway house when all the swapping is finished is this week's equivalent of nominations. This took place later than normal so she should be shown as going before it happened... as if actual nominations had taken place, but two days later than normal. — AnemoneProjectors (?) 21:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well I disagree with you tbh. I don't think this week is anything like actual noms, so shouldn't be counted as such... godgoddingham 333 21:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- But she walked before anyone swapped places, so was never eligible for the nominations process, the table at the moment implies that she walked after the nomination twist, and that she walked in week 10, which she didn't. Darrenhusted 21:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- No, it shows that she walked before week 10 noms, and after week 9 noms would have take place... godgoddingham 333 21:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- But the nomination process this week was changed to include the moving of housemates, which started after Chanelle left. So she was not part of what has now become the "nomination process" this week. Darrenhusted 22:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, but I don't think that we can count this as a "nomination process", hence "no nominations"... godgoddingham 333 22:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- But she left before any nomination-like process began, so it is not a case of no nominations, it is walked before anything happened. Darrenhusted 22:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, but walked after noms would have happened... godgoddingham 333 22:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Is the table meant to reflect what would have happened, or what did happen.? Darrenhusted 22:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, but nominations didn't happen godgoddingham 333 22:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Is the table meant to reflect what would have happened, or what did happen.? Darrenhusted 22:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, but walked after noms would have happened... godgoddingham 333 22:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- But she left before any nomination-like process began, so it is not a case of no nominations, it is walked before anything happened. Darrenhusted 22:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, but I don't think that we can count this as a "nomination process", hence "no nominations"... godgoddingham 333 22:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- But the nomination process this week was changed to include the moving of housemates, which started after Chanelle left. So she was not part of what has now become the "nomination process" this week. Darrenhusted 22:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- No, it shows that she walked before week 10 noms, and after week 9 noms would have take place... godgoddingham 333 21:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- The discovery of who is in the halfway house when all the swapping is finished is this week's equivalent of nominations. This took place later than normal so she should be shown as going before it happened... as if actual nominations had taken place, but two days later than normal. — AnemoneProjectors (?) 21:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, but nominations should have already taken place. This is a nominations table after all, and not to do with the transfers... And there may be more swaps to come yet, we don't know... godgoddingham 333 21:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- She wasn't able to be put up for the public vote because she walked before the final halfway house swap, so I still think it should be from week 9. — AnemoneProjectors (?) 21:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- I first worried it might be difficult to maintain, but you only have to make sure the start of the rowspan is at the top. It wouldn't make sense to bunch the "not eligible" ones as they were only for individual people, but in this case the "no nominations" is for all housemates, so it makes it more obvious to a person who knows nothing about Big Brother that the nominations process did not occur as normal. At least in my opinion. John Hayestalk 23:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with you on that, I just think it looks rather ugly and I preferred it when each HM had it's own 'box'... godgoddingham 333 01:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Eugh. If this section is to discuss the change of the "no nominations" display, I personally think it looks worse than before; it seems to stick out a lot more. I much prefer it when the housemates had their own individual box :) — Xy7 01:54, 02 August 2007
- Well if the consensus is to change it back do so, I prefer it
this wayas a rowspan ;) De gustibus non est disputandum John Hayestalk 07:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)- I just think it will become too much of a problem later on, and generate further discussion after housemates leave the house and change order in the table. — Xy7 09:15, 02 August 2007
- A problem in what sense? The only problem from a maintainance point of view is if the top person is evicted, as the rowspan will need to be moved. Either way someone seems to have changed it back. John Hayestalk 09:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- I think it should be a rowspan. At present it suggests that the current 4 are the only one that were in the HWH, which is untrue - by using a rowspan, this clearly shows the reader that no one nominated - by repeating it for each housemate, there's a possibility for confusion with weeks like the first two where only selected HMs nominated. Seaserpent85 10:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- How about we have "In Halfway House" and "In Main House" similar to what we did for last year's Big Brotherhood? Then Chanelle's walkedspan would make more sense to be from week 9? godgoddingham 333 10:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- I see the similarity, but it doesn't really explain to someone who doesn't know the subject what effect it has on nominations, I think a clear "no nominations" explains it much better. Also in this case they constantly swapped round, so it would only show the last halfway housemates. John Hayestalk 11:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- As the consensus seems to be tending towards the rowspan I will be bold and change it back to that, though I want to see what 12bigbrother12 has to say. John Hayestalk 11:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- :( godgoddingham 333 11:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- I personally prefer having separate cells rather than the rowspan, since it looks more consistent with the other years and, in my opinion, the table looks simpler to read since you can read each row left to right more easily. Tra (Talk) 13:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Ditto godgoddingham 333 13:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well I don't think we should be too influenced by previous years, that can always be changed. You might have a point with simpler to read. I don't greatly mind either way. John Hayestalk 14:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- I have changed it back to seperate boxes again. John Hayestalk 14:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- How about we have "In Halfway House" and "In Main House" similar to what we did for last year's Big Brotherhood? Then Chanelle's walkedspan would make more sense to be from week 9? godgoddingham 333 10:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- I think it should be a rowspan. At present it suggests that the current 4 are the only one that were in the HWH, which is untrue - by using a rowspan, this clearly shows the reader that no one nominated - by repeating it for each housemate, there's a possibility for confusion with weeks like the first two where only selected HMs nominated. Seaserpent85 10:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- A problem in what sense? The only problem from a maintainance point of view is if the top person is evicted, as the rowspan will need to be moved. Either way someone seems to have changed it back. John Hayestalk 09:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- I just think it will become too much of a problem later on, and generate further discussion after housemates leave the house and change order in the table. — Xy7 09:15, 02 August 2007
- Well if the consensus is to change it back do so, I prefer it
- Eugh. If this section is to discuss the change of the "no nominations" display, I personally think it looks worse than before; it seems to stick out a lot more. I much prefer it when the housemates had their own individual box :) — Xy7 01:54, 02 August 2007
- I agree with you on that, I just think it looks rather ugly and I preferred it when each HM had it's own 'box'... godgoddingham 333 01:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Week 9 Double Eviction?
Has anyone got a ref? Darrenhusted 23:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- I found this. Tra (Talk) 23:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Samanda
Why are they sharing a place on the housemates table? And why are they listed as up for eviction? Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 08:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Ignore, just read the news. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 08:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Total number of nominations
I think it would be informative to add an extra row for nominations per week to the table, something like below. - LeonWhite 23:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
| Amanda | Brian | Carole | Chanelle | Gerry | Liam | Sam | Tracey | Ziggy | Charley | Nicky | Laura | Jonathan | Billi | Seány | Shabnam | Lesley | Emily |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0
|
2
|
21
|
9
|
13
|
2
|
0
|
23
|
11
|
25
|
20
|
7
|
5
|
8
|
5
|
4
|
0
|
1
|
0/wk
|
0.3/wk
|
2.6/wk
|
1.1/wk
|
1.9/wk
|
0.3/wk
|
0/wk
|
2.9/wk
|
1.6/wk
|
3.1/wk
|
2.9/wk
|
1.4/wk
|
1.7/wk
|
4/wk
|
2.5/wk
|
2/wk
|
0/wk
|
1/wk
|
I like the idea, but it is pure OR, and a lot of editors only keep the current table with some reluctance. Darrenhusted 00:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- I like the current table, as total number of nominations has been referenced by Big Brother's Little Brother occasionally. But I don't like the idea of adding that extra row. It would involve a lot of effort for something that can be seen on the table itself. Also, it may not be correct, for example, it says Billi got 4/wk, whereas one week he got 2, and the next, 6.Babygurl1853 04:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say it's OR, since I've only collated information which is already on the page. As for Billi's 4/wk, the mean of 2 and 6 is 4. The existing table gives a general idea of how popular (within the house) a housemate is, but I think the extra row elucidates this. I should point out that I didn't count Ziggy's first week, since he couldn't nominate himself. - LeonWhite 17:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- Actually I like that, although I have had other ideas which are on some archive page somewhere. I think it the table stays it should had weekly information added. — AnemoneProjectors (?) 22:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, I don't like the table at all (as the concept isn't used in Big Brother), but adding that row makes it rather more useful, so if we have to keep it, lets include that. John Hayestalk 16:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Actually I like that, although I have had other ideas which are on some archive page somewhere. I think it the table stays it should had weekly information added. — AnemoneProjectors (?) 22:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say it's OR, since I've only collated information which is already on the page. As for Billi's 4/wk, the mean of 2 and 6 is 4. The existing table gives a general idea of how popular (within the house) a housemate is, but I think the extra row elucidates this. I should point out that I didn't count Ziggy's first week, since he couldn't nominate himself. - LeonWhite 17:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I think to make it work (as it will be very hard to maintain in an accurate state) would be to build some sort of template which will work out the average for each housemate, with variables for each housemate name, nominations, and number of weeks. John Hayestalk 20:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Jonty and Amy need to be added to the table in the article 12bigbrother12 19:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I also think it's a good idea. But maybe for current house mates only, just to show how they've been nominated. For past house mates, it wouldn't always show much (as shown by the example of Billi above as he was only in the house for 2 weeks). You could have the past house mates nominations in a row below the averages of the current house mates (like they are below now the current house mates nominations). I think the template idea is the easiest so far (once it's been created obviously) -- Halo2 Talk 23:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Or what about having a bigger table, listing how many nominations each house mate received each week (and the total at the end). I think that's more important than the total nominations (maybe even the average could be added too, if it is needed)
Such as the above(removed to make space) (the data isn't accurate, it's just an example. You would have the evicted housemates at the bottom, like the eviction table). This table shows a lot more information than the current one. And like i said the average nominations per week column can be easily added. -- Halo2 Talk 00:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- I like Halo2's idea. I think it should be used. 12bigbrother12 19:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Halo2's is the same as my original idea, which is on some talk page archive, so I support this idea more than the other. — AnemoneProjectors (?) 21:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh sorry mate, didn't realise (as I hadn't bothered to check achieves). Well we can see what happens, it's looking good for AnemoneProjectors idea so far :) If no one objects I'll do it tonight... -- Halo2 Talk 00:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Done. The code is above in case it gets reverted and it's needed again. I hope everyone thinks its ok. I haven't included discounted nominations (from week 4), as they weren't counted by Big Brother (and the reason for not counted is also given above). -- Halo2 Talk 02:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- I don't like it, on the basis that there is so much duplication of information, now everytime something happends it has to be changed in another location. I think we need to think about integrating it into the main nominations table.John Hayestalk 02:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, with the previous table, you also had to update that every time nominations were up. And it's not that hard to update it! If you were to integrate into the nominations table, you could split the weekly columns up
| Week 1 | Week 2 | Week 3 | Week 4 | Week 5 | Week 6 | Week 7 | Week 8 | Week 9 | Week 10 | Week 11 | Week 12 | Final Week 13 |
Total Nominations | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amanda | 0 | Not eligible |
0 | Carole, Nicky |
0 | Carole, Tracey |
0 | Tracey, Charley |
0 | Carole, Tracey |
0 | Carole, Nicky |
0 | Carole, Tracey |
0 | Carole, Tracey |
No nominations |
0 | ||||||||
Such as the above. But I think it looks a little crammed in, though it does integrate them well I suppose -- Halo2 Talk 12:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- How about the figure after rather than before? Darrenhusted 18:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that can be done as well.
| Week 1 | Week 2 | Week 3 | Week 4 | Week 5 | Week 6 | Week 7 | Week 8 | Week 9 | Week 10 | Week 11 | Week 12 | Final Week 13 |
Total Nominations | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amanda | Not eligible |
0 | Carole, Nicky |
0 | Carole, Tracey |
0 | Tracey, Charley |
0 | Carole, Tracey |
0 | Carole, Nicky |
0 | Carole, Tracey |
0 | Carole, Tracey |
0 | No nominations |
0 | ||||||||
This is a total violation of WP:OR and needs to be removed. It isn't really important to the series or its outcome if a housemate had 2 or 22 nominations through the show. Thoughts? Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 18:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Did you mean OS or OR? I did think it was OR, the discussion about it is above. Darrenhusted 18:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- OR, sorry! Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 18:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- The article is pretty long right now it is 72kb long. I think that this table should be removed because it serves no purpose and possibly the Weekly summary could have its own page like the Big Brother 8 (US) highlights and Big Brother Australia 2007 Highlights this should help to reduce the main article's size. Alucard 16 22:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- OR, sorry! Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 18:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- I think that the table should be reverted to the way it was before - there was no reason to change it from the small one. If people want to work out how many times a person was nominated in the week, they can look on the nomination table.Babygurl1853 10:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
The only difference between this table and the old one, is how the total of nominations came to be (ie, per weekly nominations), so if this table is WP:OR, then the old one was too? And there were few disputes about that one. I don't see what is wrong with listing how many nominations everyone got each week. Like i said it's far more informative then the total over the series. -- Halo2 Talk 19:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- And with regards to the page size, integrating the two tables would cut down on this -- Halo2 Talk 22:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- I like the two tables integrated into one, I'd go for that. John Hayestalk 07:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
OK then, are there any major objections to that? -- Halo2 Talk 10:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
| Week 1 | Week 2 | Week 3 | Week 4 | Week 5 | Week 6 | Week 7 | Week 8 | Week 9 | Week 10 | Week 11 | Week 12 | Final Week 13 | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amanda | Not eligible |
0 | Carole, Nicky |
0 | Carole, Tracey |
0 | Tracey, Charley |
0 | Carole, Tracey |
0 | Carole, Nicky |
0 | Carole, Tracey |
0 | Carole, Tracey |
0 | No nominations |
||||||||
| Sam | Not eligible |
0 | Shabnam, Carole |
0 | Carole, Liam |
0 | Billi, Carole |
0 | Carole, Tracey |
0 | Carole, Charley |
0 | Carole, Tracey |
0 | Carole, Tracey |
0 | No nominations | ||||||||
| Amy | Not in house |
No nominations |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
| Brian | Not in house |
Seány, Carole |
1 | Billi, Gerry |
0 | Gerry, Carole |
1 | Tracey, Carole |
0 | Gerry, Tracey |
0 | Gerry, Charley |
0 | No nominations |
|||||||||||
| Carole | Not eligible |
0 | Not eligible |
2 | Laura, Nicky |
5 | Laura, Nicky |
4 | Laura, Chanelle |
3 | Nicky, Tracey |
3 | Nicky, Chanelle |
2 | Charley, Ziggy |
2 | No nominations |
||||||||
| Gerry | Not in house |
Shabnam, Tracey |
- | Charley, Liam |
0 | Nicky, Tracey |
1 | Laura, Nicky |
2 | Charley, Nicky |
3 | Nicky, Charley |
4 | Charley, Tracey |
3 | No nominations |
|||||||||
| Jonty | Not in house |
No nominations |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
| Kara-Louise | Not in house |
Halfway Housemate | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| Liam | Not in house |
Jonathan, Charley |
2 | Tracey, Billi |
0 | Tracey, Charley |
0 | Nicky, Charley |
0 | Charley, Nicky |
0 | Charley, Tracey |
0 | No nominations |
|||||||||||
| Tracey | Not eligible |
0 | Not eligible |
2 | Seány, Jonathan |
3 | Carole, Billi |
4 | Ziggy, Chanelle |
3 | Ziggy, Gerry |
2 | Gerry, Ziggy |
3 | Gerry, Ziggy |
6 | Halfway Housemate | ||||||||
| Ziggy | Shabnam, Emily |
- | Not eligible |
0 | Charley, Nicky |
0 | Billi, Charley |
1 | Laura, Charley |
3 | Nicky, Charley |
2 | Nicky | 3 | Tracey, Charley |
2 | No nominations |
||||||||
| David | Not in house |
Halfway Housemate | Evicted (Day 66) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Shanessa | Not in house |
Halfway Housemate | Evicted (Day 66) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Chanelle | Not eligible |
0 | Not eligible |
0 | Charley, Seány |
0 | Charley, Billi |
0 | Charley, Laura |
5 | Charley, Nicky |
1 | Charley | 1 | Charley, Tracey |
1 | Walked (Day 62) | ||||||||
| Charley | Not eligible |
0 | Not eligible |
0 | Nicky, Seány |
4 | Chanelle |
3 | Chanelle, Brian |
3 | Chanelle, Gerry |
5 | Gerry, Ziggy |
3 | Chanelle, Gerry |
6 | Evicted (Day 59) | ||||||||
| Nicky | Not eligible |
0 | Not eligible |
1 | Jonathan, Seány |
4 | Billi, Carole |
3 | Gerry, Ziggy |
1 | Gerry, Ziggy |
6 | Ziggy, Gerry |
4 | Evicted (Day 52) | ||||||||||
| Laura | Not eligible |
0 | Not eligible |
0 | Carole, Jonathan |
1 | Carole, Ziggy |
1 | Ziggy, Chanelle |
5 | Evicted (Day 38) | ||||||||||||||
| Jonathan | Not in house |
Nicky, Tracey |
5 | Tracey, Nicky |
0 | Laura, Chanelle |
0 | Walked (Day 35) | |||||||||||||||||
| Billi | Not in house |
Carole, Jonathan |
0 | Charley |
7 | Evicted (Day 31) | |||||||||||||||||||
| Seány | Not in house |
Tracey, Shabnam |
- | Brian, Tracey |
5 | Evicted (Day 24) | |||||||||||||||||||
| Shabnam | Not eligible |
1 | Not eligible |
3 | Evicted (Day 17) | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Lesley | Not eligible |
0 | Walked (Day 11) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Emily | Not eligible |
1 | Ejected (Day 9) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Nomination note |
See note 1 |
See note 2 |
None | See note 3 |
None | See note 4 |
See note 5 |
None | See note 6 |
See note 7 |
|||||||||||||||
| Against public vote |
Emily, Shabnam |
Carole, Shabnam, Tracey |
Carole, Jonathan, Seány |
Billi, Carole, Tracey |
Chanelle, Laura |
Charley, Nicky |
Gerry, Nicky |
Charley, Tracey |
David, Kara-Louise, Shanessa, Tracey |
Amanda and Sam (so far) | |||||||||||||||
| Walked | none | Lesley | none | none | Jonathan | none | none | none | Chanelle | ||||||||||||||||
| Ejected | Emily | none | none | none | none | none | none | none | none | ||||||||||||||||
| Evicted (% of public votes) |
Eviction cancelled | Shabnam 81.4% to evict |
Seány 44.5% to evict |
Billi 55.1% to evict |
Laura 68.1% to evict |
Charley 75.8% to fake evict |
Nicky 76% to evict |
Charley 85.6% to evict |
Shanessa 38% to evict |
||||||||||||||||
| David 37% to evict | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
- Done. Table is above as it was reverted -- Halo2 Talk 18:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I think it looks a bit crammed in the main table, it would be better as a separate table with just the total number of nominations. Msalmon Talk 20:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- And the point of having the total of nominations is? That's why we've been discussing the table. The old table just showed the total, but it doesn't really mean anything, as the number of housemates nominating varies a lot. It's more informative to have how many nominations the housemates received each week.-- Halo2 Talk 19:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I've changed it back to a better revision as this is what is was before. No offence but the point of this talk page it to discuss (and come to a common consensus) on what to do, not just because "you'd prefer it that way". That's how edit wars start... -- Halo2 Talk 19:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I think it looks awful. Why do we need it at all? It's hardly encyclopaedic, is it? godgoddingham 333 21:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- The table will be too wide to fit on the page (on a 1024x768 monitor) after a few more weeks. - LeonWhite 22:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Actually I've changed my mind. I don't think we should include the total number of nominations at all now. But we definitely shouldn't do it the way it's done at the moment. — AnemoneProjectors (?) 22:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Ack! Get rid! T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 22:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Hear hear! godgoddingham 333 00:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- As an American who likes other versions of Big Brother when I check out the article here I thought my computer was malfunctioning! That is way way way too cluttered and confusing to read! I echo the words of T "Ack! Get rid!" Enough said. Alucard 16 03:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Hear hear! godgoddingham 333 00:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree it's too cluttered but then, I don't see the point of having the total number of nominations, what about just going back to the old table and then the expanded nominations table? Oh and too add, it does look cluttered as someone fiddled around with the width and took out a column span. I'll revert to a previous version with the two tables. -- Halo2 Talk 09:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Lets just get rid of the total nominations table, there seems to be some consensus towards that, it doesn't mean anything, it doesn't add anything to the article, and anyone who wants to know can work it out from the other table.
I'm going to remove it.Pity the other one became so cluttered John Hayestalk 09:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)- I agree that we really don't need the total nominations table, I also think it will cut the page size down with removal of it. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 11:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well I will remove it then. Sorry Halo, for all the effort you put in. John Hayestalk 13:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that we really don't need the total nominations table, I also think it will cut the page size down with removal of it. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 11:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
It's no worries. Though the page size is hardly a concern (71kb), it's not that much. But least it's finally been sorted -- Halo2 Talk 17:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Nominations tables Orginal Research
I wouldn't agree that those tables are OR, all the information in them is verifiable, the only issue is that it hasn't yet. Ideally we would put a fact tag on every nomination, and then find a source, but I just wonder if that will end up looking very messy. John Hayestalk 10:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
The twins nominated
The video of the twins deciding on the official website, says that they will be put up for eviction in week 11, not week 10?? godgoddingham 333 14:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Channel 4 uses a different week system. To them, a week begins on a Wednesday and ends on the Tuesday, so according to Big Brother, Week 11 starts on Wednesday - so the upcoming eviction is on Week 11 to them, Week 10 to us. Squidward2602 15:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- WTF? Suerly we should be the same as C4, being an encyclopedia and not a fan-site. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 17:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Precisely for that reason we shouldn't use Wednesdays just because C4 use it, but what is best for the encylopedia, and therefore the reader, our priority is to someone who knows nothing about the subject. There is a long discussion in the archives on what day the weeks start/end on, and the consensus was to end on Fridays, as it seems logical to end with the evictions. It also makes it simpler in terms of ongoing tasks etc. John Hayestalk 18:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- WTF? Suerly we should be the same as C4, being an encyclopedia and not a fan-site. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 17:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Also it would be confusing as the nominations would take place then the "week" after the housemate up for eviction would be evicted. It definitely better to use the current system. -- Halo2 Talk 18:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Adele and Alex
Adele and Alex from BB3 have just entered the house-I don't believe its in the article. Sources-[4][5] Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 17:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- I think it just should be put into the appropriate weekly task table. -- Halo2 Talk 18:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Should they be listed in the Infobox? When someone added them it sent the Infobox over its 24 housemate limit and I had to add a spot for a 25th housemate just to get Emily to reappear. I wanted to discuss removing them from the Infobox before actually doing it. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 04:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if they should be classed as housemates, they were there for mainly the purpose of the task. But then I suppose you could argue that was the case for Pauline too, but then Big Brother actually stated she was a housemate (even though she was working for them) -- Halo2 Talk 09:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- In a way I can see Pauline being classified as a housemate but the box can hold only 25 housemates max so I don't think that Adele and Alex should be counted because it was part of the time travel task and most likely they left after that. Unlike with Pauline actually stayed in the house for I think 2-3 days. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 20:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Alex and Adele should not be classed as housemates, they were visitors like Jimmy Savile and Jade's grandparents. There for a task, did not sleep in the house. — AnemoneProjectors (?) 21:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- It would be quite possible to change the template to allow more, but I don't think we need to in this case. John Hayestalk 07:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- In a way I can see Pauline being classified as a housemate but the box can hold only 25 housemates max so I don't think that Adele and Alex should be counted because it was part of the time travel task and most likely they left after that. Unlike with Pauline actually stayed in the house for I think 2-3 days. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 20:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Thaila "Pauline" ejected??
Should she really be classed as ejected? It doesn't really seem right... 172.203.150.131 14:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with you. She was never even a housemate, she was an employee. 12bigbrother12 14:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Assuming she should be classed as a housemate, I'd say she was evicted not ejected. - LeonWhite 14:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- I think it would be good to have her listed in the housemates section but not on the Infobox. By listing her in the housemates section we can give good detail to why she was there and when she left. Or you guys can use a different color to identify her in the Infobox since she wasn't technically a housemate and was going to leave after the task was complete anyway. Maybe use a color and have in the legend "Fake Housemate". That way you can keep her in the infobox but it gives a more accurate reason why she was there. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 23:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- I think she's fine as a housemate, and as being ejected, she certainly wasn't evicted. We are writing this article for someone who knows nothing about Big Brother, so it doesn't really matter, for the sake of the infobox, why they were ejected. That is all explained in her secion. John Hayestalk 07:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think we can logically say she was a housemate, in that she was never eligible to win, and was not part of the nomination/eviction process. True, she "lived" in the house, but even the real HMs weren't sure of her status (i.e. whether she was staying or "going back to Australia"). There's no reason why she can't be listed for what she was - an employee of the production company. Nick Cooper 13:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think she should be listed. She was part of a task, not an actual housemate. 81.152.87.25 13:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- We should do the same with Pauline as we've done with Gaetano in BB4, i.e. listed in the housemates list but not in any infobox or nominations table. — AnemoneProjectors (?) 15:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- That makes sense. Nick Cooper 15:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- We should do the same with Pauline as we've done with Gaetano in BB4, i.e. listed in the housemates list but not in any infobox or nominations table. — AnemoneProjectors (?) 15:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think she should be listed. She was part of a task, not an actual housemate. 81.152.87.25 13:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think we can logically say she was a housemate, in that she was never eligible to win, and was not part of the nomination/eviction process. True, she "lived" in the house, but even the real HMs weren't sure of her status (i.e. whether she was staying or "going back to Australia"). There's no reason why she can't be listed for what she was - an employee of the production company. Nick Cooper 13:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
No need for so much archiving!
There is no need to create a new archive after every 2 discussions. This is getting petty. The page is not too large or too cluttered because of this. By the time this series ends, we'll have about 10 archive pages when, realistically, we only need about three. Please stop this dreadful practice. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK Series Three)'s Peer Review-Review now please! 11:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- "Dreadful practice"? that seems a bit over the top. I really don't think it's that much of an issue how many archives we have, certainly not until the series is over, then we can review, and consolidate the archives. And they haven't been created every 2 discussions. John Hayes - On Vacationtalk 14:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Looking at Archive si I can't see what the problem is, there was 16 sections, and a lot of dead discussions. Darrenhusted 14:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Is there any point on having discussions, which are mostly over, on this page? Once a discussion is over, and a general consensus has been achieved, noone is going to add to it. And if they want to they can bring it back up. It just clutters space otherwise. The discussions I archived today had not been added to for 6 days. And also the table discussion needed archiving as it had masses of code (though I apologies as most of this was mine :P). It's thanks to John Hayes that the archive is there at all. -- Halo2 Talk 22:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. ;-) John Hayes - On Vacationtalk 15:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Is there any point on having discussions, which are mostly over, on this page? Once a discussion is over, and a general consensus has been achieved, noone is going to add to it. And if they want to they can bring it back up. It just clutters space otherwise. The discussions I archived today had not been added to for 6 days. And also the table discussion needed archiving as it had masses of code (though I apologies as most of this was mine :P). It's thanks to John Hayes that the archive is there at all. -- Halo2 Talk 22:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Looking at Archive si I can't see what the problem is, there was 16 sections, and a lot of dead discussions. Darrenhusted 14:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Unpredictable eviction
Apparently the housemates who fail the task will be put up for eviction, and although it's not been confirmed, it is believed that BB bosses are putting it on because of viewers changing the channel because it's so predictable. Thoughts? 81.151.27.235 22:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well when confirmed sources become available it'll be added. But I think they also might be doing it as there's not long left now (2 weeks) and there's still 8 (or 9 not counting the twins as one) housemates left. They had 6 in the final last year, so they need to get rid of 2 (3) housemates (if they copy last year) some how. -- Halo2 Talk 22:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
In Big Brother 6, they evicted housemate Craig by surprise on a Wednesday. They might do this again. Fugio 00:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- The housemates who pass their tasks will gain guru status, and will immune from eviction. I have added this info and references from the official site. Also, I don't think the row should be filled with 'No nominations' until we know who is immune, then class the others as 'no nomination'.Babygurl1853
suggestion for addition to "Criticism and controversy"
Hello, I think the combining of Sam and Amanda into one housemate deserves mention here. Prior to this decision Brian was odds on to win, after this decison the twins are now favourites : so you can see what an enormous impact that decison has had. It is a source of hot debate an=mongst Big Brother fans.
I suggest we add something like this "The decison by the show's producers on Day 69 to allow Sam and Amanda to become a single housemate has been critcised by many fans. The twins will now count as a single choice should they make the final, effectively combining both their support. For the first time in Big Brother history two housemates will be able to pool their votes in the final, leaving some fans to question how fair this is on the other housemates. Prior to this decison Brian Belo had been the odds on favourite with bookmakers to win. Following this decision bookmakers have installed "Samanda" as the new odds on favourite to win Big Brother 8."
This decison has been very controversial and being is discussed ad nauseum on Big Borothr forums (especialy Digital Spy). i can provide links and examples from a number of websites if you like to show how much of an issue this is with many fans. I believe "many" fans is an accurate reflection of the controversy - from what i can gather most people who are not twins fans believe it is unfair. "Some" fans may be also be used.
I'm pretty new to wikipedia so would appreciate your comments / criticisms of my proposed edit. If you believe it is valid can someone please add it to the article (I cannot becasue I only registered today and need to wait 5 days before I can edit anything) Byzantine74 12:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- How is combining the housemates criticism and controvery? There's a mention of the event on the weekly task. Or a notable event section could be made? Babygurl1853
- Just because lots of fans may or may not be critical of that decision, doesn't mean we can add it to the article; we can't use forums as sources. If on the other hand, a reliable third party, say a national newspaper, mentioned it, then it might be notable enough to include. John Hayes - On Vacationtalk 15:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)