Talk:Big Brother (British TV series)/Archive 1

From Talk:Big Brother's Little Brother

POV or Proper??

how the hell did shilpa win? it was a sympathy vote! poor jamain deserved to win! it was all a big stupid fix!!!!!!!! :@ luv alice

During the current series of Big Brother , BBLB has been criticised by many fan's saying that it is biased. Dermot O' Leary normally shows his dislike for Aisleyne and Pete and his liking for Nikki, Jayne and Glyn.

I was about to delete this myself, but I thought I should just check here. Is this statement a POV or is it well known among fans? If it is to stay it needs a proper citation. Anon Dude 18:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Well it is well known amongst fans, so it think it should stay. This is th reason he appeared on BBBM to air his views and get it out in the open - Dee4leeds

The Bunny-Cam Song

Whats that song they play for the bunny-cam segment?212.158.244.124 20:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Bright Eyes -Mikay 14:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

From Talk:Big Brother's Big Brain

Title card

Could somebody perhaps get a screen cap of the actual screen cap? --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 10:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you please rewrite this?

I was not able to find that it was a TV show from England until I saw the English money symbol. José is Fluid 04:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I added the word British just for you. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 10:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

From Talk:Big Brother's Big Mouth

Why has it been changed to say that he is the host and that it's a rumour. He hasn't denied the 'rumours' that have been circulating for almost a week now. I think it's pretty safe to say he's gone.

"Memorable" quotes - aka. the quotes the person writing this article, liked! Should be removed Anon Dude 14:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Already. Mainly because noone has read WP:CITE nor WP:V. And it contained racist slurs. Iolakana|^T 22:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Dude, some of those quotes were really funny and memorable, and they were added by multiple users. And where were the racist slurs? At any rate, don't throw the baby out with the bath water.-84.233.132.87 23:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

no... they're fine leave them alone just like HIGNFY has choice moments and memorable quotes this shoudl aswell. Aarandir 13:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

his ballbags are a main character!

Ballbags?

His ballbags are the biggest character on the show, why are they included only as minor characters?

Format section

I think this should be changed it sounds like an insane rambling. XdiabolicalX 12:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• I agree, much of the information contained in this section is un-encyclopedic and should be removed. Please can someone (like the person who wrote it) explain why it should be kept? If there are no valid responses soon i will cut the section down to notable encyclopedic facts only. Chillymail 21:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, the stuff in the format section is basically a description of the stuff that happens during every show. In an article about a TV show, I think the recurring features that can be found in every episode should be noted.-PlasmaDragon 03:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Not really - it only contains the series format for the BBBM shows that aired during series 7 of BB UK. Minor details of the show (which are noted in this article for some reason) do change from series to series. Plus all 'Characters' info is trivial and only notes stuff that has occured during the most recent series, and the same can be said for the 'memorable' quotes. Anon Dude 13:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, I still think the format of an entire season of the show ought to be noted. You can add some stuff mentioning that the previous series was of a different format, if you like. And I think a section in this article for the characters is entirely warranted. Other articles on TV series have a section on the characters, if not an entire separate article on the characters. Compared with the rest of wikipedia, having a few paragraphs and pictures about the characters is quite modest. By all means, however, do note in the article which minor details have changed from series to series, and feel free to move the quotes to wikiquote.-PlasmaDragon 14:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
        • I agree that the character section should remain as it is, but the format section is over the top. It reads like a Russel Brand fan has written this section (calling him by his first name is un-encyclopedic for a start) to glorify Brand. It may appeal to fans of the show, or to people who are familiar with the show, but someone coming to this page who does not know anything about the subject would be confused by this section, which is something an encyclopedia article should try to avoid. From Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles: "Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. The people who read it have different backgrounds, education and worldview from you. Try to make your article accessible to as many of them as possible. The reader is probably reading the article to learn. It's quite possible the reader knows nothing at all about the subject: the article needs to explain it to them." The format section should look and sound more like the Countdown format section. We do not need formulae for how Brand constructs his jokes, inclusions such as this are ridiculous. There are many facts that are notable here, but they are often presented in a poorly written, rambling way.Chillymail 13:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
          • OK, I tried to provide a bit of an introduction to the format section, as well as provide subheadings like in the Countdown article. When I have time later, I'll try making "example" sections like in that article, as well as fixing some of the poor writing. However, I do thing the formulae of the jokes should be included. To omit them would be like omitting the chalkboard and couch gags from the Simpsons opening sequence.-PlasmaDragon 15:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
            • The main problems (IMO) the article has our 1. It is written in a very high yet unencyclopediaic detail, and 2. all the info about the show (whether it be the format, character info or quotes) refer to stuff that has occured in the most recent series. At most we only need a couple of paragrapghs describing the show. I will go ahead with this type of edit if no-one objects. Anon Dude 10:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The images

An edit summary left by an editor that reverted my removal of the images from the article instructed me to see the talk page, but there's nothing here about the images. _{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 13:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Images

The Big Brother eye is meaningful to the article, as it is the logo of Big Brother, upon which the show is based. Also, it is painted on the set. You can see part of it in the background of some of the characters pictures. As for the characters pictures, I know they aren't the best quality, but I don't see why we should just delete them entirely. They're the best we have for now, and let's try to work on improving them instead of just destroying them.-PlasmaDragon 13:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The Big Brother eye is the Big Brother eye, not the Big Brother's Big Mouth eye. Something like this would be much more suitable for the article. Also, now the eye has been scaled down to comply with fair use, it looks blurry and fuzzy. The other images look as though they've been taken from the same website that other images have been taken from. The images were removed from the articles they were repeatedly inserted in because they are not of good quality, and they are distorted. _{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 14:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, you have a point about the logo; I'll try to find a more specific image. However, I'm afraid I can't make any sense of "The other images look as though they've been taken from the same website that other images have been taken from." I just can't figure out what you're trying to say. And yes, I know that "The images were removed from the articles they were repeatedly inserted in because they are not of good quality, and they are distorted." You said that in your edit summary. But I would like it if you would address what I said, namely "They're the best we have for now, and let's try to work on improving them instead of just destroying them."-PlasmaDragon 15:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

These images are very similar to images that were uploaded for Big Brother (UK series 7) and List of Big Brother housemates (UK series 7), in that they are distorted and are of poor quality. If improvement is what's wanted for this article, new images should probably be a priority at the moment, but in reality most articles don't need images at all. _{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 15:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Big Brother (UK)

Rape?

So yeah. I've heard a ton about some girl who supposedly got raped in BB. Since all this supposodly happened in a hotel in leeds, I'm assuming it happened in the UK version. So, anyone wanna take the time to fill me in? ````unsigned entry left by at 22:37, 31 August 2006 by user:Lettuceclock

I think it was Lesley in BB6... --Alex ^{(talk here)} 22:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

but this isn't a chat room or a newsgroup is it? leaky_caldron 07:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Michelle Bass

For a September 2004 debate over whether individual contestants should have articles see: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Michelle Bass

US Table

I've made a table on Big Brother (USA) with all the contestants and the day they were evicted, if anyone wants to model the BB UK table after that. It's yours for the taking. Mike H 19:06, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, but this is already tabled on the specific articles of specific series. In the UK we have had 13 series 7 traditional big brothers, 5 celebrity editions and 1 teen big brother. The individual articles for each series contain a tables of evictions. There is not really enough room for them in the main BB UK article. Thanks for the suggestion though.

Big Brother USA contestants

I'm just wondering if there's a need to keep Big Brother USA contestants since they have been tabulated on Big Brother (USA)? -- TonyW 00:23, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

Probably not, no. How would one go about having that deleted? Mike H 00:26, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

To do that, one needs to add {{delete}} to the article so that it gets listed as an item for speedy deletion. I have done this. -- TonyW 01:27, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

Update: a redirect has been placed instead, rather than a delete. -- TonyW 16:08, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, OK. I'll give it a go. Thanks Mike! -- Avaragado 20:58, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No problem! Tell me if you need anything else. Mike H 21:01, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

Oh dear, that only took me an hour and a half. I thought it'd take longer to find the raw names and numbers. Oh well. Time for bed. Maybe I'll do the celebs tomorrow. -- Avaragado 22:37, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Good job; it looks great! :-) Mike H 22:37, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

Teen Big Brother

There ought to be at least a mention of the other BB spinoff, "Teen Big Brother: The Experiment", but I didn't watch it so I'll leave it to someone else. Bonalaw 19:44, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Good point. I think two of them "got it on" but can't think of any other details. violet/riga 21:09, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Done. --Kwekubo 20:41, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Contradiction

Unlike all other Big Brother series, Teen Big Brother was pre-recorded and shown some months 
after the contestants had left the house.

While the show was being aired it was involved in a scandal over two of the housemates having 
sex on live TV.

So which is it: was it prerecorded or was it live? garik 10:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Therres a difference between something being aired and being live. A program doesn't have to be live to be aired. Teen Big Brother was prerecorded, and the scandal was during it's showing on Channel 4.

Error editing article

For some reason I can't edit this article anymore due to a database error. Other articles I can edit fine, but everytime I return to this one, it fails with this message:

A database query syntax error has occurred. This could be because of an illegal search query (see Searching Wikipedia), or it may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was:

   UPDATE recentchanges SET rc_this_oldid=5482692 WHERE rc_namespace=0 AND rc_title='Big_Brother_(UK_TV_series)' AND rc_timestamp='20040824003618'

from within function "RecentChange::save". MySQL returned error "1205: Lock wait timeout exceeded; Try restarting transaction".

Any ideas why? --TonyW 17:47, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

Sometimes it does that. It's not article-specific. The only thing I can tell you is to try again later. Mike H 17:51, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

Try asking this at the Village Pump.

It has since resolved itself, as I have been able to make the edits I had planned to. -TonyW 12:32, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

"A special version of Big Brother, featuring eight 18-year-old teenagers,"

- tautological. I assume no one would mind if I changed it? - sars 17:44, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

Jackie Stallone's age

I realise that Channel 4 and Big Brother's Little Brother are claiming that Jackie Stallone is 71, but our own Jackie Stallone article claimed until today that she was born in c.1922. If Jackie is 71, she was born in 1933/4. Since her son Sylvester was born in 1946, that makes her a particularly young mother. Not impossible, but unlikely. -- Avaragado 21:39, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Split?

Judging by the size of BB5 it's feasible that the section for BB6 will be quite large. Should we consider splitting the series into separate articles? If so it might be best to get it done sooner rather than later. violet/riga (t) 22:50, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I think that'd be a good idea. This article seems pretty big already. --Grazer 01:17, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I was just thinking that very point. I'd suggest a split of BB1/BB2/BB3/BB4/BB5/celebrity/teen as separate articles and the rest staying the main piece. That would also make it easy to add another season (if there is one, which seems likely). infobox to remain as is. --Vamp:Willow 20:33, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Right. I've split off the six main seasons into separate articles with a common header linking back to the main article. Some of them could probably now do with a little expansion, especially the first three! Looking at the size of the infobox I'm now inclined to leave the celebrity and teen ones on the main article page as it seems balanced. Thoughts? --Vamp:Willow 22:27, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I just came here to split it and found that you've beaten me to it! It looks great, and thanks for the work you've put in. I think that the infobox on this page could possibly just show the finalists of each series – if this article is supposed to be an overview then we should be presenting the winner (and runner-up) in the clearest way, and the rest isn't really that interesting outside of the individual series articles. violet/riga (t) 22:45, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::grin:: ta. I did think that maybe just leaving the winners / last day'ers might work, but maybe that would leave out housemates that people remember and they wouldn't know which year to go to to find them. As such the infobox works as an index to the series' articles. Without the box there would have to be a list of the hosuemates alongside each season and it is probably easier to leave the infobox therefore. myabe. um ... --Vamp:Willow 22:57, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've just made a start on a possible solution. I know it makes it out of line with the individual series articles but we might look at giving them a facelift afterwards as well. Please take a look at User:Violetriga/inprogress and see what you think. violet/riga (t) 23:42, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I like your idea, although the size of the list of other contestants is rather too small for my liking. I'd suggest to go for it ... --Vamp:Willow 11:55, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

btw, I'd suggest "finalists" for people there on the final day, rather than just the penultimate person to leave. --Vamp:Willow 12:08, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would argue that the current show should not be split into Big Brother UK series 6 until after it finishes, and that while it is current it should remain in this article. What do people think? I am anyway going to duplicate the external links there as article 6 is the one that will be attracting a readership, and they should have the external links handy, SqueakBox 23:49, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of having it here but think it'll work better as a separate article. It will all be more consistent and the history will be neater (it'll be a copy/paste move when it's over). violet/riga (t) 23:54, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would create a redirect on article 6 and recreate it after the w/end the show finishes. I'll wait a bit longer, but unless there are strong objections I think it is a positive move, and the article has space for it, SqueakBox 00:13, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

While that partially meets my first point I think it would still be more consistent for it to have its own article and I don't like having to copy/paste text where avoidable. I'd like to hear Vampwillow's feelings on this. violet/riga (t) 09:04, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Difficult one really, as there are probably strong arguments in favour of both options. However given that something we editors pride ourselves on is maintaining the history of an article's edits I feel that it is probably better to keep the current series split (and cut/pastes are to be avoided for that reason!) It would also reduce the likelihood of edit conflicts on the full page and the load on users downloading the full article when they aren't interested in it. If we go with your infobox then it isn't as though the main page would need updating in step with the series page for evictions (until the very end) and people interested in the current series would quickly realise where they needed to head in future. --Vamp:Willow 11:55, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see the current template has been removed, and a replaced with a link to series 6. Nice work, I was just coming to do it myself, SqueakBox 03:08, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Rulebreaking?

"However Kitten again broke the rules by dubbing anti-war slogans on the wall of the house."

What rule was this a violation of, exactly? -- Smjg 13:54, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Housemates are not allowed to communicate with the outside world, which includes any form of writing. It wasnt because they were anti-war slogans, if thats what youre wondering about. ATG 22:21, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• But housemates are continuously communicating outwardly with the outside world by being in the Big Brother house. So how is this different? The only rule I've seen regarding messages to the outside world is against personally directed ones. Which, unless I'm missing something, this wasn't. -- Smjg 14:06, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

They are allowed to communicate with each other or Big Brother, not by writing/speaking messages to the outside world. For example, they're not allowed to say "happy birthday" to somebody. violet/riga (t) 14:59, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

They are under constant surveillance, right? And so everything they say/do potentially goes out to the outside world. So you mean that people aren't allowed to discuss their knowledge/opinions/experiences with their housemates in case the outside world hears? Hence that any activity that might inform, entertain or influence the outside world must be non-verbal? And anyway, saying "happy birthday" isn't so much an example of this as of the specific rule that they're not allowed to communicate personal messages. -- Smjg 15:28, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, they are under surveillance, and as such Big Brother must have thought Kitten was violating a rule by daubing messages on the mirrors during the painting task. This was after two formal warnings had been given to her by Big Brother, and this particular "rule-breaking" resulted in her third and final warning. As regards to saying 'Happy Birthday', wearing a t-shirt with those words and directed at somebody on the outside world would constitute a violation of the rule regarding "communicating a message to the outside world". If my memory serves me right, a housemate in an earlier series was pulled up by Big Brother for doing something similar with some item of clothing. It also works the other way too. Whenever an aeroplane flies over the house carrying a message, Big Brother promptly gets the housemates indoors. They don't want the "outside world" to communicate things to them. -TonyW 16:19, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

The "other way" is just the basic "no contact with the outside world", meaning that they may not receive messages from the outside world. That's perfectly straightforward. This conversation isn't really getting anywhere. Does anybody still have the exact text of the rule Kitten was violating? -- Smjg 09:20, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can't find the actual text you mean, but DigitalSpy had this to say about her third and final warning from BB, followed up later by a lengthy piece upon her eviction. -TonyW 23:04, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Passing the unluck on

"It is unknown if the title of 'unlucky housemate' would be passed on to another random housemate should Makosi be evicted, although this seems likely."

Is there even any evidence of whether the existence of an 'unlucky housemate' will continue beyond the first week at all? And "seems likely" to whom, exactly? -- Smjg 13:54, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• On the eviction show on June the 3rd, after Mary was evicted, Davina McCall ended the show by telling viewers to stay tuned to Big Brother to see who the new/next unlucky housemate will be. This suggests that the idea will continue for next week at least. ATG 22:21, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Infobox

I've updated the contestants box style for this article and the current one. I'm off to do other things for a short while, so feel free to do the other series, play with what I've done or comment about any of it. Cheers, violet/riga (t) 12:35, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've updated the other series so that the infobox looks the same throughout. -TonyW 00:04, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Series 6 is no longer the current series: it's finished, as of Friday 12th August.

Changes should be made to reflect this, and a seperate page made for Anthony Hutton as the winner...?

4:3 aspect ratio

Perhaps the cameras in the house don't video in widescreen? --Whouk (talk) 10:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, then one would then ask why the cameras are not widescreen. You can buy widescreen camcorders on the high street and nearly all broadcasters film everything in widescreen using professional television cameras. And even if you record something in 4:3, you can easily zoom in on the 4:3 picture to create a 16:9 image. Even the pictures shot outside the house (Davina, interview etc) are in 4:3. Channel 4 News is also in 4:3, although nearly all other programmes (including adverts) on Channel 4 are 16:9. NFH 13:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

No idea then. That was just wild speculation. Although if there's something that annoys me on TV it's when they dig something up from the archives in 4:3 and slice off the top and bottom of the picture... --Whouk (talk) 14:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree - that annoys me too. Even worse is when they horizontally stretch some old 4:3 footage to fit 16:9, which BBC News do occasionally. However, if Big Brother were to film in 4:3 in the knowledge that that the top 12½% and bottom 12½% of the picture will be discarded and never broadcast, then it would not be a problem, even if their cameras are too antiquated to film in 16:9. NFH 14:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Trivia section

This is now almost entirely about the logo. Perhaps it would be better to drop this section, and move it's contents to a new section on design perhaps along with details of the general look of the show and the way the house itself has influenced interior design in the UK. The other bit of trivia about how many housemates there's been can be moved up to the introduction. Bluejam 10:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Facts for UK version

How about a list of facts for the UK version similar to the one found here called Big Brother factsWillirennen 13.00 8 June 2006

It'd make a good section, not a good article though. -- 9cds^(talk) 13:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

so why didn't you lazy bastards do one?! lol I've just added one. Feel free to expand at will. It's been a long time coming. Triangle e 13:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

somebody has stuck a "please explain the importance of this" on this section with no explanation on the talk page as to why he put it there - can we remove it? Triangle e 11:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone actually read these things because no one is responding. JD - why did you remove all the gay / lesbian firsts from the article? Triangle e 09:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't remove just them, I removed others as well. They didn't seem all that relevant. —JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 12:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

This bit of the article has been completely buggered! Who removed the additional info regarding the eviction percentages for Alex and Alison? Triangle e 21:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Not me (I don't think). The article looks fine to me. --JD ^{don't talk} _{email me} 21:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It was me, I didn't think it relavant --Alex⁹⁸⁹¹ 22:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You didn't think it was relevant? That's nice of you to discuss it first. That fact has been on the main BB page since godknowswhen and without it you don't get the scale of the of the 0.08% I despair! I wonder how much it would cost for me to set up my own version of wikipedia lol Probably too much. Triangle e 09:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I added them back. Sorry about that! --Alex⁹⁸⁹¹ 11:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Golden Ticket

Is it accurate to say random member of public, as I imagine they were vetted and psychologically tested and perhaps even auditioned.--Darrelljon 13:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

They were vetted, yes, but only for their own safety. Random, yes, because everyone had an equal chance to win a ticket. -- 9cds^(talk) 16:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Financially

Is BB UK the most financially successful national version?--Darrelljon 17:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Parody site

There's a parody site, Big Bubble that's been running for the last couple of months. That should probably get a mention, given the amount of flak the contestants usually get for being dimwitted. Replacing Jade Goody with a goldfish would have meant little difference to the show's execution.... --SteveGray 15:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it should be included, it's not very relevant or useful and provides nothing to the article. --Lorian^T_C 15:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Subliminal messages?

Does anyone know anything about the "subliminal messages" in the title sequence to Big Brother? There's a load of jumbled up words, and occaisonally, a red screen with a white circle and some writing underneath which i think contains the word "sequence"... my friends have seen them aswell so it's not just me going mental, has anyone else seen them? only for for split seconds, you have to watch closely to catch them... What are they about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.215.242 (talk • contribs)

Big Brother (UK series 7)#Title sequence. --Lorian^T_C 21:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• You could watch them by recording and using slow pla/pause. I've only read some of it at normal speed and I've seen 'You are feeling uneasy. You are being watched.'Stu42 22:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Catchphrases

I saw on the history someone had made a catchphrase section, but it was deleted for being "not remotely interesting". I personally think it is a great idea - this show has loads of catchphrases which I believe would be relavant to the article. What do you all think? Alex 20:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

How is "the votes have been counted and verifed" etc. interesting?It seems like useless information to me. --Lorian^T_C 20:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Ones like "You are live on Channel 4 - please do not swear" are associated with the show, so I don't think it is useless - do you think that every catchphrase section is useless? Alex 20:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

And uninteresting, yes. --Lorian^T_C 21:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Well let's wait and see what others think because catchphrases become part of a show whether you like it or not Alex 22:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying they don't, what I'm saying is it's not interesting information to be included in the article. --Lorian^T_C 22:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Housemates Since Day 1

I've already added since day 1 to each other the housemates who are still here who were there at the start, but do you think it should be added to those who have gone? Alex 22:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll just assume it's OK. Alex9891 20:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

'Since Day ...' and 'Day ... to Day ...'

Am I the only one who thinks that having all those days written down for BB7 looks messy? It wasn't done last year (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Big_Brother_%28UK%29&oldid=20876606), and this information can be viewed anyway by looking at the template on the series 7 page. Compare (I also changed the order of evicted housemates, to have the newest evictee at the top, and merged the "evicted, walked and ejected" sections into one): Squidward2602 16:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Series 7 (2006) housemates

This is the current, ongoing series In the house: Pete Bennett - Since Day 1 Imogen Thomas - Since Day 1 Mikey Dalton - Since Day 1 Glyn Wise - Since Day 1 Richard Newman - Since Day 1 Nikki Grahame - Since Day 1 Aisleyne Horgan-Wallace - Day 12 to Day 44, returned on Day 49 Susie Verrico - Since Day 23 Jayne Kitt - Since Day 46 Jennie Corner - Since Day 48 Michael Cheshire - Since Day 48 Glen "Spiral" Coroner - Since Day 49

Evicted: Bonnie Holt - Day 1 to Day 9 Sezer Yurtseven - Day 1 to Day 16 Sam Brodie - Day 12 to Day 23 Grace Adams-Short - Day 1 to Day 30 Lisa Huo - Day 1 to Day 37 Jonathan Leonard - Day 44 to Day 49 (in the House Next Door only) Lea Walker - Day 1 to Day 51

Walked: Shahbaz Chauhdry - Day 1 to Day 6 George Askew - Day 1 to Day 13

Ejected: Dawn Blake - Day 1 to Day 8

Series 7 (2006) housemates

This is the current, ongoing series In the house: Pete Bennett Imogen Thomas Mikey Dalton Glyn Wise Richard Newman Nikki Grahame Aisleyne Horgan-Wallace Susie Verrico Jayne Kitt Jennie Corner Michael Cheshire Glen "Spiral" Coroner

Not in house: All of the following housemates were evicted unless stated otherwise Lea Walker Jonathan Leonard Lisa Huo Grace Adams-Short Sam Brodie Sezer Yurtseven George Askew (walked) Bonnie Holt Dawn Blake (ejected) Shahbaz Chauhdry (walked)

I completely agree, the new one looks so mcuh better. But maybe instead of "Not in house" have "Exited"? --Lorian^T_C 16:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree it looks neater, but it will eventually be written off when the series ends and it is no longer the current series. Also imho it is better to be able to see more info at once. Alex9891 14:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

UK series 8

When will the Big Brother UK series 8 eye will be released, and where is its article? They should not have deleted this in the first place!! James Forde 22:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Shortly before it is on TV, and it was deleted from a majority vote. --Lorian^T_C 21:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The article for BB7 appeared when details of the auditions were released, which seems about right to me - there's not really anything to say before that. The new eye logo is only released within a week or two from the start of the series. Anyway, we've got Celeb BB before even thinking about series 8!Bluejam 12:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Pete being the longest serving housemate

I think it's a tad unfair that Pete should be credited as being in the house the longest. He was only in there literally minutes before everybody else. I think, as the rest of the article deals with Days, then the other three "originals" should remain in the records. Anybody agree? Mikay 13:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

...or we could just scrap it altogether? It's not important. — FireFox ^(talk) _{13:16, 7 August '06}

I think it's important because if we're going to have a Records section, the housemate serving the longest amount of time is important. But I just think the discrepancy between the minutes, is slightly pedantic. Mikay 13:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep the section and leave Pete as the longest serving. --Alex⁹⁸⁹¹ 13:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we should keep it and have the names of the others, it's in days not minutes. --Lorian^T_C 14:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Or remove it and wait until the finalists are announced. violet/riga (t) 14:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, good idea --Alex⁹⁸⁹¹ 14:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I argee too, it is stupid. --80.229.241.200 18:56, 7 August 2006

agree with the most recent posts - totally pointless until the end of the series leaky_caldron 19:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

(UTC)

ITV buy out mention?

Its an interesting fact that ITV is trying to buy BB. Maybe it should be in this? jimmy93211--80.229.241.200 21:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It was. Has it been removed? --JD ^{don't talk} _{email me} 21:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Facts

Can we get rid of some of the Big Brother 7 facts? Some of them are as remarkable as Big Brother 2006 Australia's World First, and that isn't very. Specific ones are the youngest housemate, most times up for eviction, most housemates to enter post-launch, first contestant with GTS, and first mother. --JD ^{don't talk} _{email me} 18:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

They aren't remarkable, but really none of them are! --Alex⁹⁸⁹¹ 18:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Ha! --JD ^{don't talk} _{email me} 18:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

First female winner

How significant is this? Is it really that worthy of inclusion? --JD ^{don't talk} _{email me} 18:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

If a female winner was an unusual thing, it would be significant (similar to Margaret Thatcher being the first female prime minister of the UK). However, there are several female Big Brother winners so I don't think it's that important. Tra (Talk) 18:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Poll

Should we put a Big Brother poll on this website?--SimonPeter 16:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia. Unless the poll would be to help improve the Big Brother UK article, this isn't the place for one. _{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 17:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it would help.--195.93.21.10 17:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

what poll? leaky_caldron 20:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Help how? --_{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 20:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It woul help 2 see who might win.

That wouldn't help the encyclopaedia article. _{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 11:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a place for "mights". --Lorian^T_C 11:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

There's polls all over the internet. Go and vote on one of those. If you want to know who's going to win, watch the final tonight! -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 13:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Celebrity Big Brother 1 Nominations

I have put the information of the nominations for series 1 of Celebrity Big Brother, on the discussion page of Celebrity Big Brother 1. Would anyone create the table for me.--SimonPeter 12:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

First transsexual and female winner

Are these things really necessary? To put these facts here would suggest that females and transsexuals are inferior to men in the game of Big Brother; and there isn't even a First male Big Brother winner fact there. And I thought this section was meant for milestones, not random trivia. _{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 15:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The article would be better off without any of the trivia... Anything encyclopedic can be written up into prose and the list ditched... Just my 2p - but yeah, we don;t need those... /wangi 15:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd go for that... _{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 15:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Got my vote, if only for the fact that the IP guy used the word "owned" in the edit summary... Seriously though, it's pretty useless. --Lorian^T_C 16:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Which was a big improvement over their last edit summary [1]! Thanks/wangi 16:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

And now there's longest male and female in the House... Couldn't we just agree to remove this section outright? _{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 16:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Wangi - if a housemate or series is notable enough to be included on the list, then it should be written into the main article. I think the list should be removed altogether. --Alex ^{talk here} 17:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

So 4 of us want to get rid of it versus 1 IP guys that keeps swearing, get rid of it now? --Lorian^T_C 10:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any reason not to. The whole section, or just these facts? _{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 10:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd say whole section, it's pretty useless... --Lorian^T_C 10:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for it. What about other articles though? I think Big Brother Australia has a pretty decent Facts section, but the one on Big Brother US could do with being cut down majorly. _{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 10:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about the other articles, but the UK one seems pretty useless, maybe the ohers are better, I don't know. --Lorian^T_C 10:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, well that's gone then. I'd expect one of those IPs would probably revert it back though, or anybody else if they disagree. _{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 10:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with the removal of the section. Thanks/wangi 11:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the Big Brother facts should be put back!--195.93.21.10 12:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Why's that then? --Alex ^{talk here} 12:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Cause it's interesting information. You didn't have to delete the whole thing, just delete the transexual fact, that's all.--SimonPeter 12:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The interesting information can be added in elsewhere. --Alex ^{talk here} 13:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Naturally, and with proper references. Thanks/wangi 13:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

No criticisms

This article has no information about the criticisms of Big Brother UK. Are there any? _{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 14:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

Added a new section - it needs a lot of tidying up, so please help! --Alex ^{talk here} 21:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, maybe it's a tad too BB7-focused... I'll try and shorten it a bit. _{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 21:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay now it needs a criticsms and controversy section again. _{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 17:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Only if it a section containing general criticism about the overall show, or exceptionally notable one-off expressions of widespread public distaste or concern over a particular incident (such as the fight in BB5). The rest was far to closely related to BB7 and made it look as though there had never been anything to critise in the previous 6 years leaky_caldron 17:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

And now it's been removed completely. --Alex ^{(talk here)} 18:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

So, request number 4: Can somebody write up a controversy and critisisms section? _{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 18:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Big Brother Winner's Week

This is a show that's on right now on Channel 4 (repeated later on E4). I think this should be included in the "shows" section. Is it on every year? -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

There was a similar series last year, I don't remember what it was called though. I hate to sound like a stuck record, but on Big Brother Australia articles *hears groan*, information on shows that are only shown for one series of Big Brother are in the article of that particular series. If something like this was shown for any of the first five seasons, I think something should be included on this article to say that shows about after housemates' time in Big Brother is normally shown. _{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 20:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Last year, it was called Big Brother 6: What The Housemates Did Next godgoddingham ³³³ 20:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

That was it. I knew it had the word housemates in there somewhere... _{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 20:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Series 7 information

Is it really necessary to have the Series 7 subsection in the Main Article? People wanting to read up on it will simple go to the Series 7 article. As it's not the current series, it makes sense to get rid. Permission to remove? Mikay 19:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why not. _{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 19:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It may even be better to replace it with a Series 8 subsection instead, listing possible rumours, start dates, etc. to tide us over until the main page is created. Mikay 10:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Nah you can't. WP:NOT states Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. --Alex ^{(talk here)} 11:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Stuff about series 8 can be included if it's all properly sourced, which would seem unlikely since the seventh series finished this year. _{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 11:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I see that.. but we know that it will definately air, and that it will air on Channel 4. Maybe that's just the skin and bones, so possibly shouldn't be added until more information is released. But I think the Series 7 information should go. Mikay 14:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC) (gah, I always forget to sign. :P)

CBB4 & BB7 sponsors

It's SO not Motorola.. I thought I'd open to discussion for the sponsor.. I'm pretty sure it's not Motorola at TCH that sponsor the show. I'm sure it's just the Carphone Warehouse. For example, on eviction night.. the narrator would say "Saying goodbye to the latest evictee from The Carphone Warehouse" or something like that. The Motorola ads were just advertising those phones. Maybe I'm wrong, and those ramblings made no sense. Still, discuss... Mikay 19:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Too many fair use images?

There's several screenshots of the titles for Big Brother shows being added. Although there's not quite as many as there were on the List of Big Brother housemates (UK series 7), there's still quite a lot of fair use images being added. Isn't eight of them a bit too many? Tra (Talk) 20:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

BBAU - If it's good enough for BBAU, it's good enough for us. (And I disagreed with the image removal anyway. Heh) - Mikay 20:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Nah, they're violating fair use too. We can't justify one violation by pointing to another. Those images are only there for decorative purposes. They are not providing any extra encyclopaedic substance whatsoever: it's merely images for images sake. I appreciate your desire to make the articles the same... they really should come out of the BBAU article too. The JPS^{talk to me} 20:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Meh, I was thinking about removing them all earlier today. The ones on Big Brother (Australia) are mostly gone, with only one still there. I've also removed a few others from another Big Brother Australia article. The ones on this article should be removed as well; they're already on the individual programmes' articles anyway. _{J Di}^talk 21:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe keep the one for the main show. --Alex ^{(talk here)} 21:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

That image is only of the Big Brother eye, which changes every year and is pretty meaningless there on its own. I think it should be removed as well. _{J Di}^talk 21:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Heh, it absolutely sucks when you do something it's gone within 24 hours. Still, it's useful to have things uploaded, if ever there is a need for them in future. And, like you say, the BBBB, BBBM and BBLB ones will still be in use. They should probably be removed if the BBAU ones have been taken off too. Ah well, another idea down the pan. :P - Mikay 21:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

DVDs and videos

Is there any information on any DVDs and videos about Big Brother UK that could be added to the article? _{J Di}^talk 19:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

There were DVDs released for series 1-4, but I'm not sure about videos, or more recent series. --Alex ^{(talk here)} 19:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Series 5 didn't have a DVD release because of "Fight Night" - they couldn't include it, but they couldn't not include it, so they didn't release the DVD. I have series 1 and 2 on video and 3 on DVD. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that fact alone makes a DVD section worthy of creation. Any information about Big Brother 6? _{J Di}^talk 20:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure anything official was released, but I could be wrong... :) --Alex ^{(talk here)} 20:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know anything about series 6. I assumed there was one. I also assumed the reason they showed very little nudity this year was because it was all going to be on a DVD... Amazon.co.uk only appear to have DVDs for series 1-4. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

What sort of stuff was on the DVDs? _{J Di}^talk 20:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Series 1-3 had "Big Brother Uncut" footage on. Series 4 was a DVD produced with just regular footage, giving there wasn't much explict footage. Series 5 DVD rights were bought by The Sun. You can still get a hold of rare copies on eBay, but not that many were made. The only DVD produced for Series 6 was the complete episode of Diary Room Uncut that came with the Official Series 6 book. I don't think there's any plans for a Series 7 book or DVD. Oh, and also there was the Interactive DVD Game... Mikay 21:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Anybody else think a DVD section should be made then? Or that just me... _{J Di}^talk 21:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yup, I think one should be made. =] Mikay 23:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

We could talk about the first 3 series, the reasons why they did not produce the next series, the DVDs for 5/6/7(they where gave away with the book) and the pirated copies of all series saold on the net?Jimmy93211 19:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC).

I created a DVD section (stop laughing at me!!!). Just needs (major) improvement now. jd || talk || 22:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Good, I've improved it... --Alex (talk) (review me) 22:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge proposal

BBBB could probably be merged into this article, since its page is not much longer than just a paragraph so it should fit in easily. I think BBLB and BBBM shoud keep their own articles since they are too long to be included in full in this article. Tra (Talk) 18:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Big Brother's Little Brother is that big, and I think some of the information on that page would be better on this article anyway. Big Brother's Big Mouth is really big, but it needs to be cut down anyway; it has been mentioned on the talk page that the article goes into too much detail, and that it focuses too much on BB7. _{J Di}^talk 18:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I think all three should be merged, as they are all sister shows with no status of their own - i.e. they are only ever on when the main show is. --Alex ^(talk) 20:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I think all three shows should have articles of their own. Afterall, they have different title credits, their own identidies and perhaps more importantly, different presenters. -Mikay 16:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Big Brain and Little Brother don't though. --Alex (talk) 16:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Big Brother Australia *groan* had different opening titles for each show in 2005 and 2006, if different only because of the colour used, as was also the case for Big Brother 7 UK shows; and Big Brother Uncut had a different theme in the first two seasons. Eviction and Live Nominations had different opening credits for a while. UpLate, Friday Night Live, and Adults Only are all worthy of their own articles, but despite all of this, they are all still on one article. _{J Di}^talk 16:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

So, you're basically admitting those "are all worthy of their own articles", but did not get them. So then why should another show be deprived of its own article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PlasmaDragon (talk • contribs)

I'm not saying that. I meant Uncut, UpLate, and Friday Night Live are all notable enough for their own articles, but thereisn't any need as they are all in the Big Brother Australia article. Those shows are all notable for things they've done, but as far as I know, Big Brother's Little Brother, Big Brother's Big Brain, and Big Brother's Big Mouth are all just chatshows and recap shows. Big Brother Adults Only was in the news for a lot of things, and got some serious headlines ([2]) and even had John Howard, Prime Minister of Australia, comment on it ([3]). That ended up with Adults Only getting taken off air before BB06 had finished ([4]). More information about that is here. UpLate and Friday Night Live have had spin-off shows (The Up-Late Game Show and Friday Night Games respectively). Even with all of this, the information is all in the Big Brother Australia article, as these three shows are very closely related and to split the information up doesn't help anybody. Big Brother's Little Brother, Big Brother's Big Mouth, and Big Brother's Big Brain may all be separate shows, but at the end of the day they are all still Big Brother UK, and nothing is going to change that. jd || talk || 09:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree, they are nothing without the main series. --Alex | talk / review me | 10:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• I think they should all have their seperate pages, but some like BBBM REALLY need to be cut down.Anon Dude 15:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

To be honest.. I don't see the problem with having them seperate. Wikipedia has plenty of space, and it's only going to make the main article longer. I sense a "Changing it for the sake of editing something" mood here at the moment.. - Mikay 16:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I saw it more as a "changing it for the sake of making this article longer and more like the Big Brother Australia article which in my biased opinion is far better than this one" thing, but meh. jd || talk || 16:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• I vote for merging them all into BB (UK) with a pruning of non-essential material. Jess Cully 07:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Why did someone take out the seperate page for Big Brothers big mouth and merge all the shows into one??? It was much better to keep them seperate. They are shows in their own right. Tremello22 15:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, actually, I don't think they are... jd || talk || 15:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes there used to be a seperate one for BBBM with pictures and everything. Now it is all in one. And it is a lot harder to navigate. And who cares about BB Australia why do we have to conform to their way of doing things?? There are people that are fans of a particular show and not another so why change it for the sake of it?Tremello22 11:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Their way of doing things? Who's way of doing things? Without Big Brother Australia, Big Brother UK would be a heck of a lot more boring than it is now; not everything to do with Big Brother UK is original. Consistency is a good thing, and having the articles on separate pages just because it makes Big Brother UK different isn't a good reason to not have them all on one page. I don't do anything just for the sake of it, and my reasons for suggesting the three articles be merged are all up there. If you have a good reason for unnecessarily putting information in four different places, I would sure love to hear it. I don't find the article difficult to navigate at all, but if you disagree, perhaps you'd like to consider cutting down a few sections, namely this one. jd || talk || 11:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear, merging the articles together wasn't a good idea, it's far too big now and many of the details are irrelevant for a all-encompassing BB UK article yet still significant for the individual shows. Rather than severely cut down the BBLB and BBBM sections I think they should go back to being seperate articles. For example, BBBM in particular is as much a vehicle for Russel Brand's humour as it is a debate on the goings on in the Big Brother house - his characters and catchphrases have little or no impact on Big Brother UK as a whole yet are worthy of a mention in a BBBM article. Bluejam 08:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Any of his "humour" can be included in this article, but they shouldn't take over an article as they once did. Most of the Big Brother's Big Mouth article was about the jokes and other stuff like that, and people said on the talk page that it needed to be cut down anyway. I don't remember cutting down the Big Brother's Little Brother article when I merged it here, but I still think the Big Brother's Big Mouth section really needs to be cut down. jd || talk || 11:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Jd it seems you are the authority on big brother here. What i meant was that people looking at big brother uk wikipedia aren't neccessarily interested in Big brother Australia or wherever you come from. They like the particular shows such as BBBM and they feel as if the are worthy of a section in their own right. Tremello22 12:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no authority here. I agree to the merges, and I'm from the UK as well... :) --Alex (Talk) 12:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

UpLate, Friday Night Live, and Adults Only could probably be seen in the same way, and at least one of these shows has done something that definitely sets it apart from the rest of Big Brother Australia. Adults Only is more notable than Big Brother's Big Mouth, Big Brother's Little Brother, and Big Brother's Big Brain put together. Adults Only got called pornography by Parliamentarians, had the Australian Prime Minister slander the show, and had the ACMA, a government agency, carry out an investigation that said that Adults Only, then Uncut, breached three television regulations. Have any of the individual Big Brother UK shows done anything like this? (And that means don't point out Nikki's re-entering the House, that doesn't count as it happened to Big Brother UK as a series, not to any one show.) jd || talk || 13:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Element 4

Does anybody know of a source that says that the theme was written especially for Big Brother UK? A good one would include the year that the theme was written, and another to say when it was first released. jd || talk || 19:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Okey doke, removing. jd || talk || 13:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I know that the single was released under the name Element Four (not 4) and the track was named "Big Brother UK TV Theme". Nothing on the single refers to a song called "Tast-E". I have the single in front of me right now. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The track is on the Big Brother Australia album, and says on it: Tast-E (Vocal Mix - Radio Edit) // Paul Oakenfold & Andy Gray. It's the same track, dunno why it has a different name on UK CDs though. I'll do a bit of Internet searching for Element Four and Big Brother UK TV Theme. jd || talk || 19:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Celebrity Big Brother

I would have pointed this out before, but I couldn't think how to get into the archive section of the Big Brother website. What we have named Celebrity Big Brother 3 is actually Celebrity Big Brother 5; Celebrity editions, going by the website, are numbered by the corresponding Big Brother season that they follow. Support for more page moving and changing of all references to match, or reasons not to please. jd || talk || 19:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Support the move. --Alex (Talk) 19:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I support the move too. In fact I always used to think it was Celebrity Big Brother 5, i.e. the celebrity version of Big Brother 5. But I guess I stopped thinking that at some point, for some unknown reason. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Support. They should probably be moved to Celebrity Big Brother n (UK) to follow the style of the other series's in the UK. Tra (Talk) 23:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Er, I did want to leave it more than four hours before moving all the pages... jd || talk || 23:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, should have waited a bit longer. I think I might have made a mistake with series 1 and 2 - they actually were broadcast after the main series 1 and 2. Now to fix those double redirects... Tra (Talk) 23:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Meh no matter, this probably wouldn't have gotten any more comments anyway. I just like to make sure. I think all the pages are sorted now, the intros just need to be rewritten. jd || talk || 23:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Why have you cocked it all up, it's now a load of bull.--SimonPeter 14:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

They got it wrong on the big brother website, they cocked it up aswell, there's no need to change it on wikipedia?--SimonPeter 14:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Why have u cocked it all up? Will somebody answer me!--SimonPeter 14:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is the Channel 4 website going to have gotten this wrong? What proof do you have that it is incorrect? jd || talk || 14:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

There have only been 4 series, why have you gone up to 6, where is 2 and 4?--SimonPeter 14:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

You've read the rest of the discussion, so you should already know. I'm not trying to be rude, but it's a lot of effort to explain it again when it's up there. Read the first comment (mine). jd || talk || 14:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

SimonPeter, please don't move pages without prior discussion, it has caused a lot of unnecessary problems. Thank you. --Alex (Talk) 15:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

This is so annoying! The name of celeb bb depends on its number. why would they name the third series cbb5 :s thats stupid. Davina introduced last year's show as: "Welcome to celebrity big brother 4" not 6! I don't support the move, it looks a mess. Jezabelda 00:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

If you vote for the National Television Awards, you will notice that Big Brother is completely different to Celebrity Big Brother.--195.93.21.10 12:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you point out why that matters please? jd || talk || 12:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It means that each series of Celebrity Big Brother does not corospond to the recent series of Big Brither.--195.93.21.10 14:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I've just looked at the NTA website, and the only "Big Brother is completely different to Celebrity Big Brother"s I see are a question that allows a person to pick from Chantelle of Celebrity Big Brother 2005, Pete from BB2007, and Nikki from BB2007; and another question that has Big Brother, Celebrity Big Brother, I'm a Celebrity... Get Me Out of Here, and The Apprentice as answers. That doesn't really tell me much, and the fact that Big Brother and Celebrity Big Brother are both separate answers doesn't really mean much. It's quite clear that Big Brother and Celebrity Big Brother are not the same, but what I have seen on that website isn't enough to convince me that the Channel 4 website has false or misleading information on it. jd || talk || 14:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

You haven't given me enough proof to say that each series of Celebrity Big Brother corosponds to the recent series of Big Brother.--195.93.21.10 14:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The information in a section of the Channel 4 website named BB5 Celebrity Archive has information that corresponds to the information that is in an article that used to be named Celebrity Big Brother (UK series 3). Is that not enough? jd || talk || 14:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

That has to be a mistake on the Channel 4 site. If you look at press reports for the series (e.g. www.guardian.co.uk/Media/site/story/0,14173,1680567,00.html or www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2006000002-2006000661,00.html )and even Davina on air, the titles are referred to as they were originally numbered here, not related to each main series. Each series is officially just called "Celebrity Big Brother" though, so the choice of numbers is arbitrary anyway - I think it's better to go for the titles more familiar to the public and fans, look at any Big Brother forum and you'll see it's the way it was orignally numbered here. 14:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Given that both links are to newspaper websites, I don't really have an opinion on the accuracy of them, but the first one only refers to this year's Celebrity Big Brother as 2006 Celebrity Big Brother. I really don't see how the Channel 4 website could be inaccurate, as surely somebody would have seen this by now, or before it was even put on the Internet. I'm assuming the website is accurate, as Channel 4 is the network that airs the programme after all, and I think they'd know. Tra has done a lot to help avoid any confusion, so unless you can give me something that seems a bit more accurate than a newspaper site, I see no reason to move all the pages so that the article names match the season number. jd || talk || 15:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

If anyone's going to be wrong about this, it's not going to be the Channel 4 website. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The channel 4 website can get it wrong, if u go on series 3 of Big Brother and click on nominations, it comes up with a list of housemates, not nominations, so the channel 4 website can get it wrong.--SimonPeter 19:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Celebrity Big Brother infoboxes

The season numbers in the infoboxes on the Celebrity Big Brother UK article has been changed to match the name of the articles. I didn't change these earlier because I think this number should say what number season it is, rather than what the name of the season is. jd || talk || 15:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It can be confusing. Taking Celebrity Big Brother 3 (UK) for example, you don't know if 'series 3' refers to the series named '3' or the third series. It might be better to put 'Second series (2002) (and do the same for the other series). Tra (Talk) 15:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Should the same be done to the other Big Brother UK articles, for consistency? jd || talk || 15:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why not. Perhaps even the rest of the world as well? Tra (Talk) 15:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not too keen on UK-world domination... jd || talk || 15:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

???

Three points:

1. 1: Couldn't be bothered signing in - I'm feeling lazy and I blame it on Halloween.

1. 2: This talk page should be cleaned up. If I knew how to archive discussions, then I would do it myself.

1. 3: Should there be a mention somewhere of the Big Brother DVD Game (for Series 7)?

ETA: edits to my orginally appalling grammar.

59.167.122.40 12:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposed split of Big Brother's Little Brother

I don't think the Big Brother's Little Brother section should be split because of how badly I wanted it merged in the first place. All in this section. _JD^talk 18:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Celebrity Big Brother [Continued]

There has been a long talk about the Numbering of Celebrity Big Brother. As a member of the press site I contacted, Channel 4's Press Desk last night and Cherelle Duggleby has sent me an email this morning.

"Hi mark,

Celebrity Big Brother 2007 is in its fifth year. CBB5.

best cherelle"

You do have a point. As for the previous series of Celebrity Big Brother, the following sites refer to it as 'Celebrity Big Brother 4': [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] Tra (Talk) 19:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It does seem to be the case that the names are wrong.... --Majorly 19:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Cherelle Duggleby could be wrong. What exactly did you ask her? — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's what I asked:

Good Evening, There has been delibriation on the numbering of Celebrity Big Brother. Does the Celebrity Big Brother 'Number/Cycle' proceed the previous Main Series of Big Brother. If Big Brother 2006 is BB7 does that mean Celebrity Big Brother 2007 will be CBB7 or CBB5?

Best Regards,Coreix (talk) 20:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. To be honest, I still think the Channel 4 website is more reliable than someone at Channel 4's Press Desk. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Channel 4 do refer to the previous CBB series as 'CBB4' and the next series as 'Celebrity Big Brother 5' in this page. Tra (Talk) 21:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It's funny we've giving multiple evidence that suggests its CBB5. The Channel 4 Website, 2 People from the Channel 4 Press Desk. Yet their is 0% evidence that suggests its CBB1 3,5 and 7 except that 'They havn't said the number on Celebrity Big Brother Before' Coreix (talk) 13:32, 04 December 2006 (UTC)

The evidence that they are numbered 1, 3, 5, 7 is in this page, look in the sidebar and title bar. Tra (Talk) 17:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Celeb BB numbering

Would it not make more sense just to call them Celebrity Big Brother (2000), Celebrity Big Brother (2002), etc? This avoids making any kind of judgement with regards to what number they are. Within each article, you can then start the article (for example):

"The 2002 series of Celebrity Big Brother was the second series of the show. It was often referred to by Channel 4 (link reference) as 'Celebrity Big Brother 3', as it followed the third season of Big Brother."'

Does that make sense to anyone except me? Proto::► 16:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this is the best idea I've heard all day. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I like that idea as well, but what about the main series articles? Rename them as well for consistency, or leave them? _JD^talk 16:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep, It's a great idea. I suppose the main series articles could be named as well. Although, I think there needs to be 'UK' somewhere in the name, perhaps Celebrity Big Brother (UK 2000) etc? Tra (Talk) 17:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking about that as well, but didn't like (UK year) too much. Is there anywhere else UK could go without making the title look/sound odd? _JD^talk 17:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Celebrity Big Brother UK (year)? --Majorly 17:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Argh. Maybe... Celebrity Big Brother (UK, 2000 series) etc? I don't know! — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 18:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the best one so far. Or maybe Celebrity Big Brother (2000 UK)? _JD^talk 18:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

That's basically the same as Celebrity Big Brother (UK 2000). --Majorly 19:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not the same, otherwise I wouldn't have suggested it. _JD^talk 19:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say it was. Basically the same. And who is Alex9891? --Majorly 19:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Stop arguing already :) — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

(de-indenting) You only need the UK in if there's already an article called Celebrity Big Brother (2004), etc. As there aren't, the "UK" is not needed. If another country does have Celebrity BB, and one took place in the same year, then I imagine they already have sensible names, and you can put a "see also" at the top of the Celebrity Big Brother (200x) article. If nobody has any objections in the next day or two, I will move all the articles appropriately. Proto::► 09:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

UK is needed because other countries have Celebrity Big Brother series. It could confuse people if UK isn't in there, and the UK's Celebrity Big Brother series isn't important enough to not need disambiguation. _JD^talk 09:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Then go with Celebrity Big Brother UK (2001) etc. Proto::► 12:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

There's no proof that the UK series of Big Brother is called Big Brother UK. _JD^talk 12:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

UK and the year should both be in the disambiguation bit. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 12:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Then suggest something better than Celebrity Big Brother (UK) (200x), which is strictly what it should be. Proto::► 11:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

That looks bizarre, is there a standard way to disambiguate something twice? I think my use of a comma looks better than using two sets of brackets. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 13:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I've just thought (at 0113 -- wow!), why not name the articles "Celebrity Big Brother year (UK)"? I think this idea may have been rejected before for the main Big Brother UK series articles, but the seasons are sometimes referred to as "Big Brother year". Thoughts? _JD^talk 01:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

So that would give something like Celebrity Big Brother 2001 (UK). That seems to work well. Tra (Talk) 01:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Didn't someone already reject that? No? Well then it seems like probably the best solution! — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 02:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Moving the Big Brother articles as well? J Di ^talk 18:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

If nobody's bothered enough to comment, I'll just move them. J Di ^talk 16:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. If you haven't already... — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 13:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

CBB 5 NOT 7

The serieses of celebrity big brother are NOT numbered by the series of big brother that they follow at all. The upcoming series is Celebrity Big Brother 5 and it is named so because it is the 5th celebrity big brother series. I will edit this accordingly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.201.40.229 (talk) 17:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

The entire redirection of 'Celebrity Big Brother # (UK)' (shortened to CBB # from now on) is in a mess. CBB 2 and CBB 3 both redirect to CBB 2002 - this is wrong, only CBB 2 should redirect to CBB 2002. Therefore, CBB 3 should redirect to CBB 2005 and CBB 4 to CBB 2006. CBB 5 should redirect to CBB 2007 and CBB 6 and 7 should be deleted. --TheTallOne 20:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you can fix it by tagging the appropriate pages for deletion, and fixing the redirects? --Majorly (Talk) 21:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Series 7 on Big Brother (UK)

Isn't it about time to remove ==Series 7== from the main page? I mean the series now has it's own page anyway.

I agree, plus I think a series 8 page should be started or a small section in place of the series 7 one on the Big Brother page, for the small details we know about the 8th Series. Chris as I am Chris 16:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

What details would that be? J Di ^talk 17:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that it is the last series at the current location. Chris as I am Chris 17:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that's enough information to create a new section. Could you provide an Internet source for that as well please? J Di ^talk 17:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Its already stated in part of the wiki page, and there are some other little bits, just cant remember them, plus Im sure that others have some info. Chris as I am Chris 17:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I see. I still don't think there'd be enough information for it to have its own section. J Di ^talk 17:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, maybe if we bring this back up after CBB5. Chris as I am Chris 17:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Big Brother's Big Brain 2006 - Present

Hi, On the panel to the right of the article, the shows are all 200? - Present except for BBBB, of which just says 2006, I dont know how to edit the pannel myself, but should this be changed as BBBB is on presently? Chris as I am Chris 19:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Done, I think it was left over from the summer when no one was really sure of the future of the sister show. :) - Mikay 19:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Cheers. Chris as I am Chris 19:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Alleged racist quotes

Can i/someone add quotes (with appropriate citation) so people can judge for themselves????? [10] Sumit Desai 01:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

celebrity big brother section

why has this been removed?172.141.83.47 22:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

If you're referring to the infobox, I moved its section to under 'Previous seasons' as it's no longer the current series. If you click on [show] next to 'Previous seasons', you'll see the section. Tra (Talk) 22:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I've had another look and I think you might actually be referring to some recent vandalism. That has now been fixed. Tra (Talk) 22:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

yes its fixed now, thanks172.141.83.47 23:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)