Talk:Big Brother (British TV series) series 8/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

When does series finish?

Does anyone know when the current series finishes? I think it may well be worth adding this to the initial paragraph. Paul Norfolk Dumpling 13:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You'll find that this has already been mentioned further up this page, under Duration. When we can source it, it will be worth mentioning. Otherwise not. John Hayes 14:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I've read somewhere that it's 31 August, which stuck in my mind as it's my mum's birthday. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Most reports stated that the series was due to finish on the 30 August 2007, but that's a Thursday so I would think that 31 August is more likely. All the presenters refer to 13 weeks when talking about the show, which would take it to 30 August at least. Darrenhusted 15:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Dermot said it was "13 weeks and 2 days" on BBLB - including the launch night as a day, that would be 31 August, wouldn't it? -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Tracey - Norfolk or Cambs

Fordham is in Norfolk. It is very close to the boarder, yes, but it is non the less in Norfolk. I just outside of Downham Market, about 3 miles from Fordham, so this is how I know this. Paul Norfolk Dumpling 19:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes but that would be WP:OR. It doesn't matter anyway, as the source says Cambridgeshire, and until we get a source saying Norfolk it has to stay that way. John Hayes 09:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fordham, Cambridgeshire probably has the answer. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 18:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Lol, probably. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually it doesn't as that would be WP:OR you can't use wikipedia as a source. The bottom line is we have to put whatever the source says (unless the source is unreliable). There is only one source for this statement, and all that says is Cambridgeshire. There is no mention of Fordham. If there is a source that says Fordham, then that should be added to that statement. John Hayes 22:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

According to Google Maps it's in Norfolk. Does that help? — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 23:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Not really, considering my comment above. John Hayes 06:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

This source says Cambridgeshire too. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 09:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Cites

There are various inconsistancies in the cites, from whether it's news or web for news stories (sorry I made that mistake too), using work when it should be publisher, or in some cases just using ref tags or even square brackets. I've gone through some of the worse ones already, and will continue doing so. Just as a guide: {{cite news |first= |last= |authorlink= |author= |coauthors= |title= |url= |format= |work= |publisher= |id= |pages= |page= |date= |accessdate= |language= |quote= }} and {{cite web |url= |title= |accessdate= |accessmonthday= |accessdaymonth = |accessyear= |author= |last= |first= |authorlink= |coauthors= |date= |year= |month= |format= |work= |publisher= |pages= |language= |doi= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |quote= }} where appropriate. John Hayes 16:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh and also putting the cite immediately after the punctuation, I'm as guilty of forgetting this as most people. John Hayes 16:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Bottom section mysteriously disappeared

Oddly enough, the bottom section is gone for some reason. Anybody know how to remedy this? FireSpike 19:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You put the / on the wrong side of the ref, sorted it. AxG ^{@ ►talk} 19:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Emily's Eviction

The nominatins table says that she was evicted in week 2 but i thought it was decided we're still in week one?? i'd change it myself, but i just don't know how to do the difficult stuff like that :( steve 11:55, 7 June 2007

sorry, should have being week 1. Thanks Scubafish 11:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually it was correct in the first place. Based on previous years, if the nominations have occured, the evicted box starts in the week after, but the housemate is added to the ejected row in the week they were ejected. See example of Dawn in 2006. I have added the ejected row, and reverted the change. John Hayes 11:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

"Entered Day 3" and "Ejected day 9, 3:30 am"

After their name in the housemates section, it seems to say what day people entered and exited. Is this necessary? Boldly deleting now. FireSpike 15:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Quite right, this was a new or inexperienced user, probably thought it was a good idea, but a) it's duplicating information already in many places in the article b) it's inconsistent John Hayes 16:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Emily, Ejected?

I thought perhaps worth asking if the article should be changed to say she (Emily) was 'Removed' instead of 'Ejected'? The BB website says that she was Removed and it does sound a little more 'interesting' by saying removed.??? steve 23:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not bothered either way, as long as previous "ejected" housemates become "removed" if we want to change it. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 22:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Based on previous years it is ejected. John Hayes 23:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I was going to suggest this myself. We got the word 'ejected' from the Big Brother website itself last year, as far as I know. To me it makes more sense for it to read as 'removed' now, seeing as that's the word Channel 4 uses, and in my opinion it's just generally a better word to use anyway. — Xy7 15:33, 08 June 2007

This is true, ejected could, in theory, mean evicted too, removed, to me, seems slightly more distinct. I'm only worried about losing the consistency from last year. John Hayes 16:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, we could change last year's too. :) — Xy7 16:15, 08 June 2007

Looking back on all the previous years any forced removal has been called Ejected, so why now the change to Removed. I think a bit of consistency is needed, if we are to stay with Removed then all the previous years need to be changed, or this year needs to be brought in line and changed to Ejected. Darrenhusted 12:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are meant to be written for a general audience, not fans of a television series, and any words that have a different meaning in the context of an article's subject should either be explained or replaced with more generic words that everybody should be able to understand. The point I'm trying to make is that neither "ejected" or "removed" sufficiently explain a situation on their own, but another word, such as "disqualified", might. J Di 13:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that all the previous forced removals were listed as Ejected on the other articles (Nick, Emma, Kitten), and that changing now is inconsistent, on this article it should be listed as others and a discussion needs to be started on the Project page, but just this article saying Removed when the others say Ejected just isn't consistent. Darrenhusted 15:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The articles should all be changed so they use a generic agreed-upon term that can be understood by a person that hasn't seen the Big Brother website and how the words "ejected" and "removed" are/have been used on it. J Di 15:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Fact tags

I have a fixed a lot of the ridiculous {{fact}} tags on this article, as they were unnecessary. If a paragraph is sourced from the same reference(s), then there is no need to cite the source after every individual sentence.

If the information is clearly obvious from watching the show (e.g., the number of beds in the bedroom), there is no real need to provide a citation for this, or just cite the show, this would be an acceptable use of a primary source. Neil ╦ 10:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, they're not needed after every sentence! Thanks for sorting it! -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Jrphayes restored them all, for some unknown reason. Again, I have removed them for the above reasons. If I inadvertently removed one you believe should remain, restore that one, not all of them. Neil ╦ 11:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I explained my reasons on your talk page. I agree they didn't all need to be there, I as just reverting as the text from the cites was appearing in the paragraphs. Anyway I have now replaced those with the ref already used for the launch. John Hayes 11:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Week 1 header

I have replaced "(Day 1 - Day 10)" in the Week 1 header with a hidden text note at the beginning of the paragraph. I thought it looked too messy really. Have had a quick look on the talk page to see if this was decided by consensus, and I couldn't find anything, but please point anything out if I've missed it. Thanks, — Xy7 16:05, 08 June 2007

No I just put it in as I was getting fed up with people ignoring the consensus about week 1. I think hiding it is hopefully a good compromise, because it did look a bit messy, though we will see if it will work. John Hayes 16:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

As of 13 minutes ago we are in week two, so hopefully this will not be an issue.Darrenhusted 23:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Shabnam before Emily in Nominations box.

A couple of times the contents of Ziggys first nominations box has been changed to Shabnam, Emily from Emily, Shabnam, but the Against Public Vote box has stayed the same. I can't see any reason for this, beyond that Ziggy possibly nominated her first? I have changed it back twice in the past for consistency, and as much as 3R only applies to reverting a from the same editor in 24 hours, I wouldn't want to abuse the spirit of it, and revert it again without finding out why this was changed. John Hayes 16:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

On the Big Brother Wikiproject, from the example it seems to suggest using alphabetical order, but based on last years one this seems not always the case. John Hayes 16:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think Ziggy's nominations box should say 'Shabnam, Emily', since that's the order he nominated them in but the up for eviction box should say 'Emily, Shabnam' since those names are always listed in alphabetical order. The example I think you're referring to on WP:BIGBRO mentions the list of who is up for eviction - not the nominations themselves. Perhaps that page should clarify how to list the nominations themselves? I think it should say that the nominations in each table cell should be listed in the order that they nominated them, or if this is not known, in alphabetical order. Tra (Talk) 16:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with Tra. — Xy7 18:09, 08 June 2007

Well if that is the case, that makes sense, I had no idea who was nominated first. John Hayes 07:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally i think it should be order of their nominations, i.e. Shabnam then Emily, it does show more information that way. steve 18:11, 8 June 2007

I agree, they should be listed in order of nomination. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 21:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

This will only be an issue when one person nominates, and the famous phrase on BB is "in alphabetical order" when nominations are announced, so for one person nominating then the order should be listed, but in following weeks it will always be announced alphabetically so will look inconsistent, unless they are listed by amount of votes cast.

Having checked last year Week Four Susie nominated (like Ziggy) and said Nikki, Grace, but on the table at the bottom they are listed Grace, Nikki.

And having double checked the page for this year it is consistent with previous years and should stay as it is. Darrenhusted 23:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Ofcom statement?

I removed the sentence that said C4 were made to broadcast the Ofcom statement before today's show. Then I realised I didn't actually see the beginning of the show, so reverted myself. Can anyone confirm either way? — Xy7 22:35, 08 June 2007

It was not broadcast. -- Chris as I am Chris 12:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Infobox colours

There is currently discussion at Template talk:Big Brother housemates#I propose a change! regarding the changing of the orange colour in the infobox to purple. Please comment there if you agree, disagree or have other ideas. Tra (Talk) 12:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Head of House?

What's this head of house legend that's on the page about? steve 17:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's for US BB. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It is, the US version does it differently, where a Head of House is required. The UK doesn't need one. Andrewjd 19:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

earlier on it was showing, but by the time i'd posted and asked what it was, it went :S steve 20:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant Info on Housemates

Where do we draw the line on what info is listed in each housemate section? I have tried to keep it to info which is relevant to big brother, on the basis that if they do anything notable outside of Big Brother, they will get their own page. For example that Nicky studied floristry for two years. This has no benefit to an article on Big Brother. John Hayes 10:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I added that Chanelle's biological mother was murdered; I'm pretty sure this can be verified, it's interesting and could come up in the house (her bio needs beefing up aswell)...also, sorry for calling Seány a raving homosexual. Yohan euan o4 10:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes that's not the first time I have removed that. It can be verified, but I don't believe it's important to an article on Big Brother. Read WP:HTRIV. I paraphrase: It's certainly important to an article on Chanelle's mother, somewhat important to an article on Chanelle, not very important to an article on Big Brother. Yes they might mention it in the house, when they do, if it is notable, then we can mention it, but so far, to the best of my knowledge they haven't. John Hayes 11:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

She has now mentioned it, still not sure how notable it is, but I've left it in this time. John Hayes 06:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh and don't worry about your Seany comment, it was removed quite quickly, I guess you didn't know better, but we can't add any comments which could lead to someone suing us, or Wikipedia for libel (remember you have to prove he is what you said, not him prove he is not). John Hayes 11:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Derry/Londonderry

By the Way, the city that Seany comes from is not Derry, but rather LondonDerry. LondonDerry is the official name recognised by the EU and therefore should be referred to as LondonDerry, despite what Irish Nationalists say. As usual this has been a case of appeasement for the Irish Nationalists who seem to get there own way because 150 years ago they where discriminated against. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.100.167 (talk) 15:37, 11 June, 2007 (UTC)

There is no need for bias, or discriminatation on this talk page, remember "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views.". I agree with the use of Londonderry, for the reason you give, but the issue is as far from clear cut as you make out, see Derry-Londonderry_name_dispute. You don't do your cause any favours any by attacking other people, a simple "Londonderry is the official name recognised by the EU" would have been more than enough. John Hayes 07:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a "debate" that too much hassle getting into. In any case, how a particular person refers to places colloquially is widely accepted, and we have the example in [[Big Brother 2004 (UK) where it says, "is a hairdresser and DJ from Hull," not Kingston upon Hull. Nick Cooper 07:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, so you are suggesting we use whatever Seany uses? If so what does he use? anyone have an example? John Hayes 09:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't recall him saying specifically. Until he does, we could either go with what Davinia said when he went in, or what's on the BB website. Nick Cooper 10:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The Big Brother website says Manchester ;-) John Hayes 10:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

LOL! That solves the problem! Nick Cooper 10:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we could just avoid the issue entirely by removing the born in derry/londonderry bit, ie "born in northern ireland, residing in Manchester" or something to that effect. John Hayes 10:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that would work until he says something that can be used one way or the other. Nick Cooper 11:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. John Hayes 11:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Libel?

I doubt if this is libellous because:- 1. In this day and age, I don't think an allegation of lesbianism is defamatory, 2. If we are only reporting that a mainstream media source claimed something then there is a defence of qualified privelege. PatGallacher 10:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I would rather wait until someone other than The Star mentions this, it's known for completely making up stories. Qualified Privelege only applies to persons in authority, such as judges, this doesn't apply in the every day media. Also don't be so sure about the allegation of lesbianism, there have been plenty of recent libel trials regarding accusation of homosexuality. John Hayes 10:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, they have pictures on the article named "breast friends" or something... godgoddingham ³³³ 10:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I quote WP:BLP "There are some magazines and newspapers that print gossip much of which is false. While such information may be titillating, that does not mean it has a place here." John Hayes 11:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I totally agree, I'm just saying that they have pictures, but whether they are the HMs concerned is another matter... BTW, I'd just like to make it known that having been on an unofficial wikibreak due to GCSEs, I finish my last exam on Friday, so will be contributing more fully once more... godgoddingham ³³³ 11:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, they show one picture, which doesn't show which housemates, and it could just be them hugging, that proves nothing. If they really had pictures of this they would be likely to use them in the article. John Hayes 11:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you may be getting confused between qualified privilege and absolute privilege, which does apply to judges and the like. However on second thoughts we may be violating a Wikipedia guideline which has never been officially formulate but in my opinion ought to apply: "Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate tittle-tattle". An incident like this would have needed to get a lot more publicity to make it encyclopedic. PatGallacher 15:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Have I missed something?

The table said Gerry has recieved 1 nomination. Did he? And from who? Paul Norfolk Dumpling 22:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

My mistake, I had read a report earlier which said this, then reverted a change without checking. John Hayes 22:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You're forgiven! :-) Paul Norfolk Dumpling 23:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)