Talk:Big Brother (British TV series) series 10/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Total Nominations Received

I thought the total nominations bit was considered trivia and no necessary for the article. Someone has integrated individual nomination total tables into the main nomination table which shouldn't be there and makes the table looked cramped. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 20:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a conversation about his up above. But the settled opinion is that a separate table it too much WP:SYN but an extra column is just simple math and fine. Although I do agree the width needs to resolved. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if this is of any value to the Wikipedia page here, but I also have been annoyed at the lack of weekly subtotals for nominations, etc. However, I recognize this would really clutter up the page. So I made a spreadsheet myself with the details. I plan on updating this weekly and am happy for a link to be posted somewhere in the article, if that is somehow allowed. Or not, if it is not... http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=rtW8kn0Dc2h7l_8ykMYVzPw&output=html Paul Thompson (talk) 23:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

there is a fault: angel received 9 nominations so far, not 10. 3 votes in week 3 and 6 votes in week 4.

Preferred names - Freddie & Sophie should be used throughout

Sophie and Freddie may have changed their names by deed poll (we can't be sure) but as they have not decided to activate their new names, there is no reason why this article should use the terms 'halfwit' and 'dogface' to refer to them.

Unless they emerge from the house and request that their bank accounts, driving licenses, job contracts etc be changed, the deed poll documents are meaningless.

It seriously undermines the credibility of this article to collude with the Big Brother producers 'joke' and I'm requesting that someone with editing powers change their names in the article to the names they are known as by their friends and family.

Mjdakadem (talk) 20:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)mjdakadem 18/6/09

remember; don't feed trolls. ;) leaky_caldron (talk) 20:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Mr Mjdakadem, if you want to join the BBUK taskforce then we will be more than happy to discuss why you are wrong. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

If these replies are representative samples of the level of debate on here I won't bother. Enjoy your arrogance guys. Mjdakadem (talk) 22:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Dude, you've made three edits, the first and third are above me. If you want a longer answer I'll say that we don't care what happens to them after they leave the house, if they have to get all new documents, that really doesn't matter. This article is about Big Brother 2009, and its concerns are about who is in the house, when they arrived, when they left, what they did, who they voted for and what the ratings for their departure were. Anything outside of what happens on this program is outside of the scope of this article. For Freddie and Sophie they went in to the house and changed their names by deed poll, so that is what we report then we agreed to change the names in the article, what they do about it when they leave the house; not our concern. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Darren, calm down and stop owning the article (which you are clearly doing, and if you're going to espouse Wikipedia regulations on other editors including me I'll do the same back at you). Mjdakadem, here's the simple answer: Channel 4 and Endemol clearly refer to Freddie and Sophie as Halfwit and Dogface, respectively. Regardless of its legality, it is imperative that we edit the article in accordance with the way that the show if officially produced. Not doing so would undermine the credibility of the article. Of course we can write in their housemate sections whether or not they change the names back (and I believe a lawyer was present as he was a guest on BBLB, something I recently learned), and Darren it is perfectly acceptable to write about the housemates before and after their time in the house assuming it's not in massive detail. Geoking66_talk 02:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

You know I have made only 40 edits, and am in no way trying to own this article. I have however made suggestions to improve it, in the hope that we can get all the BBUK articles up to a higher standard. But the truth is that all the housemates of the past ten series a handful only do anything outside the house. If we take Cairon as an example, he was in, he dunked a biscuit, he was nominated, he was out. On the housemates page there is stuff about he is a student who lived with his mother, then his father then he lived her and there, none of which is really that important or that interesting. This article (and the other nine) should focus on what happened when the cameras were on. The winner gets an article and the other housemates get forgotten, the housemates article just attracts this kind of question (and edit wars over names). Freddie and Sophie entered the house, they changed their names and they will leave, and after that there will be very little to say about them. The consensus is to refer to them as their new names, but if consensus (or their names) change again then we will change them. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Houemates section

I've restored the Housemates section in accordance with both sense and in keeping with the other BB articles. Vexorg (talk) 01:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The first time you did that I reverted it because you included the contents of the Summary section in the new Housemates section and that clearly didn't make sense. My feeling is that there should be a Housemates section but the one you've created needs fleshing out. As it stands it's pretty meaningless as the content reads as follows: "Sixteen participants entered the House as non-housemates on Day 1:...". In other words, the content is about non-housemates not, as the section title suggests, housemates. So, in order to be considered complete this section needs more work. The sentence about the prize is repetition of a similar sentence is the lead. MegaPedant (talk) 13:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: get rid of the "Housemates" heading. Incorporate the first sentence and main article link only in the summary and get rid of the duplicate and therefore unnecessary duration and prize money. As Aleksandr says, "simpul" leaky_caldron (talk) 14:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I've done as Leaky caldron suggests. I hope Vexorg reads this discussion before reverting. MegaPedant (talk) 15:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi There. Some points. The other Big Brother UK series articles on Wikipedia use the same/similar format of a Housemates section followed by a weekly summary

for example

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Brother_2007_(UK)#Housemates

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Brother_2008_(UK)#Housemates

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Brother_2006_(UK)#Housemates

further it's a common Wikipedia format to include a section heading even if the main content is within another linked article. For example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madonna_(entertainer)#Discography. The reason for this is that, for example, someone looking for BBB10 housemates can quickly click on the contents heading and then click the link to the housemates article itself. Having the link to the housemates article buried in the Summary section is not good Wikipedia article formatting at all. I'm going to revert, not because of a tit for tat edit war, but because I've outlined the rationale above. Thanks Vexorg (talk) 18:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

And yes you're right the piece on 'sixteen non-housemates' was in the wrong section at the last edit. My bad. Vexorg (talk) 18:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, I feel there ought to be a Housemates section. My objection was to the artificial creation of such a section with the only content being irrelevant and transplanted from elsewhere. All it needs now is some actual content. Would you like to write some? MegaPedant (talk) 19:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we need a separate Housemates article, I think the information could be compressed into four short paragraphs before the weekly summary. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

@ MegaPedant - It's common wikipedia formatting to have a seperate section even if it contains a link to another article. Vexorg (talk) 22:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

@ Darrenhusted - It's common wikipedia formatting to stub out to a seperate article if the section becomes large. i.e the BB10 housemates. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Big_Brother_2009_housemates_(UK) Vexorg (talk) 22:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I am aware of that, I'm saying that we don't need it. And once I finish this comment I will add all the housemates relevant information to the housemates section. Observe. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

personally I don't have a problem with putting the main Housemates list in the main article. But I think you'll get some opposition if you do as it's common Wikipedia policy to expand into a separate article if the main article becomes too long. It's probably best to just have a list of their names and leave the main HM article for their details. Or is that what you meant? Vexorg (talk) 23:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The first four BB series don't have separate lists, they include the housemate profiles in the body of the article. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't like the content of the Housemates section. It makes for very boring reading. I really dislike the repetitive "name was the nth person to enter the house" and I see no justification for the arbitrary splitting into three paragraphs. Surely it ought to be either one paragraph or sixteen. As it stands it would be much better as a table. To be acceptable as prose it needs considerable reworking. If this is a serious offering I'm prepared to have a go at it but for the time being I'm not even going to bother correcting the typos as I suspect it will be deleted before long. MegaPedant (talk) 01:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we need a separate article. As for the order of entry, that is juts an account of what happened on day 1, it seems normal that we would list what happened, and all that happened was that they entered. Any extra information is already in the summary, with a sepearate article the is a lot of repetition as we need to give details of when they became housemates and when they were evicted, with the information on one article there in no need for repetition. Is there ever anything useful on the expanded housemate articles? Not really, just their bio information (which ends up being trivia). Plus the housemate article attracts a ton of BLP and OR, with editors either vandalising it or adding trivial day-by-day detail, such as when people had fights. The purpose of this article should be to inform anyone who has never seen one episode of Big Brother as to what this was about. The trivia of housemates can be saved for other places. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so if it's here to stay let's discuss what information we include about each housemate and how the section can be improved. Here are a few questions that spring to mind. Why is Rodrigo's sexuality alone mentioned of the 16 contestants? There must be something that can be included about Lisa, if only that she's unemployed and from Birmingham. If it's ok to mention Dogface's breast size and her nude appearance in Playboy, then why drop the fact that Charlie was Mr Gay Newcastle? If Sree's religion is notable, then why not Beinazir's, Noirin's or anyone else's? MegaPedant (talk) 03:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Because I did it quickly. Trim out everything that is not needed. Stick with the name, job, age. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I've had a go at the paragraph for the first four contestants and think it reads better now. The paragraphs for the other 12 are quite difficult as there isn't much with which to work. It would be so much easier as a list and it would read better than it does at the moment. I see nobody else has tried to improve this section so I'll keep mulling it over and hopefully something will come out of it in the end. MegaPedant (talk) 19:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Update: Another editor removed the entire content from this section, replacing it with two sentences. I reverted the change and hope editors will read this discussion before removing it again. I've since reworked the remaining three paragraphs, removing arbitrary references to religion and sexuality. I think they read better now but the fact remains that the information contained in this section is pretty dull and I'm at something of a loss as to how to make it more interesting without adding trivia. It really is the kind of information that would be better presented as a list. Suggestions for improvements, anyone? MegaPedant (talk) 11:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep it as a paragraph, it is only meant to be a set of factual statements, it ain't never gonna be exciting. But does prove we don't need a whole separate article. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Further ratings

Cairon got 2.2m but I'm not sure insidebb is an RS. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Fansites are not used as reliable sources (I think there was a discussion about fansites on a previous article of the American or British version, can't remember exactly). Also Inside Big Brother doesn't have an archive from year to year, so using their news articles as a reference would only be good until they stop their BB10 coverage.♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 00:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Angel got 1.6m and I know insideBB isn't reliable, just leaving these here until an RS can be found. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Sree got 2.3m. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Nominations Table colours for Tudor Task

I'm thinking that Marcus's box needs to be yellow to denote he gained immunity based on the task results, and that Charlie should more likely have the "Not eligible" box rather than the "Banned" box. Thoughts? T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 22:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

His immunity was nothing to do with the results of the task. He was simply selected by Henry VIII as part of the task at his discretion. leaky_caldron (talk) 22:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Charlie wasn't banned (which suggests he broke a rule) but rather excused. We need e better way of describing what Siavash did. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Charlie should have "not eligible", but I didn't think we had a colour for people who couldn't be nominated. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 00:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yellow is for Exempt/Immunity, if a housemate can't be nominated then their box should be yellow, if they can't be nominated and are exempt from nominating fellow housemates their box should be yellow with Exempt in the box italicized. Housemates that can't nominate but can be nominated should have the blue color. In Charlie's case it should be grey with the words Not eligible italicized. This is based on the project guidelines for nomination/voting history tables. See Big Brother 8 (U.S.)#Voting history week one for an example. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 13:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Death of Michael Jackson

It's been decided not to tell them [1]. I think this is a notable decision about a notable event and should be included as a brief mention with a link to Jackson family#Death of Michael Jackson. Any idea where to locate this? Nothing was added during Big Brother 2005 (UK) about the decision not to tell them about the London Bombings, which surprises me. leaky_caldron (talk) 14:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not a surprise, they tell them nothing outside of family deaths. I have no idea where it would be put, or if it is relevant. The bombings were relevant as they happened in this country, whereas MJ dying 3000 miles away has very little impact on the BB House. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Notable? No contact with the outside world is one of the basic rules of BB. Surely it's far more notable when they do make an exception.

Though reading the DS article, in particular

"The show's producers have decided that telling the housemates would breach rules which forbid contestants from having any contact with the outside world,"

I'm a little confused - does the rule ban the housemates from contacting the outside world, or ban BB from providing information from the outside world? -- Smjg (talk) 23:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Both. Housemates are isolated from the outside world and are not allowed to contact the outside world (Dawn from BB7 was ejected for that). Geoking66_talk 08:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually Dawn received a message from the outside world, rather than sent one, but I think Kate Lawler got a telling off for something she wrote on a t-shirt during a task, as it was seen as a message to her sister. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 10:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Eviction %

Why the hell are they always so high 70.80 even 90 percent for one person? Never are they close?--Cooly123 (talk) 22:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Halfwit's obviously very popular. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, this isn't the place. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Sortable Nominations table

Do you think it is a good idea to have a sortable nominations table? Personally I don't think so beause it messes up the table otherwise when you click the sort button. MSalmon (talk) 12:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it's impossible to sort a table with merged cells. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 12:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

makes no sense and adds no value. leaky_caldron (talk) 13:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok thanks, just wanted to get peoples opions on it before I reverted it MSalmon (talk) 13:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I know what they were trying to do, but it just messes the table up. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Non-standard archiving practices on this talk page

There is ostensibly a dated archive of this talk page, yet the current page has inactive posts on it that are older than the date of the archive. This is not acceptable. The standard archiving practice for most pages is to archive grousp of posts into dated archives, and/or for busier talk pages, to archive posts after set period of inactivity, in order of becoming inactive. If editors here feel the need to link to previous discussions, then they should do as is commonly practiced elsewhere, and link to those discussions in the archive, they should not be left inactive on the talk page while newer posts are manually archived. I am now going to properly archive all the old discussions that are on here that beling in the June archive, up to the date of the last discussion in the archive as I found it, which was 12 June. If the common practices are not clear, I suggest that an archive bot is implemented to do it automatically. MickMacNee (talk) 14:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

So I don't fully understand that, but if you're saying that you are going to pull threads which are finished and add them to the most recent archive for the month then I'm fine with that. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

It's quite simple. If you intend to manually archive this page to dated archives, the most appropriate method for a relatively quiet page like this is to archive each post in order of posting, i.e. top post here to bottom of the archive, and to not selectively pick and choose which post to archive from this page, leaving older but still inactive posts here. MickMacNee (talk) 14:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

So removed threads once they are done. But in the archive I would keep them in date order. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The first words of the article

Big Brother 2009 or Big Brother 2009 ? Can we decide once and for all which it's to be and then leave it alone? MegaPedant (talk) 22:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The actual title needs to be in italics the whole needs to be in bold. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Question about posting information via live feed

Was a consensus reached this year to add information like twists, nominations, etc. as they unfold on the live feeds or wait until the broadcast of such events or until a reliable third party posts the information? I am asking because this question is coming up on Big Brother 11 (U.S.) and in the past the consensus was to add the information as it unfolded on the live feeds. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 20:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the consensus was to wait until after the event and use RS. But no reason why you couldn't update with {{cn}} after until a source becomes available. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I was just wanting to make sure on the consensus because in the USA articles this becomes a very hot issue with various editors and can cause the USA articles to go into edit wars. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 23:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't watch the US series and don't edit the articles, so if you want a 3rd opinion don't hesitate to call, but I would see nothing wrong in adding information with a CN then finding sources. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Alucard 16, live feed here unfortunately now isn't 24/7 so it wouldn't be possible to add it as it happened. D.M.N. (talk) 12:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Call me old fashioned, but do we not need to stick to policies? In particular WP:V which I will quote: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed."

It goes on "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source cited must clearly support the information as it is presented in the article. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books.

If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."

Anyway, next to nothing happens on the very limited live feeds of BB10! leaky_caldron (talk) 09:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Marcus' warning

I'm afraid I cannot find any citations for my mention of Marcus' warning, but I'm sure they will come out soon. Can anyone help find them? Grieferhate (talk) 23:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Here. D.M.N. (talk) 12:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

It's full of "allegedly", BB said he did it, so in the context of the programme and this article, he WAS threatening, so why all the maybes. --Pridds (talk) 14:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Allegedly is actually more acceptable because it's in the controversy section as many viewers don't actually believe the warning was fair and correct. Geoking66_talk 05:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that we only have BBs pronouncement on the matter in a cited article. Would be good to get a broader public view documented somewhere. leaky_caldron (talk) 10:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Surnames in the summary - where does that come from?

This looks ridiculous. In fact I thought it was vandalism until I saw that Darren (a reliable contributor) had made the changes. I have no idea who these people are by surname. Big Brother does not refer to housemates EVER in 9 years by surname, they are effectively stripped of their full identity on entering the house. I think it should be discussed here first since it is a fundamental change in approach. I will change back pending proper discussion. leaky_caldron (talk) 08:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, this is an encyclopaedia, not a fan site, and encyclopaedias refer to people by their last name. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 09:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Cannot see anything in WP:MOS or WP:EIW, although I'll keep looking. Can you point me to the WP:Policy or WP:Guideline? In this case, the article is about a subject that historically and intentionally never refers to surnames. It seems illogical to introduce surnames into the prose which are never used in the subject. Not just from a fan perspective but from the lay-reader's. Surely we should reflect the reality of the subject? leaky_caldron (talk) 10:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Further to above, this cannot be relied on WP:NAMES#Subsequent_uses_of_names since that particular style guide is about biographical articles. WP:POL offers sensible guidance - "Policies need to be approached with common sense; adhere to the spirit rather than the letter of the rules, and be prepared to ignore the rules on the rare occasions when they conflict with the goal of improving the encyclopedia." leaky_caldron (talk) 11:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I can agree with that, but let's see what others think. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 11:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I made the change in the controversy section as it is essentially about events not directly concerned with Big Brother "events", such as tasks or nominations. In most other articles (such as other film or TV articles) subjects are referred by full name then surname on subsequent mentions. Within the summary it makes sense to refer to them by first name only (as they are addressed by Big Brother), but if a housemates full name is used then is makes sense to use the surnames on subsequent use. Of course if others don't like this then I am open to it being changed back. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I see your point now. I was mistaken about the location. I thought I had read the surnames in the Summary section - not the Criticism & controversies section. I'll reinstate the surnames. leaky_caldron (talk) 11:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It only occurred to me because the statement about Saffia says "Saffia Corden", and it seems a bit fan-ish to then call her Saffia. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Week 6 nominations

Any idea on how to do this, because we know Charlie is the only one up for now but there are more to come? MSalmon (talk) 09:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

That's why I put "others to be announced" because it looks like Charlie is the only person facing the public vote this week, but we know he won't be. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 10:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

How about removing Charlies name from the 'Against Public Vote' box but leave the nomination note and the blue colour in the info box? MSalmon (talk) 10:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe if we waited until it's officially confirmed rather than trying to keep up with "gossip". However, if a citation is needed here are 2: http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/bigbrother/a163871/this-weeks-nominations-revealed.html, http://www.mrpaparazzi.com/post/7573/This-Weeks-Nominations-Are.aspx. leaky_caldron (talk) 10:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

That's fine with me, I wasn't sure what to do MSalmon (talk) 10:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I provided a link from the official Channel 4 site confirming that Dogface and Kris are nominated, this was reverted. Why was this reverted when Charlie's name remains? - Bearing in mind that the link i provided is confimation from the official Big Brother website. 12bigbrother12 (talk) 15:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it just me or did Channel 4 sort of, well, miss out the nominations entirely from broadcast? :/ weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Shocking. The noms. will eventually appear on the official website or some other trusted source. leaky_caldron (talk) 21:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I bloody hope so :( That's the only reason I watched it tonight... weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I have attempted to clarify why everyone is up Friday, and remove parentheses. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

An RS for Ratings?

It may be worth searching Broadcast for information, as it is the TV industry's paper, so must be reliable. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

BARB, who actually compile the ratings, was who we used in previous years and is the most reliable source as it is the official source for British TV ratings. Geoking66_talk 05:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Good for dry figures. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Nominations table, source row

Before the separate source row was added to the nominations table references to each week's nominees and evictee were included inline and it was clear to which event each referred. With the introduction of the separate row for sources it is now not so obvious and, in my opinion, the amount of information conveyed and therefore the usefulness of the table have both been reduced. May I suggest a review or, at least, that an effort be made to preserve the chronological order of the references? MegaPedant (talk) 05:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

List of Big Brother 2009 housemates (UK)

Is there anything in this article which is not contained in the main article? And if not is it worth getting rid of this article? It seems that it is mostly a repetition of information from this page (such as listing Halfwit's nominations). As the winner will be the only one to achieve anything of note outside the house this article seems like a BLP-vio magnet. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I think we should merge it in. DJ 11:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Content from that article has in fact been copied into this article and subsequently rewritten. There are similar pages for previous years so I would prefer to improve it rather than remove it. I don't know how it is possible to predict that the winner will be the only contestant to achieve anything of note but I agree that the page is vulnerable to vandalism and should perhaps be protected. MegaPedant (talk) 12:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Would we have a section here about nominations and then have an article on the same issue? No. Therefore, either the section or the article needs to go. As it is best for everything to be kept together, I think it is best that the article goes. The section is a much more compact and clear way of communicating everything that is said in such a broad and cluttered article anyway. DJ

I think the difference between a section in this article and a separate article is the fact that the latter can contain more information while the former is just a summary. Hence the Main article reference. The information in the Housemates section of this article was originally copied from that article and it reads better because it has since been rewritten. I agree that a section about nominations would not need further amplification in a separate article but I would argue that a section on, say, tasks would certainly benefit from a separate article. MegaPedant (talk) 13:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The Housemates aerticle will simply end up like previous years listing tasks the housemates took part in (already in this article) the nominations they got (already in this article) and the day and % of thier eviction (already in this article). The first four BBUK articles don't have a housemates article and there is little relevant detail in the housemates articles for BBUK5, 6, 7, 8 or 9 that could not be (or is not already) in the main article. The first few housemates have little outside of the audition tapes and the last few simply end up with lists of tasks and trivia (such as who they kissed/hated). MegaPedant you did a good job trimming down the housemate section for this article, in trimming it down did you not see the bloat that exists in the separate article? Worse than that it draws vandals to an article and invites trivia. What can be said extra about Kris or Saffia which in not already in this article? Darrenhusted (talk) 16:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the examples you give: Kris and Saffia were two of the most one-dimensional housemates ever to enter the House. Thing is, I believe there is some useful information in that article that you'd likely object to merging into this article. I give, as an example, Marcus's likening himself to the Wolverine character. I've read the discussion for and against and do honestly believe it is a significant aspect of who Marcus is, an observation that has been borne out in his behaviour inside the House, and not to be dismissed as fandom or trivia. Ok, I've put my argument forward but if the consensus is to delete that article then so be it. May I ask that it be discussed on its own talk page before seeking a consensus though as there are people who contribute to it who rarely come here? Thanks. MegaPedant (talk) 17:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

May I ask that it be discussed on its own talk page before seeking a consensus though as there are people who contribute to it who rarely come here? Does that not say it all? Darrenhusted (talk) 17:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by that, Darren. My interpretation of what I wrote is that there are people who contribute to that article who deserve to be included in any discussion about its future and that they don't necessarily read this discussion page. MegaPedant (talk) 18:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Direct them here then, to this discussion. I don't think there is anything non-trivial which could not be in this article, and if it can't be merged to this article then the truth is it doesn't need to be in any articles (who needs or indeed cares that Marcus looks like Wolverine?). I think that the summary information in this article is more than adequate in reflecting the housemate's time in the house, and that we can do without a separate article, but I am more than willing to change my mind if someone can demonstrate the opposite to be true. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Which week?

According to Channel 4, here, the housemates first nominated during week 2, not week 1. It has been suggested before that the first 11 days ought to be considered as two short weeks rather than one long one and that this would explain the 13- vs 14-week duration discrepancy. Perhaps we are currently in week three, not week two. MegaPedant (talk) 23:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That wouldn't make any sense as it would be Thu-Tue, Wed-Sun, Mon-Sun for weeks 1, 2 and 3. For the sake of consistency week 1 is entrance to first Friday eviction, then Saturday after each eviction is the start of the next week. The show runs for thirteen calendar weeks plus two days. If Channel 4 started a new week every three days we don't need to follow them, as stated many times before, this is not a fansite. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm simply telling you what Channel 4 says on its website. Sense, consistency, and being a fan or not have nothing to do with it. Nor am I necessarily advocating any changes. Channel 4 makes the rules, however illogical you may think they are, and I'm merely passing on that information to anyone who may be interested. MegaPedant (talk) 02:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The extra few days that include launch night are always considered week 1 for the sake of convenience. Geoking66_talk 04:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It may be convenient, however it's a fact that at the beginning of last night's highlights programme Davina said that it's the end of week three. MegaPedant (talk) 03:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

She also said "they entered the house a couple of weeks ago". Darrenhusted (talk) 09:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I can see no justification in following a diferent "week" regime to that used by the show. Why have weeks at all in that case? Either allign with the show [2] or remove the table headings and replace with "days". leaky_caldron (talk) 09:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

For the sake of consistency it is easier to stick with an extended week one. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

consistency with what? It's misleading as it stands. It also makes using the official source [3] inappropriate so we need an alternative source showing "our" week numbering. Otherwise it's WP:OR isn't it? leaky_caldron (talk) 09:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

How about some consistency with the truth? Is it not arrogant in the extreme to ignore facts from Channel 4 and substitute an alternative idea of which week it is, simply because it may be more convenient? This is after all an encyclopædia, not a fan site! MegaPedant (talk) 23:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

My take on this topic is to follow what the sources for the article are going by. If your sources are saying that we are in week three then we are in week three. While the USA version does count the days before launch and leading up to the first eviction as "Week 1" (making the first week last anywhere from 9-14 days) it seems the UK version splits the first 9 days into two weeks with the "housemates" task being in week one and the first round of nominations & second eviction in week two. I don't think they did this last year but it seems they are this year. The only time information in the article should conflict the official site is when the official site is clearly conflicting with what was shown on TV/live feeds. An example would be Week 5 in Big Brother 7 (U.S.). ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 00:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

However, the numbers don't make any sense. We're saying that they've been in until the end of Week 7 at the end of this week which would be Day 49/50/51 (depending on the day of the launch), but it's only Day 44 at the end of Week 7 as it stands now; that's physically impossible. Geoking66_talk 02:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

We're simply following the cited source: http://www.channel4.com/bigbrother/voting/nominations-history.html leaky_caldron (talk) 10:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Surely it would make more sense to follow the timeframe of previous series for each week, rather than have conflicting time frames? Previous series have all considred the end of the first week as the second Friday and going against this by presenting a conflicting idea would be confusing. What is considered a week in one series should be considered a week in another for consistency. BB7 and BB9 had first weeks which ended on day 9. BB8 had a week 1 which ended on day 10. Why should this series be different from all previous and have a 1st week ending on Day 4? Shouldn't either all previous articles change to fit in with the true definition of a week (7 days) or this article be changed to fit in with what BB has previously established as a week? Otherwise it's inconsistant and confusing. 027huds (talk) 01:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Except that it won't match the source. Darrenhusted (talk) 01:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I've checked 2007 - 2008. They are (a) consistent with the relevant source and (b) appear to be consistent with this article. Cross-article consistency, while attractive from a cosmetic point of view, cannot override the accuracy of individual articles and allignment with their available source. Anything else will raise the WP:OR debate again. leaky_caldron (talk) 09:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

BBUK Task Force set up

I have set up the BBUK Task Force page. It is a pretty basic page right now. Also I need help tagging BBUK articles, if you come across any article relating to BBUK please add "|UK=yes" to the {{WikiProject Big Brother}} talk page template. For example the banner for this article should read {{WikiProject Big Brother|class=C|importance=High|UK=yes}}. For editors interested in the USA task force I should have it up by 8 PM EST today as well. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 18:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Editors that wanted a BBUK task force, the task force needs to be expanded on so future editors that work on BBUK articles and would like to join the task force will know how to structure BBUK articles. For more discussion see the BBUK Task Force talk page. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 23:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits to the Controversy and criticism section

I notice that a large block of text has been copied verbatim from this section and pasted into the Controversy and criticism of Big Brother (UK) article and that a sizeable part of it, dealing with Davina encouraging viewers to protest against the reduction in the live feeds, has been deleted from this article. Is that the intention or is the feeling that it ought to be reinstated? MegaPedant (talk) 13:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Reinstated. How did that happen? DJ 18:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the revision history, it happened around 10:30 this morning when Mosherdude91 copied and pasted a large block of text into the Controversy and criticism of Big Brother (UK) article. It looks as though it was an intentional deletion, though no reason was given, and it was partly reinstated by you later, Dale. In view of the discussion about the separate housemates article, above, I have to ask whether this separate Controversy and criticism of Big Brother (UK) article is necessary since (applying the same argument) it appears simply to duplicate information already present in this and other years' articles. MegaPedant (talk) 18:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Take it to AFD and see what happens, it's not really a merge/editorial issue as all the info is in the other articles anyway. DJ 18:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Mention of Race Row

I have an issue with the Shilpa racism stuff being included here. What does it have to do with BB10? leaky_caldron (talk) 18:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Context. The Daily Mail made the link and it's quite obvious. Here at Wikipedia, we need to speak to the readers as if they've never expierienced BBUK before. They'll need to know about the previous incident, as it seems a tad odd that the BB10 issue would recieve such attention otherwise. It's only one sentence of background info. DJ 18:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I have removed this: The incident follows a racism controversy that occured in the 2007 edition of Celebrity Big Brother, which saw a record number of OFCOM complaints and an "international outcry" over the behaviour of Jade Goody, Danielle Lloyd and Jo O'Meara towards Shilpa Shetty. It's 2 1/2 years ago, a long dead issue and has no bearing on or connection with what transpired to be a non-racist event in BB10. I have similar reservations about the inclusion of the Sree/Halfwit arguement. It turned out to be a non-event. leaky_caldron (talk) 18:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Reliable, secondary sources made the connection - not me. Therefore it should be included to provide context. I really don't see what the issue is - you wouldn't have and article on World War III without mentioning that World Wars I and II had appeared beforehand, even if they weren't directly linked. As for the Sree/Halfwit issue; the controversy occured, sparked an investigation and was reported on by various media outlets. Regardless of the outcome, it should still be included. DJ 19:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems like a stretch, I mean the controversy with Emily Parr and Charlie Uchea are more recent. We can't keep crow-baring in a ref to the Jade/Shilpa incident. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

There is not a genuine contemporary connection between the 2007 incident (global, embroiling the Prime Minister etc.) and this relatively trivial event. That’s why I have an issue. It’s like chalk and cheese. Saying that “it follows” something in the same sentence implies a shared status.

If you really want to include this and connect it with anything approaching a similar situation, can I suggest Emily’s ejection in BB8? [4] Even that is stretching the comparison but at least it involves BB HMs, not celebrities and not genuine bullying racism per CBB5. leaky_caldron (talk) 19:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

No one was ejected though, he was warned, and as I understand several housemates in the last few years have had warnings which have lead to nothing, if Marcus gets warned again or evicted then it would be worth linking it to Emily, otherwise the context of the OFCOM stuff is enough. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer not to have it there at all, see above. The original edit covered the incident in summary well enough for what it amounted to and introducing CBB5, OFCOM etc. just doesn't reflect the low level nature of the Sree/Marcus argument. leaky_caldron (talk) 20:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Week 7's Protest

I think it should definitely be included in the summary! But IPs are blocked from editing on this page - can someone add it in? It is certainly notable! 83.71.108.45 (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It was a pretty subdued affair TBH, but if you would like to draft a piece (with refs) and place it here, we'll give it a go. leaky_caldron (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

100 sources - breakdown

So we've got to 100 sources and we're around halfway through - I'd imagine we'll get to around 165ish by the end of the show. After my suggestions earlier on in the series, I've done a breakdown of the refs that we have.

• Digital Spy - 29
• Daily Mail - 14
• Guardian - 14
• Channel 4 - 10 (one of which is from the Official Big Brother channel at YouTube)
• Heat - 6
• BBC - 5
• STV - 3
• Telegraph - 3
• Misc. singular sources - 16

Coincidentally, I suggested that around 10% of the refs should be from C4 and that appears to be what we have here. The number of DS refs is woorying - I think that we should try and reduce and maybe replace them with BBC sources, as they do a report on each eviction. Overall, the refs are of good quality and are all formatted well. There's a few niggly problems that we can sort out after. Thoughts? DJ 21:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

There are actually only 5 BBC refs about this year, (or thereabouts) as they haven't been covering every eviction. I would look for more Guardian refs to replace the DS refs. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah I see. And most of the Guardian refs are about the ratings, rather than the actual programme itself. DJ 22:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Handy for the rating stuff though, to back up some stuff.Darrenhusted (talk) 00:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

In my quick scan of the actual content of the article, any suggestion that it actually needs 90% third party sourcing is utterly ridiculous. I can only imagine what the consequences of this utter misconception might have been, but as I've not been watching this series much, I haven't bothered to look in here and see what's been going on. MickMacNee (talk) 22:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. You've expressed your dramtic and OTT opinions on this issue in previous discussions. DJ 23:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

And you gave the same non-answers as well I recall. I cannot do anything about your misconceptions it seems, drama or no drama, but if you insist on repeating them here as if they were actual policy, I will correct the situation for the benefit of others, who simply should not be routinely misled this way, lest they start adopting these misconceptions and applying them elsewhere. MickMacNee (talk) 23:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You can't concede, Mick, that it is better to have a wide net of sources outside of the primary sources? Darrenhusted (talk) 00:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

No, not when the justification is being made on some spurious idea that this is simply a nice 'target' figure for every article, rather than actually realising what material secondary sources are actually for. It is actually possible, if you set aside notability (which is merely a formality for this article), to write a perfectly acceptable article on some subjects purely from primary sources, while others, it will be the case where you will want 99% secondary sourcing. Setting arbitrary targets shows a fundemental lack of understanding of the issues at hand, namely in this case, that for pure factual content about the programme, C4 is perfectly fine, and in some cases preferrable than garbage reprint sites. The exercise in simple counting here is a potential fast track way to getting things like NPOV wrong. MickMacNee (talk) 00:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The BBC, Guardian and Daily Mail are "garbage reprint sites"? When there are secondary sources then why not use them? And basing an article all on primary sources lands it with a tag about needing more sources. The less primary sources the better, the last few years have ended up with large portions of links which go dead when the series ends, why not try to find some better sources so that the article will last? 10%, 11%, 12% the figure doesn't matter so long as it isn't 100% primary sources, but 10% seem enough to allow for important details to have the primary source (such as nominations). Darrenhusted (talk) 01:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The fact that an arbitrary figure is even being mentioned without much recourse to looking at the actual article content is what is relevant, not debating precisely what it should be to a certain percentage. The thing you actually need to source is your blanket statement that "The less primary sources the better", to give an impression that you do infact realise this is not a blanket requirement. Depending on how you interpret the definition of a 'plot', you don't even need a source for citing factual details of what occurs right on the screen, such as the details of nominations, either with a primary internet or secondary source, (another basic misconception of exaclty what sources are for), but it is of course simply better to have a url for verification for convenience. Deadlinks have got absolutley positively nothing to do with it. Anybody who tags an article as a simple knee jerk source counting exercise is simply not doing it right. But, maybe this is all just an experience issue, because knowing the issues about sourcing above is about the same 'wiki-level' as knowing how to properly guard against link-rot, and knowing not to tag without proper cause, and knowing not to put words in people's mouths on talk pages. MickMacNee (talk) 01:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Mick, and as long as the source is reputable, does it matter how many times it's used? Just adding sources for every little detail destroys the concept of citations entirely. You cite when the fact in question may not be general knowledge. Whoever is evicted, nominated, etc can be consiered well-known enough that it doesn't need citing. In fact, the amount of citations on the page creates an irritating nuisance in that they must constantly be checked for deadlinks, something that other editors and I find tedious and a waste of time once you get over 100. Also, Channel 4 airs the show so it is by far the most reputable and I don't see why it needs to be limited. And let's be honest, they all really say the same thing because they're all from the same source: the programme. Geoking66_talk 02:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I find the notion that some things on here don't need to be cited as they are "general knowledge" pure garbage. This is a TV programme watched by 2 million people - the only things that can really be cited as "general knowledge" are that Davina hosts the evictions and that it airs on Channel 4. Look at some sections of Michael Jackson - the man had BILLIONS of followers across the world, yet almost everything is referenced. And Geoking, you are wrong when stating that all sources are equal as they all derive from the programme. This is unture, as it is clear by reading the sources that Digital Spy, Daily Mail and The Guardian all have different ideologies and target audience, and this effects the way that events surrounding the programme are reported. C4, on the other hand, are unlikely to hold a bias but will also cover up facts or exaggerate details in order to fit into its own ideological stance. Mick seems to have such a problem with the reason why I suggested the sparse use of Primary sources, but is not presenting any alternative ideas or suggestions on what we should do otherwise. I really do feel like he's complaining for complaining's sake. DJ 08:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, C4 writes in a rather informal, colloquial tone. This is not only non-encyclopedic but it will also confuse foreign readers who are not familiar with the neologisms, euphemisms, popular culture references and so on that are included in the C4 articles. Digital Spy, The Guardian, Daily Mail, BBC and the rest all write in the appropriate formal tone and this is another reason why they are more useful. DJ 10:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

This is an English encyclopedia, it's assumed that anyone reading it has a working knowledge of English, regardless of expressions. English in itself is so dialectal that I've seen euphemisms and references that I've never heard of and it's my native language. So what if C4 use a colloquial tone, it's not like the other sites you mention are that formal anyway. C4 broadcast the show, they are firsthand the most reliable and useful source for this page. Geoking66_talk 17:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Really what is the harm in having extra sources? What is the harm in restricting the use of a primary source? So long as the secondary sources aren't speculative all this does is strengthen the article and stop it from being a Channel 4 pre-release. Darrenhusted (talk) 18:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Evidence that third-party sources are preffered

• WP:SOURCES says "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy...the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used."
• WP:PRIMARY says "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge."

Now how anybody can argue with this is beyond me. DJ 21:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Nowhere does it say that it's acceptable to place an arbitrary limit on the amount of a source you can use. Doing so damages the credibility of the page by blindly disregarding sites and/or sources that have information because of a quota that's put in place without thought as to its importance. Geoking66_talk 04:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Well of course it doesn't - that was an editorial policy for this article proposed on this page. Just like it doesn't day that weekly summary paragraphs in this article should be limited to x number of words; that was a decision made here. I'm not "blindly disregarding sites" at all, sometimes C4 sources need to be used and they are - 1 in 10 times on this article. What I am saying is that the use of these sources should be kept to a minimum due to the endless reasons I have stated above and the quotes from the 2 Wiki articles. It's this "We've done X on the other articles so we'll do X this year" attitude that has made WP:BIGBRO such a pants project. All of the other articles rely too much on C4 sources and it shows - because they're crap. I honestly belived that if the series was to end tommorow then we could, with a small clean-up, get this article to GA without much fuss. DJ 10:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

In addition I would like the BBUK task force to revisit the previous articles and revise them to match the quality of sources for this article. Geoking66 are you proposing 100% primary sources? Or do you just have a problem with the 10% (really 1% would be preferable, the less the better). Darrenhusted (talk) 11:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry DJ, what 'endless reasons' have you given that, for this article, the relevant policies state that 10% primary sources is a requirement, or even a good thing? PRiMARY for example, how many of the 90% secondary sources are for anything other than supporting "descriptive claims". 90% of this article does not deal with complex interpretations of different aspects of the program, needing different perspectives by the Mail/Guardian etc. From SOURCES for example, are you seriously telling me that for the 90% of secondary sources use here, they have independently fact checked the things they support? Or are they merely reprinting C4 information. And finally, the idea that we should use secondary sources because they have a better tone is pure garbage. I am not complaining for complaining sake, I am preventing your bad practices from being passed onto other editors. MickMacNee (talk) 12:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you save your GA ambitions for another day or put them on hold for the moment? Let's get the information up as reliably and pertinently as possible, after all this is a reference page. I never said that C4 or primary sources for that matter should be 100% of the references, once again stop interpolating like that. As long as the source is credible and viable, it should be used. Why should it matter if it's C4, Guardian, BBC, etc? The point is to show that what's written is factual and can be backed up. Any number of sources will give you the same information; labelling it as standard or sub-standard is a frivolous waste of time. Geoking66_talk 04:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Week 7 task

The result of the week 7 task has not been posted. Can someone do so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.134.21 (talk) 16:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you want to try a wording? Darrenhusted (talk) 14:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Week 7 secret mission

I notice in the Noms table that the newbies are now exempt from Friday's eviction...is the reasoning as thus? Their secret task was to ensure (one way or another) that Halfwit and Noirin faced eviction. Because Halfwit and Noirin (amongst the others) refused to vote, they face the public vote thus the newbies task of getting Halfwit and Noirin to face the public vote has been passed? I don't know though hehe db1987db (talk) 16:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The table is a nominations table. They were exempt from being nominated by the original HMs. Details of the HMs facing the vote (for whatever reason) are also shown. leaky_caldron (talk) 17:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand that, but around about noon the housemates info bar was updated with all except Lisa and Rodrigo highlighted as facing eviction. It seems to have reverted to no-one facing the vote...that's all db1987db (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Ironically, it now seems to have been updated! db1987db (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that newbie's boxes must be be colored gray with "Failed Mission" in it. They weren't Exempt from the eviction process (Yellow is used to indicated safety, which they aren't). T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 09:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

They were always exempt from the nomination process though and the table is the nominations table. The footnote should cover the required explanation. leaky_caldron (talk) 09:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Week 8 nominations

For the one's you missed, Rodrigo nominated Noirin and Marcus, and Noirin nominated Rodrigo and Lisa.

Well why don't you put them in? MSalmon (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

They forgot to sign so I'd guess that they aren't autoconfirmed, so can't. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Controversy - is this worthy?

Accusations of favouritism and lack of continuity over cancelled eviction. I can't help but think that it's a bit of a non-story... DJ 20:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Unless there is more in some better sources, or a significant explanation from C4. leaky_caldron (talk) 20:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone think Kenneth's official warning worthy of inclusion? MegaPedant (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It should be in the summary section, not the controversy section. DJ 16:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

In your opinion. What do others think? MegaPedant (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Well my opinion is in line with the rest of that section - things that were controversial outside of the house, not just inside. Unless a significant number of complaints are made to OFCOM/C4 and this is reported in the mainstream media, it should remain in the summary section. DJ 19:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

But it isn't in the summary section. My point was that you give your opinion as though it were fact. I object to that. MegaPedant (talk) 00:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Well then put it in the summary section. DJ 16:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I choose not to. See below. MegaPedant (talk) 04:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Summary section: week 5 task detail

Does anyone else think that too much detail has been added? I'd like to delete it but would prefer to discuss it first. I have no problem with the detail per se (though there is an inaccuracy: Siavash was required to strike a pose, not dance) but it is out of balance with the coverage of the other tasks and inappropriate for a Summary section. Perhaps a new section entitled Tasks is needed, but would anyone be prepared to write about the other tasks with a similar amount of detail? MegaPedant (talk) 15:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

No. Look at week one, for instance. This is what the Summary is for, to summarise. Infact, all of the weeks should detail what each housemate did like week five does. It's just unfortunate that alot went on in week five. A tasks section is unnecessary; it would be a duplication of the summary section. DJ 16:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that week one was rather special. I've tried adding detail about what housemates did, such when Noirin became frustrated at wearing her ink moustache and glasses and threatened a hunger strike, but it was rejected. You're right when you say that the purpose of a Summary is to summarise and a suitable summary of the weekly shopping task need be no more than the theme and the outcome. Otherwise the Summary section is likely to exceed the proposed maximum word count. The reason I considered deleting the extra detail is, as I've said, because it's out of proportion with the other weekly tasks. That said, I dislike removing information and, if someone can be persuaded to describe all the other weekly tasks, I think it would be a better idea to incorporate the lot into a separate Tasks section. By that, I mean instead of, not as well as, in the Summary. Hence no duplication. MegaPedant (talk) 01:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

And the fact that he needed to pose and not dance could have easily been changed, there was no need for you to bring it up here. DJ 17:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Why ever not? That's only one thing that's wrong with the task description. There's also a split infinitive and a horrible multiple repetition of "name had to verb" but why would I bother repairing or improving something I'm considering deleting? If the consensus is to keep it or if it becomes part of a new section then I'll look at improving it if nobody else does so first. MegaPedant (talk) 01:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, you've messed up the week two summary. Here's my opinion: Firstly, "James Bond-themed task": ok, so the references called it that but it was in fact more a Mission Impossible theme, as evidenced by the music and Marcus Bentley's commentary, "an impossible mission." Secondly, Kris didn't retrieve an emerald. An emerald is a precious stone. What Kris retrieved was the "Emerald of Hope", which is most likely a piece of green glass. Thirdly, lasers don't have routes. They have beams or, at a pinch, paths. Fourthly, dyes are by definition coloured. "Coloured dyes" is merely tautology. I understand the coloured liquid that filled and ultimately burst the balloons was milkshake. Fifthly, "He successfully, earning a luxury budget" doesn't make sense. I believe the changes were made in good faith but I also believe they were misguided and certainly not checked. I'm tempted to revert. What do other people think? MegaPedant (talk) 01:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I tried reworking the paragraph for week two but it was too badly damaged so I reverted it. MegaPedant (talk) 01:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

OK. What you've listed there is mostly WP:OR. At Wikipedia, we go by what the sources tell us. Regardless of wheter you think it was more Mission Impossible than James Bond or whether you think that the prop may or may not have been made out of plastic or whether you heard on a forum that the goo was milkshake, we go by the sources. You waited little over 10 minutes for a reply and reverted another user's edits just because you couldn't be bothered to change them. How very responsible. DJ 16:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll thank you to be a little more civil Dale. I'm not answerable to you and you would do well to remember that before the question of ownership rears its ugly head again. In one comment you instruct me to fix it myself and in another you criticise me for doing so. Would you be considerate enough to make up your mind, please? I'd also prefer that you read what I write instead of trying to put words into my mouth, as you've done several times before. Taking your points, one at a time, I didn't suggest that the task should be called Mission Impossible-themed; I simply suggested that it should not be called James Bond-themed as it was never called that in the programme and the idea seems to have been dreamed up by the Digital Spy contributor cited. Neither am I suggesting any mention whatsoever of whatever it was that drenched Kris's fellow housemates as I really don't consider it worthy. However, I am certain that the object that Kris successfully retrieved was not an emerald. Marcus Bentley referred to it, as I said above, as the "Emerald of Hope" so for you to call it anything else is definitely OR on your part. I don't read the forums but I do pay attention when watching the programmes. 10 minutes or 10 hours - what does it matter? More than 24 hours later nobody else has commented. Finally, don't ever accuse me of not being bothered. You have no idea what I care about. MegaPedant (talk) 04:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I've bothered to check and it was the housemates who decided the contents of the balloons was milkshake, after tasting it. Not OR then. It was really a solo task by Kris and the others made no contribution at all. It was just better television to have them peripherally involved and getting gunked rather than lounging around. I still don't think it worthy of mention but if you insist then, after a nice long wait for anyone who wants to comment, I'll be replacing "dye" with "milkshake". MegaPedant (talk) 05:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

"it was the housemates who decided the contents of the balloons was milkshake". The housemates could decide that Lisa is an alien from Mars, but that doesn't make it fact. We go by sources, so we go with dye. DJ 11:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

What do martians have to do with it? I don't see the connection between the quite plausible case of someone tasting a liquid and claiming it to be milkshake and the, frankly absurd, assertion that one of the housemates is an alien. I'm not aware of any housemate making such a suggestion. Perhaps you're getting confused with Little Bro calling Big Bro a space moose. Jenni Marsh has her opinion, like anyone else and what she writes isn't automatically fact. Her cited article is especially badly written and factually inaccurate, which dilutes its value as a source. However, since that particular Digital Spy contributor also refers to the contents of the balloons as gunge, I trust you'll find that an acceptable compromise. MegaPedant (talk) 12:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

That looks great to me :). DJ 13:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. Let's move on. MegaPedant (talk) 13:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Nominations recieved

Do you think N/A should be displayed when a housemates has left the house and they haven't nominated or been nominated? MSalmon (talk) 13:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

For the 3 housemates who have not been nominated because they didn't have the chance to be nominated (Kenny, Tom, Benazir), I replaced their nomination total to N/A, as 0 gave the impression that they were never nominated which, although true, is slightly misleading. This was reverted by MSalmon, but I've changed it back until we get more views here. Thoughts? DJ 13:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that it depends whether they were eligible to have been nominated during their residency. If they were eligible but received no nominations then a total of 0 should be recorded, otherwise N/A would be more appropriate. It's rather like the difference between having a cricket score of 0 (not out) and being out for a duck. MegaPedant (talk) 13:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

That's what I mean. Kenny, Tom and Benazir were unable to be nominated or nominate others, so it should be N/A. Say, for instance, that Hira recieves no nominations tommorow and then walks a day later, her box should read 0 as she was able to be nominated but was not. DJ 13:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, leave it as it is but change the other BB articles to read the same MSalmon (talk) 13:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Housemates section

I think we should clean up this section. First of all, in my opinion, it is really messy and very unorganized. What I'm thinking is that we should re-write it to make it like Big Brother 2008's, with readers to go to the page to read about the housemates. --Dudejerome (talk) 16:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The consensus has established that we keep it as it is, and I can't see that changing. The list article is currently at AfD, so it may be all change again soon. DJ 16:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Since User:Darrenhusted has confirmed upfront in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Big Brother 2009 housemates (UK) that his desire is to delete the list article and move all the info into the main article for all bb articles, I have taken the bold move of doing the reverse, and removing all the info on the housemates, which does indeed appear to be a copy of the other article. Information should only be in one place, and the two article format is much tidier. I've done it all in one edit, so you can revert me if you like (but I'd really rather you didn't) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

All the vital information in the other article was already in this article. Plus removing the names give the summary no context. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's a misrepresentation of the facts, Darren, and it only serves to weaken your argument. We both know that the other article pre-dates the Housemates section of this article and that content was copied from there to here. MegaPedant (talk) 11:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

You've missed the point, I was talking about Elen of the Roads deleting the information to strengthen their position in the AfD for the other article. The other article was started on Day 1 because that is what has been done for the last five seasons, so it was the only place the information was contained, but the other article didn't need to exist for the information to be added to this article. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I've re-read what Elen and Darren wrote and I apologise for missing the point. What Darren meant is that the vital information existed in this article before Elen deleted it, not that it existed in this article before it existed in the other article. That said, I still want to keep the other article. MegaPedant (talk) 14:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I note DJ has reverted me. Could he perhaps point me to this consensus to do this year's article different to all the rest?--Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I have already reverted the edits of this disruptive editor. If he continues I will suggest admin intervention with a view to block. Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 17:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

CONSENSUS - Talk:Big_Brother_2009_(UK)/archive3#Houemates_section. DJ 17:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

No consensus there. Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 17:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes there is. The way I see it, you are making distruptive edits to an article you have no prior involvment in. I'm taking this to the admins. DJ 17:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to read WP:OWN amongst other Wikipedia policies. Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 17:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I have taken this to the administrators. I'm sure they will see fit and make the neccessary sanctions. DJ 18:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

information about the housemates in play, so looking at it again seems quite reasonable. I'm for the two article format - it's worked well for the last few years, allowing more info about individuals to be added for those who are interested in such stuff, without overloading the main article which is now quite big enough with details of all the goings on.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure? Read WP:SIZE. DJ 18:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The exact page you quoted suggests articles longer than 60KB should be split. The article is 69KB with the housemates section. Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 18:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually without refs and the nomination table this article is barely 30k. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I protected this page for 24 hours while you work this out. Too much edit warring going on here. RxS (talk) 18:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The information about housemates used to be includes (see BB1-4), but then the section became too large and so for BB5 to BB9 it was spun out (usually part way through when size became and issue). This year (and last year to the best of my recollection) it was started on the first day, problem being in previous years the article became cluttered and full of trivia (see BB5 housemates and lots of Jungle Cats/Lipgloss Bitches nonsense). So this year I trimmed it all back down (and most of the information was simply copying events from the summary and metering it out to individuals) and put it back in as there was no context for the summary without details descriptions of the housemates. The AfD for the housemates article has focused attention back on the section. The AfD really has nothing to do with the section, without this article the housemates article would not be notable as none of these housemates are not notable without the program, the opposite is not true. However if the other article is kept then there is nothing wrong in having a detailed description so that the summary makes sense otherwise references to any housemates don't have any context without a reader reading another article first. There is no reason to remove the section. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the section could contain more than just two sentences. I believe you earlier said that a paragraph felt appropriate. If the other article is not deleted, then just the names of the candidates would seem to be appropriate - obviously if the other article is deleted, a different approach will be called for.Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It need more than just a list of names, it needs something that puts the housemates in context, and summary in context. I still can't see anything in the separate article that can't be in this article, other than trivia such as who likes whom and who had a fight with whom. This article is about the TV program, and what gets broadcast is the tasks and evictions, and outside of that most housemates are totally forgettable, we are more than 50 days in and there is hardly anything worth noting about any of the housemates. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The main BB article just needs a summary paragraph for context, with the rest of the information going in the list article, to avoid duplication. Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 20:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: The outcome of this discussion needs to be applied to the American and Australian articles as well. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 20:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Is this necessarily true? And how are things currently done in those articles. I believe the Oz version has two articles, same as here.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The American and Australian season/series articles follow a similar structure to the UK articles except for a few format differences. The American articles are very similar to the UK articles. From BB9-BB11 USA the Housemates (called HouseGuests in the USA) have separate articles while BB1-BB8 USA have the housemates in the main article. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 21:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. The two article structure has made sense here for the past few years, when the housemates have generated some level of interest in the media...although I have to say that I agree with Darrenhusted that this year's offerings seem a particularly dull lot. Either that, or the papers are really more interested in swine flu.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Housemates section - simple VOTE, not discussion.

• This attempt to avoid actual discussion, which is Wikipedia's fundamental model for decision making, is a bad idea, and there is already an AFD underway on this topic, closing to avoid forum shopping. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

But taking a straw poll is not a bad idea to gauge what editors currently think, and topping this section off seems like stifling actual debate, and this is not anything to do with the AfD as even if the content fork is kept this section still needs some context. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

To keep this relatively argument free, lets have a simple POLL, with everyone signing ~~~~ under which option they want. I will invite a range of editors who have edited this article to participate, but anyone who has an opinion can vote. Lets wait 3 days until we count the votes. DJ 18:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It should also be noted by anyone that wishes to participate that this is intimately tied to this AfD discussion - the argument for deletion of the housemates list is primarily based on the existence of the summary in Option 2 below. ~ mazca ^talk 18:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

No necessarily. Both can, and have, exited simultaneously. DJ 18:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

However, the crux of the deletion argument is that this list appears in two places. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I would say the crux of the deletion is that the housemates don't reach GNG without this article and the summary on this article makes no sense without the housemates section, the two are not really linked, they can both exist. Darrenhusted (talk) 01:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Option 1

• ~ mazca ^talk 18:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
• Though I guess I better add this here anyway. Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 18:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
• Add my disinterested opinion. The other option seems cluttered and awkward. Celestra (talk) 18:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)* I don't even like the show. I just think this is a better format. This article is already 70k - articles should normally be split at 60k, and the separate list format has worked well in the past.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Not for series 1-4. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
• --Dudejerome (talk) 03:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
• Electriccitrus (talk) 17:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
• Majorly talk 23:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Option 2

• DJ 18:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
• Elchriso (talk) 18:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

This "vote" seems rather suspicious. No edits since 2006. Suspect sock. Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 18:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You ain't got no evidunce of that. Not being funny, bit it looks like you're out to get DJ for no reason Bravedog (talk) 19:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

When trying to establish consensus anywhere, it's important that the participants are well-informed. An account with only 6 edits, one of which is to this discussion, looks suspicious and other editors should be informed. All Jeni did was point this out. Jozal ^(talk) 10:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

In the interest of keeping editors informed, prior to yesterday Jeni had only contributed one edit to a Big Brother related article. I merely state that as a fact and make no inference from it. MegaPedant (talk) 14:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

You make a very valid point, thanks :) Jozal ^(talk) 22:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Bravedog (talk) 19:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
• Without the housemates names the summary has no context. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
• leaky_caldron (talk) 00:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
• T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 01:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
• Of the two choices I prefer this one, though not unreservedly. Please see my contribution to the Discussion, below. MegaPedant (talk) 12:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Consensus isn't formed by voting. Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 18:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It's the easiest and most argument-free way, considering the circumstances. DJ 18:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you read WP:CONSENSUS Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 18:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Consensus isn't formed by voting but by sensible discussion. Perhaps DJ might care to explain why he believes his option is better.

Also, a solution consensed at one point may become redundant later. The list article format has allowed further info on the housemates to be inserted, by and for those who enjoy such things, without overburdening the main article. Keeping the full list of housemates with information in the main article runs the risk that it will become overblown with detail (should any of them actually prove interesting), and the section gets split out to a separate article at a later date.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Further info that is trivial. If a housemate achieves notability without the program then they will have their own article.Darrenhusted (talk) 19:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Well said Darren Bravedog (talk) 19:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, the housemate section was summarized with the short paragraphs for a month without alteration, which would constitute consensus by silence. Not every consensus needs action, if an edit is made and not altered then consensus can be assumed. Regardless of what happens to the content fork there will still need to be a housemate section. Darrenhusted (talk) 01:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Just because you insisted on your way of doing it three weeks ago, does not mean that long term consensus was established - MegaPedant for one has continued to edit the section and make comments on the format. One could equally (and rather better) argue that because all the articles for the last four years on all the Big Brother shows have been done in the two article format, there is a consensus that it should always be done that way. Regardless, the discussion at AfD indicates to me that the consensus is moving to a view that both articles should exist. This means that the content of this article should be examined again, to see the best way to share the content between two articles. That is what this discussion should be about. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The longer option looks very untidy, the bold and the links to other pages make it very difficult to read. There is no need to have the housemates here AND on the list of housemates page. - They should only be listed on the list of 2009 housemates page. 12bigbrother12 (talk) 04:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the longer option is difficult to read but the shorter option gives little useful information. The reason the longer version remained unchanged for a month is that it was the best that could be achieved with the information available. I rewrote each paragraph in turn and did the best I could but I'm not proud of the result and nobody else has seen fit to try to improve on it. The problem is there is little of interest about each housemate that can be included - I've agonised over it for some time. It could be made more readable if there was more material with which to work but the danger is that trivia will need to be included in order to achieve that aim. It is my opinion that there are four choices for that section, each with its own drawbacks:

• keep it as the short version, which conveys little useful information;
• remove it entirely, which in my opinion is preferable to the short version;
• restore it to the long version and make it more readable, which will necessarily involve the inclusion of what some people may consider trivia but this is necessary for the prose to flow and to avoid repetition;
• restore it as a list (Update: or table).

I'm in favour of the third option but if that is too difficult to implement then I'll go with option four. A separate but necessarily related issue is the future of the List of Big Brother 2009 housemates (UK) article. One thing I must emphasise is that that article pre-dates the Housemates section of this article and that information was copied from there to here, not the other way round, as has been suggested elsewhere in this discussion. I have argued for that article to be kept on its AfD page and have nothing more to add to that discussion except that in the case of options one and two, above, that article will become essential. In the case of option four it will become desirable. In the case of option three it may become redundant or it may remain compatible. MegaPedant (talk) 12:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the chopped out version is way too short, although that was what was done in 2008 - I suspect as an alternative to just having a section heading with a "Main Article:" note. A list, linking to the other article (which, while not wishing to pre-empt AfD I do not believe would be deleted if the debate were to end now. "No consensus to delete" would seem the minimum towards deletion that it could sustain) with perhaps a single line gloss (Lizza - the short one with purple hair ) might be preferable.Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I would have to raise an objection if housemates were referred to along those lines. Such descriptions can be seen as pejorative, and in three months such things as hair colour can change out of all recognition. Lisa no longer has her red mohawk, for example. Since you agree that the "chopped out" version is way too short, why don't you help improve the longer version? Perhaps a way forward would be to compile a list of items from the "other article" that can be incorporated into the longer version of the Housemates section, with the view to improving the latter and addressing its shortcomings. MegaPedant (talk) 12:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm slightly hindered as I don't actually watch the show (as you probably gathered) so might not be the best person to pick the significant data. I'm happy to format up the list though, as just getting all the links right can be a time consuming job.Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

How about something like this - Dumped#Contestants, from an article that I single-handedly got to GA. DJ 13:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice table (I suck at tables, so am always impressed by a good one). However, I wonder if this article isn't a bit table heavy already?Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Hrm, maybe. But last year's article currently has 3 tables (it had 5 at one point, but the ratings and jail visits sections were removed), so maybe it's not too bad? This is the first year in which the summary and ratings sections have been in prose, maybe it should be the first that the housemates section is a table. Just a thought :). DJ 13:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Could be. I like the summary section as text rather than a table, and the list of housemates would look much better as a table than paragraphs of text, so maybe this is the answer. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

OK :). I'll start a similar section below here, saying that it is felt we've found a happy compromise, adding Yes/No/Discussion sub-sections. Would you be able to invite all of those who have already voted? DJ 13:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Housemates section - is this the solution? You decide!

We appear to have come to a happy compromise. It's basically a replica of Dumped#Contestants, linking to the "List of..." article. You know the drill. DJ 13:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes

• DJ 13:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
• "As it stands it would be much better as a table. MegaPedant (talk) 01:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)" MegaPedant (talk) 14:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
• as a compromise. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
• Absolutely. A table is certainly a far better means of providing a brief summary; it's far less unwieldy than the previous paragraph. ~ mazca ^talk 17:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
• I like the table format. Just keep it short, don't stuff reams of info in it.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
• Definitely. I assume that it would similar (not identical) to The Apprentice (UK TV series) candidate sections, such as this one? Jozal ^(talk) 21:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
• anything for a peaceful time! leaky_caldron (talk) 23:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

No

• No... table is inappropriate. Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 13:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Be honest, does anything satisfy you? You don't have the answers yourself, but appear to be rubbishing everything anybody else says. Why is a table "innappropriate" in your holier-than-thou eyes?DJ 13:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Remember to be civil. All it needs is a short summary paragraph introducing the main article. Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 13:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Really? Because the consensus gathering on this page appears to say otherwise... DJ 13:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Definitely no consensus up there. As I have requested in the past, I suggest you read WP:CONSENSUS Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 13:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
          • Well more people seem to be opting for option 2 so, in the grand scheme of things, the consensus is nowhere near your proposal and far towards what was originally there. Do I sense sour grapes? DJ 14:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
• Electriccitrus (talk) 17:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • What? Here's another user who has appeared from nowhere. I'm starting to get very suspicious. DJ 17:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Don't get suspicious. It's bad for digestion. lifebaka++ 19:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
    • You posted twice to ANI, a high traffic noticeboard, so of course new users are going to be appearing left right and centre. MickMacNee (talk) 19:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

• This proposal requires that the List of Big Brother 2009 housemates (UK)‎ article be kept. Voting Yes here is consistent with the view I've held all along but others voting Yes will need to amend their views on that article's AfD page. MegaPedant (talk) 17:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• I've make a sandbox mock-up of how a table might look. I've arranged the contestants in the order that they entered the House and it currently lacks full references. The precise layout and content is, of course, subject to discussion. MegaPedant (talk) 15:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Very nice. Question - do we actually need to provide external references in the table, given that they are in the other article? The info in the table shouldn't change, as it represents the point in time when they came into the house. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Suppose I be bold and paste it into the article as is, then it can be edited mercilessly by anyone and everyone? MegaPedant (talk) 17:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Let me do the wikilinks first.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

There, done. What do you think?--Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Page protected again??

Admin has just extended page protection till 10th August!!! for "disruption". Anyone seeing disruption in the history because I'm not (other than an IP drive-by with the usual unsourced speculation)? I thought we've all been very good.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Ignore me - it's only semi protected, so it's just the IP flybys he's after.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Big Brother's 10th year - new section?

As there has been so much hype over Big Brother's 10th year, is it worth splitting the second half of the "Pre-series" section into a new "10th year commemorations" section, which will include details of the former HMs returning and the twist on Friday? I don't think that this should be developed until later on in the week until much more info comes to light. What do we think? DJ 21:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Certainly sets a challenge! The weekly summary may not be the appropriate place and could be busy with the daily tasks each of the former HMs are going to be set - if we think they should be recorded. Let's see what the article regulars think. leaky_caldron (talk) 21:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

As with everything I would counsel waiting until a few days after the events to put a proper perspective on the events. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

OK. I'm going to get this done sometime within the next week - bear with me :). DJ 18:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Reception section

It's good to see a positive comment has been added. It was looking very unbalanced. As "the series has also received praise from various parties" it would be beneficial to include a few more examples. MegaPedant (talk) 13:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I was half way through it but I got distracted. I have the sources so I'll finish it soon, along with the 10th Year Commemoration section that I'm developing. DJ 13:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

No sweat. You're allowed a real life too! I look forward to reading both. MegaPedant (talk) 13:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Haha thank you. However, there's not much positive reception out there. All I can find so far is praise for bringing in old HMs and Davina and Craig defending the ratings. I'm going to have a look through Brian Belo's collum on the Heat magazine website, but if anyone can find anything positive, could they please add it into the article or at least post the link here? Thanks, DJ 13:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone likes this series. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

This year is...

...the least watched. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Sree wrist-slashing incident - worthy of mention?

Does anybody think this story is worthy for the Crit/Con section? We'd obviously only state the facts - Sree taken to hospital after REPORTEDLY slashing wrists/C4 quote/Herts Uni Quote. Might also be worth adding this, an article before the series in which Sharon Powers said that extra care would be taken after the Susan Boyle incident. It's certainly more notable than the usual "BB Girl Slapped in Nightclub" story. Thoughts? DJ 11:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I would say, no. Especially as it contains an "allegedly" and he appeared on BBBM after the incident, indicating it couldn't have been that serious. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The Housemates table doesn't have a Home town entry for Sree (or Siavash, for that matter). To what extent would it be OR or synthesis to work out that Sree lives in Hatfield, Hertfordshire? I haven't seen the town explicitly mentioned anywhere but it's well known that he is studying at the University of Hertfordshire (formerly known as Hatfield Polytechnic). I have no clues as to where Siavash lives, however. MegaPedant (talk) 13:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Update: A bit of Googling got me this reference as evidence that Sree lives in Hatfield. I've added it to Sree's entry in the List of Housemates page. MegaPedant (talk) 13:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Guys, I really think that this should be included. The Times and The Evening Standard are reporting it as fact, whereas the story has also been reported by ITN, The Daily Mail and STV, albeit with "The Sun claims". Now I hate mindless additions to this section as much as the rest of us, but I really do think that this will have major repercussions and is definitely notable. DJ 16:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

That's not really more sources it's sources reprinted one source, so still one source. And WP:V isn't the issue, it's WP:N, and I don't think this meets the bar for being notable. It doesn't affect the program, essentially it boils down to "man upset by watching BB". The question is: does it add anything to the article, whose main subject is the television program Big Brother, and the answer is "not really". Darrenhusted (talk) 16:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:N only applies to the article as a whole - is the subject of the article notable. In terms of what goes into the article, WP:V is your guide, as well as WP:UNDUE, particularly bearing in mind that these articles have a BLP component, hence the need for a high standard of verifiability. Having said that, I do not think it would be undue to mention it here. I think it might be undue to mention it under Sree's entry in the list of housemates article, as it would form a big component of that entry as it stands.Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I think a sentence or two on the subject wouldn't be out of place, as long as it has a reliable reference and isn't given undue prominence. MegaPedant (talk) 16:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't impact anything in the house so it's best left out, and so far all the other sources are just reprinting one source. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Issac

It list's Issac's job as "Reality show participant". WTF? 80.44.254.156 (talk) 10:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I know it's bizzare, but it's correct. He featured on The Real World: Sydney, along with Noirin.. DJ 12:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I notice it has since been changed. DJ 12:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think "Reality show participant" is more accurate than "Entertainer and bar owner". MegaPedant (talk) 13:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Entertainer and Bar owner is what is says on his Channel 4 profile. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I concede that point. The Channel 4 profiles do make me laugh though - the contestants can call themselves essentially whatever they want. What on earth does a "visual merchandiser" do, for example? The thing is, Isaac doesn't seem to have done anything since The Real World: Sydney (or before it, for that matter, if his biography in that article is to be believed). Instead he seems to live on his fame from that show and he readily admits that his time is running out. Therefore "reality show participant" really is a more accurate description of his career so far. MegaPedant (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Update: I see WP has an article on Visual merchandising. I'll add a link to it from Kris's entry in the table of housemates. MegaPedant (talk) 02:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Just my two cents on this. I remember when Kenneth went in, they said either on the show or on BBLB that housemates fill in their own Occupation on the form hence "international playboy" or whatever guff Kenneth said he did. It's probably better to look at their jobs objectively (especially of there is more sway to put "reality participant" over the one reliable source from C4 that say "entertainer and bar owner") and put what there is more evidence for. »—Mikay—talk—contribs→ 10:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Except that the source didn't give Isaac's job, it just confirmed he was Noirin's ex. Only Channel4 say what his job is. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that any source will give Isaac's true job, since he doesn't actually have one. I would argue that Kenneth and probably Siavash don't either but since Channel 4 has given them all the opportunity to fabricate career descriptions I'd never be able to find a reference. It's something of a Catch-22 situation. MegaPedant (talk) 14:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The "Current" template.

Looking at the two guidelines for when the template should be used I don't believe this article fits the usage. Note that every article on Wikipedia has a General disclaimer indicating that the article contents may not be accurate. As such, this template is redundant. This seems like the reason it has been added (as tasks and such are not updated like on a fansite). As an advisory to editors, the template may optionally be used in those occasions that many editors (perhaps a hundred or more) edit an article on the same day, for example, in the case of natural disasters, the death of celebrities, or other breaking news. This page has frequent edits, but not hundreds of edits, so this does not seem like a reason to have this on this. Generally it is expected that this template and its closely related templates will appear on an article for perhaps a day or so, occasionally several days. The intention seems to be to leave this on the page for the next five weeks, and seems slightly unsuitable. I would say in short I am in favour of removing it. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Putting it like that, I completely agree. Remove. DJ 22:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)