Jump to content

Talk:Big Brother (British TV series) series 10/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Ratings

During CBB6, I attempted to use C4+1 ratings; it failed. The ambiguity and lack of consistent sources made getting those ratings a nuisance and a formatting nightmare. I think we should just avoid using them and stick solely to BARB ratings. Geoking66talk 20:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. But I think it should be mentioned that the programme is available on both timeshift services (C4+1 and E4+1) and can be viewed on 4OD. I'm gonna add abit about the YouTube channel now...) DJ 23:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


Reliable Sources (ALL editors read!)

Every year the BB articles rely on primary (Channel 4) sources too much, and some of these sources need to be replaced with reliable, third party sources which pass WP:RS. I suggest that only about 1/4 of the sources should be from C4 or the {{Cite episode}} template. Website I reccomend are:

Remember to use {{Cite web}} and {{Cite news}}. I'm sure we can all do it together :) DJ 13:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

And keep in mind BLP concerns when writing about the contestants, rather than about the events. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Just a note regarding the Digital Spy site, there was some recent malware associated with its advertising banners, see here: Digital Spy struggles to pin down tainted ad infection Anyways for safe surfing make sure everyone is using some type of Adblock and Noscript extensions for their browsers, or switch your current Windows-based OS to a more secure one. If not then be sure that you're running the latest media player versions and keep an eye on all MS security advisories. CraftyPirate (talk) 10:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Using a primary source is perfectly acceptable for basic facts or uncotroversial opinions. Arguing that the Daily Mail/Heat/Digital Spy are flat out preferrable than Channel 4 is just seriously worrying, considering this exact topic is a magnet for the sort of un-attributed speculation they like to frequently peddle. This 1/4 demand is totally arbitrary, and misunderstands WP:RS completely. I for one urge anybody adding to the article to ignore it, and read the sourcing policies for yourselves. DJ, I'd be more worried if I were you about appearing to own this article - I've removed your unneccessary "ALL editors read!" header, it is wholly insulting. MickMacNee (talk) 20:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

In no way did I suggest that I own the article. I think you need to read WP:RS. It is also against Wiki policy to edit other people's comments. DJ 23:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Mick, if you look at the last two years then you will see that there are a few users who end up doing the majority of editing, and who are familiar with the structure and layout of the article, and who are aware of the MoS regarding these articles. And as this article is one of the most high profile UK articles for the next three week then it is handy for those who will end up being the majority editors to able to refer newer editors to the consensus quicker than having to hold a vote or discussion over what has been agreed for the last three years (such as nominations order, nominations totals, colour key and reliable sources). And some editors *gasp* will not listen to the established consensus, this is a handy way to make it clear that all editors have been made aware. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
"(ALL editors read!)...This is my (wrong) interpretation of a particular policy, which you must all follow, because only I and a couple of other people regularly edit this article." And you are actually seriously claiming you don;t have an ownership problem? DJ, I suggest you read the relevant policy section, because it doesn't resemble anything you have said. There is absolutely no grounding in your idea that a 1/4 limit is necessary. If you start requiring third party sourcing for basic facts and uncontroversial opinions, especially in an article like this where that will make up the majority of the material, you are just wasting people's time for no reason. And Darren, nobody is talking about silly colour schemes - how to correctly apply the sourcing policy and know when to use primary and when to use secondary sources has nothing to do with any MOS issues. It is a basic skill that any experienced editor can handle, without having been a prior BB article editor, and without the preaching from DJ in this section. MickMacNee (talk) 11:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to reply because I don't like your attitude. Wikipedia suggests that we assume good faith and keep an air of civility to our discussions. Darren and myself have been nothing but polite - the same can't be said for you. As you have not followed these basic guidlines, I think it's best that the discussion go no futher until you approach the scenario with the right frame of mind. DJ 11:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Pereaching to others and owning the article is not the rigth way to approach anything. You don't get a free pass in not explaining yourself because you don't like the attitude of the person who points it out to you. MickMacNee (talk) 12:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
You're being aggressive here, that's why I did not want to respond. There is not precedent that says that 1/4 of all refs should be from C4 (coincidentally, 3/26 of the sources are from C4 at the moment), it just seemed like an ideal benchmark per WP:RS. These articles normally clock up around 100 references - that's 25 by the end of the series. I'm not preaching - it's called setting a precedent. If what you state is true, surely Wiki rules and guidlines are much more preachy than our innocent comments on a talk page? At the coment there is a 3-1 consensus to support what I have said. DJ 12:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
So 3 editors against 1 means you can justify making things up, and worse, preaching that on the talk page as if you know what you are talking about. The actual wording of the policy represents the consensus and understanding of thousands of editors. The only reason that there is currently a majority of third party sourcing is simply that they are easier to find, or that C4 hasn't released the material to the public. A lot of that material will simply be repetition from C4 sources, not independently fact checked or any more reliable in any way, so what exactly was your over-riding point here about not using C4 primary sources, as they is somehow unreliable, and disbarred by WP:RS? You were simply wrong to post the above, just accept it. MickMacNee (talk) 12:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

As the aim of every article on here is to end up as a GA or FA then we should strive to behave as if our goal is that. RS says limit primary sources, use more third party, and any GA of FA reviewer will pick out sources before even looking at prose, DJ's statement is based on past actions: that is the previous years end up relying on Ch4 when there are plenty of third party sources out there, and during the run of the show they are easier to find than after. As an example for the evictions each Friday the BBC give a detailed report (even if they never report about the day to day happenings) so rather than linking Ch4 only for the eviction we could agree to use the BBC as the third party. And 25% for primary sources is an agreeable limit, I'm not sure why you seem to want to pick a fight over this Mick. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not picking a fight, I am objecting to being preached to by someone who plainly doesn't understand the WP:RS policy, and worse, is overtly trying to own the article and dictate who does what based on his flawed misconceptions. Read my previous post, I am not even disputing that they are easier to find, but that has absolutely nothing to do with his assertions about their quality or reliability when compared to C4 primary sources. RS does say limit primary and use secondary, but you really need to understand why that is - it is not simply a mandate for an arbitrary limit. Any reviewer that rejects primary sources without even looking at their context, should not be reviewing articles. It's that simple. And by-the-by, reviewers are volunteers like anybody else, there is no reason to assume they know what they are doing better than anybody else (although there are outstanding regulars). MickMacNee (talk) 12:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I never said I was "rejecting" primary sources, hence why I want one in four sources to come from Channel 4. I also have never claimed to own the article, hence the sentence "I'm sure we can all do it together :)" in my original post. DJ 12:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
It certainly reads like a rejection to me. I have no doubt that less knowledgable editors might come to the article, read your 'suggestion' here, and decide they aren't allowed to add the material they have because it only came from C4. Even worse, they might waste their own time finding third party sources, or be put off by not knowing how to use complex citation templates, to satisfy your wrong interpretations. Your one in four claim is grounded in nothing, and you have missed the point of the RS policy utterly. Your lack of understanding of things like BLP and NOT!VOTE, and your blind use of a nonsensical shortcut on the talk page like WP:PROSE instead of normal speech, gives me serious worries on behalf of other editors, particularly new ones, facing an apparent article owner here. Your restoration of "ALL editors read!", and subsequent lack of any recognition of why it is utterly innappropriate, is probably the worst offence so far. And to think, you are the one complaining about civility. It beggars belief. MickMacNee (talk) 13:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Can I suggest that you calm down? You are acting as if you are outraged when nobody else appears to see the issue. At the end of the day, it's only a Wikipedia article on a Reality TV Show. It's not going to change the world. If it's that much of an issue to you, got the the administrator's noticeboard and report the incident. DJ 13:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

When the failures are so basic, and the potential for harm so wide, then you can bet your life I will be annoyed when you side-step and stonewall, instead of defending your position. I am seriously concerned at your behaviour - for example, you just admonished an editor, who has made barely 50 edits here, for not using {cite}. These are not minor failings of not having a clue here, and cannot be waved away by saying that Wikipedia is just a hobby. MickMacNee (talk) 13:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Live Feed "fury"

Even though this issue has been reported on by third-party sources ([1]), it still shouldn't be included in the article. However, if one of the broadsheets (and maybe the high quality tabloids such as the Daily Mail) picks up on it, we'll put a sentence in. DJ 18:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Found some good sources:
  • Times Online: "After falling ratings and a series of controversies in recent years, there will no longer be a Big Brother live feed, with the show reduced to seven hours of air-time a day."
  • Digital Spy have this article from before Celebrity BB '09 on a Channel 4 explanation.

D.M.N. (talk) 15:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm about to add a bit, more RS come out. D.M.N. (talk) 15:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

14 Weeks

Davina said on Big Mouth that it BB10 will run for 14 weeks. So it has to be updated.. --82.40.230.161 (talk) 00:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

All of the sources say otherwise. Show me a source from Channel 4 that says 14 weeks and THEN we can change it. DJ 06:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
There is no source of writing as of yet, However Davina made it VERY clear on Big Brother's Big Mouth that the show would run for a total of 14 weeks --Andybigbro2 (talk) 11:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Let's wait until we have written confirmation from C4 though. I doubt that all of the newspapers and fansites will have plucked the "13 weeks" date from nowhere - it was probably in the press pack. DJ 11:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok, that's fair enough. --Andybigbro2 (talk) 12:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Repetition

The sponsorship deal with Lucozade is mentioned in the introduction, does it really need to be repeated in the Broadcasts section? 83.104.249.240 (talk) 00:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

An introduction is supposed to be a summary of the article, per WP:LEAD. So yes, it does. DJ 06:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
The name of the sponsor is scarcely worthy of a single mention, let alone two. I'd like to see the sentence This series of Big Brother is sponsored by Lucozade. and the associated citation deleted from the Broadcasts section, leaving the version in the introduction unchanged as it gives more information (such as the fact that Lucozade has taken over from Virgin Media as sponsor) without repetition. If the article were not protected I would make the edit myself. Another change I would like to make is to correct a factual error. Rodrigo did not persuade Noirin to shave off her eyebrows. His task was to persuade someone to allow him to shave off his/her eyebrows. To clarify, Rodrigo did the shaving, not, as the article suggests, Noirin. 83.104.249.240 (talk) 16:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm keeping the Lucozade as it is. DJ 16:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Can you give me a good reason for doing so? What about the shaving of the eyebrows? 83.104.249.240 (talk) 16:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I've edited the second Lucozade reference in a way I hope all parties find acceptable, removing a typo in the process. I've also changed the description of Rodrigo's task to make it clear he did the shaving, and added 'barefoot' to the description of the walking on sugarglass task. MegaPedant (talk) 13:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Since the information about Housemates and Non-Housemates is repeated can the same terminology and colour codes be used please? 83.104.249.240 (talk) 00:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

How do you mean? DJ 06:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, at the top of the page the terms Housemate and Non-Housemate are used and colour coded light grey and light blue, repectively. At the bottom of the page (in the Nominations table section) the terms Official Housemate and Not a Housemate are used and colour coded yellow and mid grey respectively. I'd like to see a little consistency. 83.104.249.240 (talk) 16:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree that one or other should be changed. Do we have consensus on a colour scheme and wording? I suggest the terms Housemate and Non-housemate. MegaPedant (talk) 13:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
The end game colour scheme is the same in all articles, the lower table should match the key, but in previous years the two tables have had different colours and at the project page the colours have specific meanings that are kept from year to year. Darrenhusted (talk) 18:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
However, there haven't been any Non-housemates in previous years. Someone insists on using the term Official Housemate in the nominations table. This term isn't used officially and Marcus Bentley's commentary refers to the two groups as Housemates and Non-housemates so that's what should be used here. MegaPedant (talk) 03:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Spoiler Warning

I think someone should put a banner warning that this page may contain spoilers for those who dont watch the live feed. Im not particularly upset, but I just came on here to find four more housemates are safe on top of the 2 that we saw on the main show last night (Rodrigo and Noirin) I'm sure nobody can really object to a warning being put up, it would stop a lot of moaning and stop people from getting things ruined, but will still allow information on the page to be upto date. (Kyleofark (talk) 11:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC))

Wikipedia doesn't do spoiler warnings. See WP:SPOILER. MickMacNee (talk) 11:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. DJ 11:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Nice to see you two in agreement over something, for a change. 83.104.249.240 (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Jade's tribute in the launch show

The final shot in the launch show was a picture of Jade entering/leaving the house* and the caption, 'In memory of Jade 1981 - 2009'.

A certain persistent editor is removing this as WP:TRIVIA. I hardly think any tribute of this kind in a notable programme is trivia.

  • - btw it was a white dress, so for someone who knows, was that the celebrity show or the original?

MickMacNee (talk) 12:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

If it helps, she had short dark hair on the celebrity one and long-ish blonde hair on the original one. I can't remember what she was wearing though! Sky83 (talk) 10:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
This does fail WP:TRIVIA - see the "examples" section of that policy. The information is included on the Jade Goody page. DJ 12:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I can't find any reference to it on the Jade Goody page. 83.104.249.240 (talk) 18:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It was her leaving the house in BB3 (when she came third; she's bent over slightly because in those days, when it was filmed in Bow, the housemates had to take their stuff with them... 78.148.140.123 (talk) 22:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Television programmes section, prose or bullets

A certain editor is insisting that the section Television programmes, that is essentially just listing three specific programmes, needs to be presented in prose, rather than a bulletted format. Compare:

prose version

Television programmes

Three special, one-off programmes aired on E4 before the launch to commemorate 10 years of the programme. The first of which, entitled Jade: As Seen On TV aired on 26 May and commented on the life of Big Brother 2002 contestant Jade Goody and the infamy that surrounded her.[1] The most successful Big Brother housemate worldwide, Goody died of cervical cancer two months before the programme aired.[1] The programme was watched by 305,000 people; 1.8% of the TV audience.[2] Big Brother's Big Quiz, hosted by Davina McCall, aired on 29 May and featured celebrity team captains singer Jamelia, TV presenter Ulrika Jonsson and comedians Danny Wallace and Jack Whitehall.[3] It also featured former Big Brother housemates such as Craig Phillips and Sam and Amanda Marchant.[3] Big Brother: A Decade in the Headlines was transmitted on 30 May and looked back at the social, political and cultural changes that Big Brother has made to society since it began.[4] The documentary was hosted by Grace Dent and featured participation from Mark Frith, Carole Malone, Oona King, Peter Tatchell, Krishnan Guru-Murthy and Ian Hyland.[4][5][6]

bulletted version

Television programmes

Three special, one-off programmes aired on E4 before the launch to commemorate 10 years of the programme.

From a basic common sense perspective, blindly insisting on prose over basic and instant readability, is rather nonsensical. It should be restored. MickMacNee (talk) 12:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Prose version, per WP:PROSE. Quite straight forward really. And the section does not "list" the programmes, it provides insightful and essential content and context. DJ 12:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

From the MoS on lists "Do not use lists if a passage reads easily using plain paragraphs", and I would say it reads easier as a paragraph. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't read easily at all. And DJ, please realise that WP:PROSE doesn't lead anywhere but the Manual of Style main page. MickMacNee (talk) 12:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
That is your opinion - 2 people (a majority) disagree with you. DJ 12:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
You are starting to sound juvenile here. Are you saying if I get three meat puppets in, I can has win? MickMacNee (talk) 12:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Whoa, whoa, hold on. Are you accusing me of being a puppet of DJ? Have you even looked at the contributions history for the 2007 and 2008 articles? The MoS calls for prose over bullet points. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I was pointing out the ridiculousness of claiming win based on 1v2. And the MOS calls for prose for a reason - readability. And when a section of prose is merely litsing three things, then in my opinion, not presenting that to the reader immediately as a three entry list, is a failure. MickMacNee (talk) 13:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Prose is definitely better IMO. D.M.N. (talk) 13:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the bulletted version is more readable (surely a requirement of an encyclopædia) and conveys exactly the same information in a clearer way. The prose version is too dense. It needs more white space, perhaps by splitting it into three paragraphs, in which case you've pretty much got the bulletted version without the actual bullets. 83.104.249.240 (talk) 16:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually bulleted lists are not preferred. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I've read the discussion above and I still prefer a bulletted list for the reasons I gave. I haven't yet read a good reason in favour of prose. 83.104.249.240 (talk) 00:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Because we go by consensus, and because this is an encyclopaedia, even the section on lists in the MoS says "Do not use lists if a passage reads easily using plain paragraphs", which I have already quoted. What you prefer is not really the issue, what is correct for an encyclopaedia is. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
The policy is quite clear - you judge each case on its merits, with a presumption in favour of prose. You even quoted the very wording that makes this fact crystal clear: Do not use lists if a passage reads easily using plain paragraphs. Well, people are making the case here that this particular passage does not read easily as prose. So, just repeating the policy back is rather missing the point. This isn't rocket science. MickMacNee (talk) 12:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
as an uninvolved observer, I suggest that this format (prose) will quickly become dificult to scan (and therefore significantly less useful) after a few weeks. Similarly, the (weekly) Summary section is already looking too "dense" in comparison to a simple, tabulated format. I think a couple of contributors are being unduly dogmatic here, verging on infringing this principle: WP:Bully. leaky_caldron (talk) 12:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
The first section about the three pre-series programs is the section that I am saying should stay in prose, and is easily readable as such. I am still open to whether the weekly summary will be better as prose. The pre-series programs are done, so they won't change. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The only elements of WP:BULLY I've seen are from MickMacNee on the above discussion on references. May I point you to WP:AGF. DJ 13:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

No need. I had already considered good faith and the lack of before posting my observations on the above debate. thanks leaky_caldron (talk) 13:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Darrenhusted says that WP works by consensus and then goes on to say that my preference is not the issue. May I ask why my preference is less valid than his? I gave a reasoned argument in favour of a bulletted format instead of prose - I really do find the former more readable - and have yet to read a counter argument that is not patronising and dogmatic. For those keeping score, I now make it 3-3. 83.104.249.240 (talk) 12:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I also prefer the bulletted format. It's clearly easier to read, so make it 4-3 in favour. Go ahead and make the change, Mick. 93.174.217.140 (talk) 12:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

DJ, why do you assume that no one else has read the WP guidelines pages? It seems to be your standard response to refer anyone with whom you disagree rather vaguely to one of those pages. I agree that in another section MickMacNee rather spoiled his argument by losing his cool but that isn't the issue here. My point is that you and Darrenhusted are simply dismissing polite and reasoned arguments and dogmatically repeating points of policy that are, in fact, open to interpretation and debate. In the section on repetition you dismissed out of hand one of my suggestions and ignored the other. It is indeed difficult not to agree with the suggestion that you feel some sort of ownership of this article. If you really can't come up with a more convincing argument I suggest that MickMacNee now has the mandate he requires to implement his change. 83.104.249.240 (talk) 13:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
The two alternatives given in MickMacNee's example use almost identical wording. So really the argument boils down to whether the extra spacing implicit in the bullet version makes the item sufficiently more readable to justify its use rather than slavishly following the guideline. My view is that it does. MegaPedant (talk) 14:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
How about this, find me an FA TV article which has a program list with bullets. Because the aim is to get all articles up to FA, this is easier to do when an article starts rather than go back and change it afterwards. None of Arrested Development (TV series), The Apprentice (UK TV series), BBC television drama, Making Waves (TV series), Lost: Missing Pieces, Last of the Summer Wine, Our Friends in the North, Meerkat Manor use bullet points for any program descriptions. The only use comes in listing a few awards, and the policy is fairly clear: avoid making lists, write in prose. Is any one really struggling to read the one paragraph? Or is this simply becoming an opportunity for editors to complain instead of actually trying to improve the article? And MegaPendant the reason I (and DJ) keep restating the guideline is that it doesn't seem anyone is reading it. They say they have read it but then keep on saying that they don't care about the guidelines they just want to read it in bullets. As it stands the BBWP has one article of GA standard, and that is Dennis Rodman, so wouldn't it be nice to use this summer to get the project a real GA? Darrenhusted (talk) 15:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Darrenhusted I've inserted an extra colon in front of your comment above to separate it from my previous one. Hope you don't mind. I think you're addressing the wrong person though. MegaPedant (talk) 15:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this is ridiculous. Just because 4 people don't agree with a policy it does not mean that we should completely ignore it. WP:MOS is there for a reason, whether people agree with it or not. I also find it very suspicious that most of those who appose the prose style are on IP accounts.... DJ 15:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

5 actually. 2 isn't 'most of five'. You're blustering. What happened to consensus? 93.174.217.140 (talk) 16:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Dale: so what has happend to WP:AGF, which you drew my attention to earlier? leaky_caldron (talk) 16:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I've made a lot of small edits, improving the grammar and the consistency. Please don't suggest that I don't want to improve the article. What you have to understand is that editors can read guidelines and understand them and to suggest that they can't is patronising in the extreme. The thing to remember is that they also appreciate that guidelines are merely that and not laws. Each case should be decided on its merits and in this case I agree that the prose style results in too dense a block of text. I agree with leaky_caldron that the summary section is also too dense. Perhaps splitting them both into multiple paragraphs would be an acceptable compromise but please don't quote good faith and consensus when it suits you and ignore them when it doesn't. MegaPedant (talk) 16:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm happy with three paragraphs, it was the bullet points that don't fit the MoS. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

"Weekly summary" section

If you ask me, this could (and will) get very long inevitably. As a suggestion, I think this could be converted into prose as well, I think it'd flow quite well keeping specific sections together, i.e. if an event in day 5 and an event in day 8 are linked you can easily add to it. Failing that, instead of weeks have days so it flows better like a timeline. I'm not sure, but I just think the table will grow excessively long. D.M.N. (talk) 13:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Last year I ended up putting it in an "Extended content" box; it got very long. I think a table with more prose would be better, I did this on a previous article that I edited alone (Dumped#Episode_breakdown). DJ 13:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I would go with a weekly summary paragraph. But maybe suggest a word limit, so as not to have it bloat up too much, say about 500 words per week. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd support that. What a weekly summary could do also is merge the "Housemates" section into it seeing as we would be repeating ourselves, wouldn't we? I don't mind testing it out on this article, if it doesn't work we can easily revert back to table formatting? D.M.N. (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

And I don't think that we should be so strict with the word count on launch and final weeks. And maybe weeks with big twists. DJ 14:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I would say 700 words for launch, 500 for the twist over this weekend, 500 for the rest of the week, then 500 per week until the last week, and if there is a nomination twist then en extra 200 words for that twist. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Based on the above, I've decided to be bold and change it into prose. That way, if paragraphs do get too long, it would be possible to shorten. Of course, if it does get out of hand we can always change it back into a table. As a general, the first paragraph should be on housemates arrivals, however I don't think it needs to have it's own (very small) section. The prose which I've written based on whats happened so far could probably be tightened up a lot. D.M.N. (talk) 15:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it looks fine. Also the entire Housemates article could be contained as the first paragraph, as it just ends up being a trivia magnet. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I think you've been hasty. An element of simple tabulation will surely be required over the 3 months+ of the show. leaky_caldron (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Let's be real. It's been four days and it's already kind of a mess. I can't imagine 90+ days of events being organized and accessible. 76.204.122.127 (talk) 01:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
What we could do is separate each week with a heading so it shows in the contents, and then separate the days with bullet points. On another note, could we have a sentence that says something like "Today, Monday 8th June, is Day 5"? Adamml13 (talk) 06:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
We can't have the counter. 08:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC) Darrenhusted (talk) 13:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
May i ask the mysterious person why? Adamml13 (talk) 10:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I've had a go at tidying up the Summary section as far as Beinazir's eviction and I've managed to reduce its size considerably by removing repetition and by polishing. MegaPedant (talk) 13:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

And broken three refs. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
And fixed them again. MegaPedant (talk) 14:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
We have a show/hide table for the weekly summary for last year's series, I don't see why we can't use that again. Since 2006 this topic has been debated ad nauseam and the consensus for the past three years has been to stick with the bulletts. They work: they're concise, easy to read, and make finding events a quick process. Why do you feel the need to change everything to prose? Geoking66talk 18:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Would 'to try for an FA' be enough of a reason? Plus the tables from the last few years are not easy to read, they are unwieldy and require acres of code, making them difficult for less experienced editors and harder to catch any vandalism. What would be wrong with one paragraph a week, broken down in the order of task, outcome, those up for eviction, evicted? All eles fails the paragraphs can be boxed up. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
When you use prose, to cut down on "excess" information you end up omitting events in the house, even if uninentionally. It may seem fine for the first week, but after a few you're just going to be deleting and deleting so as to make it readable, omitting important information. Table code isn't that hard and this is already a semi-protected page; you're not going to get very new editors editing it. Geoking66talk 16:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
FA status is a very worthy aspiration but I see the best rated previous Big Brother UK articles have achieved no better than B-class. I'm afraid the subject matter is very much against us when compared with the life and works of William Shakespeare, for example and I doubt it is possible to write prose that is sufficiently compelling to non-BB fans to get even close to FA status. Not wishing to offend anyone, I'm afraid I find those earlier articles to be of depressingly low quality. One week in, I think the current article isn't doing too badly but it needs more flesh. Would someone like to write about the House and garden, for example? It will take a lot of work to keep it on track but I believe an A-class rating is possible and would be delighted to see it achieve that standard. MegaPedant (talk) 17:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Totally wrong. I got Dumped to GA status, helped get The Apprentice (UK) to FA status and Big Brother 2006 (UK) is a former GA. Not a pipe dream at all. DJ 19:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations for Dumped and The Apprentice (UK) but as they have nothing to do with Big Brother they are not relevant to the discussion. I'm sad to hear that Big Brother 2006 (UK) is a former GA because the current version is rated B-Class. What on earth happened to it? MegaPedant (talk) 01:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Considering the length of the series at thirteen weeks and the length of the Week 1 paragraph, going through this will be a nightmare if it's not organised in a consistent manner (tabular form with tasks, events, etc split up in bullets) and just left as edited prose. Geoking66talk 05:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Most weeks will consist of three events: Task, nominations, eviction (possible HoH later on). It should be easy to wait until after each eviction, look back on the week and trim the events down to a short paragraph, we do not need to recount every single event, rather aim to give an overview of what has happened. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Even with what you've said, it will be enormously long. Look at the chart for Big Brother 2008. That's tasks/twists, nominations, and eviction for each week and it would be excessive if it wasn't in a tabulated form. Presumably the amount of information for this season will be similar. Prose is not going to work for much longer. 76.231.166.25 (talk) 21:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Let's see how it goes, eh? A decision doesn't have to be made just yet. MegaPedant (talk) 22:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks silly as a prose and jumbled. When its a table its MUCH easier to read, than having to read through all this long prose. Put it back, like the other ones --Andybigbro2 (talk) 19:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you talking about BB2006? Darrenhusted (talk) 23:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


Halfwit and Dogface

As the names have been changed legally, should be put this into the the Main Table with their name that they entered the house in in brackets? Adamml13 (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

We need a source (preferably from the concerned goverment body) to confirm that it's ACTUALLY official. But we didn't use the legal names for Spiral, Bubble, Science.... DJ 20:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
It wouldn't surprise me if Big Brother calls them to the diary room as Dog Face and Halfwit... if they do, surely that would make them their "official" BB names. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
We'll see what happens on tommorow's HL show or BBLB. Otherwise I think it's best to leave it for the moment. DJ 20:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
don't know who you are referring to, but there is no legal requirement to officially change name from the birth certificate entry to anything you want (UK). However, Deed of change of name can be used if a legally cetified confirmation is needed. leaky_caldron (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Deed of change of name has been used here. DJ 20:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The C4 website is still referring to them as Freddie and Sophie. DJ 20:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
In the same way that Mario and Stephanie weren't legally married last year, they didn't change them legally to Halfwait and Dogface. Geoking66talk 21:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The scenario was different though. That task was set as a "fake wedding"; this one has not. Anyway, lets wait until tommorow. DJ 21:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The documents on BBLB looked genuine (not that I would know what a genuine form for that would look like), but yeah, let's wait. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
They have to do it in person in front of a certified government official for the whole thing to be legal. Geoking66talk 00:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Really? Couldn't they have filled in the forms themselves and then handed them into the government official to sign, file, validate etc? Slightly verging onto WP:FORUM now. DJ 00:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

You do realise this won't be their "legal" name, they are only doing it I'm guessing for the fun of the show? D.M.N. (talk) 10:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The question of the legal status of the name changes was addressed by former barrister Neil Hamilton on BBLB today. He confirmed that they are both legal and that to revert would require another deed poll from each of them. MegaPedant (talk) 20:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The official website now has them as Dogface and Halfwit:

http://www.channel4.com/bigbrother/housemates/sophie.html

http://www.channel4.com/bigbrother/housemates/freddie.html

(92.22.178.187 (talk) 21:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC))

I've reinstated the names Dogface and Halfwit in the nominations table. Big Brother calls them to the Diary Room using those names and they will undoubtedly be called to nominate by those names. MegaPedant (talk) 03:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Since another editor has changed the names in List of Big Brother 2009 housemates (UK) the links as they stood in the summary table at the top of article no longer worked. So I've changed the names to Halfwit and Dogface to restore the links and to reflect the current status of the two housemates. This can all be changed back when they are allowed to use their original names again. MegaPedant (talk) 17:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Nomination Twists

The nomination twist section of the nomination table needs to be filled out to replace the sources which can be used in the note and the end of the table MSalmon (talk) 20:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Why not be bold and make the edits yourself? DJ 20:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Because I don't know what to put MSalmon (talk) 20:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Broken Glass

The article needs to mention that it wasn't really glass that Saffia and Charlie walked across but sugar glass used in films.--92.1.83.162 (talk) 21:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Consistency and the capitalisation or not of Housemate and other words

Should the word Housemate be capitalised? What ever the consensus it should be applied consistently. MegaPedant (talk) 13:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking at previous articles the word housemate is lower case in the body text and upper case in tables. So it should be lower case in any prose. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
OK. I've de-capitalised two occurrences of Housemate. How about the words House, Diary Room, Bedroom and Living Room? MegaPedant (talk) 15:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Capital H for the House, same with Diary Room. Bedroom and living room should be lower case, but any special areas should be uppercase. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I always thought that we capitalised Day, as in Day 4. But it doesn't look like that's happening this year. DJ 15:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
There's currently a mix of 'Day 2' and 'day two' styles. Darrenhusted has changed some to the 'Day 2' style but others remain. If this is the preferred style, I'll change any I notice. MegaPedant (talk) 16:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
According to WP:BB, it should always be "Day [x]" with x being in numeric form, even if under 10. Geoking66talk 16:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I tried to catch them all but against all the refs it's hard to pick them out. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, they're difficult to spot. Ok, how about the word Eye when referring to the logo? It's currently lower case. If Diary Room and House (but oddly, not Housemate) are capitalised, surely Eye should be too. MegaPedant (talk) 17:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
The WP:BB MoS does not say anything about the eye, but as it is a specific eye then I would assume uppercase. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok, the Eyes have it. Would that be WP:BIGBRO? WP:BB refers to Be[ing] Bold. MegaPedant (talk) 17:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

If House is capitalised, I think that Housemates should be too. DJ 17:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

So do I, if done consistently. MegaPedant (talk) 18:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Do we have consensus? MegaPedant (talk) 03:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
The style guide at BIGBRO always has housemate as a lower case, and that is the case for the previous articles, so we should maintain consistency for al the articles. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I have read WP:BIGBRO but it seems very incomplete. It does say that House should be capitalised but doesn't mention housemate or Diary Room. To leave housemate uncapitalised is anomalous, even though it is consistent with previous articles. I would like to see housemate capitalised but, quite honestly, I doubt it's worth the criticism I'd receive for changing it. MegaPedant (talk) 14:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
The section I refer to is the table giving colour notes, where the words housemate are in lower case, and if the consensus is to capaitalise then it would have to be done for all previous series. I would suggest raising it at the project talk page. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Without actually stating that the word housemate should not be capitalised, it is used quite consistently throughout WP:BIGBRO except in a section that's specific to Big Brother America, which says "The term HouseGuests is used instead of the term Housemates" where both HouseGuests and Housemates are capitalised. Anyway, I have raised the subject in the project talk page as Darrenhusted suggests. MegaPedant (talk) 16:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I notice that in related article Big Brother (UK) Housemate is capitalised, as is Task. MegaPedant (talk) 11:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
It has always been as follows: House (only when referring to the Big Brother House), housemates [sic], tasks [sic], Diary Room (as it is a proper noun for a specific location). Geoking66talk 16:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that simply isn't the case. I gave an example above (Big Brother (UK), which may be considered to be the parent of this very article) in which Housemate and Task are both capitalised (well, most of the time). Also capitalised are Rule, Eviction and Nomination. The article to which I'm referring was once considered a suitable FA candidate but it didn't make the grade. MegaPedant (talk) 18:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Since when has this been an FA debate? Let's hold off on that until after the series when this can be edited more appropriately. Just because someone decided that they wanted to capitalise certain words and it slipped by doesn't mean that it's official. There is no practical rationale for capitalising any word besides House (as it refers specifically to the Big Brother House) and Diary Room (as it refers to a specific diary room, in this case the one in the BBUK house). Housemate is a generic term, as are nominations, evictions, rules, tasks, etc. Geoking66talk 19:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Prose or bullets, prose or tables are FA issues, and the previous articles have only capitalised House and Diary Room (then last year Head of House), but not task and other terms, and as we have nine previous articles which match that style then we can assume consensus by inertia. I suggested looking to the BIGBRO MoS, and bringing it up at the project talkpage, not changing it here. The Big Brother UK page has fallen in to a state, I wouldn't use it as a guide. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I've read WP:BIGBRO and found it lacking, as I said before. I've raised the issue on its talkpage, as suggested, also as I said before. I'm not going to change things here but if Big Brother (UK) is in a bad state let's make it better. It's likely to be a page a lot of people see before viewing this one. I'll sharpen my blue pencil. MegaPedant (talk) 17:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


Housemates

Isn't everyone an official housemate now? I heard it on BBLB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.146.60 (talk) 18:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, all the current occupants of the House are. Beinazir never was. What's your point? MegaPedant (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Reccomendation for the Ratings section

The BBUK series articles each year get over-run with tables - nomination table, weekly summary table, housemates table and so on. In keeping with WP:MOS, I think it would be much better if the piece was written in prose and provided contextual support. For example, it's easy to state that the launch had 5million viewers, but how does that relate contextually to all of the other channels and so on? Also, all of the numbers for EVERY single episode borders onto WP:TRIVIA and as we aren't providing narrative coverage of each INDIVIDUAL episode, it seems abit pointless. The section is always hard to find reliable sources for and the whole thing often ends in a mess.

Therefore, I suggest that we do something similar to this. Now I realise that this covers the programme as a whole, rather than a series, but the layout still transfers. Instead of putting figures in for every episode, we focus on main episodes (launch, special/live programmes, highest-rated and lowest-rated evictions and the final) and provide contextual factors such as how programmes on other channels fared etc. This not only makes for a better article but also helps us to get the article to GA or even FA status. The "Ratings Roundup" section of Digital Spy is good for this and MediaGuardian also has a section on viewing figures.

Thoughts? DJ 12:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. I was pondering writing a bit, but noted the table for previous years.... I think prose is definitely better. I suggest only writing about "notable" shows, i.e. this Sunday's show and the Friday shows. D.M.N. (talk) 13:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
The Apprentice only has one programme a week therefore prose is easy to do, BB will have over a hundred episodes. It is easy to see from a table what the ratings were episode by episode. I have no objection to there being a ratings paragraph summing up the overall rating at the end of the series, or even at the end of each week after the eviction programme (week one running from yesterday to next friday). Darrenhusted (talk) 13:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Good job D.M.N. I made one or two minor alterations :). Darren, the point I made in my initial post is that each individual rating isn't notable, as we don't comment on each individual episode. A summary is more encyclopedic - readers can go to a fan site if they want the trivial nitty gritty. DJ 13:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I can understand the use of prose for a show like The Apprentice, but the sheer mass of episodes of Big Brother means that ratings have to be displayed differently. I'd argue for a show/hide table to clarity's sake. Geoking66talk 14:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the show/hide, but also we could drop the table if there was a source elsewhere which listed all the ratings in one place so that our summary would be a summary of the information from that source, as it stands I don't think that exists. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Maybe source to here? Of course have in-line sources, but have that in the external links section. D.M.N. (talk) 14:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
We used to source directly to BARB, the company that does official ratings (which are not the same as the overnight ratings we get the day after, these are published about a week after the airing of the show); I don't see why we can't do it again.Geoking66talk 02:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The thing is Geoking and Darren, can't you see that the table is hard to maintain and source and that most of the information in it would be trivial? DJ 14:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

However, the prose would just be either too long if we included enough to make it meaningful to the reader and if we wanted it to be manageable it'd be far too short to be useful. Geoking66talk 15:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
That's not a very good excuse. In which case, find a compromise. DJ 02:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
The compromise might be to have each week as a section then bullet point the Days in that week. The same could be done to the Summary as well Adamml13 (talk) 10:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Bullet points do not fit with the MoS, separate paragraphs will be enough. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
You can't just blindly follow the MoS; it has its purpose for general articles but in certain scenarios it may be overridden. Big Brother happens to be an area in which the MoS just does not function well for the type of article that we're trying to write. That isn't to say that it should be ignored, but in circumstances such as BB articles it doesn't work properly. Geoking66talk 19:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not blindly following the MoS, but this is meant to be an encyclopaedia, not a BB fansite. The ratings table stopped dead last year, and the Saturday to Thursday programs are rarely of interest. If there is a live show then the ratings get reported, at the end of the series someone will talk about how ratings are down on last year, the salient points can be summed up in a few paragraphs. If you want to put a table in and make it invisible then I have no problem with that, and of we can get sourced figures for every single program then it may help get an FA, but otherwise it will end up like last year and ad nothing of interest which cannot be summed up in about 300 words. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

If the housemates nominate on Tuesday...

...does that mean that we'll have two "Week 1" columns in the nomination table? As in the BB universe, Week 1 is 7 days plus the remaining days until the Friday. DJ 17:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Probably there will be two columns for Week 1, but I would wait for C4 to confirm when first nominations take place before inserting the column MSalmon (talk) 17:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Above, someone commented on 14 weeks. Personally, I think that the 1st week started on Thursday and ended on Sunday making the 2nd Week start today (Monday 8th), therefore making the series 14 weeks long. If we did make Thursday to Sunday part of week one, that would make the 1st Week a 10 Day week. Adamml13 (talk) 10:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Since BB has launched on a day other than Friday the first week is defined by the first eviction on the Friday following launch night, which is usually either day 8 or 9. There is no need to break this weekend off and have one week of 4 days and one week of five days, as it would verge on OR. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Week 1 nominations

Shouldn't the first round of nominations say No Nominations or not? MSalmon (talk) 14:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Update: Ok, I have changed 'Housemate' to say 'No Nominations' because if you want to know who is a housemate and who wasn't look at the bottom of the table. MSalmon (talk) 15:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I've reverted to Housemate for consistency with last year's table in which Lisa, Luke, Mario and Stephanie failed their task. At this stage of the game, as last year, there has been an eviction but no nominations yet. MegaPedant (talk) 15:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Isn't that what the notes are at the bottom of the table are for? MSalmon (talk) 15:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
FWIW I don't think the table is quite right as it stands at the moment. I feel it ought to reflect the state of the House at the time the public voted. In other words, there should be some clear distinction between those housemates who passed tasks and those who were elevated to housemate status by the public vote plus, of course, the special case of Beinazir, the evictee. The problem I had with MSalmon's edit is that it removed information without adding any of its own: there were no nominations so putting every person (housemate and non-housemate) in the category of No Nominations adds nothing. Have a look at the first column of last year's table and comment, please. The note 1 at the bottom of the table is largely redundant. MegaPedant (talk) 15:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
The six housemates up for public vote should be listed as "non-housemates" in the table as they were non-housemates when the voting lines opened and the reason they were put up for public vote is because they were non-housemates. This would be consistent with previous years, when if there are no nominations, and there's some special reason they're up, it's given in the table. See Week 1 of 2008, Week 9 of 2007, Week 1 of 2006 and Week 7 of 2004. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that would do. In fact it was like that for a while but someone changed it. MegaPedant (talk) 16:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've made that change. I think it looks better and conveys the most information. Hopefully editors will read this discussion before reverting it. MegaPedant (talk) 17:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

If the aim of the Nominations table is to represent a snapshot of the state of the House at the time of the public vote then it currently satisfies that requirement. MegaPedant (talk) 18:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Broadcasts section

This section begins with "The majority of Big Brother is screened using daily highlights programmes". I removed the words "The majority of" on the grounds that the sentence isn't actually true. Daily highlights programmes make up about an hour per day of coverage, while live coverage, though reduced, makes up about seven times this. However, the original wording has been reverted. Can whoever did that (Dalejenkins) change the wording to make their intention clear, please? MegaPedant (talk) 02:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Update: Dalejenkins, I've just noticed your edit summary for the above: "It is the "majority", as more people watch and it shows things that the live feed does not." Apologies for not spotting it before. I agree with the sentiment but the fact remains that the sentence as it appears in the article is untrue. I'm quite happy with it if "The majority of" is removed but you obviously are not, therefore can you rework it to convey your intended meaning, please? MegaPedant (talk) 11:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, the paragraph about Channel 4 no longer making donations to charity from its income from the premium-rate voting lines seems out of place in this section, as it has nothing to do with the broadcasts. MegaPedant (talk) 02:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

it should be in the lead. In fact a lot of the structure of the program should be in the lead. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
As you have a clear idea of what should be where, would you like to do the tidying? The other thing that stands out is the repetition of the 13 week duration and the prize money. MegaPedant (talk) 11:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I will do once I get home, I'm at work, or Workapedia if you will. I can revert but nothing else. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I moved it myself but it's been reverted. MegaPedant (talk) 17:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Live feed

The length of controversy and coverage surrounding the live feed issue has meant that I split it into a sub-section for now. If any more notable, controversial events occur we'll have to start a "Criticism and controversy" section. DJ 19:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Holding off on FA aspirations

Suddenly, it seems as though a number of users on this page have been heralding that we try to make this article featured. That's a great aspiration and one that I'm glad to work on, but for now should it be our first priority? Would we be better served editing our heads off on minutiæ or clearly and consicesly reporting information and whittling down the article what ends up being important during the series? The latter seems more appropriate; the merciless arguments are stalling any sort of progress on this page. Geoking66talk 23:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It was first mentioned longer ago than you might think; on 5 June by two editors within 11 minutes of each other! I've mentioned it since but with more realism than enthusiasm. MegaPedant (talk) 03:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
What is currently being stalled, other than the nominations yesterday not much has happened, other than the housemate tasks. I think that a GA or FA is easier to do from the ground up than later on. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Ditto Darren. DJ 18:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
In the meantime shouldn't we give the article some sort of rating? I suggest High importance and Start quality. MegaPedant (talk) 12:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
High and C-class, as it has refs. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
High and C-class it is then. MegaPedant (talk) 18:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Charity voting

One user has argued that the paragraph on the removal of charity voting does not belong in the Broadcasting section, as it is not related to broadcasting, and has suggested that it should be deleted altogether as it fails WP:TRIVIA. I completely disagree on both counts, as the issue is related to broadcasting and has recieved coverage from third party, reliable sources, passing WP:RS and WP:TRIVIA. Comments? DJ 18:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

No I didn't. Go back and read what I wrote. MegaPedant (talk) 18:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Here's my opinion, to save others having to go and find it: "I don't mind people undoing my edits but I wish you'd read the talk page first. The paragraph about Channel 4's announcement that it would no longer make charitable donations from its income from premium rate phone lines does not belong in the Broadcasts section. You may argue that it should not be in the lead either, which is fine by me. Please put it somewhere else or delete it as irrelevant trivia. This has been discussed on the talk page and the lead was suggested by another editor. MegaPedant (talk) 17:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)" MegaPedant (talk) 18:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I then recieved another comment with personal comments, which appears to have been forgotten about... DJ 18:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
For pity's sake stop snivelling and grow up, Dale. If you start a message with "You appear to be wrong" as though you alone are in a position to decide, I'm going to call you patronising. MegaPedant (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

And you're again using personal attacks. DJ 18:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Had you started your message with "I'm afraid I disagree" and then given a reason I would have had no cause to find your attitude patronising. MegaPedant (talk) 19:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
you've done the same thing by reverting my edit which removed wholly unimportant (as far as WP:Lead is concerned) detail about the show being approved 3 years ago and that it was confirmed during 2009 Celeb. BB. These are unimportant, certainly in comparison to the charity/revenue stream details which you have removed. I intend to do a rewrite and if you wish to discuss my changes please do so here. leaky_caldron (talk) 19:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
To return to the subject, the paragraph in question is about how Channel 4 has decided to spend some of its revenue and has no place in the Broadcasts section. If a suitable place can't be found for it, it should be deleted. MegaPedant (talk) 19:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, completely disagree with that comment. DJ 20:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

If not suitable for the lead (it could be) how about in "Pre series": It seems to be quite an important announcement IMO. Or how about the Big Brother (UK) article? leaky_caldron (talk) 20:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Well "Pre-series" doesn't fit (it was confirmed after the programme started) and the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article as a whole (WP:LEAD). I feel that "Broadcasts" is the only logical place. DJ 20:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
The Broadcasts section is not in any way a logical place and should not be used as a dumping ground for paragraphs that don't fit anywhere else. I think you're confusing Channel 4 (the broadcaster) with the programmes it commissions (the broadcasts). The decision on how the broadcaster spends part of its income has no place in a section discussing the programmes. MegaPedant (talk) 20:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Nominations total table

Would it be ok for me or someone to add a nominations total table? MSalmon (talk) 18:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I think not. It contradicts WP:OR if we're going for GA/FA, its a waste of space and a little trivial - see point 3 of WP:IINFO. Wikipedia is not a fansite and if people really want to work it out, I'm sure they can add themselves. DJ 18:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Then why was it on last years article? MSalmon (talk) 18:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Because it shouldn't be there. DJ 18:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Then why don't you remove it? MSalmon (talk) 18:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I think this is another thing that can be countered with reference in the prose weekly summary. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
How does simple addition count as OR? Geoking66talk 20:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
No third party sources, just a compilation of this page's information. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
WP:SYN answers this one. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, why should simple addition be included? If readers really want to, they can add up themselves. Like I said, this is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. DJ 20:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but count through the whole table?!?! That seems a bit ridiculous to me. Dt128 20:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
What is ridiculous? Looking for one name and adding up every occurrence of them? As it is we had four tables, nomination, summary, total and ratings. We don't need them all. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Try counting out in the table all the nominations for Richard during BB7, it may look simple on talk but in reality it's quite difficult and easy to mess up. Geoking66talk 18:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
why not include the thing but with the hide/reveal option? leaky_caldron (talk) 18:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
What about having it as an extra column on the nomination table? MSalmon (talk) 18:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes we DO need a nominations total table! Besides, it would be unreasonable to expect readers not to make a few mistakes when counting through nominations. Dt128 19:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Then they start counting again. Are we writing for six year olds? Darrenhusted (talk) 21:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
obviously, as has been said, it isn't overly difficult to see the total numbers of nominations through counting, but from an encyclopedia's point of view, I would suggest that having the table demonstrates clearly the overall popularity of a contestant throughout the series; it allows the reader to easily gauge the feeling in the house, and in the wider public, of the housemate, by seeing these figures. Also, it helps to compare with other years. I feel that they are a useful piece of information and I think they serve a useful purpose on this particular page. (Alexanderb101 (talk) 00:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC))

Outrageous. I've removed it yet again. I'm sorry, but common sense decrees that, however "difficult", people can count. Again, this is NOT a fan site, it is an encyclopedia. DJ 23:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

is there a notable diference between the suggested total of nominations for each HM and the totals shown hereUnited_Kingdom_general_election,_2005#results for the seats and votes columns? Of course anyboby but a 6 year old could add them up I suppose :). Anyway, rather than a whole new table why not a new column as suggested above? The article is obviously WIP so waiting until the end seems a little bit pointless. leaky_caldron (talk) 17:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually those totals are published by HM Stationary as part of a House of Parliament research paper as seen here which is the main source for the whole of that election article. So far no one has done the same for BB. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. And besides, I don't think that a UK election has the same notability as a realtity TV programme. DJ 18:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

that, I'm afraid, is a non-arguement. Consistency is the key. Leave it out because of WP:OR if you must, but not for notability reasons. It's only minor data totals at issue here. leaky_caldron (talk) 19:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Then show us, in a sandbox, what you want to do. Use last year's nominations. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

<---------------------this would do--------------------->

Housemate Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7 Week 8 Week 9 Week 10 Week 11 Week 12 Week 13 Nominations received
Day 4[10] Day 6[11]
Angel Non-
Housemate		 Dogface,
Sophia
Cairon Housemate Sree,
Charlie		 1
Charlie Housemate Sophia,
Halfwit		 3
Dogface Housemate Charlie,
Sree		 1
Halfwit Housemate Sree,
Lisa		 6
Karly Housemate Halfwit,
Marcus		 1
Kris Housemate Halfwit,
Sophia
Lisa Housemate Halfwit,
Karly		 2
Marcus Non-
Housemate		 Lisa,
Sree		 3
Noirin Housemate Halfwit,
Sophia		 1
Rodrigo Housemate Cairon,
Siavash
Siavash Non-
Housemate		 Charlie,
Halfwit		 1
Sree Non-
Housemate		 Sophia,
Marcus		 4
Sophia Non-
Housemate		 Saffia,
Noirin		 Evicted
(Day 9)		 6
Saffia Housemate Sophia,
Marcus		 Walked
(Day 8)		 1
Beinazir Non-
Housemate		 Evicted
(Day 4)		 0
Nomination
note 		See
note 1		 none
Against
public vote 		Angel,
Beinazir,
Marcus,
Siavash,
Sophia,
Sree[10]		 Halfwit,
Sophia[11]
Walked none Saffia[12]
Evicted Beinazir
6.8%[13]
to become a housemate 		Sophia
91.2%[12]
to evict

<------------------------------------------------> leaky_caldron (talk) 20:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

You just answered your own question there. "minor". DJ 19:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if this sounds stupid, but I don't think it has yet been answered properly: why is it that every other year we have a nominations total table, but not this year? Surely there should be consistancy? (please don't delete all the other years' tables because of this!!). Thanks! PS. I think Leaky Cauldron's suggestion would be a good alternative if a full table isn't possible for whatever reason. Alexanderb101 (talk) 20:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually logic would say delete all the other tables, not add one to this article. As it stands I think we should go with l_c's extra column, at least until the end of this series. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't agree...if a nominations total table was deemed acceptable for the past 9 years then it's hard for some people to see why it's not this year. But I agree with you that the extra column on the table shown above is more than an adequate replacement and is a good compromise! Alexanderb101 (talk) 22:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Alexander; the argument of consistency with previous articles is quite valid. However, I don't like the placement of the nomination totals, but if we can't agree on a better place then the column should be thinner so as not to be distracting. Geoking66talk 23:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry but it's a clear violation of Wikipedia's policy on original research to include this column in the table. Yes the last nine series have a table, but that's no reason to include one here when it's against policy. I don't know why they're still there. People have obviously added them at some point and they haven't been noticed or removed or people didn't care until now, I don't know. But please, read WP:SYN, and don't allow this column to be added in the table. It doesn't matter that people will want to know how many nominations someone got. It needs a reference all of its own, not done by someone adding it up themselves. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
but this does not contravene WP:SYN because that requires the use of multiple sources to come to a conclusion and as we all know, the source of the nom. information is simply the table itself and that is derived from a single source - Big Brother. leaky_caldron (talk) 21:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I think two different episodes of Big Brother are two separate sources, and until there's a single source saying "this housemate has received this many nominations in total", we shouldn't be saying it. Total nominations per week would be fine, though. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
here is a single source of all the BB9 nominations [[2]]. By the looks of it BB10 has the same noms. history page. This is definatively a single source so does not contravene WP:SYN. Furthermore, I think that the total column is permitted here: WP:OR#Routine Calculations. leaky_caldron (talk) 22:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
If BB10 has the same noms history page, then there's no problem. What was the fuss all about? :) AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
BB10 does indeed have a nominations history page at [[3]]. MegaPedant (talk) 00:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That is not acceptable here, as it is a primary source. The nominations totals need to be highlighted by reliable, third-party sources. DJ 16:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you are totally wrong but if you wish to remove all noms. tables from BB articles on the basis that C4/BB is not an acceptable source please feel free! Before doing so, take a look again at WP:PRIMARY and point out where the straightforward use of published data without interpretation is specifically prohibited. leaky_caldron (talk) 17:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Primary sources are perfectly acceptable as long as their content is not being interpreted in any way. When adding together votes there is only one possible interpretation (one plus one can only ever equal two). Thus, for example, the fact that Halfwit received nine nominations this week is beyond dispute. MegaPedant (talk) 22:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Broken refs

Refs 38 and 39 in the nominations table have somehow become crossed over. MegaPedant (talk) 19:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Then fix them. DJ 19:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Fixed. MegaPedant (talk) 19:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
One or two of them are beginning to die, I notice. MegaPedant (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Consensus

I've been getting a lot of replies recently that my additions aren't "valid" because there has been no consensus on the material that I've added (this goes for other users as well). The whole point of Wikipedia is that you can edit anything that is in some way relevant and useful for the article. Anyone who has been reverting this has violated the fundamental principle of the site. Now onto my main point, there's a lot of FA talk around here by one or two users, but since when have we had consensus on this? It's never been brought up as a formal section within talk, and I'm sure assumptions aren't valid either. So before my edits get reverted because someone thinks that adding a table or putting in nominations (whose source is the show itself) is not FA quality and uses consesus rationale, think about how there has been no consensus on FA status before you tell me that my edits were not the result of it either. Geoking66talk 20:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, I removed the nominations as the show wasn't to be broadcast till about 6 hours later - do you have a crystal ball? Secondly, consensus is not needed for a FA/GA nomination. DJ 20:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I would go with WP:BRD and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. So far this is the first time that the layout and information be added to this article has been discussed before it has been added. These articles have a habit of bloating up past 100,000k before the mid point is reached, which is fine for fans, but this article is not being written for the fans, neither is it a place to dump minute by minute information. I think that we have had a consensus by inertia, and the previous years articles would be almost unreadable to anyone who hasn't seen the program. As a fan I like the nominations, ratings and totals tables, but we should ask ourselves do they actually contribute anything to the articles. As for GA or FA ambition the aim of the whole project (BIGBRO and Wikipedia in general) is that every article be at least a GA, and in the long run an FA. If you wish to build tables of the information in some sandboxes then let an FA reviewer advise on if they would enhance the article then I have no problem with that, but look at other TV FAs and you see few tables and fewer bullet points. The ratings table last year died after the halfway point, no one could argue it enhanced the article, and as bizarre as it seems in the last three years others have argued that the nominations totals table is WP:OR, as there is no third party source that backs it up, it is essentially a compilation of information from this wiki. I would like to see this article be a GA, then an FA, and possibly in a year a TFA. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd appreciate it if you stopped assuming everyone had the same viewpoint as you. On ratings, you're treating a show that airs over 85 episodes in the same manner as one that airs once weekly. They are not comparable (by the way no place on the internet has a comprehensive archive of such BARB ratings including percentage shares, deleting it is denying information to people). You're treating the summary the same way as well. Of course I'd like to see this page concise and readable and I'd be very happy if it reached FA, but let's face the facts: we can't work under the assumption that it will reach FA status. Sure, seeing the week 1 paragraph is nice, but once we get to week 7, the sheer volume of prose will make it just as unreadable as you describe the table. Show/hide is perfectly acceptable, it gives readers the right to select what they wish to see and to hide, improving readability for all users. Did I ever say we needed excessive minutiae? No, I did not. Geoking66talk 15:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
"the sheer volume of prose will make it just as unreadable as you describe the table" So long as the prose is kept under control I don't see it bloating up as much as you suggest. And if it does then I am not opposed to it being tabulated, I'm saying that we should try something different this year. Rather than this becoming a poorly written fan page (as BB1-7 resemble) let's aim higher, let's try to make this page the best it can be. I don't know why that seems like an unreachable goal. Every article on Wikipedia should be trying to be an FA, they shouldn't be happy with being stuck as a C-Class or B-Class. What is the point of Wikiprojects if not to gather people together to improve articles? I think WP:BIGBRO is stuck just recounting what is happening and not striving for better articles. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Geoking; in regards to the ratings; if there's no reliable, secondary sources, then the information clearly isn't notable and therefore should not be included in an encyclopedia. As I have said various times - this is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. It has been decided in previous discussions that we only include notable ratings (evictions, specials, launch, final, series average), delivered in a prose style. We're denying people of infomation? Read WP:EFFORT. Again, encyclopedia, not fan page. I AM, however, starting to think that the weekly summary would be better in a table. DJ 15:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

How about this, once I get home I will convert the table from Big Brother 2006 (UK), a B-class article, into prose. As BB7 lasted thirteen weeks then it is likely this article will be the same length. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
That summary is very bare, but if you are up to it, then it seems like a great idea. DJ 15:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I think that summary is around the correct length, but let me show you the prose, then we can judge. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I have converted the BB7 article to prose. The 13 weeks run to c1400 words, or around 107 words a week. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Oooh it looks good... DJ 19:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This is also worth a look. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
So is this. DJ 19:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I think it looks better than it did but it doesn't read well. It needs a bit of spit and polish IMHO. Consider replacing "The housemates also had to stop milk from emptying out of a tank. Imogen was secretly told the real task, to empty more than half of the milk, without the other housemates' knowledge, and she succeeded" with In a task with a twist, the housemates had to prevent the volume of milk in a leaky tank from dropping below a certain level. Imogen, who had secretly been made aware of the true nature of the task, succeeded in foiling her fellow housemates' efforts. Have a look at Big Brother UK#Overview and see if you think it's an improvement over how it was. MegaPedant (talk) 20:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree it needs a polish, I was just trying to get it converted, and that took about half an hour. I wanted more eyes on it before I tried to do anything else. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Is there anything in WP:MOS that would support the use of bold to highlight the first occurence of each week number, Week 1, Week 2 etc? This would aid readability for those looking for waypoints in what is still going to be a lengthy piece of prose. leaky_caldron (talk) 20:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I did that on Dumped and it got to GA - seems OK with me. DJ 20:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't bold because I wasn't sure, but I would be in favour of it. Also I've rejigged the overview on the main page. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I bolded it. I think it's an improvement Big Brother 2006 (UK)#Weekly Summary. leaky_caldron (talk) 21:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
If everyone is happy then we can try and make this year match that format, try to keep the whole thing under 1750 words, and if we keep large twists out as separate explainations (like the Golden Tickets for BB7) that shouldn't be too difficult. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I think its workable. 1750 words might be tough but we'll see how it goes. I was going to suggest a sub-heading for each week but the bolding is a neater and cleaner way of adding just a little separation to the paragraphs. Darren, I like what you did with Big Brother UK#Overview. Your treatment was much more brutal than mine (I tried to keep as much of the original information as possible) but it's better for it, though I'm not fully happy with the second paragraph. I feel the nomination/voting/eviction process ought to be described in that chronological order. I'll mull it over. Quite honestly, I'd personally rather concentrate on that article (which is rated Top on the importance scale) and this article than go back to 2006. MegaPedant (talk) 03:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I think that if we agreed that this format is better then I will run through all of the remaining 8 BB articles and revamp them. I went with 2006 as it was the one I remember the clearest in terms of twists and evictions, and also was a B-class which used to be GA. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. It's all very worthwhile if you can afford the time to do it! MegaPedant (talk) 11:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
And I am all about brutal trimming. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Lucozade Energy Idents

Are these really Idents as described in the Idents article? That article describes channel idents. The BB sponsorship ads. for Lucozade Energy are really only related to the Programme intro and commercial break start and end. I know that the description Ident is used in the cited link, but it seems like marketing jargon rather that refering to the type of Ident in the linked wiki article. Any thoughts please? leaky_caldron (talk) 10:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You're quite right. They are properly called break bumpers, commercial bumpers or simply bumpers. I've changed it. Note that the Commercial bumper article uses Big Brother as an example. MegaPedant (talk) 10:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
good stuff. thanks. leaky_caldron (talk) 10:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Should changes applied to this article be applied to future Big Brother articles?

I just wanted to be clear, the changes that were applied to this article (no summary table, sourcing nomination/voting table, etc.) be applied to future articles like Big Brother 11 (U.S.)? Since the upcoming American version will be viewed/edited just as much as this article I think we should apply these changes to Big Brother 11 USA as well to keep with the goal of standardization of all Big Brother articles. After the current UK & USA editions end we can go back to previous articles and standardize them as well. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 00:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

For better or worse this seems to have become a centralised discussion on the general format of all BB articles. I would say bring it up on the BBUS11 talk page and redirect them here. Then it may be worth finding a place on the BIGBRO talkpage and revamping the MoS. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I brought it up on the BB11 USA talk page, most likely it won't become active until the start of Big Brother 11 USA. I say we should start to implement it on the next USA season. Also I have one more question, DJ & Geoking maybe able to help out, with the USA articles we have included information from the live feed as it happens instead of waiting for the television broadcast. With the USA this is much noticeable since it just has three episodes per week. I noticed that in the table above that live feed information is not acceptable, so would we apply this (no live feed information) to the USA article as well even with RealNetworks implementing a "flashback" feature? ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 20:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Table Sources

Instead of having sources at various spots in the table would it be acceptable to have a row labeled "Sources" which contains all of the sources for the week like this. (Note: for this example I removed some housemates to save space.)

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7 Week 8 Week 9 Week 10 Week 11 Week 12 Week 13
Day 4 Day 6
Angel Non-
Housemate		 Dogface,
Sophia
Cairon Housemate Sree,
Charlie
Saffia Housemate Sophia,
Marcus		 Walked
(Day 8)
Beinazir Non-
Housemate		 Evicted
(Day 4)
Nomination
note 		See
note 1
Against
public vote 		Angel,
Beinazir,
Marcus,
Siavash,
Sophia,
Sree		 Halfwit,
Sophia
Walked none Saffia
Evicted Beinazir
6.8%
to become a housemate
Source [13] [10] [11] [14]

^Note 1 : On Day 1, the sixteen people who entered the house were not officially housemates; they had to gain housemate status. In order, Rodrigo and Noirin, Lisa, Kris, Charlie and Saffia, Karly, Freddie and Sophie, and Cairon gained housemate status. As they did not complete a challenge successfully, Angel, Beinazir, Marcus, Siavash, Sophia, and Sree faced a public vote on Day 4 to decide which five remaining non-housemates would be given housemate status. The one with the least number of votes was evicted.[10]

♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 00:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to say it looks neater but it removes information because it's no longer obvious to which box each reference belongs. MegaPedant (talk) 02:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Keep the sources row, it's far easier to read the table that way. Geoking66talk 15:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


New "Controversy" section added

I mentioned earlier up (in the "Broadcasts section" section, to be precise) that if any more controversial issues surrounding the programme, bar the live feed saga, were to come up then it would be best to add a section of this nature. Due to the criticism of Saffia's involvement from Kidscape, I have started such a section. Just a few queries - is it too low down in the article? Should it be named "Controversy" or "Criticism and controversy"? As usual, feel free to make any edits and reply here. DJ 20:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the location is fine. The material is all worthy of mention but being at the bottom it doesn't dominate the article and make it unduly negative. I'm feeling that "Criticism" ought to be in its name somewhere as I don't suppose either Channel 4 or Saffia (her family and friends notwithstanding) received much support for their decisions. MegaPedant (talk) 03:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


New interview format

Should the information about the new interview format be included anywhere in the article as it was confirmed by Davina on her Twitter page? MSalmon (talk) 10:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

As with everything to do with this article we should wait until after the event, rather than trying to pre-empt. Plus twitter is not an RS. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok, just wanted to make sure MSalmon (talk) 11:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I found 2 reliable sources [4][5]. Will add them in now. HOWEVER, would it be too WP:OR to say that the new format is similar to The Apprentice: You're Fired? DJ 16:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
It would. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Ref 46 is now a dead link. See here Dt128 19:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

No it is not[6]. And besides, wouldn't it have been more helpful to fix this issue, if there was one, yourself instead of posting it here? DJ 10:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
That seems unnecessarily harsh, DJ. If it needed fixing, couldn't you just have fixed it yourself silently? On the subject of links, I see that two or three have already really died and that as many as 20 of the current 57 are references to Digital Spy articles. Is that likely to become a problem and ought we to be looking for more diverse sources? MegaPedant (talk) 15:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think fix it yourself is harsh. I enjoy a natter about stuff on the the talkpage as much as the next guy, but fixing links is not something which needs a discussion. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Suggesting that someone be bold isn't in itself harsh. In the event it doesn't appear that the link did need fixing, so it might have been better simply not to respond to the original message, assuming it to have been written in good faith, rather than adopting a dismissive tone. Perhaps the source was temporarily unavailable or unreachable when Dt128 ran the check. MegaPedant (talk) 16:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

MegaPedant argues that some of the links have died. I just went through every single one and noticed that not one is "dead". I do notice, however, that this user added 2 references to the Sun and BBSpy - both unreliable sources who have a habit of deleting their articles. DJ 15:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The existing links are currently all alive. The ones that died have already been removed as a bot had changed them into {{deadref}}s. If you don't like the links I've provided then remove them and put in more reliable ones of your own finding. However, I do think too much reliance is being placed on too few sources. MegaPedant (talk) 16:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I replaced some DS sources with those from the Daily Mail (which I think we should use more often). On the whole, I think we have a good range of sources and there's not that much of a problem, but less reliance on DS would be good. DJ 16:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
In doing so you've messed up the reference to Big Brother doubling the price of every item on the shopping list (ref 37). MegaPedant (talk) 16:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I also feel DJ was wrong to remove the report that Noirin has grown weary of her "moustache and glasses" as they are the sacrifice that won her housemate status. The item may not be long term noteworthy but for the time being it is. It had a DS reference as well as a Sun reference. MegaPedant (talk) 16:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I suggest that users take advantage of a sandbox, any section you wish to add put in a sandbox, link here and at the end of a week we can agree what the weekly summary should add. If she is thrown out because she got rid of her glasses then it is significant, otherwise I think it will have little importance. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
My opinion is that the paragraph of the Summary section that is relevant to the current week (week two, as I'm writing this) should be constantly evolving and only when the week is over should it be set, comparatively speaking, in stone. I think it should contain short-term noteworthy detail with the option to remove it later. This article is different from many other articles because the subject matter is on-going and I don't think it's wrong to show the article as work in progress. Otherwise why don't we all keep quiet for three months and reconvene when it's all over and then write about it? MegaPedant (talk) 16:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
We are, after all, continuously being exhorted to be bold. In similar vein, I really don't see anything wrong with having a table of nomination totals for the time being. Whatever rating this article is going to get it won't get it until it's complete, which can't possibly happen before the winner is declared. So, with so many editors wanting such a table I say let them have one as it can always be removed (consensus permitting) later. MegaPedant (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for posting her if that's not allowed, but since I wasn't sure what to do about it, I posted it on the talk page instead! Dt128 20:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Of course it's allowed, so there's really no need to apologise. You acted in good faith and did not deserve any criticism. MegaPedant (talk) 00:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

FAQs are total ownership

I got on talk today to see any new developments as usual, and the first thing I see is this FAQ section at the top. I don't have a problem with it in its purpose, but what was written is almost entirely verbatim from certain editors, leading me to believe that what's gone on here is complete and total article ownership. For example, the first question has a response directly from the first post by DJ without any regard to the subsequent discussion during which any dissenting views were almost entirely ignored. This is completely unacceptable by Wikipedia standards. Geoking66talk 23:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

  • I agree. I have not edited this article but I have been reading the discussion on the talk page and subsequent pages of guidelines. The FAQ, which is supposed to represent the general consensus, instead states "I suggest that only about 1/4 of the sources..." and "Website I reccomend are." The use of "I" shows this is not representative of a general consensus but of one or a couple of editors making decisions without discussion and a consensus of all the editors. We don't have to rush to make changes on the article; we have until the end of the program before it can be nominated for GA and FA. I therefore suggest that we slow down, talk about the issues, hold a straw vote if we have to and fix the article after decisions are made. Z1720 (talk) 02:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I think this will be moot once the task force is set up, but there are plenty of articles on my watchlist which have FAQs to stop the same questions being brought back for discussion when an issue has been settled. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I agree that a FAQ is necessary. I am against adding questions to the FAQ that have not reached a general consensus on this talk page. Z1720 (talk) 14:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
So, is the FAQ going to be rewritten in order better to represent the consensus? MegaPedant (talk) 02:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
No consensus was reached and any attempt to was completely ignored and disregarded. If anything at all, the FAQ should be scrapped pending further review. Geoking66talk 04:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I've removed it, it was pretty much total nonsense. The only part that even comes close to resembling a proper FAQ as used in decent articles was the point about why you can't add things you see on the live feed. A FAQ should represent specific long term interpretations of policy, it has no use outlining various content decisions a few people have made, because consensus can change. You certainly don't add things in a FAQ that represent consensus when that is patently false. The FAQ should represent a solid representation of cast iron consensus. The level of repetition on this page barely warrants one anyway. Others have it right that these sort of decisions are more appropriately reflected in a topic specific manual of style, but those editors pre-disposed to owning this entire subject should be aware that the order of precedence is Policy>Guidline>Topic Guides. MickMacNee (talk) 12:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

  1. ^ a b c d "TV Preview: Jade: As Seen On TV – E4, 10pm". This is Staffordshire. 26 May 2009. Retrieved 29 May 2009.
  2. ^ French, Dan (27 May 2009). "12.8 million tune in for third 'Talent' semi". Digital Spy. Retrieved 1 June 2009.
  3. ^ a b c d "Big Brother's Big Quiz". Borehamwood Times. 27 May 2009. Retrieved 29 May 2009.
  4. ^ a b c d "Big Brother: A Decade in the Headlines". Sky News. 27 May 2009. Retrieved 29 May 2009.
  5. ^ Dent, Grace (29 May 2009). "Grace Dent's 10 unsung Big Brother heroes". The Guardian. Retrieved 30 May 2009.
  6. ^ "Satellite Pick of the Day - June 01, 2009". California Chronicle. 1 June 2009. Retrieved 1 June 2009.
  7. ^ French, Dan (27 May 2009). "12.8 million tune in for third 'Talent' semi". Digital Spy. Retrieved 1 June 2009.
  8. ^ Dent, Grace (29 May 2009). "Grace Dent's 10 unsung Big Brother heroes". The Guardian. Retrieved 30 May 2009.
  9. ^ "Satellite Pick of the Day - June 01, 2009". California Chronicle. 1 June 2009. Retrieved 1 June 2009.
  10. ^ a b c d Routledge, Rebecca (6 June 2009). "Cairon wins final housemate place". Digital Spy. Retrieved 6 June 2009.
  11. ^ a b c Grieves, Jen (10 June 2009). "Freddie, Sophia up for eviction". Digital Spy. Retrieved 10 June 2009.
  12. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference sophiaevicted was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  13. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference evictionone was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  14. ^ Silverstein, Adam (11 June 2009). "Saffia leaves Big Brother house". Digital Spy. Retrieved 11 June 2009.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Big_Brother_(British_TV_series)_series_10/Archive_2&oldid=1216347762"