Talk:Big Brother 2009 (UK)/table

Permanent notices and discussions

BBUK Task Force

In November Alucard16 proposed task forces here. At the time BB was off air and I guess very few saw, but now we seem to have a lot of active editors, and a feeling that the BBUK articles need attention, I think that we should form a task force to centralise any changes. A lot of the discussions about this page will allpy to all the previous 9 BB articles. I made a start with BB7, and today I did an overhaul of the first BB article. I think that the housemates section could be trimmed, and an extra section about the aftermath of BB could be added. In addition the nom total table could be lost. If others want to take a look at that page it would be appreciated.
Also (and with the proviso that voting is evil or not).

All in favour of a task force:

Darrenhusted (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DJ 21:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Finally someone has read the project talk page :) ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 21:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Geoking66_talk 22:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MegaPedant (talk) 01:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
leaky_caldron (talk) 12:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC) I've done the noms. tables back to BB4 but BB1 - BB3 does not have a C4 BB microsite (at least not containing the noms. details). Any thoughts on the validitity of the article's tables and whether consolidation is ok?[reply]

Note: started a discussion for a BBUSA task force here. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 22:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To-do list

During the article’s protection period, I think we have a great opportunity for the regular contributors to see what problems (big or small) are apparent in the article, besides the “Housemates” section. Any more issues or comments, feel free to add them in. DJ 07:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section is very brief. It needs to be a summary of the article as a whole, rather than a few short sentences, per WP:LEAD. This isn’t something we can really get our teeth into until after the programme ends, but it’s worth bearing in mind.
”Tenth Year Commemorations” section – in development by DJ.
More positive responses needed in the ”Reception” section – in development by DJ.
”Summary” section needs slightly more detail on tasks.
”Notes” section of the “Nominations table” needs a clean-up.

I would say that the summary need to be standardised a bit, such as "In week x, housemates passed/failed the weekly task resulting in a luxury/basic budget for that week. X and Y gained the most nominations with X/Y being evicted with an xx% of the vote". Darrenhusted (talk) 11:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Such a rigid format would make for a difficult read and would look like a list disguised as prose. (This is exactly the problem with the "long option" for the Housemates section, discussed above.) I'm in favour of maintaining the chronological order of weekly events: nominations - shopping task - eviction. One thing I'd like to mention is the precision to which the public voting figures are reported. This varies between no decimal places (eg. Sree, Kris) and two (Cairon) and I would suggest that it would be better to standardise on one decimal place so that they become, in order so far, 6.8%, 91.2%, 73.2%, 81.0%, 85.0%, 63.0%, 50.4%. MegaPedant (talk) 12:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The percentage proposal looks like a good idea to me. And I agree that the summary shouldn't be so formulaic. It's frequently "In week one..."/"In week two..."/"In week three..." and this is very tedious. Maybe a little bit of "Week three saw..." or "The housemates participated in an X-themed task in week two..."? DJ 13:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would help make it more readable. MegaPedant (talk) 13:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was saying that the summary needs to stay focused on what happens in the house rather than adding reams of trivia (as in previous years). Darrenhusted (talk) 16:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see any trivia there at the moment, Darren? MegaPedant (talk) 16:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not at the moment, but all it takes for trivia to appear is for good editors to stand by and do nothing. Look at previous years, bits of trivia creep in behind refs, and once the full-protect if off this article I don't think it will be semi-protected so some of the housemate based trivia (as on the other article detailing arguments and the like) may be put in by IPs. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if we could tidy up the way some of the references are used. Consider, if you will, the first paragraph of the Viewing figures subsection. One reference (currently, in the frozen state, number 83, "Big Brother launch wins in 9 p.m. slot") is used three times by three adjacent sentences in the same paragraph. Could this not be rationalised with one instance of the reference at the end of the last sentence it backs up? Just a thought. MegaPedant (talk) 16:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah now this is my fault. Many moons ago when I was one of 4 editors getting The Apprentice (UK) up to WP:FA, the peer reviewers, FA reviewers and GA reviewers kept asking "Where's the ref for this? Where's the ref for that?". It got so tedious that we put the references at the end of every sentence, just to avoid confusion and irritability. Therefore, it's become a force of habit ever since. We can change them if you want, but I can see it leading to annoyances in the long run - it gets especially annoying when sentences get moved/deleted and the ref goes with them. DJ 18:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't change them on my account. I just wasn't sure what is the right thing to do but that explanation is a good enough reason for leaving it as it is. While on the subject of references, and something I've mentioned before but nobody commented, having the Source row in the Nominations table makes it less obvious to which cell a particular reference applies. I preferred in-line references because there was no ambiguity but I understand that others find the Source row a neater solution. Can we at least try to keep the references in the correct order? MegaPedant (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Something which may need to be included to take this above a B-class is the inclusion of dates in addition to the BB jargon of Day XX. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. WP:INUNIVERSE says that we shouldn't write about fictional events without real-life context and sourced analysis. Not only are we providing context (the Ratings/Reception/Pre-series sections) and sourced analysis (the Controversy section) but technically Big Brother isn't fiction in that sense and we're rooting it in reality by including real-life dates such as the launch and the dates in the ratings section. On that point, it's really not hard and/or a violation of WP:OR for the reader to do a simple addition to work out the date if they really wanted to (Day 50 = 4 June + 49 days). I think that we'll have to just cross this bridge when we come to it (probably at Peer Review). DJ 10:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles that we could get up to GA

The main focus whilst editing the Big Brother 2009 (UK) article this summer is to get it to a standard so we can try to achieve Good Article status. Looking through the articles that are in the scope of this task force, I feel that we could be able to get the following, with a little TLC, up to this level also. Thoughts? DJ 13:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brother 2009 (UK) [Well on our way]

How far do you think this article is away from being considered B-class? As far as I can see it meets the criteria but obviously can't cover the whole of the series until it has actually ended. MegaPedant (talk) 13:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my eyes, it's basically there. But as you say, as the series hasn't finished we can't techically class it as a B. If the programme was to finish tommorow, I really do think that it would almost automatically become a B-class article. DJ 20:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brother 2006 (UK) [Just a matter of cleanup and sourcing, Reception section needed]
Celebrity Big Brother racism controversy [Sources will be easy to find, just removal of WP:TRIVIA and focus on Aftermath section]
Controversy and criticism of Big Brother (UK) [Again, only sourcing and cleanup needed]
Jade Goody [Cleanup needed with a few more sources, which should be easy to find]
Dead Set (TV series) [What's here is good - cleanup, expansion of "Reception" and sources]
List of Big Brother 2009 housemates (UK) (WP:FL, not GA)
List of Big Brother 2008 housemates (UK) (WP:FL, not GA)
List of Big Brother 2007 housemates (UK) (WP:FL, not GA)
List of Big Brother 2006 housemates (UK) (WP:FL, not GA)
List of Big Brother 2005 housemates (UK) (WP:FL, not GA)
List of Big Brother 2004 housemates (UK) (WP:FL, not GA)

[The Housemate list articles will be easy to get up to scratch as they only focus on the participants, not the ins-and-outs of the programme itself, and will therefore be a bit of an easy ride (especially as the earlier series have companion books that we can use as sources)]