Talk:Celebrity Big Brother (British TV series) series 16

Sub-headers in the Production section

Do we actually need these sub-headers? It seems that the "House" sub-header is the only one that we really need - the rest are always only a sentence or so long rather than paragraphs, and it's usually repeated info. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 15:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Housemates leaked

Here. By the BBC, not just a rough site. Worth adding? There's pictures and stuff so it's not just rumours. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 18:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Link broken. Just wait! Leaky Caldron 19:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah it got taken down. Sorry but if I find a source that may be helpful (which it isn't anymore) then I'm all in my rights to post it to see what everyone else thinks. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 19:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The links in the sidebar don't work

Is there anyway we can fix this? Right now they are automatically linking to the celebrities' first names, but the headers include their surnames too. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 15:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Only if the housemates have a separate article then it would work otherwise it wouldn't work. --MSalmon (talk) 15:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Colour key

Does there really need to be a colour key in the nominations table, and does it affect the outcome of nominations? --MSalmon (talk) 21:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't like it, it doesn't need to be there. Fair enough if UK housemates can only nominate US and vice versa, other than that it makes no sense for it to be included on the nominations table. ThisIsDanny (talk) 21:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Then I will get rid of it MSalmon (talk) 21:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done MSalmon (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

You might consider in future giving more than 10 minutes to discuss changes which other people might wish to support or comment on. Neither of you "own" these articles, despite you propensity to indicate that you do. I thought the flag icons were a great idea in the context of the series and "I do not like it" is no good reason to remove content. Get a grip. Leaky Caldron 11:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Well that was rude. As well as saying I didn't like it I gave reasons as to why I didn't think it was appropriate to be in the table, it has no affect on the outcome of nominations. ThisIsDanny (talk) 16:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

If you and your BB fanatic mates remove legitimate content without proper discussion I'll be reverting it. I've had enough of 3 people owning these articles for season after season. I might reinstate the colour codes and, whether you like it or not and rude or not, you'll be in a serious content dispute if you refuse to fully justify beyond a minor edit summary and a 10 minute talk page between 2 of you. Leaky Caldron 16:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Personally I find the colour keys quite useful. Although they may not have anything to do with nominations, the fact that they are on separate teams can still influence the outcome of who nominates who. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 10:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it can be guaranteed, given the nature of the series, that nominations will be partisan at some stage. Then the 2 editors who have peremptorily destroyed a lot of complex table work will be hoping someone is willing to do it again. I am incensed by @Msalmon: and @ThisIsDanny:'s behaviour here and seriously considered a WP:BRD. There has never been a clearer example of WP:DONTLIKEIT and WP:GANG Leaky Caldron 12:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't as if I just said I didn't like it. I explained why it wouldn't make sense for it to be there. I was quite happy to discuss both sides, and I did not change it. There was no need to be rude, just because two people have the same opinions which you disagree with. ThisIsDanny (talk) 16:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

You and your editing mate gave NO ONE the chance to discuss or disagree. "I don't like it, it doesn't need to be there." - says it all. Leaky Caldron 17:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

OMG! Another incident where ThisIsDanny can be evidently seen to be implementing his "I don't like it!" rule. His gang previously did the same thing to me when I presented a very legitimate issue[1] concerning the nominations table. He chose to basically avoid the whole conversation because he did not want to discuss something which was being done a certain way for a decade no matter how the new edition might aid the readers. I don't really care if I win an argument (Is anyone a winner here? It's wikipedia.) but at least stick around to debate an issue. I am surprised I had a supporter who clearly agreed with me but ThisIsDanny's gang (read: forum-breeders) didn't even bother because practically they didn't like it and couldn't be arsed, as members of the Big Brother project whatever, to actually take up the issue to the project. These people NEED to be stopped, like asap. I don't care how but if you want I can pack a horse tranquilizer. (I'm clearly fed up.) --LulzWhateven (talk) 18:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

That time all I said was we followed the wiki project, it was up to you if you wanted to bring that up on there. I did not say it shouldn't be like that because I didn't like it, in fact I thought it was better. And again I EXPLAINED why it's like that to begin with. You are failing to see past the "I don't like it" bits, I'm actually explaining. And I DID NOT change it, MSalmon changed it ThisIsDanny (talk) 20:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

If the colour key gets discussed and we agree to keep it then fine, it's not like I'm not willing to discuss it. I'm just saying at the moment (which I said in the first place) I don't think it's relevant as it doesn't have any impact on nominations. ThisIsDanny (talk) 20:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

If the colour key has an impact on nominations then it can be re added but for now it is not needed as nominations haven't started yet. --MSalmon (talk) 20:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

That's not the fucking point. You shut down any discussion and removed an editor's hard work after 10 minutes and it is not the first time the two of you have acted to the exclusion of others. One I don't like it and the other no edit summary. I'm warning you both, it is not acceptable and will not be tolerated. Leaky Caldron 20:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I can reinstate it if that makes you happy. --MSalmon (talk) 20:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

My happiness is not at issue. A 10 minute, 2 person team-tag discussion is not a consensus. It destroys people's efforts because you don't like it. Already 3 people here agree that it is useful. Leaky Caldron 20:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Then put it back --MSalmon (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

When I've seen colour keys used in the past in nominations table it was always because the housemates were competing in pairs and nominated as a team. For example Big Brother Mzansi 4 (South Africa), Gran Hermano 15 (Spain) and Big Brother 11 (Australia). Because these housemates won't be nominating as a team I didn't think it was needed as it has no impact. However, I've researched a little bit more and found Big Brother Brasil 14 where they were in teams and have the colour key, so I was wrong. It was never just because "I didn't like it" I clearly gave reasons. ThisIsDanny (talk) 09:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Well I think that this is a bit like Big Brother 6 (U.S.). In that season, they had pairs but didn't play in those pairs. However, the fact that they had those pairs could've influenced nominations and that's why it was useful to have the color key. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 10:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Chloe Jasmine or Chloe-Jasmine?

Which one is correct? I went with Chloe Jasmine as this is what is on the website and her Wikipedia page. But others say it is Chloe-Jasmine as that is what was on the watermark and was on her name badge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.126.177 (talk) 15:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Chloe-Jasmine is what Channel 5 use. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 09:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

House Guest section

Per WP:BRD, why not? At least consider it? Why do we always hark back to years or irrelevant precedent to justify removing content? Leaky Caldron 18:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Seriously. Should this even be considered a valid reason? I recently commented under that 'Colour key' section saying the same thing. "This is how it's being done for so and so period." is not a good enough reason. The section actually looked pretty decent. If the guest can't be included in the nominations table (and it's justified) they must have a separate guest section. Someone please put a leash on Danny. I've had it. --LulzWhateven (talk) 19:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Well sorry for trying to keep the page similar to all other series. I thought I was doing the right thing as at the moment Paul is the only guest, and when we have never had a separate section for the guests before (because there are usually just one, sometimes two - who enter as part of a task, and they're mentioned in the summary) If it was anybody else who took the section away there would be no issue. ThisIsDanny (talk) 20:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't give a toss who did it. I'm just not interested in sticking to rules that were invented years go. Apparently Jennie Bond was in the house today. There's another guest. Leaky Caldron 20:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

So... what's the problem exactly? — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 20:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I added Jennie Bond into it. I only removed it originally because we've never had it before, that's it. I was wrong to do that. ThisIsDanny (talk) 20:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Nominations table colours

Is there really any need to add the UK VS USA colours into the nominations table. It looks messy and is not following the previous series. We know who are UK and who are USA housemates and it states in the Notes section what has gone on and who nominates who for the group nominations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.126.177 (talk) 16:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Farrah's eviction

Should it be "Austin's choice to evict" or "Housemate's choice to evict" - because although Austin had the final say, the other housemates played a part by saving the others? ThisIsDanny (talk) 21:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

It would be Austin's choice (out of 2) to evict. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 21:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, thanks! ThisIsDanny (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree as it was Austin who evicted her --MSalmon (talk) 21:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Final vote percentages

Do we include them? Obviously this shows percentages for the housemates throughout the whole of the final voting, it's not broken down to show us how much out of 2 or 3 etc. [2] ThisIsDanny (talk) 06:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure. It would mean we'd have to get rid of (out of 3) and (out of 4) etc. in the table, unless we just include James and Austin's percentages. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 06:53, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the percentages because it is not sourced as there is nothing on the official website about it. --MSalmon (talk) 09:19, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Celebrity Big Brother 2 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Celebrity Big Brother 1 (U.S.) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Big Brother 1 (UK) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 12:32, 22 December 2018 (UTC)