Talk:Pinoy Big Brother: Teen Clash 2010

Housemates

I think we need to edit the housemates' descriptions. Follow PBB Double-Up's pattern: list them according to how they entered the house, and then add a brief description in English. After all, this is an online encyclopedia. I was not able to watch the show live last night, so I hope some other person can do this. LordBelly06 (talk) 07:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• They have it in Youtube, one by one. Just search, " [Name] Introduction PBB " or on the official website, at the housemates' section, they have it in Tagalog aswell though.--CocaCirca2009 (talk) 20:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

House map

House map, anyone?--180.191.20.162 (talk) 13:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Automatic nomination

Maichel being nominated, should have his first week nominations in blue (legend for automatic nomination) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rushes7 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Use of Villa and Apartment

after the nominations table, terms "house A or B" ahould not be used, rather terms "Villa and Apartment" must be applied comment added by Rushes7 (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 19:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC).

Colors used for the Houses

Let us use the colors for the nomination table used by PBB in their broadcast. That is GREEN for Villa and ORANGE for Apartment. Aeron Valderrama (talk) 08:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

If no one will object, I will apply these colors. Aeron Valderrama (talk) 13:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Try gathering consensus first? --Eaglestorm (talk) 13:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

No one is BOTHERING to react. 112.205.222.121 (talk) 08:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP violations

DO NOT return unsourced personal opinions and observations about living people to the article without providing valid sourcing. Active Banana (talk) 17:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

All data is from the official website. Any other information from third-party sources can come later. What's your problem? --Eaglestorm (talk) 17:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Information about living people must be meticulously sourced and cited. Random claims that opinions and descriptions of people are included on TV website are not sufficient. "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". The content included any number of "Contentious" bits- claims about personal medical conditions, claims that someone is "attempting to escape reality", claims that someone has "frequent squabbles with relatives" etc etc etc. Active Banana (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's a reference. Its has all the information at the official website. (http://teens3.pinoybigbrother.com/Housemates.aspx) --TwelveOz (talk) 20:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

If any of the information is notable in that it affects a major issue about the show which needs to be mentioned, then it can be included with this as a source. There doesn't, however, seem any point in merely copying the information en masse into the article, especially anything contentious. The article is about the show, not the contestants - they aren't notable at the moment. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I would additionally posit that as the source above has a financial stake in making the people and potential conflicts appear greater to generate interest/viewers/advertising revenue, that its advertising and promotional copy would not count as a reliable source for "Contentious material" about living people. Active Banana (talk) 21:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

This conflict is the reason I decided to back off and rather find third party sources outside the network such as an entertainment website like the Philippine Entertainment Portal. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 21:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Voting History

Since the Twist about 2 houses lasted only 2 weeks, I think that the current housemate all should have the colour of their original house. Except for Tricia and Joe, who should have the colour of their new house (after they swapped). --BigOz22 (talk) 17:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:TRIVIA / WP:IINFO and list of participants

There is an IP editor who is returning a full list of participants to the article. In a previous discussion on this page, it appears that the consensus is that the inclusion of such a list is not appropriate per the guidelines. Has the consensus changed?

• remove trivial and non-encyclopedic. Active Banana (talk) 18:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
• I don't see no consensus here.--79.72.237.155 (talk) 02:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Whether or not you see a consensus, (see this comment [1] for which no one offered any opposition) you have not provided any basis why we should consider inclusion. Active Banana (talk) 16:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe that we have to follow the formats of all the recent Pinoy Big Brother articles, meaning, we have to include the full descriptions of each housemate. 58.69.13.92 (talk) 11:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

You are incorrect. Just because another article is in bad shape does not mean that we must follow that precedence here. If you show that Featured articles generally follow a certain format, THAT may carry some weight. But each article is edited independently - weighing what is appropriate for that article based on our policies and what reliable third party sources provide. Active Banana (talk) 14:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

As one of those who edit the articles of previous PBB, I'm leaning towards actually adding descriptions of each housemate. I would just like to ask what the arguments were for not including these descriptions in the first place? I just would like to know. Nanami, did you agree with this? LordBelly06 (talk) 04:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Try some of these WP:FANCRUFT / WP:TRIVIA / WP:IINFO / WP:COATRACK / WP:PLOT. An encyclopedia article gives a description ABOUT the show, it does not RECREATE the show. Active Banana (talk) 22:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Marrion gopez deletion

• Can someone please delete this page. Apparently, when the show is searched through Google, it's being redirected from the Marrion gopez page.--TwelveOz (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I have submitted a request for deletion. Active Banana (talk) 17:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

They deleted the talkpage but not the page itself.--TwelveOz (talk) 09:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I had left a note on the admins page who deleted the talk page, but got no response. I have put in another request on the page itself. We will see if it meets the WP:SPEEDY requirements, otherwise I suggest you place a request at WP:AFD. Active Banana (talk) 13:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Biographies

• I have finally figured out why the editors of the Pinoy Big Brother franchise included the biographies of the "Housemates" or the "HouseGuests" as US calls it. It is to produce uniformity throughout the while Big Brother franchises around the world. Every Big Brother franchise pages worldwide have their pages constructed on the same way as the Pinoy Big Brother page was constructed before you came. I'm sorry Active Banana, but the page must bring back the biographies, unless the Big Brother US, UK, Australia, Africa, Germany or most of the whole world for that matter changes their construction.

Please check this links of Big Brother Franchise worldwide:

Thank You.--TwelveOz (talk) 18:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

This discussion need to be in one page, please continue at Wikipedia_talk:Tambayan_Philippines#Pinoy_Big_Brother_biographies_must_be_brought_back--TwelveOz (talk) 18:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAP is not a valid reason and is CLEARLY trumped by WP:BLP Active Banana (talk) 06:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

You are CLEARLY using guidelines to push your argument and point although unnecessary, which is clearly gaming the system and proving your point experimentally. And please, stay in one page for the discussion. Until agreed on or the decision on the discussion is made, please do not remove the bios. Third party sources are on their way, so please have patience.--TwelveOz (talk) 11:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

TwelveOz you have received your final warning about introducing unsourced content about living people into articles. Do it again, and you will be blocked. If you do not want to follow Wikipedias policies, you will need to edit at some other website.Active Banana (talk) 13:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't appreciate that tone of voice, please try to be civil when having a discussion with other users. Discussions are suppose to fix the problem and not something to fight about. And please do not post immediate blocking threats on other users, specially if you are not an administrator yourself or even have an administrator to surely block a user. And please do not give other users unnecessary orders to leave wikipedia because you do not own wikipedia. And once again, please discuss this issue in one page.--TwelveOz (talk) 13:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Because I am not an administrator, I cannot actually flip the switch to block you myself (and because I have been actively editing this article I would consider myself involved and not flip the switch myself anyway). But if any editor has make reasonable attempts to get another to understand that inserting unsourced content about living people is improper and that repeatedly doing so will end with you being blocked; any administrator will be able to easily see whether or not a block is appropriate to enforce policies that have been repeatedly ignored. The warning templetes exist for that very use. But you should also note that, particularly regarding the insertion of unsourced content about living people, a block can be applied at any time with no notice. Active Banana (talk) 13:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, which is why at someway I have asked a significant amount of time to gather the sources needed. If you have only maybe patiently waited, the sources would have been in the pages as it is right now.

Please do understand that we, the other editors, are not here in wikipedia to cause harm. We are all here to help improve the page and not to destroy or vandalize it, so please do not treat us and our edits like we are vandals or somehow lower than you or anyone else because we are all editors here and as far as we are concerned you are not an administrator yourself. Inserting tags or blocking threats doesn't make you any different from us, specially from a newcomer like you who seem to have already studied the whole guidelines of Wikipedia for a short period of time. Once again, please do understand we wish only good and cause no harm on the pages, so please don't treat us like vandals. I am asking nicely on behalf of the PBB or Filipino Wikipedia community. Thank you.--TwelveOz (talk) 14:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

We can patiently wait until sources are gathered before we ADD the properly sourced biographic content. WE CANNOT PATIENTLY WAIT with unsourced content about living people sitting in the article space for someone to find and add sources. "material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who constantly or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." The fact that I keep needing to repeat this basic item makes me wonder if you have even read WP:BLP? If not, please do so. Active Banana (talk) 15:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

RE: "as far as we are concerned you are not an administrator yourself" . Please read WP:ADMIN - administrators are nothing more than editors with access to some tools that non-admins do not have. They have shown that the community trusted their ability and judgment to use those tools wisely, but they are simply editors with mops who can come in and clean up messes, they are not gods. Active Banana (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

RE: "who seem to have already studied the whole guidelines of Wikipedia". Maybe if you would spend a little time studying the guidelines and policies linked, we would not need to be having this conversation again and again and again. Active Banana (talk) 15:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I admit I made mistakes and I am sorry for that. We do have lives outside Wikipedia and not everyone can read and memorise the Wikipedia guidelines to the smallest details. But you also have to consider that you made mistakes too, no one is perfect. Swiftly drawing into a conclusion to block a user is totally unjustified.--TwelveOz (talk) 17:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The short course to Wikipedia policies, 6 pages, maybe an hour or two to read. Active Banana (talk) 17:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• WP:V - information in articles must be verifiable as having been previously published, and its subsection WP:BURDEN - the person who wants to include the content is responsible for finding the source.
• WP:BLP - (essentially a restatement of WP:V, but important enough to be called out again) information about living people in articles must be impeccably sourced, see WP:RS.
• WP:RS - sources need to have reputation for fact checking and accuracy; ie. no blogs or forums or personal web pages.
• WP:NPOV - content needs to be presented in a neutral point of view with all sides represented in rough proportion to how the topic is treated by reliable sources, ie if it reads like it was written by a fanboy or a flamer, it must be fixed or removed.
• WP:3RR - edit warring is bad.
• WP:NPA - dont call other people names.

Future re-write once the season has ended

FYI Once the run of the show is over, I intend to bring in third parties for advice on how to improve the encyclopedic quality of the article. It is very likely that the recommendations will be that the article needs to be refocused to be ABOUT the show and not a DAY BY DAY RECREATION OF the show by listing the minute details of every day. Third party sources will be needed. Active Banana (talk) 18:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

updates

the overview and the chronology section should be updated at once. those sections are already far behind on what's currently happening in the house. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicojamesbalde (talk • contribs) 04:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Janroker, 19 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Can I edit Pbb Teen clash And Can i Post a Controversy about Jenny's Forced Eviction Because Fans begin posting on Internet that Fretzie Must be evict not jenny.

Janroker (talk) 02:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC) From Janroker

Sorry, Wikipedia is not the place for this kind of discussion. :)

 Not done No real edit request here. ^Avicenna_sis @ 03:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

separate article for the HMs

do you think we should have a separate article for the HMs profiles because it makes this article too long, same for the Double Up page and for the seasons to come. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicojamesbalde (talk • contribs) 14:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

No, appearing in one show is not sufficient for notability. some people have tried, and their work got speedied, so no dice. --Eaglestorm (talk) 16:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I think what the editor is referring to is creating one article for all housemates, similar to that of Season 2's housemates. LordBelly06 (talk) 03:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

yah. like what LordBelly06 said, a separate article for the HMs section of this article so that it won't be too long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicojamesbalde (talk • contribs) 02:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

typo

{{editprotected}}In the "Week 5" section, please correct "felow" to "fellow". Nick Number (talk) 16:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. —fetch·comms 17:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Protection

{{editprotected}} I've contacted the protecting administrator about deescalating or unprotecting the article, but until action is taken, a template should appear on the article.

{{pp-vandalism|expiry=August 23, 2010}}

--Bsherr (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. —fetch·comms 17:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Reflinks

I've run Reflinks through this, and am leaving a note here as the article is protected (against vandalism, however). Reflinks just fills in bare references, so I don't think it'll be controversial. —fetch·comms 17:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pinoy Big Brother: Teen Clash 2010/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: -- Cirt (talk) 19:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I will review this article. -- Cirt (talk) 19:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of November 22, 2010, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Fails here. Significant amount of copyediting needed throughout. Article lacks a good deal of context and background about the subject matter. Would strongly recommend contacting talk pages of relevant Wikiprojects, as well as WP:GOCE, and going for a peer review, prior to nominating for another Good Article Nomination process.

2. Factually accurate?: Fails here. Lack of citations to reliable sources, specifically, secondary sources independent of the subject. Multiple entire subsections lack any citations whatsoever. Those that have cites, appear to be primary affiliated with the subject matter, and not independent. These are okay, but should not comprise the bulk of the entire article's references.

3. Broad in coverage?: Fails here. Needs additional context and background info, as mentioned above. Lacks secondary source critical commentary, analysis, and reception.

4. Neutral point of view?: Fails here. Due to over reliance upon sources affiliated directly with the subject, and lack of secondary sources and independent sources, there is a problem with POV due to weighting to sources with inherent conflict of interest.

5. Article stability? Fails here. There are concerns about WP:BLP, WP:TRIVIA, and WP:IINFO on the talk page that are not yet fully addressed.

6. Images?: Fails here. 1) File:PBBTeenClash.jpg = this image does not serve a purpose in the article, and the picture is not the subject of secondary source critical commentary in the article. 2) File:UniteBigNight.jpg = this image appears to be not free, and more info is needed, it also does not serve a purpose in the article.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— -- Cirt (talk) 14:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

BLPN

Back in April, some editors said above that there were BLP violations in this article.  There is now a discussion about this article at the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard (BLPN).Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)