Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Big Brother
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
|---|
Contents |
[edit] Big Brother (UK)
For criticisms, could the info from Series 7 be incorporated? --Alex talk here 21:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- It can't focus too much on one season, but yeah, would be good. If you can trim it down a lot, I don't see a problem with that. talk to JD wants e-mail 21:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] New Wikipedia articles related to Big Brother
What the heck is this section meant to be about? Can we get rid of it? talk to JD wants e-mail 18:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- No it looks OK. --Alex (talk here) 18:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- It asks for new Big Brother-related articles with interesting facts to be listed. The only Big Brother-related articles that get created are hardly interesting - they're all similar to some other article that already exists. And who's actually going to list them here anyway? talk to JD wants e-mail 18:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Lol not me... --Alex (talk here) 18:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- My point exactly. Still think it should stay? talk to JD wants e-mail 19:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- No get rid... --Alex (talk here) 19:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- My point exactly. Still think it should stay? talk to JD wants e-mail 19:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Lol not me... --Alex (talk here) 18:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- It asks for new Big Brother-related articles with interesting facts to be listed. The only Big Brother-related articles that get created are hardly interesting - they're all similar to some other article that already exists. And who's actually going to list them here anyway? talk to JD wants e-mail 18:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] References to the Three Point Twist
Is the way Three Point Twist is written in articles okay as it is? The Big Brother Australia website used to write this as three-point twist and three point twist, but not Three Point Twist. If it isn't, what should it be changed to? J Ditalk 20:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Remove the sidebar things
I think the sidebars on the Big Brother (Australia), Big Brother (UK), and Big Brother (US TV series) articles should be removed. They take up space on the articles and cram all the text to the left of them up into a narrow area. They also repeat information that can be found later on in the article, and in some, in one of the first few paragraphs. The winners are much more important than the other housemates, and their names can be moved to the sections that list each season of the series; perhaps make them into tables. Information on the less important/unimportant people is already where it should be - on the article of each season. jd || talk || 11:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- No no no. The sidebars summarise the information fine. The winners are only important because the other housemates existed. --Alex (Talk) 12:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep 'em. No doubt on that one. FireSpike 21:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- Reason, please? jd || talk || 21:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- They are certainly quite long but they're wrapped in a show/hide box so they only take up space if you actually want to read them Tra (Talk) 21:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- That doesn't change the width of the table. I was thinking earlier about reasons for keeping these things, and I'm not so sure about removing them now (not for any of the reasons here), but I would still like feedback from others, and am thinking of other ways to present the information without it being in the wide sidebars. jd || talk || 22:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- They are certainly quite long but they're wrapped in a show/hide box so they only take up space if you actually want to read them Tra (Talk) 21:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- Reason, please? jd || talk || 21:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep 'em. No doubt on that one. FireSpike 21:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Article names
I'm not trying to cause an argument or push anything here, but as I can't find any of the previous discussions I started regarding this, I'm creating a new one here. I'd like to point out that the Big Brother section of the Channel 4 website says BigBrother UK in the title bar. I'd also like to point out that the Big Brother Finland article was originally named Big Brother Suomi, and that the website for this season also says Big Brother Suomi at the bottom. Big Brother Africa, although may not be looked at in the same way as it is named for a continent instead of a country, is named Big Brother Africa instead of simply Big Brother. I previously uploaded an image of an e-mail I received from Endemol Southern Star that says that the name of Big Brother Australia is Big Brother Australia. It was pointed out before that the country name is in brackets for the sake of disambiguation, but as I said somewhere before, disambiguation is not needed here as official names of the shows include the country name. I would like to know what other people think about this, and if they would now support page moves and a change to this Project's "naming conventions" should other people agree with me. jd || talk || 10:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- Agree, I think I've mentioned this before somewhere. Be prepared to relink all the redirect links though. --Alex (Talk) 14:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- If pages were moved, I'd be fully prepared to fix all of the bad redirects. jd || talk || 14:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think that the title bar of the Big Brother section of the Channel 4 website is the best source for the official show title, because it contradicts itself, i.e. it doesn't specify if 'Big' and 'Brother' should have a space between them, because both are used. Having 'UK' in the title doesn't nececarily mean that's part of the official name — many sites inclue these kinds of keywords in the title bar for SEO purposes. Tra (Talk) 15:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- What about this? Assuming you see what I see, what would you say about that? jd || talk || 16:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- Looking through the first page of results, some sites put Big Brother UK, others put UK Big Brother. When you search for it with the quotes, there are a lot less results. Basically, the main problem is that there is no one name that is consistantly used. Tra (Talk) 16:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- Guess you didn't see what I see... The first hit, Channel 4, says Big Brother UK in the website's description. Would this also be search engine optimisation? jd || talk || 16:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- That description is specified in the site's meta tags (seen by going to View Source), so yes, it is search engine optimisation. This isn't the only term they used to name the show. Looking through the meta tags, they also use 'Big Brother' and 'bigbrother', probably to make the site appear to people who do not include a space between 'Big' and 'Brother'. Also, look at the keywords they have specified:
bigbrother channel4 official UK websitethese tell you that 'Big' and 'Brother' should be written together, but do not say that 'UK' should be appended after it. Tra (Talk) 16:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- That description is specified in the site's meta tags (seen by going to View Source), so yes, it is search engine optimisation. This isn't the only term they used to name the show. Looking through the meta tags, they also use 'Big Brother' and 'bigbrother', probably to make the site appear to people who do not include a space between 'Big' and 'Brother'. Also, look at the keywords they have specified:
- Guess you didn't see what I see... The first hit, Channel 4, says Big Brother UK in the website's description. Would this also be search engine optimisation? jd || talk || 16:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- Looking through the first page of results, some sites put Big Brother UK, others put UK Big Brother. When you search for it with the quotes, there are a lot less results. Basically, the main problem is that there is no one name that is consistantly used. Tra (Talk) 16:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- What about this? Assuming you see what I see, what would you say about that? jd || talk || 16:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think that the title bar of the Big Brother section of the Channel 4 website is the best source for the official show title, because it contradicts itself, i.e. it doesn't specify if 'Big' and 'Brother' should have a space between them, because both are used. Having 'UK' in the title doesn't nececarily mean that's part of the official name — many sites inclue these kinds of keywords in the title bar for SEO purposes. Tra (Talk) 15:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- If pages were moved, I'd be fully prepared to fix all of the bad redirects. jd || talk || 14:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I'm with JD here. IMHO, he has the more valid points. The Big Brother UK website has UK in its titlebar!! godgoddingham 333 20:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, maybe I should ask again... Should anything be done about series' articles where we know the official name of a series is not just Big Brother? jd || talk || 18:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, they should be changed :) — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
This isn't getting as much attention as I expected it to... If this does end up happening, naming conventions need to be thought up. I have some in mind already, but I don't think people will like them much, as they differ for each Big Brother series. Here goes I anyway...
- For Big Brother Australia, name articles "Big Brother Australia year.
- For Big Brother UK articles, either name them "Big Brother UK series number", or "Big Brother series number (UK)".
- For Big Brother US articles, name them "Big Brother US series number" or "Big Brother series number (US)".
- For Big Brother Suomi articles, if they ever get created, name them Big Brother Suomi year.
Any opinions, valid objections, suggestions, or improvements are welcome, but unexpected. jd || talk || 22:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- I agree with JD on this one. FireSpike 17:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Project Directory
Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:
- User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory,
- User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2,
- User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory,
- User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory,
- User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory,
- User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
- User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
- User:Badbilltucker/Science directory
and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 22:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
