Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Big Brother

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive

Archives

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)

[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)

[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 website these 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)
I don't understand why they'd use Big Brother three times, and UK twice, once together; but I guess that gives me something to do tomorrow then.... What about articles where we know for definite what the name is? jd || talk || 17:57, 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)

Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now moved the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 13:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Separate Article

I think that the whole racism controversy deserves its own separate article due to its international political ramifications. Although the section on this article is good, I don't think it is anywhere near describing everything that happened as a news event in itself. I would strongly support the creation of a separate article (for example, Big Brother racism controversy (2007) where the whole story can be described in full. As far as I am aware there is precedence for this in Wikipedia and it shouldn't be too hard for editors who are willing to put the work in.

I've been inserting, organising and maintaining the information at Shilpa_Shetty#Racism_controversy which is understandably far too large and will be significantly pruned once the controversy is over, but it's a shame to see all of that go to waste. There are plenty of references there for use and other developments haven't been discussed, for example, Cameron's and Livingstone's comments as well as comments from the Indian politicians.

So there it is: A separate article? Ekantik talk 06:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Voting history

Comparing the housemates table and the [Big Brother (USA season X) voting history] table, I feel that there is no clear need for a separate article where there is only a table of voting history. The housemates table is a summarised form, but the space taken up in the article is not dramatically shortened, I have therefor reintegrated these into the respective cycle, in place of the Housemates' table. Ohconfucius 04:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I Have an Idea

I think that we should start to doing article asessments and such to mark the improvement of articles in the scope? Does anybody have any thoughts on this? FireSpike 22:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep, seems like a good idea. What I've seen a lot of WikiProjects do is on the WikiProject template, have spaces for the quality and the importance of each article, e.g. the WikiProject for airports has this page.
Regarding the importance, the Big Brother articles seem to be set out in a rough hierarchy, with Big Brother (TV series) at the top then the articles for each country, then each series, then some of the housemates. In addition to that, there are a few other articles such as List of Big Brother 2006 housemates (UK) that have mostly been split off from articles in the main hierarchy. I think for rating the importance, every article on each 'rank' of the hierarchy would need to be given the same rating, with higher ratings for articles at the top of the hierarchy, and with articles that have been split off from another article having perhaps a slightly lower rating than the article they were split from.
As for the quality rating for each article, I've noticed there's a definite trend for articles for series in later years and in the English language being of a higher quality than articles in the early 2000s or in foreign languages. This would probably be because there would have been less editors writing about them when the series were being broadcast, or less English speakers watching the programmes so they received less attention. I think giving quality ratings would help to highlight this. Tra (Talk) 23:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Awesome! I'll likely get started on that soon. FireSpike 00:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I've created Wikipedia:WikiProject Big Brother/Assesment. It has zillions of red links at the moment but hopefully it can form the basis for the ratings. Tra (Talk) 01:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
So, let's see, how I can I start out? What would be the first thing to do? FireSpike 02:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
The articles will need to have individual tags on their talk pages depending on their importance and quality. Importance should be pretty easy since it's reasonably clear-cut (however, you might want to check what I put down for the criteria and maybe change it) but quality will require looking through the article in detail. It might be easier to start with labelling the importance for everything then moving on to quality. Tra (Talk) 03:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I've done all the importance ratings, now we need to move on to quality. Tra (Talk) 17:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll take the USA version stuff and do quality ratings for that first since I know about that more than the other countries. FireSpike 20:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
It's unnecessary and an article isn't going to get more attention because somebody's put a tag on the talk page that says it's not good enough. J Di 01:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Not from people like you at least. --Majorly (o rly?) 01:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Work via Wikiprojects explains what the whole system's all about, if that's any use. Tra (Talk) 01:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I still think it's unnecessary, for now at least. J Di 01:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
J Di, quit being such a misery guts and lighten up a bit. Working to improve articles is only a good thing and all you're doing by saying "it's unnecessary" is making the atmosphere sour, and helping no one. Please stop. --Majorly (o rly?) 01:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't need to lighten up, I need you to stop trying to put me down every time the opportunity presents itself. If you have a problem with my comments, read around them. J Di 02:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
It's not just for evaluating Big Brother-related articles; the whole thing's part of a wider project to see which of the most important articles are of a high quality and suitable for inclusion for WP:1.0. Tra (Talk) 02:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I know what it's for, but how article importance and quality should be rated was decided pretty quickly and with hardly any discussion (two days and two people). What I don't like about it is how importance is decided solely on what the subject of the article is or does, rather than whether or not they actually mean anything. Tim Ferguson, for example, I would say is not highly important as he presented only one show of one season of Big Brother Australia. Bree Amer, on the other hand, is much more important than, say, Blair McDonough, as she has hosted a show that has lasted two seasons of Big Brother Australia and its spin-off. If we're keeping this horrible ratings scale thing, we should use it more effectively and with more input from the people. J Di 15:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I see your point. As for the Bree Amer case, I didn't notice that she was also a presenter and as soon as I read that she was a housemate, I gave her Mid. Now that you've mentioned that she was also a presenter, I've upgraded her and Ryan Fitzgerald's importance to High. I don't really know about Ryan Fitzgerald Tim Ferguson. The article says He hosted a talkback radio show in 2003 on 3AK, in addition to being a host of Big Brother. This seems to imply that he hosted several episodes, and not just one. Perhaps that should be changed? One idea might be to expand the Mid class to include presenters that had a very minor role, but then you have the problem of deciding what a minor role is. As for having more input from the people, the assessment page currently points towards this talk page for any queries or confusion regarding assessments, in order to keep discussion centralised. Maybe it could have its own page? Tra (Talk) 18:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I think this'll take more than just expanding classes, as there would still be the problem of other articles being forced into incorrect/unsuitable categories. I think time, media attention, and possibly popularity, as well as general importance, should be taken into account when deciding how important an article is. From what I can tell, an article for the Celebrity Big Brother UK 2007 controversy would be rated mid- or low-class but because it was commented on a lot by the media, it should probably be rated top-class. I would also rate John de Mol mid- or low-class because although he created the show, he's done his job and he's no longer involved in many series.
I'm not sure how useful a separate talk page for the assessments stuff would be because it's not as though this page gets much attention, but this discussion is getting quite long.
As for the Ryan Fitzgerald thing, what article is that italicised text from? I can't find it in Big Brother Australia or Ryan Fitzgerald. J Di 18:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Whoops, wrong link, I was talking about Tim Ferguson, not Ryan Fitzgerald. As for media attention etc, maybe the assessment page should say that if the subject of an article receives a lot of media attention or becomes very well known then it should be put up one or a few classes, and if its role in Big Brother was very small then it should be put down a class. Tra (Talk) 19:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Making that change to the importance scale would make things a bit easier, but there would probably still be problems. I think we should use {{Importance Scheme}} as the criteria on it now are relevant to Big Brother and are similar to what you use to decide how articles should be rated. J Di 20:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I think that template's got the right sort of idea but on its own, it seems a bit too vague. Maybe the comments in it should be added as an extra column to the current importance table, and the instructions should say something like as a general rule, the notability criteria should be used, but if that is unclear then the criteria in the existing table should be used. Tra (Talk) 20:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
That sounds good. J Di 20:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Big_Brother_d131.html"