Talk:Big Brother 2007 (UK)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Big Brother 2007 (UK) article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
The Big Brother WikiProject aims to improve articles relating to Big Brother, and Big Brother 2007 (UK) has been identified as one of these articles. Anybody can help the WikiProject by trying to improve existing articles. Please add your name to the list of participants, if you are committed to helping out.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
To-do list for Big Brother 2007 (UK): edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Expand ratings section so it focusses less on just the first couple of weeks
  • Find sources for nominations table
  • Decide what can and can't be used as sources
  • Change Weekly summary section to summarize events in the series in one paragraph, to complement the main article link
  • Integrate Criticism and controversy into other sections or a new section
  • Include sections about the main events that occurred in the House, e.g. Emily incident, Halfway House etc but leaving minor tasks to the Big Brother 2007 (UK) highlights page

Contents
Archive
Archives


[edit] Nomination note?

On the nominations table, the "Nominations note" is also being used for eviction notes. Such as this week with the double eviction. Could this be renamed or something else? Or even a different row...? I know it's only a small thing -- Halo2 Talk 19:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

"Nomination/eviction note" would be better then. It used to say "twist" but they weren't all twists so I had it changed, but couldn't think of anything better than "note", so if anyone can think if anything better than that, it'll be good too. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 19:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that's better. And i've changed it. -- Halo2 Talk 20:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be better if it said Twists/Notes because that would cover everything from twists, nomination notes, and eviction notes. This should be the standard across all BB articles I think. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 20:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
That's an even better idea. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 21:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I agree, that is better. -- Halo2 Talk 21:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

This should be discussed here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Big Brother#Nomination twist / Nomination note / Notes John Hayes - On Vacationtalk 11:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks John, I didn't realise, I've replied there. I think it should stay as "Notes" though, it covers everything. -- Halo2 Talk 16:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Summary table and nominations table evicted colours

I was wondering why isn't the "evicted" colour for the summary table (at the top of the page), which is #FFC0CB, the same as the colour for evicted on the nominations table, which is #FA8072? The rest of the colours match... -- Halo2 Talk 02:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I left the eviction color a very lighter version of the one used on the table because it would have been hard to read with #FA8072.♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 21:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
But I thought it was to be uniform across all the BB articles? I don't really think that it's that hard to read. Do you? -- Halo2 Talk 00:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
It is but the reason I left the eviction color a lighter shade of what is used in the Nomination/Voting Tables is because the darker color was hard to read when names are linked plus it made the infoboxes look really bad. The rest of the colors are uniform and match the tables. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 01:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scroll-bar references

This has been removed, as the original template was deleted for a reason. Please do not reinstate it. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 09:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, finally. Good. John Hayestalk 09:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Can we make the text small? I find it annoying to scroll down all the text to get to the bottom of the page 12bigbrother12 22:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I apologise for archiving this, (I thought it was over and ) I didn't realise someone had changed it back. I agree that it shouldn't be used. There is no need for it really, if you have to scroll down, then you have to scroll down. It keeps it neat with the references like they are, I personally think that scrolling the references looks a bit tacky. -- Halo2 Talk 00:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Podcasts

The last few weeks podcasts are missing. Darrenhusted 14:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reality TV star noteability guidelines

Hello, I've just created a seperate page proposing guidlines for noteability of Reality TV contestants and if they should have their own articles. I did this due to the mass number of articles being created and deleted on these subjects in recent months, and confusion among editors if they are in fact noteable or not. You can read this here. All edits and comments on the talk page are welcome. Thanks, Dalejenkins | 16:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Mistake

can you please redo that mistake what I did A Candela 20:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brian won

prz upload —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.37.150 (talk) 21:24, 31 August, 2007 (UTC)

donePayneXKiller 21:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nomination for GA

{{FailedGA|2007-08-31}} WeBuriedOurSecretsInTheGarden 21:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I have contributed a lot to this article, so obviously I can't comment on that, but I would suggest before we go for GA we need to replace all the Channel 4 refs with third party refs. John Hayestalk 21:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I have failed the article. A lot of work needs to be done before it gets anywhere near GA. More third party sources are needed, some things don't have sources at all and the article isn't stable. Some references aren't properly formatted. There's so much work needed here. Dalejenkins | 22:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Once a few weeks have passed and most people have lost interest, and we have replaced/improved the sources, then we can think about it. John Hayestalk 22:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weekly Summary is now a separate article

I moved the entire Weekly Summary to Big Brother 2007 (UK) highlights because the page was 83 KB the last time I edited it before I moved Weekly Summary to its own article. By moving the Weekly Summary the page size is now 50 KB. Which I think is a good size. Weekly Summary page is 33 KB. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 03:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Good idea but when you do something like this, please remember to copy any of the references which are being used in both articles, as lots are now missing. John Hayestalk 07:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I did copy all the references, there were 100 references in the Weekly Summary alone. And there are 71 references left in the main article. Before I separated the two there were 163 references total, I think. I didn't delete any. But I know I didn't delete any. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 08:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah you did most of them, but I just found 4 or 5 which I had to add back into the main article. John Hayestalk 08:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok good, thanks John. Oh and while I am thinking of it, there is a new style for the Voting History table being proposed on the talk page of Big Brother 8 (US) (mainly a new style to Double Live Evictions) also after that there is something I would like to get your opinion on. It is House Calls Interviews. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 09:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Percentages

As is customary, here are the overall voting percentages:

  • Brian 38.1%
  • Amanda & Sam 25.1%
  • Liam 14.9%
  • Ziggy 14.1%
  • Carole 4.9%
  • Jonty 3.0%

This assumes both that the relative shares remained contant during the Final, and that the given figure for Carole is based on the six-way total. It was a convincing win for Brian. Amanda & Sam did well to take a quarter of the votes, though unlike Glyn this was entirely to be expected. Liam and Ziggy were very closely matched. --Ross UK 07:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

What is your source? John Hayestalk 07:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
No source, just my own surmise. That's why I put it here. --Ross UK 08:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
On Inside Big Brother they have percentages
  • Brian 38.1% (out of 2)
  • Amanda & Sam 25.1% (out of 2)
  • Liam 14.9% (out of 3)
  • Ziggy 14.1% (out of 4)
  • Carole 4.9% (out of 6)
  • Jonty 3.0% (out of 6)
Since we do use this site as a source here we can use these percentages. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 08:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Good to see that corroboration. --Ross UK 08:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I posted the wrong ones. I just realized I was looking at yours instead of the totals from the website. Here are the correct totals from Inside Big Brother:
  • Brian 61% (out of 2)
  • Amanda & Sam 39% (out of 2)
  • Liam 19% (out of 3)
  • Ziggy 15% (out of 4)
  • Carole 5% (out of 6)
  • Jonty 3% (out of 6)
From Channel4.com I have managed to find Brian's actual % to win it was 63.1% Source ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 09:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Those are the conventional percentages as we display in the article, though the ones we have at the moment are the more accurate versions from channel4.com. I post the recalibrated version here purely out of interest. --Ross UK 09:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carole on the nominations table

Shouldn't it be "out of 6" rather than "out of 5" because the lines were suspended for 5th and 6th place at the same time? 12bigbrother12 08:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess, I didn't think of that. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 08:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. --Ross UK 08:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Fixed it. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 09:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chanelle

I was wondering might we make Chanelle her own page as we did for Charley? She is getting as much media coverage as Charley if not more, so I think it would be appropriate for her to have a page aswell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiltonhampton (talk • contribs) 23:47, 1 September, 2007 (UTC)

Only if she passes WP:BIO. Generally this means doing something notable that is unrelated to Big Brother, for example a music career. John Hayestalk 00:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
It has already been confirmed that she is to take part in new Channel 4 reality show Vanity Lair, says the Daily Star. Does that count? Plus she has appeared on various magazine covers.--Hiltonhampton 16:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Confirmed by the Star? That is not confirmation, that is press tittle tattle. Appearing on magazine covers does not warrant notablity. Also, I think we should wait until the deletion discussion regarding Charley is over. --UpDown 17:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Why do you seek up fights and being disaruptive on wikipedia? why cant you just be nice Updown?--Zingostar 19:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes I agree, you could be a bit more polite, because I, as I'm sure you are too, am only trying to make Wikipedia a reliable source! Also they didn't rumor it. They said that Channel 4 confirmed it.--Hiltonhampton 21:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Me, polite. Coming from Zingostar who refused to talk to me and immediatley assumed bad faith thats very rich!! --UpDown 21:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
The Daily Star is not the most reliable of sources. And even if she has appeared on some magazine covers, she needs to be notable for something other than Big Brother. John Hayestalk 21:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Perhaps if she appears on Strictley Comw Dancing we would make an article. See if she passes any of these criterias, WP:REALITY.--88.151.83.34 15:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
WP:REALITY has been rejected by the Wikipedia community, and there is not a guideline. If she does apppear on Strictly Come Dancing I would argue she is notable. But we are a crystal ball, so we can't make a page or keep an existing one because they might become notable. --UpDown 17:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Final Nominations

Iwas wondering whether we should put in Carole & Ziggy as nominations made by Jonty, Sam, Amanda & Brian in Week 13 since techinally they did all nominate them.--Hiltonhampton 15:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

No, technically they didn't, in fact they did. --Ross UK 18:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To-do list

I've added this to the top of the article to put in some ideas of what should be done to improve the article before considering a possible GA or FA nomination. If there's anything on there that perhaps shouldn't be done or if there's something that's been missed, feel free to update the list accordingly or to discuss it here. Tra (Talk) 22:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Channel 4 sources

I am aware that there has been some opposition to the use of the Ch4 Big Brother website as a source, so I've replaced all of the uses of that with other sites. Whilst doing that, I've noticed that http://www.channel4sales.com and some Channel 4 TV programmes are also cited. Should these be removed as well or would they be considered acceptable? One thing to bear in mind is that the launch show particularly contains a lot of information about the layout of the House and it may be difficult to find other sources that discuss this in as much depth as what was shown on the programme. Tra (Talk) 22:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)