Talk:Big Brother 7 (UK)/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

"Day" - upper or lower case?

Throughout the article the word "day" is written in both upper and lower case. I think it looks better in upper case but grammatically shouldn't it be in lower case? I request some for-and-against arguments King rich 22:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd go for uppercase, since that's how it's used on the show. -- 9cds(talk) 22:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd say lowercase, in the show it's always shown in the corner, kinda of like the start of a sentence. I think that in the middle of the sentence it should be lowercase to gramatically correct. --LorianTC 07:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Upper case, the days should be treated as nouns. --JD[talk|email] 10:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Lower case. Only proper nouns need to be upper case. The JPStalk to me 10:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Upper case. It looks tidier... ellisjm 20:40 UTC 28 June 06
Upper case, like the show, but like The JPS says, only proper nouns are typically capitalised (in English, at least). Budgiekiller 20:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
What led to this in the first place? Nobody else I know insists that the word "day" has to be capitalised. -- Smjg 13:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
This is just for the Big Brother show though. --Alex9891 (talk) 15:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Audition Music

Why has this been removed? It gives an insight as to how the producers were trying to portray each contestant at their entrance into the house. Triangle e 14:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Have you any proof for that? It's just meaningless information that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. -- 9cds(talk) 14:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
No need to get terse. Academically, I found it interesting to know the entrance music used for each contestant. Triangle e 14:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with 9cds, it's useless information that provides no added value to the article. --LorianTC 15:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
The chronology is useless, but it's still there. The only necessary information is who entered, and who won. It's still there though. --JD[talk|email] 20:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
The chronology provides information about the happenings in the house, and adds value to the article. It helps to cover all relevant information about the series. Music from the auditions does none of this. From Wikipedia:The perfect article: "is of an appropriate length; article size is long enough to provide sufficient information, depth, and analysis on its subject, without including unnecessary detail or information." --LorianTC 20:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay. But still, does it absolutely have to not be there? --JD[talk|email] 20:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at this page: Deal or No Deal, Series 2 (UK). Isn't including the entrance songs to each housemate not akin to the academic nature of the detail listed on this page? Of course, it would have been nice to have had this discussion before the song information was unilaterally deleted with no debate having taken place. Triangle e 20:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
If you ask me, the information on that page is relevant. --LorianTC 21:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Then it is clear that we do not have parity across Wikipedia, when it comes to what should and what should not be included. I find the Deal or No Deal page that I just showed you to be one of the most useful pages on here. Triangle e 21:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't really see why you are pointing to that page. It contains relevant information. Music played in the auditions is not relevant to Big Brother. --LorianTC 21:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I read your statement before last incorrectly. I thought you had said "irrelevant". That having been said, the purpose of my reply was to point out the academic nature of the DonD page. Triangle e 21:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Infobox update needed

As I don't quite know how to do this, I think it's needs to be changed for Friday's new housemates. Prehaps differtent colours for housemates in "Main House(Yellow)" and "Secret House(Green)". If someone would please inform me how to do this, I'd really appreciate it. --Jboyle4eva 00:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Why do we need to separate the housemates? -- 9cds(talk) 13:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Because the 'secret housemates' won't be 'real housemates' just yet, as they won't be in the main house.

What did we do last year? -- 9cds(talk) 17:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Last year, they were at least in the same house. This year, BB are going for a completely different house, separate, but joined to the main one. See also Talk:Big Brother (UK series 7) nominations table. —Celestianpower háblame 17:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, they're in the same table there, why not here? -- 9cds(talk) 17:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The Sources

Is a source necessary for every single thing? I mean, there's more than plenty of them; and the References section is huge. C'mon people, cut down a bit, eh? --JD[talk|email] 12:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not huge at all. Wikipedia is about sourced information, not facts. -- 9cds(talk) 13:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but still. 39 sources!! Do we really need so many? ellisjm 15:20 UTC 29 June 06
Yes. We need every possibly contraversial statement to have a source, since we don't have any general sources. The amount of sources in this article isn't enough by a long shot. —Celestianpower háblame 17:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

New Houseplan

I replaced the image Image:C4BBhouseplan.jpg which is claimed fairuse with freely licenced Image:BB7Houseplan.svg. Whilst not identical to the original the layout of the house was similar (if less stylish than in the offical fair use image). The image has since been reverted with reason given as the freely licenced image didn't look as good. I feel this is not the point. Provided the freely licenced image conveys the right information, then it should remain. Fair usage guidelines on Wikipedia state fair use images should only be used if "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information. If unfree material can be transformed into free material, it should be done instead of using a "fair use" defense.". The screenshot of the house plan from the Channel 4 broadcast would not appear to fall under this guideline. What are others thought on this, I don't want to revert back to the freely licenced image for fear of starting a reversion war, but feel the image that has been reverted to does not qualify as fair use. Could someone improve on the freely licenced image? Alexj2002 14:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe a better done one could be created, I really don't like the new one, and it is not accurate anyway, which it should be. --LorianTC 15:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It would seem likely that the Channel4 screenshot is stylized to make it look nicer. The fact it looks nicer isn't justification for using it over a freely licenced alternative, although factual errors in the recreation might (although I feel that the possibility alone of creating a freely licenced alternative results in a breach of the fair use guidelines). Anyway I'll add it to the requested diagrams page and put the template here. Alexj2002 16:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

What about a satellite photo? Would that be copyright infringement? --JD[talk|email] 14:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes.-- 9cds(talk) 15:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure a blurry view of the roof would be much good... ;) --LorianTC 15:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh... I hadn't actually looked for the House on Google Earth, so I just assumed it might look decent. --JD[talk|email] 15:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Neh, I found it the other day, it's not very good. --LorianTC 15:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Any other options? I don't know much about making SVG images (actually I know nothing about making them...), but couldn't somebody maybe copy the outline of the original image, then somehow maybe turn that into an SVG image? --JD[don't talk|email] 15:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Copy, no. But I'll see about making a house outline as SVG. -- 9cds(talk) 16:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Nope, hard to make it accurate. We can't modify the C4 image, for copyright reasons. -- 9cds(talk) 16:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Modify? --JD[don't talk|email] 16:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
So, we can't make a free alternative that is accurate? Sounds like we have to use the fair use one... --LorianTC 16:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
It's technically possible, but my drawing skills aren't up to scratch. To be honest, I can't see what's wrong with the screenshot, since it's the most accurate we have atm? -- 9cds(talk) 16:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I think we should keep the screenshot, at least until an accurate replica can be made. --LorianTC 16:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi folks, I've created a more accurate replica, based on the C4 image. Would that be acceptable? If anyone has suggestions for the image, reply and I'll get them sorted. Icey 23:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I would love to view the plan, but the file isn't supported by my computer. Could you possibly make it into a jpeg file or something? Thanks --Alex9891 (talk) 23:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Alex9891. Here's a PNG version at normal size and double size. Icey 00:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello Icey. They're pretty good, and obviously are much more clearer than a screenshot. They should be fine =) --Alex9891 (talk) 00:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Cool. I've uploaded the image and replaced the one in the article with the new one. Icey 00:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Not that that's anything wrong with the new one, it's great! Hats off to Icey, but just wondering what was wrong with the original one? ellisjm 11:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It was fair use. This one's free. — FireFox 11:27, 12 July '06

New Housemates

Any suggestions on how to categorise the new housemates? Especially in the infobox, are there going to be yet more colour schemings? And in the housemate listings, should we seperate the houses? IE:

Original/First House:

Housemate1
Housemate2

New/Second House:

HousemateX
HousemateY

Any suggestions on how to layout the article are welcome. Also, all the new housemates are in the 'new' house now. Would someone with more energy than myself (I've had a hard day and a few beers) care to update the lists? Celardore 21:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

PS: The new task is that Aisleyne will choose to evict four of her new housemates....Celardore 21:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

No, they are housemates so will not be separated in any way. I have now added them to the table. -- 9cds(talk) 22:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I've got images of the 'new' housemates ready to go... At the moment however, I can't tie a name to a face! Silly, I know, pics of the new housemates coming soon - I just need to know who's who. I watched the show, but I'm terrible with faces. I'll update probably tommorow. Celardore 01:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Images are now on the Channel 4 site, so you can tell who's who :) -- 9cds(talk) 15:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm still not 100% sure I've uploaded Spirals photo and not Michaels! They look pretty similar I think, could someone confirm to me that I've uploaded a picture of Spiral? Thanks! Celardore 19:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
You have got the right image. --LorianTC 19:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Negative Tone

Parts of this article have a negative tone to it: "Nikki also demonstrated a distinct lack of aptitude in cooking food"; "Despite the apparently relatively high regard with which Glyn seems to hold himself and his physical appearance, he has only achieved a little success with the opposite sex". This doesn't seem particular encyclopaedic and this sort of thing has been noted on other pages as "weasel words". Triangle e 22:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed... we especially shouldn't be including it if it's not sourced. -- 9cds(talk) 22:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Housemate Publicity Shots

Are we allowed to use them?80.41.102.54

Nope, for copyright reasons. -- 9cds(talk) 11:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
A little while ago this question referred to the question of copyright in Big Brother, and a reasonable explanation for differing copyright treatment (in this article and other UK Big Brother articles) of the Big Brother distinctive eye logo compared to other Channel4/Endemol items for which copyright is claimed on the official website is still pertinent IMO--luke 23:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I should have made this more clear. Channel4 say: The name Big Brother®, the distinctive eye logo and the content on the Big Brother programme series and the official Big Brother website, URL: www.channel4.com/bigbrother "Official Site" are protected rights or marks owned by or exclusively licensed to 4 Ventures Limited "Channel 4" and any use is subject to Channel 4's permission. This permission can be revoked or changed by us at any time. Channel 4's usual terms and conditions included on its website also apply. Why is the Eye Logo OK to use under US Fair Use, and not the housemates images Is there US case law to justify this, perhaps because it is a logo?--luke 20:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Jennie's last name

Do we have a source for her last name being Conner? I ask because today's Sun newspaper says it's Corner. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 11:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to change it to Corner, I've seen it elsewhere too. — FireFox 20:33, 02 July '06

The House Next Door

C4 are calling it The House Next Door (it even says "Next door" on the front door), so it would be great if everyone called it that, rather than "The secret house" or "The 2nd house". -- 9cds(talk) 15:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

100th Housemate?

How was Michael the 100th? If you add up all the previous years;

11 (BB1) + 11 (BB2) + 14 (BB3) + 13 (BB4) + 13 (BB5) + 16 (BB6) + 22 (BB7) = 100

So the last person to enter the house would be the 100th- which was Jayne... the only way it could be 101 would be if they counted Gaetano (who swapped with Cameron in BB4 - do you think that's it?)

Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 16:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Davina said it's Michael so it must be Michael. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Davina is human, she can make mistakes; it's not neccessarily Michael- the maths just doesn't add up! Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 17:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Reading the BB4 article, it seems likely that Gaetano was counted. --LorianTC 18:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure Davina wasn't the only person who counted the housemates! We know Michael is the 100th housemate, therefore Gaetano must be included. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 18:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
She probably didn't count it at all. --LorianTC 18:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
What I meant about Davina making mistakes is; she may have been supposed to say the "100th housemate" bit for Jayne, not Michael, and did it accidently... Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 22:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd include Gatano as a housemate - wouldn't you? He was there for roughly the same length of time as someone like Sunita Sharma. Triangle e 08:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Essexmutant 09:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Davina doesn't make mistakes. Davina isn't human. She's superhuman. And they wouldn't have let her say Michael was the 100th housemate if he wasn't. So there. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 12:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
It wouldn't have been Davina who counted - it would have been the producers who would have thought long and hard about it, and in the end decided it was Michael. Davina is just the messenger! Alex9891 14:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
THEY COUNTED CHANTELLE HOUGHTON- as she was not a celebrity just a housemate

Chantelle wasn't a Big Brother housemate, she was a Celebrity Big Brother housemate. If they counted Chantelle, then Michael would have been the 101st housemate because of Gaetano. But if they counted Chantelle, then Kinga would have been the 100th housemate, because if Chantelle counts, then so do all the other celebrity housemates. In fact not even Kinga, because all the teen housemates would also count. So there!!!!! -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 08:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Remember guys, WP:VERIFY:
Verifiability, not truth

Template:Associations/Wikipedia Bad Things

One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they must refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers. The goal of Wikipedia is to become a complete and reliable encyclopedia. Editors should cite reliable sources so that their edits may be verified by readers and other editors.
"Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is thus verifiability, not truth.
Thanks/wangi 09:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

gaetano was not a housemate he was a guest and chantell was a normal non celebrity housmate meaning as she applied for big brother didnt know she would be the only non celeb in the celebrity house meaning big brother counted her as she went through the orriginal auditions but the teen housemates do not count SO THERE! FACT

Chantelle has never appeared in a non-celebrity version of Big Brother. The 100th HM is counted from those have have lived in the BB House since series 1 in 2000. Self evidently that includes Gaetano leaky_caldron 20:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Season or Series?

The first paragraph states this is the seventh Season however channel 4 has never ever called it a season but a series, added to the fact that the article is called Big Brother (UK Series 7) I think it should be changed. What do you all think? Plus a "season" in television terms could be called an americanisum (or should i say americanizum?). TheEnlightened 12:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think 'season' is an Americanism. -- 9cds(talk) 12:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Series usually means all of the seasons in US terms. Darrenhusted 14:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Gold no longer rules?

The list of rules imposed on Susie has been changed into the past tense. Yet nobody's given any clue of when the Golden Rules were lifted. Straight to the point please - when was it? -- Smjg 13:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

After a week. -- 9cds(talk) 13:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Pretty much as soon as Grace was evicted. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 13:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I've now made this clearer in the article. -- 9cds(talk) 14:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I put it in the week by week after the sentence about Grace getting evicted and seem to have been reverted for no apparent reason. Deizio talk 15:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Lea Walker pornography source

This was removed earlier:

She has also appeared in commercially available pornography.

As can be seen, the source was clearly indicated and referenced in my original edit comment. Given the obscene nature of the content it was not my intention to make the link to this commercial website clearly visible as I believe that would be inappropriate. Nevertheless, it is a valid source which supports the preceding statement and I have therefore reinstated it. If anyone wishes to modify the way in which the source is referenced, feel free. leaky_caldron 19:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The link doesn't work. But, even if it did, it's not adequate. For negative material, you need third-party coverage, from a reliable source, according to our WP:LIVING guideline. --Rob 19:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I thought Lea had discussed her participation in these movies with the other HMs? leaky_caldron 19:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I think she did. I have a link that works, with pictures of Lea in porn, but I guess I shouldn't post it here. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I put this on the article: [1]. All it really says is "porn star Lea", but I'm looking for better links right now. --JD[don't talk|email] 20:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Is this one any better? [2] It says porn actor, or something like that. But, as with the other one, it's only a mention of her past career. --JD[don't talk|email] 20:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
How about Casting Cuties 4: Featuring Lea Walker HMV URL last accessed 2006-07-02 ? MGSpiller 20:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
*gasp* HMV sell rootfest flicks!? --JD[don't talk|email] 20:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Or an alternative would be Lea Walker's entry in British Girls Adult Film Database BGAFD URL last accessed 2006-07-02 MGSpiller 20:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I think my last suggestion is preferable, I was hoping for IMDB but had to go for a more specialist alternative. the sacrifices I make for wikipedia :-)MGSpiller 20:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The exit door

somebody said on the channel 4 evening show (possibly richard) that the tiles on the black and gold exit door spell out "big brother". Has anyone been able to see this as I can't find a picture of the door anywhere. a piccy would be much appreciated. thanks

It was Richard but I can't make it out at all. I look at it all the time. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 10:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I see what could be some letters (like a g or e) but never see enough of the door for long enough a time to make anything clear out. Richard said you need to tilt your head to the right IIRC. Lee Stanley 14:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Photos

SURELY the publicity shots of the housemates are perfectly legit under fair use?

"This work is a copyrighted publicity photograph. It is believed that the use of some such photographs to illustrate:

  • the person, product, event, or subject in question
  • in the absence of a free alternative,
  • on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law."

If these aren't exactly the type of photos that this FU criteria applies to then please show me some that are. Also, aiui screenshots are "one per article". I understand a lot of love has gone into capturing these screenshots but the prevailing opinion about images here seems to be the wrong way round. Deizio talk 15:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Concur as per Housemate Publicity Shots above, to which no satisfactory reply has been received by any of those in this project or their associates. I made this bold to draw attention, so that such reply may be given if it exists.
However, I've always believed that interesting screencaps are preferable--luke 13:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


Copyright undetermined

This work is a copyrighted publicity photograph. It is believed that the use of some such photographs to illustrate:

qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law.

Other use of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Publicity photos.

Additionally, the copyright holder may have granted permission for use in works such as Wikipedia. However, if they have, this permission likely does not fall under a free license. As well, commercial third-party reusers of this image should consider whether their use is in violation of the subject's publicity rights, if the photograph is of a person.

To the uploader: This tag should only be used for images of a person, product, or event that is known to have come from a press kit or similar source, for the purpose of reuse by the media. Please add a detailed fair use rationale as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the image, the photographer, and copyright information. Additionally, if the copyright holder has granted permission, please provide further details as to the terms.

See: This tag should only be used for images of a person, product, or event that is known to have come from a press kit. --LorianTC 14:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
If the pics are not in the Big Brother press kit, or the most "similar source" that Channel 4 provide, I'll eat my hat, your hat and the hats of all your relatives. Deizio talk 16:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, so where is it? Eating your hat does not provide any proof whatsoever. --LorianTC 16:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
And my point about the eye logo? Sorry but how does this particular tag help take this forward. Why not choose a different more appropriate fair use tag, or simply give FU rationale for the image? There is no reason why a tag should even be strictly necessary, providing FU is carefully and appropriately justified. Or perhaps I'm missing something--luke 15:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
The eye is a logo, and has different fair use rationalle behind it. -- 9cds(talk) 16:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the Eye Logo, as you will see I suggested an explanation along those lines. Could you be more specific about this particular point please?--luke 16:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
It is necessary to use the correct FU template, in this case that would be one one I put above, and it clearly states it must be from a press pack, which the photos from the Channel 4 website are not. --LorianTC 16:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Allow me to explain in more detail what I'm asking for. It is suggested that there are differing FU rationales for the Big Brother Eye Logo and the for the contestants images. I want to know the specific differences in terms of US or Florida legislation and/or decided cases. Perhaps a US Wikipedian could advise. Now as to the template, I'm asking for comments on the template used, say, for this image of Ivette in American Big Brother, as we don't seem to know whether or not the images in dispute form part of a press kit--luke 19:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
We cannot use press pack photos unless we are sent them. We have not been sent them. Therefore, we cannot use them. Understand? -- 9cds(talk) 20:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
If that is meant for me directly, then no I don't understand exactly how your remark carries forward the issues which have been raised and which we are discussing. Your comments on my referenced FU template would also be appreciated. Thanks--luke 20:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
What's not to understand? We can't use publicity photos unless they are from a press pack sent for usage on Wikipedia. --LorianTC 21:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
What are the sources for the assertion that "We can't use publicity photos unless they are from a press pack sent for usage on Wikipedia"?--luke 21:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
9cds can answer that one. Anyway, photos from the Channel 4 website are not publicity photos, so they cannot be used, why are you prolonging this discussion? --LorianTC 21:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
"We got em from the C4 website" doesn't show we know they are press pack images. This same argument came up last year - see the discussions then. -- 9cds(talk) 01:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the discussion did come up last year, because fair use images were being deleted with hardly a moments thought - and sometimes without giving any notice whatsoever of intention to delete - a position which was explicitly approved by one of the discussants. The justification given then was a proposed guideline on publicity photos, but what was then a proposed guideline isn't even a proposal now - it's an essay, not a policy or guideline (probably partly as a result of those discussions)
Of course the images are publicity images - everything about them says so, including the fact that they are widely distributed in the press and electronic media as soon as Big Brother starts. This was made clear last year in the dicussions to which you refer - and also I mentioned it as Big Brother 7 began this year
But whether we need to know the exact status of the images or not is a complete red herring, as I tried to show above "I'm asking for comments on the template used, say, for this image of Ivette in American Big Brother, as we don't seem to know whether or not the images in dispute form part of a press kit"
I haven't heard one peep about that template, simply because it shows in clarity how to treat these contestants images - simply as Fair Use images whose provenance or copyright status may not be precisely known, but for which of course a fair use rationale still needs to be given.
Fair use is the justification for using the BB Eye Logo in wikipedia, and it also justifies using these disputed images if we wish to do so.--luke 05:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
You shouldn't treat the eye logo and the contentant images the same. They aren't. -- 9cds(talk) 07:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not an expert, so I'd still like to hear from any wikipedians (see the 'specific differences' request made earlier) on the underlying copyright differences (if any) relating to logos. As to treatment on wikipedia, I think all fair use claims should be supported with a rationale to justify the claim. In that respect I note that none of the UK Big Brother eye logos on wikipedia, going right back to the first Big Brother (and including BB7) have any such rationale given--luke 12:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Most people can't be bothered to put a rationale in, and mostly nobody really cares as long as the correct tag is used. --LorianTC 13:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
People are beginning to care more about rationales. If people can 'be bothered' to upload images, then they should also be bothered to act responsibly by adding rationales, although in some cases (such as logos) it is pretty much covered in the tag. The JPStalk to me 14:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Surely one of the important things about the rationale is that it gives the fair use claim substance, in that it contextualises the claim in terms of the image, the article(s) it relates to and the precise nature of the fair use claim being made for the image in those articles. Without the rationale, the tag is more of a gesture. This is one of the reasons I was asking for any underlying differences in copyright relating to logos. Do you know of any? Thanks--luke 18:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracies

I notice this series, more conspiracies have been reported in the tabloids. Like accusing contestants of being plants. I also noticed for the first time I can recall, Davina mentioned them by saying that the housemates may have met the 5 new housemates at auditions.--Darrelljon 11:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone think it's worthy of including it in the 'criticisms' section? -- 9cds(talk) 16:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
The article is about the programme Big Brother UK, seventh series. It should therefore have as much relevant information included, as possible. Anything that relates to the aforementioned programme, and is of interest to readers, should be included. The housemates and chronology are not the only parts of the programme. --JD[don't talk|email] 19:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Big Brother / Channel 4 official policy on use of text and images

For the full page see http://www.channel4.com/bigbrother/about/fan-rules.html

Some pertinent points (quoted from above):

"You are permitted to use the Big Brother name or Official Site content ONLY IF:

1) NO COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY

Your site must be a pure non-commercial fan site. This means that no commercial material or commercial activity of any kind, in particular, no advertising, whether paid or in kind, no sponsorship and no other revenue generation will be allowed.

2) REFER TO OFFICIAL SITE ON YOUR HOME PAGE

Your site must clearly state in a prominent position on the home page that it is not the official site and has no connection with Channel 4, its licensors (including Endemol Entertainment International B.V.), the Big Brother programme or the Official Site and provide a link to the home page of the Official Site.

You must also clearly state that Channel 4 and its licensors do not endorse and are not responsible or liable for any content, products, services or information available on your site.

3) USE OF CONTENT, IMAGES OR VIDEO STREAMING

Eye Branding

Your site may not use any 'Big Brother Eye' branding at any time or under any circumstances.

Text or Images

If any page in your site uses any Big Brother text or images or grabs from the Official Site, you must credit them as coming from the Official Site and provide links to the Official Site.

Video Streaming

If you wish to link to Big Brother video streams, you must do so via the live video page on the Official Site and make clear to your users that you are doing so by providing a link.

Links

Any links from your site to the Official Site must be direct to home page of the Official Site at all appropriate points in your site.

No Modification

Under no circumstances are you allowed to modify images, text or video streams or attempt to claim the Big Brother name or logo as your own.

(4) YOUR CONTENT

Your site must not contain anything illegal, libellous, defamatory, obscene or have any adverse impact on the brand, image or name of Big Brother, the Big Brother programme, Channel 4 or its licensors."

--

So a few things to consider. Going back to the pictures, I don't have the time to argue about them, but (notwithstanding the above) I do believe they fit as comfortably within "promotional" and "press pack or a similar source" as can be, and have far more FU concerns about using a large number of unlicenced screen captures on one page. Deizio talk 22:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

1) Wikipedia does not accept conditional permission. It's content may be used, at some point, for commercial activity. Also, this, contrary to what some believe, is not a a fan site.
2) Are we going to put that statment on our home page? What do you reckon Jimmy would say about that?
3) We could probably justify using the eye in our context (since we are not attempting to associate ourselves with the show).

I agree that the quantity of screengrabs can be a problem (one of the same problems as using those 'promo' images). I wish there wasn't so much emphasis on images. We don't need them nearly as much as people think. Fan sites need them; we don't. The JPStalk to me 09:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Giving Housemates Their Own Page

At what point do you think it's OK to give a housemate an article to themselves? For example, Derek Laud, Anna Nolan and Ray Shah have one where as Makosi Musambasi does not. There are several people on here, for example Aisleyne, who have a tremendous amount written about them. At what point should this be given its own page? (If at all) Triangle e 10:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I think when they do something notable, while not in the house, they should get their own page, but not a page that only has all the information off the Big Brother pages. --JD[don't talk|email] 10:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

See WP:NOTABILITY and WP:BIO. Personally I'd say no, and you'd likely see them AFD'd pretty soon after creating them. If someone from BB exits the house and then goes on to do something notable then it is probably fair-play to create an article. /wangi 10:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, only if they're notable outside the house should they have their own article. There's a few old housemates that I think should have their pages deleted. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 10:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
And I've just reverted Sam Brodie and Dawn Blake. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 10:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Consensus building for chronology

I've started up a consensus building for chronology on the Wikiproject talk page. -- 9cds(talk) 07:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Image of Michael

Does no-one have a screenshot of Michael? ellisjm 22:25 UTC 7 July 06

Give me more time! (hopefully he'll do/say something that will get him on the live feed)....
Someone uploaded a picture already =) CelardoreTalk 20:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Fake evictions

If it is possible to adjust the table to distinguish between fake and real evictions, this would be useful. After all, Aisleyne was not actually evicted by the public vote but "saved", as the public were in on the House Next Door plot.

IstaraTalk 16:20, 11 July 2006 (GMT+4)

Spelling of Shahbaz's name

What is the correct way to spell Shahbaz's last name? I've seen Chaudry, Chaudhry and Chauhdry (as on here). Anyone know? --Alex9891 (talk) 19:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it's Chaudury like the nurse in EastEnders... -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

BBC News [3] quotes it as "Chauhdry". CelardoreTalk 21:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Infobox straw poll

A straw poll is taking place on this page about whether the current infobox should stay, or if the one previously in use should be used again. Users are encouraged to vote, but are not obligated to. If you have the time, please look at the straw poll. --JD[don't talk|email] 21:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The little eviction table

The little eviction table needs to be edited - it says "Against Public Vote", when Spiral and Jonathan were never against the public's vote. I would edit it, but I don't know what to change it too - Nominated wouldn't work (week 8, week 1). "Up for eviction" wouldn't really work either due to week 6 (Aisleyne moving). Squidward2602 16:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep, completely agree with ya --Alex9891 (talk) 18:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I thought Aisleyne was evicted to the house next door. --JD[don't talk|email] 18:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
JD UK, you are right about Aisleyne, but what about Jonathan and Spiral? --Alex9891 (talk) 19:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I thought Spiral was evicted to the main house, and Jonathan was evicted from the game. I haven't actually been watching it much though, so I'm not saying all of this with the assumption that I'm correct or anything. --JD[don't talk|email] 19:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
How would Up for the Vote be? It's not overly specific or anything, from what I can see. --JD[don't talk|email] 19:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
It's been changed now --Alex9891 (talk) 19:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh. My next suggestion was going to be this:
Week 1
Day 8		 Week 2
Day 15		 Week 3
Day 22		 Week 4
Day 29		 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7 Week 8
Up for
the Vote		 Bonnie,
Glyn		 Lea,
Richard,
Sezer		 Nikki,
Sam		 Grace,
Nikki		 Imogen,
Lisa,
Mikey,
Nikki		 Aisleyne,
Susie		 Lea,
Richard		 All but
Jayne
Evicted Bonnie Sezer Sam Grace Lisa Aisleyne Lea

But done properly, and having all the correct Day numbers for the odd days. --JD[don't talk|email] 19:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, it looks a bit cluttered --Alex9891 (talk) 19:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Meh, was only an idea. If it's all sorted now, I don't think it would matter anyway. --JD[don't talk|email] 19:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Renaming

I suggested this on the main Big Brother page, but as it's not getting many responses, I'll just go around to the Big Brother pages where I'm most likely to get a response, and propose this there. I think the Big Brother pages should be renamed, to either Big Brother UK 7 or Big Brother 7 UK, and the main Big Brother UK page should be named exactly that: Big Brother UK. --JD[don't talk|email] 19:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Should be Big Brother 7 UK, a good idea --Alex9891 (talk) 20:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I completely disagree, the name of the show is Big Brother, but as there are several different versions of the show in diferrent countries, the title has to be disambiguated. That's all the (UK series 7) bit is, disambiguation. It should not have the brackets removed. --LorianTC 20:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Technically, the show's name is Big Brother UK; there's no need for disambiguating the title if there's only one Big Brother UK. --JD[don't talk|email] 20:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
That's nonsense, and you came out with it for BB Oz too. The name of the show is Big Brother - that's what you see on the official websites. Even if it was officially "Big Brother UK", we'd still call it "Big Brother" because that's what everyone calls it (compare our article on the UK is at United Kingdom, with the "official" name being a redirect - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland). Thanks/wangi 20:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Do you want me to show you the e-mail I sent to Endemol, and received from them? Would that be proof enough? And for your information, it does actually say Big Brother Australia on the BB06 website. It may only be once, but it is more than enough. --JD[don't talk|email] 20:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
But I'm really not bothered - what they call it in official letters in neither here nor there... As is a single reference on the website compared to hundreds without. Think about my UK (country) example a bit, and then think about WP:DAB. The current naming scheme makes sense. Thanks/wangi 20:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes please. --LorianTC 20:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Image:BBAUemail.jpg --JD[don't talk|email] 20:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Great, so we know the official name for the Australian Big Brother is Big Brother Australia, that doesn't necesserily mean it is the same for the UK version. --LorianTC 20:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Well what would the UK version be called? --Alex9891 (talk) 20:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Thought I might get that... The only other thing I have, which probably won't satisfy anybody, is this, which is Celebrity Big Brother 2006. This is a screenshot of some of what was shown in Australia. If that's not enough, then I could always e-mail Endemol UK and Endemol USA, if that's what it'll take. --JD[don't talk|email] 21:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
JD, you're still missing the point - we don't name articles based on what things are called in darkend rooms and closed discussions... We don't name things based on what they're called when aired on the opposite side of the world. We name articles based on the name the majority of people use to refer to them. For Big Brother the shows are simply known as Big Brother to local audiences (except maybe that strange Pinoy one). WP:NAME for more info. /wangi 21:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
If we're going by the more common name of shows, rather than the real name, then why aren't all the Law and Order shows, and CSI ones, all named just Law and Order or CSI, and then the rest of the name in brackets? I'm sure they're more commonly referred to as simply Law and Order and CSI. Or Whose Line Is It, Anyway?, that's referred to as Whose Line sometimes, but it still gets its full name. Or the Survivor shows - they're more commonly referred to as Survivor, but they all longer, much longer names. Plus, they get their full names in their article titles - bracket-free. If nobody'll settle for the examples I've given, then can people at least go for shorter names? --JD[don't talk|email] 21:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Pretty sure those two shows are in TV listings as they're named in the articles... And shorter, in what way and why? Surely clarity is better (you talking about dropping "series"?) /wangi 21:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
If the name of the country is an absolute no-no for the name, then Big Brother 7 (UK) would be appropriate. Incorrect, but shorter. --JD[don't talk|email] 21:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Why is it necessary for it to be sorter? --LorianTC 21:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Why's it necessary to be so long and complex? --JD[don't talk|email] 21:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Um, it's neither that long or complex. Anyway, since when is the most common way of naming the show Big Brother 7? --LorianTC 21:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say that Big Brother 7 was the most common way, but it's shorter. If it matters, as far as Google goes, there are more results for UK pages only that say "Big Brother 7", than there are in the whole world that say "Big Brother series 7", or "Big Brother UK series 7". Should we go have another vote? See just how many people really oppose? --JD[don't talk|email] 21:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
You're including the disambig part in the search, which isn't really meant to be part of the name, making the search invalid. --LorianTC 21:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
What should I have searched for then? --JD[don't talk|email] 21:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
The bit outside of the brackets. Big Brother 7 and Big Brother. The latter will obviously turn up more results. The length difference is small and doesn't matter, Big Brother (UK series 7) is a better and more accurate title than Big Brother 7 (UK). --LorianTC 21:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
It's unnecessarily long, it's unnecessarily complex, and if it's going to stay or be changed, should at least have a few more opinions first. --JD[don't talk|email] 21:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
There are plently of articles with longer names than this one, and, how is it complex too complex? It includes the necessary detail to disambiguate teh article from the other series and versions of the show. That detail is required and can't be reduced. --LorianTC 22:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
How necessary is the word "series"? --JD[don't talk|email] 22:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
It would be Big Brother (UK 7) without it, that is just a meaningless number and looks out of place. By the way, here is a long title: Annual Meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank Group. Why don't you go and complain there? --LorianTC 22:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Who said it would be Big Brother (UK 7)? There's plenty of different ways it can be renamed. And the title of that article uses the official name of the meetings that the article is about. --JD[don't talk|email] 22:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
"There's plenty of different ways it can be renamed." Such as?
"And the title of that article uses the official name of the meetings that the article is about." Because there is no common way of calling it. There is no policy about keeping article titles short. If you're that fussed why don't you make articles with shorter titles that link to the main article? --LorianTC 22:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not fussed about other articles; I'm fussed about Big Brother articles. It could be called Big Brohter 7 UK, Big Brohter UK 7, or Big Brother (UK 7). Okay, maybe not plenty of ways... This has gotten way too long. If we want a quick and easy way to end this, then I'd suggest a straw poll, but then I'd probably start getting a bad reputation for always using polls... --JD[don't talk|email] 22:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Big Brother 7 UK, Big Brother UK 7 - You have moved disambig parts into the title where they are not supposed to be.
Big Brother (UK 7) - Like I said before, it's just a meaningless number.
Before putting up a poll you've got to give a reasonable alternative to the current title. --LorianTC 22:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Big Brother 7 UK and Big Brother UK 7 are reasonable alternatives. --JD[don't talk|email] 22:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Why am I repeating myself? You have moved disambig parts into the title where they are not supposed to be. The title is Big Brother, anything else that is required to disambiguate the article from the other Big Brother related articles goes in parenthesis to the right of the title. In this case, the country and the series, UK is self explanatory as the country, 7 on it's own is a meaningless number, so it has to be series 7. The country comes first in the "tree" of Big Brother articles, so the result is Big Brother (UK series 7), exactly as it is now. The current title is correct and should not be changed. --LorianTC 22:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Fine, I can see where you're coming from, but if the UK part is a part of the show's real name, it's not a disambig. That aside, the word series doesn't absolutely have to be there. It can be removed, and it would still make sense. --JD[don't talk|email] 22:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). If the title was Big Brother (UK 7), it isn't immediatly obvious what the 7 is referring to, and it looks out of place anyway. Why are we still having this discussion? There is no need at all to change the titles of the articles. --LorianTC 22:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
That's why I suggested Big Brother 7 UK. How would year numbers be, instead of series numbers? --JD[don't talk|email] 22:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I can see where you're coming from, but the series number is more relevant than the year of broadcast. --LorianTC 22:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
About Big Brother 7 UK, look at it the correct way that would be written Big Brother (7 UK), now it just looks like an out of place number again. --LorianTC 22:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
This is a bit random, but if the UK part weren't there, and if it weren't necessary, what would you call this article? --JD[don't talk|email] 22:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Big Brother (series 7). Why? --LorianTC 22:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Was just wondering whether you'd have the series bit in there, and the brackets. Also, I'm not just requesting that this article be changed. I have asked on BB06 and BB7 USA, and I was proposing it in the name of simplifying the titles, and for standardisation's sake. --JD[don't talk|email] 22:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
It is required to be in brackets because it is disambig, Big Brother 7 would be wrong, and Big Brother (7) looks worse.
I have seen the requests in other articles and knew you wanted to change all of them, but my point is, there is nothing to change, I have already explained why the current title is exactly what it should be. --LorianTC 23:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
And I've explained my reasons, as unimpressive as they may be. What would you say to a straw poll? Not to have the name of this article changed, but just for opinions? --JD[don't talk|email] 23:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
What? Because you think they are too long? Well they ain't getting any shorter, they have the least amount of detail required to define the article. And how can you have a poll with no answers? It makes no sense. --LorianTC 23:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I've already demonstrated how the name can be shorter, and still present the same information. If this conversation is going to continue with us both arguing the same things, I think it might be best to leave it, for now, until more people pick up on it and have their say. --JD[don't talk|email] 23:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
The only way you have shortened it is to remove the word series, which leaves behind a fairly meaningless number. You are not countering my arguments, just using the same ones again, which is why I have to use the same ones again. You have no good reason to change the names of the articles, and no good name to change them to. --LorianTC 23:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
That I don't have good reason to change it, is a matter of opinion; and that I have suggested no names, is also a matter of opinion. Like I said, I think we should leave it until other people have commented. --JD[don't talk|email] 23:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I've gotta go anyway. --LorianTC 23:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
In reply to Lorian, I don't think the word "series" needs to be there. --Alex9891 (talk) 20:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
It's not called Big Brother UK because in the UK we're not concerned about the show in other countries (other than on this site). -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Well you're not going to see them calling that on television, are you? It's the same in other countries; you don't hear "Welcome to Big Brother Australia Live Nominations", nor would you expect to. --JD[don't talk|email] 20:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
JD, I think the wise thing to note from this discussion is that there's no consensus to change the article names. Thanks/wangi
Yeah, I could see that before you pointed it out. --JD[don't talk|email] 22:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Erm, I didn' mean it that way ;) /wangi 22:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
According to the official website, TV listings and (most importantly) the show's title sequence, it's called Big Brother. Anything else is disambiguation and should be in brackets. - LeonWhite 23:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
They aren't going to call it Big Brother UK in the television guides, or in the opening titles. Search the Channel 4 website for Big Brother though, and tell me what you see... --JD[don't talk|email] 23:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
You have got to be kidding me... we have already been through this. --LorianTC 07:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
The way it's done atm seems good IMO because it's a reasonable compromise between clarity and accuracy, and also enables disambiguation. Sometimes it pays to have something a little longer, so there can be no misunderstanding--luke 07:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Chronology Weekly

Why's the chronology in two-week sections? --JD[don't talk|email] 23:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Table of nominations and evictions

An anonymous user keeps changing the current nominations and evictions table to split the evictions row into evictions, walkers and ejectees. I would like to see who thinks the current one is better or should be split it. I think we should keep it as it is because it is less clutterred and has unnecessary detail.

Current:

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7 Week 8
Against
Public Vote		 Bonnie,
Glyn		 Lea,
Richard,
Sezer		 Nikki,
Sam		 Grace,
Nikki		 Imogen,
Lisa,
Mikey,
Nikki		 Aisleyne,
Susie		 Lea,
Richard		 All but
Jayne
Evicted Bonnie Sezer Sam Grace Lisa Aisleyne [1] Lea

Split:

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Day 49 Week 7 Week 8
Nominated Bonnie,
Glyn		 Lea,
Richard,
Sezer		 Nikki,
Sam		 Grace,
Nikki		 Imogen,
Lisa,
Mikey,
Nikki		 Aisleyne,
Susie		 Aisleyne's
choice:
Sprial or
Jonathan		 Lea,
Richard		 Pete, Imogen,
Mikey, Glyn,
Richard, Nikki,
Aisleyne, Susie,
Spiral, Jennie,
Michael
Evicted Bonnie Sezer Sam Grace Lisa Aisleyne* Jonathan* Lea
Walked Shabaz George
Ejected Dawn
I think the second one would be better, but don't have all the housemates' names in the Week 8 box. --JD[don't talk|email] 14:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
It is a table of nominations and evictions, not a table of nominations, evictions, walkers and ejectees. The other BB articles that have this table don't have the same data, why should this one? It just adds 2 mostly empty rows with information elsewhere in the article. --LorianTC 14:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the one on the BB06 article is even bigger, although with good reasons that don't apply to this article. If it's nominations and evictions only, then the names of the people that weren't evicted would probably be better off not being on the table at all, but that might cause confusion for some people. --JD[don't talk|email] 14:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Uh, there isn't one in Big Brother (UK series 6)... But yeah, it should stay as it is. --LorianTC 14:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
BB06, Australia..? --JD[don't talk|email] 14:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I see, why does BB06 redirect to the Australian version? No country is defined in the name... --LorianTC 15:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Don't start asking me to prove stuff and whatnot by saying this, but it's an official abbreviation... It's even in the logo (the heart is a zero); and more than anything else, there's no other article on the English Wikipedia, that I know of, where BB0x can direct to. --JD[don't talk|email] 15:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok fair enough if it's the official abbreviation, I don't watch it so I didn't know. Anyway, the anon edited seems o have disappeared, so unless he turns up again, this discussion is basically over... --LorianTC 15:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
The second table offers a more in depth detail of how people left the house and under which circumstances. Saying that "All But Jayne" were nominated doesn't tell anything. Does that mean that Grace was nominated too? Of course not, because she wasn't in the house at that time. Having it say every Housemate's name lets the reader know EXACTLY who was nominated. And the table also shows as clear as crystal what happened to George, Shabaz and Dawn. I'm the creator of the BB06 Australia table and it is very efficient at showing the weekly events in the Big Brother house and nobody seems to have a problem with it. It's very informative and I feel it should be used on the Big Brother UK (Series 7) page. --24.224.246.18 18:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Daniel
All the added information is unnecessary, it fills up space with mostly empty rows with information elsewhere in the article. It is a table of nominations and evictions, not walkers and ejectees. This information is not included in the main nominations and evictions article article, so it definantly should not be included in this article. The table is only there to provide a summary of the main article, not go into detail, especially with info not in the main article. --LorianTC 18:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Evictions with no crowds

In the Chronology section under Week 6, the article states: "For the second time in Big Brother UK's history, there was no audience outside for the eviction." I was going to change it because off the top of my head I can think of two occassions when this has happened - Gos in Big Brother 4 and Kitten and Big Brother 5. Just wanted to check that there haven't been any more. Dan K 18:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Should it not just be removed all together? I mean, it's not that big a deal. Just say there was no crowd when he was evicted. --JD[don't talk|email] 18:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
When Kitten came out, she had a crowd, i saw her ejection the other day on Youtube. ellisjm 18:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
There were about 10 people, mostly news reporters. I wouldn't call that a crowd. — FireFox 21:32, 15 July '06
Be that as it may, it's still a crowd, just a crowd of 10. Gos had absolutely no-one there... ellisjm 21:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
How come Gos didn't have a crowd? I don't remember that. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Cos there was a bomb scare, housemates had to be evacuated on the friday. The eviction occured on the Saturday, but health and safety regulations wouldn't let the public in... godgoddingham333 23:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't that be on the BB4 article then? —JD[don't talk|email] 23:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
It is, isn't it?? godgoddingham333 00:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
If it is, trust me to have missed it. I only actually searched for the word bomb in the article, and used that to decide whether or not it was in there. So even if it is, it probably doesn't go into that much detail. —JD[don't talk|email] 00:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Davina

How pregnant is she? Is she going to be able to finish the series? I mean, she looks pretty far gone. CelardoreTalk 19:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

She's far enough gone to want to take an emergency birth pack with her to the final. --JD[don't talk|email] 19:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Dermot has been confirmed to do Friday's live final if Davina is unavailable.

That was confirmed before the series started. If it's not in the article though, and if there's a source, I think it should go in. --JD don't talk email me 15:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Pete & Glyn

Is anybody able to take a couple of new screenshots of Glyn and Pete sporting their new hairstyles? ellisjm 10:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Official links only?

Can somebody tell me why links to unofficial websites aren't allowed, please? --JD[don't talk|email] 20:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Everyone else was when people added them, so I just did the same. Anyway, unless it provides information that the article doesn't already contain it shouldn't be linked to. --LorianTC 21:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

See WP:EL for starters. Thanks/wangi 21:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Tip_of_the_day/September_22,_2006 luke 21:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
In the context of this article that's meaningless - there are 101 fansites and in the eyes of their creators/readers each is the best, each should be listed, and should be the top of the list. WP:EL: "fanlistings are generally not informative and should not ordinarily be included". Thanks/wangi 21:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
For information, I am repeating my edit summary here: Unofficial is ok, with care and discretion. I don't happen to believe it's right to include every fansite, but neither do I believe it's right to simply exclude a fansite without first considering what is on the site and if it's a worthwhile and informative site. There will be some disagreements, but probably not many - and these can be discussed in talk.--luke 01:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I think Digital Spy should be included, even if only as the one and only unofficial site. --JD[don't talk|email] 02:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Week 9 rations

The article states milk and bread will be replenished - I thought the housemates had to make their own bread? - Lee Stanley 07:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the ingredients will be replenished? --Alex9891 (talk) 11:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Do they still have to do make their own bread? I guessed they'd stopped doing that when they got rid of the chickens and allowed them to have hot water for more than 1 hour a day. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 11:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I think that they only have to for this "ration" week --Alex9891 (talk) 11:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You lot are fast!

Sorry, I thought it might be common sense to give the phonetic pronunciation of Aisleyne's name - after all someone who knows nothing about BB might want to look at the article some time. Or is the article simply being written by a single group of BB fans for BB fans? I'm not going to bother changing it back, plenty of other articles to work on. Happy editing. --Escaper7 18:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to stop editing the article because I removed that; I removed it because pronunciations generally aren't included in articles. Sorry. --JD[don't talk|email] 18:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure that most people who look it up will know something about it. And about Aisleyne's name - that's the English language for you! --Alex9891 (talk) 18:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I know Irish (and she admitted her name is Irish) and Ais in Irish is pronounced Ash, so there is a little confusion. When I first saw her name I didn't know that it was pronounced Ashleen. From what I know, Aisleyne is not an English name. Geoking66 20:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Chronology section

Okay, now the chronology's slightly mega-long now, what do people say to it being on a separate page now? --JD[don't talk|email] 22:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

No, the previous series' weren't. Not yet anyway. --Alex9891 (talk) 23:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
We don't always have to not do something just because we haven't done it before. Isn't the whole point of this thing improvement? --JD[don't talk|email] 23:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Well not yet I don't think. Maybe at week 10ish? I think a lot of what's written there can easily be edited out without a problem, so that would make it shorter. --Alex9891 (talk) 23:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
It should have tasks, nominations and evictions, strikes, punishments, and birthdays as bare minimum; unless somebody disagrees with any of that, and has good reason. Even with just that, the rest of the article makes it kinda long. --JD[don't talk|email] 23:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah, do you mean a really comprehensive guide? Like with details of absolutely everything that went on? --Alex9891 (talk) 23:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
lol not an extensive guide or anything. But the stuff I mentioned above, they seem the most basic stuff. A really comprehensive guide would just be way over the top; what with all the petty arguments and whatnot. And wouldn't that go againt one of those WP:NOT rules, anyway? --JD[don't talk|email] 23:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Like the nominations table? The tasks all written up and stuff, maybe --Alex9891 (talk) 23:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
My reply's on your email JD_UK... ellisjm 23:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I've de-druftified and sourced the Chronology section up to Weeks 5 and 6. This is as small as it'll get. Since we've split off the housemates, the article is under 31KB now, so needen't be split at all again, until this barrier is once again met. —Celestianpower háblame 21:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
What about making the sections one-week sections? --JD[don't talk|email] 21:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good to me... ellisjm 21:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
It just clogs up the TOC, in my opinion, for no veritable gain. Plus, it makes very small section, which isn't any good to anyone. —Celestianpower háblame 22:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Date linking

Can I just ask what is wrong with linking dates? --Alex9891 (talk) 11:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

See WP:MOSNUM for the answer. Linking full dates is right though. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 11:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Then why do Jayne and Michael have no links, and why have they been reverted when they are full dates? --Alex9891 (talk) 11:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
No idea. It wasn't me. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 11:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Housemates

Um, the housemates are still on a separate page. What's going to happen to the other page? Where are the housemates going? --JD[don't talk|email] 13:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed them again, it was put back by the same person spamming his stolen images. --LorianTC 13:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Please contribute to the discussion here over this issue. —Celestianpower háblame 13:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
The discussion was relevant to the page it was posted on. --JD[don't talk|email] 13:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

BBLB colour?

Isn't the colour for BBLB green/teal, not blue like it says in the title sequence section? If you go on the C4 website, it's a teal colour, and if you watch the intro it's teal, so why does the article say blue? Geoking66 07:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right. Well spotted! Changed... godgoddingham333 09:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

freeview

i'm told that the freeview big brother live feed has been taken off the air and replaced with film four. can anyone confirm this?Timdew 13:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. — FireFox 13:13, 23 July '06

should freeview be removed from the main entry ? Timdew 22:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

cable

Can someone tell me what cable channels the live feed is on? as indicated by paragraph 3 of the main entry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timdew (talk • contribs)

NTL gets it. --LorianTC 19:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

day 63 and 64

repeated lines about the "task" make these two paragraphs similar, could this be reworded? Timdew 19:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

No need to ask permission, do it yourself. --LorianTC 19:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

ok, i'll have a go . thanks for your help. Timdew 20:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Week basings?

OK, I'm a little confused on how we should mark weeks. Do we mark them as the time that one person and the next person were evicted or based on 7's? Since the evictions are two days after the beginning of the next week, should they be counted as the week that just ended or a new one (like Bonnie being evicted week 2 not week 1)? If so, the chronological sections should be at Day 7, 14, 21, etc.? Geoking66 20:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

BB7 started on a Thursday, so the weeks would be a day off, if evictions are what when weeks start are going by. —JD[don't talk|email] 20:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
The last piece of information each week should be an eviction. The last days will be Days 65,72,79,86 etc... godgoddingham333 20:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I meant to say. —JD[don't talk|email] 20:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Prison task

How many fails were the housemates allowed in the prison task? In the highlights show, I think they said that up to four were allowed, but five fails would have given them a basic shopping budget. However, this says that "The group picked up four fails, two short of the six that would have seen them miss out on a luxury shopping budget". Which is right? Tra (Talk) 12:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty screwed up, first they said 5, then they said 4, and now they're saying 6... --LorianTC 13:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
The voiceover said 5 and they would pass, six and they fail. Although it was also stated that if the escape garden was revealed it was an automatice fail. Darrenhusted 15:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The weeks... again

I'm not sure how many times I've asked this now, but I don't recall receiving a response any of the times. Why are the weeks broken up into two week sections? —JD[don't talk|email] 21:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

For a few reasons, which are as follows:
  1. A "week" is an artificial length of time, as is any length of time. We shouldn't be bound by it.
  2. Since my rewrite and cutting back, individual weeks are simply too small to be treated separately. There's not enough to write about (that's of note) each week - since each section should be at least 2 paragraphs.
  3. That many (14 or so?) just clutters the TOC unnecessarily.
Thank you for discussing. Regards, —Celestianpower háblame 22:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
The switch back should have been discussed first which is why I reverted it. Don't be surprised when the edit wars start and firefox steps in again and ab(uses) his admin. powers to protect the page. Hope I'm wrong! leaky_caldron 22:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
That's a very serious accusation. Please do not make it, unless you're willing to back it up. Plus, the switch to individual weeks wasn't discussed at all, either. And yes, while I won't be surprised, I'll be dissappointed when edit wars start up - that's against policy, and certainly bad Wikiquette. —Celestianpower háblame 22:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
first, I made no accusation, I offered a POV based on recent experience. Second, you really should have discussed your radical change back to 2 weeks and it was bad Wikiquette not to do so. Third, you've caused avoidable disruption by your failure to do so (fact). Fourth, as has been pointed out, the chrono. was apparently originally weekly. Finally, as predicted someone else has reverted your changes back to weekly. (your edits were good by the way but the change to bi-weekly was always going to cause serious issues for some people and with consultation was wholly avoidable) leaky_caldron 00:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
That's exactly what you did - accused FireFox of abusing his Admin Powers on a previous occasion.
I don't understand where the "radical" is coming from. It's a change in the names of a few headings: the "radical", if at all, comes in my rewrite. But, yes, perhaps I should have discussed it first, though I thought that as part of an extensive rewrite, people would see how tiny the sections were now, and fail to see a reason to continue to split them.
No, that isn't a fact. I wouldn't call it disruption to anyone but me (who kept trying to do big rewrites and kept being edit conflicted on people changing the sections).
That doesn't matter as much as you might think - Big Brother (UK series 6) has fortnightly sections and the article has popped back and forth between these two ideas for ages. If the article originally said "Nikki is such a cow!", we wouldn't be campaigning to put that back in, would we?
I only reverted once. The other reverts came because I was doing complicated big edits and was bei8ng edit conflicted. If someone had have changed the sections after I was done, I would have left it.
Thanks and regards, —Celestianpower háblame 08:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict x2) Er, I'm not finished... A week is a period of seven consecutive days. That's hardly an artificial length of time. And when people are writing about weeks, who writes about them in two-week sections? Seriously, who? It doesn't matter how short or long a section will be after information from them is removed; a week will always be a seven day period. —JD[don't talk|email] 22:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Why seven? What's the significance? Perhaps this is being a bit obtuse, I don't know.
As to the length of sections, it's of critical importance. The guideline/policy/common sense dictates that sections should be 2 paragraphs long each (at least). If they aren't (or even, in the case of week 6), just one sentence, they need to be merged. This is the best was of doing so, in my view. If you have better suggestions, I'd love to hear them! :). Thanks and regards, —Celestianpower háblame 22:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
so why not change it back until a sensible consensus is reached? It might avoid RR wars and allow others the chance to contribute more effectively? leaky_caldron 22:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
That would be fine. —Celestianpower háblame 08:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Seven because a week is seven days; not 14. A fortnight is 14 days. The sections aren't named Fortnight 1, Fortnight 2, Fortnight 3, Fortnight 4, and Fortnight 5. Also, evictions don't happen fortnightly; they happen weekly. —JD[don't talk|email] 22:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
But why do they have to run with evictions? The show doesn't have a break for the eviction, so why should we necessarily? They could be named fortnight 1 ..etc, that would work. —Celestianpower háblame 08:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Because that's how it's been done before - evictions are the last thing to happen in a week. —JD[don't talk|email] 10:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
No, because the show continues past the week. Nothing stops after the evction at all - it's totally up to us how we split it up (to make sections manageable). —Celestianpower háblame 10:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say the show stopped after an eviction; but this is how it's been done in other articles: evictions are the last thing in a single week section. Single week sections are manageable, and probably make the most sense. Having them in two week sections might give people the impression that the show is broken down into two week sections, or that something amazing happens every two weeks. It needs to be basic, and it needs to not in any way be the slightest bit misleading. —JD[don't talk|email] 10:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I find that impossible to believe, personally - people aren't going to be confused by breaking it down into 2 weeks per section.
Let me try a different tack: ideally, we shouldn't have subsections at all, and we should just have a block of "plot". Since this plot summary is too long for that, we have decided to break it down further, solely because we want to reduce the section's size. Based on this, we break it up so the subsections are the right size - this is done by putting them in two week sections. This also has the advantage of a smaller TOC. It's a win-win situation, with the slightest of inconveniences coming from the evictions not neatly fitting in one per section. This is a price worth paying. —Celestianpower háblame 11:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Why don't you just put it on a separate page - that is a win-win situation: a lot of people want it on a separate page, it can be split into one-week sections without any moaning, and the main article will be smaller. —JD[don't talk|email] 11:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
A lot of people being you? The article isn't big enough to support another split, I don't think. —Celestianpower háblame 11:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
No, a lot of people being those that supported the first two pages, and the people all over the other pages that have supported a split. In my opinion, and this isn't meant as a personal attack or anything, but in my opinion, a lot of what you think is what this article has gone by, without any regard to other peoples' opinions. People didn't want the houesmates to be put on their own page, but they're still there now; and now people want the pages to be in one week sections; and we're still arguing about it. Not personal attack. —JD[don't talk|email] 11:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and that's what any good Wikipedia editor does - looks carefully at the debate, and looks at the reasonings and rationales. Clearly I and FireFox have been on Wikipedia, actively involved in editing for much longer than people who have just arrived. We've had trust in our actions from the community, making us admins. But, not only this, we take the time and effort to explain our opinions fully - why we want something a certain way. "I like this one" is worthless in terms of Wikipedia - "I like this because..." is vastly more important and weighs plenty heavier as a result. —Celestianpower háblame 13:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Being an administrator, and having "trust in your actions"; and FireFox - when did he come into this!? - has absolutely nothing to do with this. If every decision you made was so good, you wouldn't be getting conflict right now. I think what the majority of people want is sometimes the better decision, but I've seen you ignore this every single time I've seen you make a decision. People have given good reasons for everything. For the chronology, one thing that was said a lot is that splitting the chronology would make the main article smaller; but instead you split the section that everybody thinks should stay. And for this, people have given good reasons for having the weeks in one-week sections; but again it's almost as if you're doing everything in your power to try and have it the way you want it. Thisi isn't about me having my way at all; this is about what's best for the article, and what everybody else thinks is best for the article. —JD[don't talk|email] 13:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I've already made it clear that I believe the change back to double weeks should have been discussed first to avoid edit waring. The suggested content cutback if fine. Personally I think weeks are slightly preferable as everyone knows what a week is, it's consistent with the BB website and prevents someone arguing it should be week 1 & 2, weeks 3, 4 & 5 or any other combination. leaky_caldron 22:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Leakycaldron. A week should be used because it's a week! Whoever said a week is artificial?!?! It's a week!! Although I disagree with the cutbacks on title sequence etc!!godgoddingham333 22:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, see my response above.
Thank you - the article really needed it.
I strongly doubt anyone would argue for any other combination, personally. I do see your point about the universalness of a week, but I think it's vastly outweighed by the cut down in TOC size and the sections which are actually a decent length, rather than one sentence. One sentence sections need to be merged, whatever happens.
You really make no sense to me, Godgoddingham. Please make a point that has content - I'm perfectly aware that a week is a week. Perhaps less exclamation marks would help?
Why do you disagree on that one? It's considerably non-notable stuff. Thanks and regards, —Celestianpower háblame 08:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
There are no one sentence sections ! godgoddingham333 11:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
My mistake - there used to be, but there aren't any more. —Celestianpower háblame 13:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
If you really are so concerned about the table of contents, you would have truly considered putting the chronology on its own page ages ago. —JD[don't talk|email] 12:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. We moved the housemates, which made the TOC much worse than the chronology. The TOC would be twice as big if you'd have got your way. —Celestianpower háblame 13:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Reading this article as a non-viewer I fail to understand why on earth day 16 is in week two, either a week is a week of seven days or another way of marking up the splits is needed, evictions are weekly - well how about "up to the first eviction", "up to the second eviction" or similar? --Alf melmac 14:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
The first 'week' was 9 days long as it started on a Thursday, and all the 'weeks' end on a Friday. — FireFox (talk) 15:09, 30 July '06
So a 'week' is not really a 'week', I would favour using a different demarcation and use section markings that wouldn't affect the TOC at all, it's no so big as to be uneditable if out of the TOC. --Alf melmac 17:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
(Database lock conflict) Am I right in saying that the TOC can be customised? I'm sure this was done before to remove the housemates from the TOC. — FireFox (talk) 17:58, 31 July '06
It can't be customised as far as I know, but a table that closely resembles the table of contents can be made, as previously demonstrated by 9cds. —JD[don't talk|email] 18:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
That's possibly what I was thinking about. — FireFox (talk) 18:04, 31 July '06

Eviction percentages

Bonnie received Bonnie% of the votes on her eviction night. Sam received Sam% on... Sam's eviction night. Er, problem? —JD[don't talk|email] 23:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

On a similar note, it says "On Day 79 Mikey and Susie became the 11th and 12th housemates to be evicted with 48.5% and 59.4% of the public vote respectively." which doesn't make sense. Do the percentages look weird because people continued to vote after Mikey had left or are they just wrong? Icey 15:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
The 48.5% is out of 4, the 59.4% is out of 3. --LorianTC 15:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Something Wrong!

Something is wrong with the page, I have tried to edit it but it's not working! help!

Removal of Excessive Detail

"If housemates wish to leave a comment they must press one, if housemates wish to make a request they must press two and if housemates wish to leave the diary room they must press zero"

I removed the above text, because it's unneeded detail, and doesn't add anything to the article. "similar to a touch pad telephone" will suffice --YB 22:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Detail is good sometimes. I didn't know housemates had to ask to leave the Diary Room. I reckon it should go back. —JD[don't talk|email] 22:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
i agree with Yellowbounder , it's spurious and doesn't add to the article. it's padding, reference to the "touch tone " interface should be sufficient.--Timdew 22:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Then again, some detail is nice. The moment when Susie pressed "1" and was in the queue would be a little odd written without the "1" "2" "0" reference. Geoking66 21:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Houseplan Wars

Is there a reason why the houseplan keeps getting changed from the light one to the dark one? —JD[don't talk|email] 20:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I think what happened is 80.43.11.242 changed the houseplan from light to dark, then in another edit they added a {{fact}} tag to the bit about the returning housemate being eligible to win. JD then switched the houseplan back to light then, a minute later, Leaky caldron reverted the adding of the {{fact}} tag. By doing this they also reverted JD's edit (therefore putting the dark houseplan back). Assuming this was unintentional, I (Tra) put the light houseplan back. Tra (Talk) 21:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Lol okay then, thanks for the info. I thought people were fighting over it or something. —JD[don't talk|email] 21:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Live Action on Freeview

I've corrected the information about live action footage of Big Brother on Freeview. I've got a Freeview box and the red button icon vanished without notice several days prior to the launch of Film4 (also owned by Channel 4).

At the same time previews of forthcoming films started to be shown on Film4 and I believe that the bandwith that the live action was using was transfered over to Film4. Prior to the transmission of Big Brother, Freeview channel 31 carried More 4+1. This channel was shut down to make way for Film4 and, despite the fact that the live action was transmitted on Freeview channel 305, the two channels were never ever broadcasting pictures at the same time. I therefore think that Big Brother was 'borrowing' channel 31's bandwith until Film4 was turned on.

I didn't put any of this into the article as I don't think it is relevant, but if anyone contests my edit (for some strange reason) you can research what I have said here to see if you agree with me.

Big Mac 23:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

House

Is House not a word that should be capitalised? --JD don't talk email me 21:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Is it ever used as a proper noun? Tra (Talk) 21:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I would have thought so, as it's referring to the Big Brother House. Is the word capitalised when it's used on the website? I'll check that. --JD don't talk email me 21:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Do they use the word House on the website!? I can't find it... I'll keep looking though. --JD don't talk email me 21:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I found one use... It's here, and the word House is capitalised. --JD don't talk email me 21:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Another here. I think it's safe to say the word House should be capitalised, unless somebody can say otherwise. Strangely, the word Day isn't capitalised. Guess I'm not finished on the Channel 4 website yet... --JD don't talk email me 21:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I found the word Day capitalised more than uncapitalised, 2 to 1. --JD don't talk email me 21:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I'll change it to capitalised in the article Tra (Talk) 21:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Guys, a sense of perspective please - WP:MOS is our style guide, not the BB website! "House" is capitalised because it refers to the "Big Brother House", a proper noun - it makes sense to capitalise that in our article only where we are using "House" as shorthand for "Big Brother House" (as in it'd make sense to also replace the full phrase in). There is no reason at all for us to capitalise "day". Thanks/wangi 21:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Day is capitalised on the Big Brother UK website. Day is capitalised on the Big Brother Australia website. I can't comment on the Big Brother America website, but will do in a moment. I think how they use capitalisation should take precedence over how we do it, if it isn't major. --JD don't talk email me 21:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
House isn't capitalised on the Big Brother America website. I can't see the word Day used anywhere, though. --JD don't talk email me 21:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think they use day numbers. I only see weeks used, and that's lower case. --JD don't talk email me 21:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Losing Percentages in Multiple Evictions

When there are two it is obvious how much the winner got, because the loser's % is stated, but in previous years when three or four people were up Channel4 used to give complete breakdowns, I was wondering if this information existed and if it did could someone add it? I only ask because the vote back in last night has all four voting % listed, and I was curious who had the larger % when Sezer left, Lea or Richard? Darrenhusted 13:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Gender Bias from Voting Public

Should a discussion on the main page for Big Brother UK be added once this series finishes pointing out how in a Female vs Male eviction the odds are with the Male (the first and last eviction of Series 7 being examples, 78% for Bonnie vs 22% for Glyn shows how strongly the public is against the female contestants) and a discussion about how with the exceptions of Makosi, Nadia, Kate and Anna females don't usually place in the final three, and that even Sezer thought he could get away with murder and still not go out (his case is blurred by it being a three way with Richard and Lea). In some series the bias has been so strong that during BB4 6 females were evicted and only 3 males, leaving Steph to finish 4th with the top three being all male. And from Sam to Jayne there were nothing but female evictions this year, until the double eviction of Spiral and Michael (but even Mikey has gone back in after four days meaning Sezer, Spiral and Michael are the only males to have been evicted this year and still be out the house, and futhermore Michael and Spiral weren't even original housemates). I have some ideas I just wondered if anyone felt it was necessary? Darrenhusted 13:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

In a lot of Big Brother seasons, of the Final Two or the top four, there's a single woman. It must be something the women are doing wrong if they're getting evicted more often than the guys. I wouldn't think it warrants insertion though. --JD don't talk email me 14:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The four place finish for all six previous series was female (Mel, Helen, Jade, Steph, Shell, Kinga). And if you look through the votes you can see 20 occasions when a female lost to a male or males, but only seven occasions when a female beat a male (Andy lost to Caroline BB1, Josh then Paul lost to Helen BB2, PJ lost to Kate BB3, Science then Kemal lost to Orlaith BB6 and Mikey lost to Susie, Imogen and Jennie BB7). I find it interesting because I think Imogen is destined to lose to Richard, the odds are not in her favour. Darrenhusted 14:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It could be coincidence, or it could just be that women are more sooky than the guys. Statistics aren't always good things to go by, especially with things like that, as there are so many different variables to take into account. --JD don't talk email me 14:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

helen came second, elizabeth came fourth —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.87.109 (talk • contribs)

Nominations, evictions and percentages

What will this chart look like when people start leaving on the last day? Is it going to be huge??? -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

how about a smaller, separate "Final Night" table? leaky_caldron 18:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't know. If we didn't have the percentages it would be ok because it would just be a list in order, but if we're going to put a line between each person, it'll make the table very big all of a sudden... -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 18:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
How many people are going to be in the House for Finale? --JD don't talk email me 18:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
6. — FireFox (talk) 18:22, 12 August '06
Couldn't the last cell be split into some sort of 2x3 grid, and have people and percentages and order of eviction in them? --JD don't talk email me 18:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I have a separate question – what are Grace, Lea and Mikey doing in Week 13? — FireFox (talk) 18:27, 12 August '06
The re-entered the house and were evicted again. --LorianTC 18:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Being broken. --JD don't talk email me 18:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Lea, Grace and Mikey were evicted in Week 12, not 13. Never mind, it was already changed :S -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Can I just say that there will probably be a midweek eviction, taking into account previous years... godgoddingham 333 22:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

No there isn't this year. --Alex9891 22:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
No-one knows for certain. It's Big Brother - anything could happen! godgoddingham 333 22:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
The pregnant lady said the next eviction was on Friday. --JD don't talk email me 22:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
lol@the pregnant lady! Yeah, Davina said there wouldn't be another eviction until Friday. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
In the Radio Times they have BB down for 8pm to 9.30pm then 10pm to 11.05pm. With 2.5hrs and six housemates to bring out they probably won't re-interview Nikki in the studio, this leaves plenty of time for four full evictions and the winner's interview. Whether they do it outside like last year (leaving Aisleyne open to chants like Makosi) or take it inside I don't know. Last year was the first time that Davina didn't go it to the house to interview the winner, maybe they'll do that to speed up time. Anyhoo no room for a surprise eviction during the week. Darrenhusted 08:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
What if Nikki wins? -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Nobody's confirmed or denied, or even commented, on whether or not Nikki's getting an interview on Finale. --talk to JD wants e-mail 23:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Table Problem

Shouldn't the table, instead of having "All Housemates" have maybe the names of them as well, or just the names? Seeing as to figure out who all the housemates are at this point, one would have to look through the rest of the table and see who's been evicted?

Yes, feel free to be bold and fix it. — FireFox (talk) 17:30, 14 August 2006
I've done it now anyway. — FireFox (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2006
This is a problem - what about the week where it is All but Jayne - I have to look through the table to see who has been evicted. It is inconsistent. Any comments? --Alex talk here 23:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Well I've changed it now. --Alex talk here 11:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Exit days

Why are exit days being added when nobody'll be leaving the House until tomorrow? That they will be leaving tomorrow isn't the point. Adding the exit days of housemates that are still in the House is like putting on the article that Nikki was going back into the House before it was confirmed. Things that are obvious shouldn't be added to the article until they happen - for all we know, the housemates just might stay in the House for another week. --talk to JD wants e-mail 12:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Percentages

How are the final eviction percentages worked out? they seem to add up to more than 100% and what's the source reference? --Timdew 22:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Voting continued after housemates were evicted, so they wouldn't work out perfectly. Vote counts were taken before evictions, and voting continued afterwards, without the evicted housemate being voted for. talk to JD wants e-mail 22:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thanks, that explains it. It's a shame they don't publish the actual number of callers which would be accurate rather than the percentages which don't seem quite right--Timdew 22:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
For the record, if we assume that the relative shares didn't change after each Housemate was removed from the poll (as fair an assumption as anything else), the overall percentages were as follows:
  • Pete 40.2%
  • Glyn 25.5%
  • Aisleyne 18.5%
  • Richard 8.5%
  • Nikki 6.4%
  • Jennie 0.9%

Glyn did very well to take a quarter of the votes, and Aisleyne's showing was very impressive. I too would like to know the raw figures, but expect Endemol to act shadily in this respect. --Ross UK 01:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

however voting shares do change, as for example, people voting aisleyne, may be against pete winning and vote glyn once aisleyne is evicted (negative voting), so it isn't neccesarily accurate - Dave —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.87.109 (talk • contribs)

Of course not, but it's as close as we're going to get. --Ross UK 01:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The table of contents

The table of contents is where it is so that there is less whitespace. If there's a good reason for it not to be where it is, please say so here before you revert it again. Thanks. talk to JD wants e-mail 09:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Runner up

Should the runners up be given a blue tile on all the series? Glyn should be blue, not pink, and the same should be for all runner ups. Including Anna, Helen, Johnny, Ray, Jason and Eugene.--SimonPeter 17:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Glyn is blue. Only put runner-up colours on other series' infoboxes if they were runner-ups. talk to JD wants e-mail 17:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Richard's percentage

Was Richard's percentage out of five or four? I didn't see anything on the television to suggest that a vote count was taken prior to his eviction. talk to JD wants e-mail 18:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I expect his percentage to be out of four. The count was probably taken quickly but mention of it was likely lost in the midst of the Nikki debacle. --Ross UK 01:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
"Vote count taken" appeared onscreen during Nikki's "interview". -- Lee Stanley 08:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Haha okay then. I wasn't watching it properly, so meh. talk to JD wants e-mail 10:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Naming

Just watched a recorded final. I don't think the show is called by number, but instead it's by year. Any comments? --Alex talk here 21:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think they use both. I remember seeing a lot more Big Brother 7 around, and have heard that said more on television by Dermot and Davina than Big Brother 2006. I don't know though, I haven't watched most of it so I could be way wrong about that. talk to JD wants e-mail 21:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I have noticed that Davina has consistently refused to embrace the numerical nomenclature. It has however appeared in speech throughout the series, and is in my view a better identifier than is the year. --Ross UK 21:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The Channel 4 website calls it BB7. — FireFox (talk) 18:47, 29 August 2006

Imogen Thomas

Should the Imogen Thomas Topic be reopened? There is plenty of stuff that can be added there that has nothing to do with Big Brother.

  • Her Winning Miss Llanelli.
  • Her Winning Miss Wales.
  • Her Role in the Soap Opera Pobol y Cwm
  • Her Links to Cristiano Ronaldo
  • Her relationship with Dwight Yorke
  • Her work for radio station "The Wave"
  • Her University Degrees.

She would also fit into the wiki bio project, so there is enough to make a good page, therefore I think it should be reopened.

Peterwill 21:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

No. Her winning Miss Llanelli isn't particularly notable, nor is Miss Wales as such. Her soap opera role, her work for radio and links to Cristiano Ronaldo are, but can be included in the main article. Her university degree is certainly not worthy of an article. If, however, you disagree be bold and create the article. --Alex (talk) 21:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

What about the Imogen Thomas sex tape. Paris Hilton had a hole paragraph on wiki dedcated to hers, now Imogen has her own lol. Surely that is suitable for an article! Peterwill 19:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Paris Hilton is known for many other things other than her 'sex tape'. Imogen is known only for Big Brother. If she was to become a super-famous pop star, for example, then maybe her tape could count as notable. — FireFox (talk) 19:26, 20 September 2006

Week 2

Where is week 2?--195.93.21.6 23:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

A vandal removed it and was unnoticed. I've added it back. --Alex (Talk) 23:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Good article?

Does anyone think this may be a good article candidate? The reason I ask is that I would quite like to get it to at least good article status, as I have done nothing like that so far. I have already started going through it to make it more readable, but what do you all think? --Alex (Talk) 23:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I've had a look at Wikipedia:What is a good article? and, going through the points mentioned:
  1. There isn't too much technical vocabulary. The sections are grouped together reasonably well but it might be useful to have a summary of the chronology at the start (but this might be difficult with so many different tasks etc taking place).
  2. It is well sourced.
  3. It covers the major aspects of the topic area quite well; non-notable trivia has been trimmed down several times but that could still need to be looked at.
  4. The article is neutral and does not seem to be too opinionated.
  5. There has been a lot of edit wars to this article over the summer but now the show's finished, the article's relatively stable.
  6. The amount of images is not ideal but it isn't really possible to add many more because most of the images available are copyrighted.
Overall, I think this article could be a Good Article candidate. Tra (Talk) 00:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Tra. --Alex (Talk) 00:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, this article could definitely be a Good Article candidate. FireSpike 17:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Chronology

Per comments on the Peer Review, you might even want to consider moving the chronology to a seperate article, and summarising it here. At the moment it reads like a list. Then here you could concentrate on the themes of this series, and the things which make it stand out from series 1-6. Just an idea; you might prefer to retain it but edit it further. --kingboyk 12:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, what a good idea. I wonder why something like putting the chronology section on a separate page wasn't thought of sooner... jd || talk || 12:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
It'll have to go now, as it's spoiling the article. There's no way a perfect version can be on this page, it'll be too big. --Alex (Talk) 12:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, and it's been doing the article a load of good for the last six months. Even if what happened the last two times happens this time, it might be a good idea to get everybody else's opinion before splitting it... Or, you could just go ahead and do it without bothering to ask anybody else, as was done with the housemates section. jd || talk || 12:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
As kingboyk said, the chronology could be split off and replaced by the main events of the series. I think this would probably be the golden tickets, the House Next Door and Nikki's re-entry - all major twists where there has been some controversy. These (more notable) aspects could then be covered in slightly more detail without seeming to be unnecessary Tra (Talk) 16:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Now the article has been split, to Weekly summary of Big Brother (UK series 7), what defines as important, to include in a more basic summary? Evictions, tasks, punishments etc are some possibilities. Should it be weekly, or summarised differently? Also, should it be in a chronology style, as per older series, or should it be written in a new style, where everything is in a set format? Thanks. --Alex (Talk) 19:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think evictions are all that important. I don't think the tasks are too important either, but the one where the Intruders entered the House should be included. Nikki's re-entering the House, Susie's entering the House, and warnings and strikes I think should be included. I can't decide between having it like a chronology and having it in sections of whatever happened, but if only the Intruders task is included, I think having it written like a chronology might be better, as it would avoid having a tasks section with only one event. jd || talk || 19:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
You don't think that evictions, the main part of the show, what the housemates prepare themselves for all week, what defines the show's winner, are important? Explain yourself please! --Alex (Talk) 19:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think evictions are important because the evictees didn't win. This is meant to be a summary, and last time I checked only important things were included in summaries. The evictees were evicted, and Pete was the winner. I don't see why anything more than that would need to be included in a summary. jd || talk || 19:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be much difference between the summary here and the Weekly summary of Big Brother (UK series 7) that's just been split off, apart from the headings and word order. If it's going to be in a separate article, there should be significantly more information than in the section here, otherwise the article is redundant. I think we could either:
  • Trim down the summary section in this article
  • Expand the Weekly summary of Big Brother (UK series 7) article, perhaps to its size before it was trimmed down
  • Write the summary section in a significantly different way to the Weekly summary of Big Brother (UK series 7) article, e.g. organised by themes major events instead of weeks
  • Delete Weekly summary of Big Brother (UK series 7).
Tra (Talk) 21:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
There is quite a lot of difference now. You contradict yourself - do you want the Weekly summary of Big Brother (UK series 7) article expanded or deleted? Also, how do you intend to summarise using themes? --Alex (Talk) 22:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
To take your first point, I don't really mind either way, but having two places with the same information (the section and the article) is a bit redundant. I know there is some difference between the two, but to me, it just looks like the same information but trimmed down further and headings added.
To take your second point, I think it would probably be a good idea to give the major events in the series their own sections, and go into a bit more detail. I am thinking of maybe the golden tickets (which is a very unusual twist, and caused controversy with the way the competition was carried out), the House Next Door (another major twist) and Nikki's re-entry (which was also controversial). These are what distinguish the series from other series of Big Brother, so they are important. Tra (Talk) 23:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Right I've added a todo list at the top. --Alex (Talk) 16:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Title sequence

I have been thinking about the title sequence. Is it really worthy of its own section? I think it should either be merged or removed. Any comments? --Alex (Talk) 14:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Merged with what? Though it is unique as far as I know, I don't think it needs to have a section dedicated to it as most of it is about 1984, and there's nothing new there in terms of subtle, and the less subtle, references in the series. jd || talk || 14:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

How many people auditioned?

Does anybody know how many people auditioned for Big Brother 7, and are they able to back up any numbers with reputable sources? jd || talk || 19:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Erm, at least 21. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I can't find any exact figures but by 4 February, 'more than 1000 people turned up' (BBC) then on 6 February it was reported that 'extra auditions' were held (DS:BB) and by 5 March, 'well over 10,000 people managed to make it to the national auditions' (Big Brother Online). Tra (Talk) 20:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I found the Big Brother Online source before, but the way it's worded doesn't make it seem very accurate, ,and it makes me think that they may not actually know. I'm not looking for a figure so accurate that it includes every single person, but if I'm going to be including this in the article, I'd like something that appears to have been written with more certainty. If nothing else can be found, I'll just go with that though. Thanks, Tra. jd || talk || 20:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

What now?

Which areas do people think still need attention? My own concerns are the housemates section, the lead and criticism. --Alex (Talk) 20:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

Surely the "entered" and "exited" columns should be the other way round? Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 19:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Somebody brought this up on one of the infoboxes' talk pages. I don't really know what to say, as although it probably make more sense to have it like that, I think it is better the way it is. JDtalk 19:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)