Talk:Big Brother Australia 2004
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
The Big Brother WikiProject aims to improve articles relating to Big Brother, and Big Brother Australia 2004 has been identified as one of these articles. Anybody can help the WikiProject by trying to improve existing articles. Please add your name to the list of participants, if you are committed to helping out. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
Big Brother Australia 2004 is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian television. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
Contents |
[edit] The star link thing
I'm trying to bring this to the talk page as the edit warring and posting replies to messages in edit summaries really doesn't help. Why should it not be there? —JD[don't talk|email] 15:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Because:
- The link is meant to make the page shoot down so as the bit the link links to is at the top. At the moment, the link goes to having the last line of Aphrodite's bio at the top.
- It is plainly obvious that the note will be just beneath it, it's not like the text is in smallprint!
- If the * said "See note 1" it would be different. "Note 1" could refer to anything as it's at the bottom of the page. If there's a star next to Wesley's name, put a star next to the note rather than "Note 1". It's not like there's multiple notes...
godgoddingham333 15:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- There's no need to remove the link; having it there harms nobody. The positioning of the note in comparison to the rest of the article doesn't mean clicking the star makes the page not move at all. People that use popups can read the note by hovering over it. Having a star next to the note doesn't make it that easy to understand. —JD[don't talk|email] 15:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry to sound rude, but I didn't understand much of that at all. "...doesn't mean clicking the star makes the page not move at all..."?godgoddingham333 15:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- If you click the star, the page will still move down to where the note is; sometimes that's what people need to realise that what's there is what they're meant to be reading. —JD[don't talk|email] 15:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, but because the star is so close to the end, the page only moves down a centimetre or two. Also, when you mentioned popups, 90% of people who use Wikipedia (i.e. non-editors or people without accounts) don't use popups. godgoddingham333 15:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- This isn't about the percentage that don't. This isn't about the percentage that do, either. It's about the fact that it doens't need to be removed, and having it there makes more sense than removing it for no reason - if the page doesn't move when it's clicked, good for it, I say. Not everybody uses massive television-sized computer monitors. —JD[don't talk|email] 15:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Nor do I, I'm participating on a Apple Powerbook G4 (a laptop with one of the smallest displays - 12"). If you're adamant on it being a star next to Wesley's name, then make the note have a star rather than "Note 1:" It makes it sound like there's more than one note and anyway, it could have come from anywhere on the page... godgoddingham333 15:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- I was planning on putting more notes on for the other twist. —JD[don't talk|email] 15:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Nor do I, I'm participating on a Apple Powerbook G4 (a laptop with one of the smallest displays - 12"). If you're adamant on it being a star next to Wesley's name, then make the note have a star rather than "Note 1:" It makes it sound like there's more than one note and anyway, it could have come from anywhere on the page... godgoddingham333 15:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- This isn't about the percentage that don't. This isn't about the percentage that do, either. It's about the fact that it doens't need to be removed, and having it there makes more sense than removing it for no reason - if the page doesn't move when it's clicked, good for it, I say. Not everybody uses massive television-sized computer monitors. —JD[don't talk|email] 15:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, but because the star is so close to the end, the page only moves down a centimetre or two. Also, when you mentioned popups, 90% of people who use Wikipedia (i.e. non-editors or people without accounts) don't use popups. godgoddingham333 15:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- If you click the star, the page will still move down to where the note is; sometimes that's what people need to realise that what's there is what they're meant to be reading. —JD[don't talk|email] 15:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry to sound rude, but I didn't understand much of that at all. "...doesn't mean clicking the star makes the page not move at all..."?godgoddingham333 15:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Intruders
Rachel (2001), Nicole (2002), Jaime (2003), Violeta (2004) were all evicted through existing housemates voting for which intruder they wanted to stay. Each year, these specials were advertised as "Housemate's Revenge". Only Jaime from 2003 is quoted as being evicted in this way. Due to no public involvement, this is significant and thus I have added these to the respective years' HM tables.
121.45.231.227 11:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Merlin gretel.jpg
Image:Merlin gretel.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] noms table
the ashlaea and monica week is messed up. they were evicted but not against the public vote?? godgoddingham 333 15:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:BB04-DS.JPG
Image:BB04-DS.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 06:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Trevorbutlerbreeamer.jpg
Image:Trevorbutlerbreeamer.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 02:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
