Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Big Brother/A3

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

Article Collaboration

Taking the idea from a number of other WikiProjects, I think that we should have an Article for Improvement every month. What does everyone else think of this? Geoking66talk 20:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Possibly... my main concern is that the WikiProject itself doesn't receive much activity, and most effort tends to go towards the articles about series that are currently airing. Tra (Talk) 21:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if this is off topic in this section, but how can I join this WikiProject? Can I just add my name to the list on the project page? I'd like to help keep the US BB page up-to date :) --CamsWatchin 05:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Big Brother UK terminology

On the BB8 UK page there is a number of changes that editors are trying to make, and are making them to the one page (the current series) unilaterally, not taking in to account that these changes will then affect all 10 previous BB and CBB series. The debate hinges on whether Walked is clear enough for people to understand and whether Ejected conveys someone being removed from the house accurately enough. The language of BBUK is clear enough but these changes could lead to edit wars if the consensus is not established early on (there are eleven more weeks to go). As this affects so many project pages I felt the discussion should be brought to the project page rather than taking place on one series talk page. Darrenhusted 14:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Walked / Withdrawn / Left voluntarily

Maybe the name should be changed to DOR or Dismissal on Request, as it is the official term for BBUSA--Rjd0060 23:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Ejected / Disqualified / Removed

No nominations / Not eligible / Ineligible / Can't nominate / Couldn't nominate / Could not nominate

It seems from the consensus reached on Talk:Big Brother 2007 (UK) this should be "Ineligable". John Hayes 14:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I prefer "no nominations" because it looks nice on the table but also it's because that's what's been used for previous series. "Not eligible" is OK but it's not as accurate and "Ineligible" looks stupid. If we can't agree on terminology, then it should just be a grey square. Geoking66talk 20:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
"no nominations" implies that there were no nominations at all, which is not the case. Also the previous series have been changed as well.John Hayes 23:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
It only technically implies no nominations if it is a rowspan of all the housemates combined. By simply putting it in one of the boxes, then it says that there were no nominations from that particular housemate that week. Geoking66talk 04:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
On a personal level I agree with you, but it seems that's not so clear cut for everyone, so if it could potentially confuse, then it shouldn't be used for that. Also there is some value in keeping "no nominations" for when there are no nominations at all (as Xy says below). John Hayes 07:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I prefer either "not eligible" or "ineligible" – both are grammatically correct, the first being the dictionary definition of the latter. So, I think it's safe to use either of them in the article. However, I think "not eligible" does look better when in the table. Also agree with John; "no nominations" makes it sound as if there were no nominations for the entire week, so the terminology "no nominations" should be reserved for cases like those. Just my thoughts. — Xy7 05:31, 15 June 2007
We could use something like "can't nominate", couldn't we? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.66.2.250 (talk) 08:45, 15 June, 2007 (UTC)
If we used that it probably should be in past tense though, so "Couldn't nominate", or "Could not nominate". John Hayes 10:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I prefer "not eligible", and "no nominations" only for when nobody nominated. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 10:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I think "Not eligable" is what should be used. Reason being, compared to "Ineligable" it shows that there were some housemates who were eligable, but they were not one of them. It's certainly clearer than "no nominations" (as they were nominations), and is much better than "can/could not nominate" which could indicate they were banned, and is pretty elementary english anyway139.184.30.16 11:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Could not nominate is clear enough, if someone is banned then the legend Banned is used, and the box is coloured red. Darrenhusted 11:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Against public vote / Nominated

Every week most housemates receive nominations from other housemates and most housemates get "nominated". Even though the though the two housemates with the most nominations are "Against public vote", Big Brother, Big Brother's Little Brother, other associated shows and the Big Brother website always refers solely to these two housemates as the "Nominated Housemates". Therefore I think "Against public vote" should be changed to "Nominated" as this is the way the terminology is used by Big Brother and all associated shows and its website. Also, the box with the list of housemates at the top of Big Brother articles says "Nominated" in the legend and not "Against public vote".

I'm happy with either, but what Big Brother uses is not important to this discussion, but rather what someone who has never seen Big Brother is most likely to understand. I would suggest that while most people would understand what Nominated means, they might not understand what the effects of Nominated are, whereas Against public vote clarifies this. John Hayestalk 12:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Nomination twist / Nomination note / Notes

I think this should be changed in the nomination tables to something different because anything that's different to the norm isn't always a twist set by Big Brother but sometimes a result of new housemates not being eligible or people being banned from nominating, etc. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 21:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

How would you suggest it should be changed? John Hayestalk 23:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I dunno. "Nomination note"? — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 14:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Sounds better to me. John Hayestalk 14:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I have changed in Big Brother 2007 (UK). John Hayestalk 16:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
And the other relevant UK Big Brother, Celebrity Big Brother and Teen Big Brother articles. John Hayestalk 16:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the recent changed someone did. The row header is now just Notes, which i think is more appropriate as the footnotes are not always about nominations. -- Halo2 Talk 16:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fine. John Hayes - On Vacationtalk 16:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I think this should apply to all BB articles like the US and AU articles. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 06:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons - and Big Brother articles

I think that older Big Brother series articles which are largely unreferenced are actually a liability as far as WP:BLP is concerned. Since they contain information on multiple living persons, some of which is controversial, they are one to watch for BLP violations already. For example, the Big Brother UK 2005 article states that Kinga Karokzak is "infamous for, at the peak of her drunken craziness, lying in the garden and masturbating with a wine bottle." This statement is not cited. Incredibly bad BLP violation, even if it is true.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 09:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I cited it, but these types of statements are worth looking out for and sourcing if necessary.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 09:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I totally agree, this year and last year are not perfect, but much better than the rest.John Hayes 10:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Last year's one is GA, so pretty much as good as a BB article is likely to get.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 11:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Unimportant Information

According to the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Big_Brother#Housemates a lot of the information in the housemates section on the Big Brother 2007 (UK) shouldn't be included. Either the guideslines need to be updated, or the article stripped down. I feel there is a case for sexuality to be included, where known, as this can have a relevant impact on events in the house, but things like Seany attending the Michael Jackson trial are irrelevant. John Hayes 16:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Prune away, we're only three weeks in, with ten to go, this article can't expand fives times to what it is now. Darrenhusted 16:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I wonder if there would be any value in creating a housemate template, with variables for name, full name, dob, etc. John Hayes 22:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

On a related note, the list of housemates at Big Brother 2007 (UK) has recently been resorted by surname instead of first name (see discussion). For consistency, the lists for other series should probably be sorted that way too. Does anybody object to this? Tra (Talk) 14:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. John Hayestalk 08:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
As consensus regarding this matter has since changed, I think I'll leave them for now. Tra (Talk) 01:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Organising Housemates By Last Name

I've brought this up on the Big Brother 8 UK Talk Page, but I would like to put it here. I do not agree with arranging the housemates by their last names. Big Brother does not release their last names, and orders them by their first names, which is why I see no need for us to do otherwise. Also, fansites, and dedicated Big Brother sections, such as those by Virgin Media and Digital Spy also organise them by their first name. Just my two cents.Babygurl1853 17:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes but it is wikipedia policy to order by last name. John Hayestalk 08:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree with arranging them by last name either. I agree with Babygurl1853. Also I can't find who I'm looking for because I only know them but their first names. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 22:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't say it's that clear-cut. The page I think is being referred to is a guideline about how to sort categories. Since this is a set of sections and not a category, it would have slightly different characteristics etc so the guideline is useful but it's not binding in same way as e.g. WP:3RR. Tra (Talk) 01:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
That's true, I didn't actually check it in any detail. I think though, as the arguement is that Big Brother only uses the first names, we should only refer to them by their firstnames, with the exception of the first line of the info in the housemates section, but all infoboxes and headings should be first name only. That way a good compromise is reached (and probably makes most sense). John Hayestalk 09:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Total number of nominations

I would like to remove the total number of nominations table from the Big Brother articles. I suggest this as I think it adds nothing to the article, total nominations is not a concept which is used in UK Big Brother, or in other Big Brothers as far as I am aware, and isn't even that useful, as by it's nature it will tend to be biased (at least at the lower end) towards housemates who have been in the house longer. If anyone really wants this info they are able to quite easily find it out from the nominations table. If there is a Big Brother series which does use this concept then it should remain, but otherwise I do not see its benefit to the article. John Hayestalk 16:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, and think it should either be removed, or changed to show how many nominations each person got each week, like the second table suggested here. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 21:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I wonder if we could simply add a column for each week to the nominations table, to list how many nominations they got. John Hayestalk 22:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
What would that look like? — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 21:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Big Brother 8 (US/CBS)

Someone has set up a copy of Big Brother 8 (US), known as Big Brother 8 (US/CBS). A speedy deletion tag has been placed and we need to work together to make sure that the original article remains intact and that this new one be deleted ASAP. I thought that I'd inform everyone (and thanks to Jeeny for delivering the news to me. Geoking66talk 03:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that as it's creator, I take personal resposibility for creating it. Reading the talk pages it seemed as if a second artical be the only solution for those that wanted a referance to the show but not unaired information material on the regular show. As the show wraps up the two could be merged and this one deleted. This is done as a proposal to release tension in the community.

The other proposal if using after hours for this would create the same reasoning for the deleation of this artical. This is just my rebuttal, and reasoning.Thee17 03:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Eviction at the finales?

Are housemates "evicted" at the Finale? They all get to leave anyway. --Howard the Duck 16:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

In the UK version, Channel 4 classes all the housemates in the finale as 'evicted' apart from the winner, with the housemate in second place referred to either as the runner up or as evicted. On Wikipedia, this classification is also used in the infoboxes, but in the nominations table they're listed as first,second, third place etc. I don't know about other countries. Tra (Talk) 16:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
In the US version, a jury of seven evicted houseguests chose between the last two people left in the house to receive the grand prize. Alucard 16 02:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

End game info box

Could someone who knows how, fix this template so that the text does not butt up against the infobox. For example See here and here. I guess they're the same template so changing it will fix all the articles that have it. I really think it looks bad, and makes the text hard to read when it butts up against it. Thanks in advance for any help on this. - Jeeny Talk 17:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Responded at Template talk:Big Brother endgame. Tra (Talk) 23:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Big Brother 2006 (UK) reomved as a GA

See comments on that article's talk page. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 14:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Colors (or Colours)

We are having a discussion over at Big Brother 8 (US) about what color would we use if someone walked out of the house. Currently with the infobox the color that other Big Brother shows use for Walked/Voluntary Left houseguests (or housemates) is the color we use to identify the current HoH. In Big Brother 2 (US) and Big Brother 4 (US) there have been contestants that have been expelled (or ejected) from the game. So I have two ideas and I am bringing this over here to the BB Project page so we all can make a solid decision on what to do. If a houseguest (or housemate) decided to leave the BB 8 US house what color should we use? My thoughts were to see if the infobox could be modified to include another color or use the color that we would normally use for expelled houseguests if someone walked off the show this season. But my worry is if we use the color that is normally used for expelled houseguests that newcomers would get confused when looking back at BB2 and BB4. So what do you all think we should do? Alucard 16 18:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

See this section, Voting history table, where the color is pink for "walked". #FFCCFF. I also don't understand why the colors differ in the info box from the voting history table. Why is that? - Jeeny Talk 18:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Secret Story

I've just translated the whole article of Secret Story (TV series) from the French wiki. What needs to be done to it now, WPBB wise, and can someone please do it? Cheers... godgoddingham 333 00:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks great! I'm not sure how to add it to templates etc, though, since there is also Loft Story that broadcast in France. It seems that this series is meant to follow on from that one. If so, what should be the article that covers Big Brother in France in general? Tra (Talk) 01:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
How about a Big Brother (France) page, and a link to the two, with short paras explaining the differences, the reason for the change etc? Also, do you know how to get the picture of the logo from the french page onto the english page? godgoddingham 333 01:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
That might work, the only problem is that the series isn't called Big Brother at all in France; they only seem to use "... Story" style names. As for the logo, the only way to use the same image across multiple projects is to upload it to Commons. Since Commons doesn't accept fair use images, it would need to be uploaded separately onto the English Wikipedia. Tra (Talk) 01:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, yeh. Anyone else got any ideas? btw, can someone get the ineligible colour on to week 6 on the noms table. i can't get it to work with the line seperator in week 5... thanks godgoddingham 333 13:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Nomination/Voting History Table & Infobox Colors

I am proposing a change to the colors in the Nomination/Voting Tables and the Infoboxes used with Big Brother articles. I think it would be better for all articles if the Infoboxes and the Tables use the same colors to identify who is Nominated, Evicted, Walked, and/or Ejected/Expelled. If the Infoboxes and Tables use the same colors there will be less confusion plus there will be a better continuity sense between all articles no matter if it is the UK version or the US version. Here is what I have in mind:

Colors for both the Infobox and Tables
All colors are meant for all series unless noted.
     - Nominated
     - Exempt (Other Articles) / Head of Household (US Articles) (This color would only be in the {{Big Brother housemates}} infobox since it is only needed during an active US season.)
     - Evicted/Re-Evicted
     - Walked
     - Ejected/Expelled

Colors for Tables only
     - Banned
     - Exempt (US Articles)

Mainly, the tables would have the same colors that they have right now except for Ejected/Expelled would be the orange color instead of a lighter shade of the eviction color; Nominated in the US Articles would use the color in the Infobox instead using the color for Banned; I propose a green color for Exempt in the US articles since Head of Household is using this color (    ) as in US articles. Since three houseguests were Exempt from being nominated for eviction in Season 8 of the US version. This would cause the least confusion in the US articles.

This would cause the least change in the tables and editing the Infobox templates is easy (for me), and if this is good for everyone, the only thing in the tables that would need to be changed is the Ejected/Expelled color and the Nominated color in the US articles. Since I suggested the color change, if everyone is ok I don't mind going through all the articles to make the appropriate changes. Alucard 16 05:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but please use the same hues for different colors, because if the color is dark, and text is black, it's hard to read. - Jeeny Talk 05:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I was bored and couldn't sleep so I was playing in my sandbox (heh... sandbox) and here are some examples of what the infoboxes would look like if I made the colors similar to the Nominations/Voting History Tables. I had to change the colors of legend3 and legend5 when I made them due to the Australian Big Brother. See some examples in my sandbox. If anyone has anything to say please let me know. Alucard 16 09:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I would say that the best way to do this would be this:


     - Nominated
     - Walked
     - Evicted/Re-Evicted
     - Get rid, too close to the Evicted color
     - Ejected/Expelled
     - Head of Household (Big Brother US Only)
     - Extra Color

Of course, I only mean that these should apply to the Infobox. Not the nomination tables. Nominations Tables ought to stay the way they are as of now. T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 05:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I see your point but if we want to leave the tables the way they are right now then it would be easier to make the colors of the Infoboxes match the colors of the Tables. If we have a more uniform look between the two it can cut down on confusion. I know when I first found out about Wikipedia I was afraid of editing any Big Brother articles at first because I was confused by the different colors used between the Infobox and the Tables. So my goal with the whole color change of the Infoboxes is so they will be in sync with the Tables. That way only one color means one thing instead of two colors meaning one thing. The colors the Tables use seem to work regardless if it is a US, UK or AU Big Brother article, so I think the Infoboxes should try to match the Tables when possible. So by making Walked      in the Infobox it now matches the table. Since      is used to identify the HoH in Voting History Tables it is only right that the color for the HoH match the tables. The only color on the table I have a problem with is the "Ejected" color. I think the color on the table for an ejected housemate should be      since the lighter shade of the eviction color is used with the Infoboxes. Here is an example of a voting history table with the Ejected color being orange [1]. But we can talk more about changing the color on the table later. But here is what I propose the color scheme should be for the Infoboxes so they will match the Tables better:

     - Nominated
     - Head of Household (Big Brother US Only)
     - Evicted/Re-Evicted
     - Walked
     - Ejected/Expelled
     - Extra Color 1
     - Extra Color 2 Alucard 16 06:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

So is that okay that I change the Infoboxes to match the Nominations/Voting History tables with the colors above? Since I suggested it I will do all the work. And is it okay that we change the color for Ejected housemates from      to      ? If no one wants me to change the tables at this time I won't but I would at least like to have the Infoboxes colors match the Nominations/Voting History tables colors as best as they can. I will do all the work updating if everyone is ok. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 03:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I guess if no one else has anything to say then I guess it is ok if I make the changes to the infobox. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 05:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, go for it. John Hayestalk 07:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Since you and Jeeny said ok I am going for it. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 09:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


I just changed the templates so that "HoH" and "Walk" match the Nominations/Voting History table. I changed the "Eject" color on the Nominations/Voting History tables to the color used in the Infoboxes. That was part of the discussion. The colors for "HoH", "Walk", and "Eject" are now separate from "legend3" and "legend5". Basically to make "Walk" appear you need in the legend part "legendwalk" and in the status of the housemate you need "walk" in order to get the correct color up. To see an example of both the {{Big Brother housemates}} Infobox and {{Big Brother endgame}} Infobox with all the statuses please see my sandbox. This creates a uniform look between the Infoboxes and Tables no matter if it is the US, UK, AU, or any Big Brother series. I have made all the changes to the Infoboxes so they work and any Nominations/Voting History table I have changed the eviction color to the one used in the Infoboxes. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 09:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Good work. I think what we need to do, to keep the tables consistent, is to create a template for the Nominations Table, so that all the labels and colours are the same in all tables. Otherwise anyone can change them to whatever they want. John Hayestalk 15:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Very nice. :) Thank you. Now are the voting history tables going to match those colors too? Right?. - Jeeny Talk 16:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
The only color that needed changing the Nominations/Voting History tables was the "Ejected" color and if you look at Big Brother 2 (US) and Big Brother 2007 (UK) I have changed that. The "Walked" color is the same for both tables. And the "Evicted" color used in the Infoboxes is just a lighter shade of that used in the tables because if we used the one in the tables it is hard to read in the infoboxes. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 22:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Big Brother: After Dark

I have proposed some changes to the structure of article for Big Brother: After Dark that calls for splitting it up and I would like the feedback of the project.

Please see the talk page at Talk:Big Brother: After Dark#Episode summaries to discuss what I'm proposing. --William Graham talk 16:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Seeing Double

Okay why does Big Brother Australia 2006 have a separate page for their nomination table (Big Brother Australia 2006 nominations table) AND the main article has the same table (Big_Brother_(Australia_series_6)#Housemate_nominations_table)? I recently discovered this when I was adjusting the links to link properly in the nominations and voting history section. And I noticed that the table of BB AU 2006 has the table on a separate page and in the article itself so what should we do? ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 08:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Since they're almost exactly the same, I redirected the table on the separate page to point to the series article. Tra (Talk) 11:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Tra. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 20:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Chronology Table

Could we maybe change the Chronology/Recap/etc. tables to look something like in Big Brother 6 (US) with an Events column for anything that happens in the house, and then a competition table for all the competitions the HGs have to perform . I find that it makes it easier and faster to find information. - zachinthebox 20:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I like that actually easier to read. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 05:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Reality TV star noteability guidelines

Hello, I've just created a seperate page proposing guidlines for noteability of Reality TV contestants and if they should have their own articles. I did this due to the mass number of articles being created and deleted on these subjects in recent months, and confusion among editors if they are in fact noteable or not. You can read this here. All edits and comments on the talk page are welcome. Thanks, Dalejenkins | 18:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC).

I don't think it is time to create this yet...

I don't think it is time for Big Brother 2008 (UK) to be created yet. Someone created it should it be deleted? ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 17:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably yes. John Hayestalk 20:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Some consideration should be given to the fact that BB9 auditions start in November, rather than January as they have done since BB5. It is not worth starting an article for BB9 yet but when it is started a note about auditions should be added. Darrenhusted 13:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Big Brother naming

Why do the various Big Brother articles use different naming conventions? For example Big Brother 2007 (UK). I don't think I have heard it refered to as Big Brother 2007, if anything Big Brother 8 (UK) (like the US) would be better. Between US, Pinoy, UK and Australia we seem to have 4 different styles of naming, for as far as I can tell, no good reason. John Hayestalk 07:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the different naming conventions arise from people discussing article names only within the context of one country, and any resulting changes being implemented only in the articles for that country. As for the name of the most recent series of Big Brother UK, I've head Channel 4 refer to it as Big Brother 8, Big Brother 2007 and BB8 interchangeably.
The reason why this particular naming scheme is used is because this page was discovered, implying that the previous series of Celebrity Big Brother was called series 7. Later on, it was noted that referring to it as series 5 was more common, and that several other websites also referred to it as series 5. To resolve the ambiguity, it was decided to refer to the Celebrity Big Brother articles by year rather than by series number. For consistency, the normal Big Brother articles were renamed as well.
Personally, I agree that having more consistent article names would be good, although it may be difficult to find a naming system that suits multiple countries with different systems. Tra (Talk) 11:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Well that goes some way to explaining it. If it was changed, we would keep the redirect anyway (as there is now), so really it is just an issue of semantics. I suggest we look through the various options that are being used now, and see if one of them can be used for all series, across all countries. John Hayestalk 12:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, just read that discussion on CBB 3/5 4/6 etc. That all sounded like one big mess, and not one that I would want to get into, so that would pretty much rule out naming by series number. So if anything it would probably have to be year, but I'm not too sure how much this would suit other Big Brothers. John Hayestalk 12:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
And by looking at the US series, it is pretty clear that they are known by their series number. I think with that the renaming might have died a death. John Hayestalk 12:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The problem with naming each series by year is that some countries may have multiple series in one year (e.g. Gran Hermano seasons 1 and 2), or a series that spans between two or more years (e.g. Big_Brother_Germany#Series_6). There is also the issue of some countries giving official, unambiguous names to the series and it may be preferable to use those rather than 'assigning' them a name. Tra (Talk) 12:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree. John Hayestalk 13:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

My thought on the whole thing is we keep the American articles the same as they are now. With the United Kingdom articles we, again, keep the same naming scheme due to the whole CBB 3/5 4/6 etc. thing. With the Australian articles I guess they follow the same as the UK articles since they do anyway. The Pinoy Big Brother articles are fine since they follow their naming scheme. Now for the rest, they need a solid naming scheme is my view. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 13:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Power of Veto Page

Guys the PoV page is nominated for Deletion and currently there are four votes for Delete and one to Keep (me) and I am posting here since this is the project after all. So please voice your opinion on this matter. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 16:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm tending towards merge. Sorry. John Hayestalk 22:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Me too merge, so it's not lost. - Jeeny Talk 23:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
That's OK I put the basic in the main article in case of Merge or Deletion. The Diamond Veto should get mention only in Big Brother 4 (US) since it was only used that season so it don't clutter up the main article. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 01:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)