Template talk:Big Brother UK
|WikiProject Big Brother||(Rated Template-class)|
|WikiProject Television||(Rated Template-class)|
Shouldn't we put in all the geust presenters in 2007?--Hiltonhampton 15:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- No, only main presenters, not guest presenters. The table is too big the way it is now. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 20:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Needs to stay, if you argue that then on Template:Big Brother AU people could argue to get rid of the "Presenters" completely since they have a lot of main presenters this year as it makes theirs look messy. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 17:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Anybody who added Big Brother Related Articles the Princess Nikki should remove it, it has nothing to do with BB, mostly beacuse many ex-housemate were or did shows that wouldn't make senes, as only REAL important events (like the racism contoversy) and other MAIN articles about Big Brother. --BigOz22 (talk) 23:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Sophie Reade 2009
She went in as Sophie Reade and came out as Sophie Reade. She was Sophie "Dogface" Reade in order to become a housemate and was able to give up that name after a couple of months. Recording her as the winner with that name may not be accurate based on her name on exit.
It should be discussed.
This template now looks a mess
The net result of the edits today has been to make this template look very messy and to over-emphasise the channels of transmission. The channels of transmission are also of very limited relevance to the winners section and the channel information is now duplicative, with the same information given yet again in the Related articles section.
A more elegant solution would in my view be to give the years of each winner as follows:
I don't like the table being divided between the two networks that aired it. Keep it as it once was, and just leave the network references at the bottom. We don't really need to know what network aired what series (tables for other Big Brother versions that aired on separate networks don't have tables like this); just keep it simple. Jandal3c (talk) 00:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- The approach above doesn't divide the template according to networks, it merely inserts a small network reference prior to the relevant series (which are in chronological order anyhow).
- There are other editors who favour a very strong emphasis on channels - they don't seem keen on coming to this page to discuss, but their edits can be seen in the recent history - something which I am against, but I do think that the above is a fair middle way. I have looked at some of the templates for BB in other countries and none are particularly good, I don't see much there to emulate. Rangoon11 (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Even though the template edits were made by a sockpuppet, in this case I would say the edits were okay. Channel 5 is currently splitting their seasons of Big Brother into a new continuity. If you look at their website for example Big Brother 2011 is not being referred to as the twelfth season but as the first season. The table looks too jumbled up with 2010 · Channel 5/5*: 2011 as an example. If noting the channel is important then for the editions the table should look like this . Or the links to the broadcasters should be at the bottom with no mention of the broadcaster in the "editions" section. A NaviBox should be useful not a mess. Remember details are not of utmost importance in a NaviBox the transition of broadcasters is clearly noted in the main series article plus the season articles. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 07:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- How about this as a way forward:
Do they need to be included in this template? Most of them aren't notable (outside of BB) anyway. I don't know when they were added, but I don't think they need to be. The X Factor, for example, only lists winners in its main template. –anemoneprojectors– 10:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)