Talk:Big Brother (British TV series) series 12

Copied text

Most of what is written on the articles main page is copied from the Celebrity Big Brother 2011 (UK) page and needs to be rewritten --MSalmon (talk) 18:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

BB due to go live

It has been announced that there will be 14 new housemates and the series will last 53 days. Updates are now being added to prepare for the launch. This is Brian: Do not revert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.98.14 (talk) 22:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Vandal alert

Darkness2005 is a vandal to this and other pages. Block him now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.98.14 (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

New housemates

Please restore bolded subheadings. The full list is: Mark, Maisy, Aaron, Africa, Tom, Tashie, Aden, Harry, Rebeckah, Anton, Alex, Faye, Jay and Louise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.98.14 (talk) 21:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

As I explained on my talk page, the page is protected because of a mixture of potential BLP violations and a lack of encyclopedic style on the trivia stuff. We can wait until the printed/online media reports after the show for character descriptions: the sources have yet to be published. Once they do, they can be expanded. But the protection and reversion was so we can not have BLP violations for the next hour or so while the sources are produced. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, those with editing access could at least leave the emboldened housemate subheadings as a template for updating.

you forgot Alex. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.83.65 (talk) 21:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Will the unblocker put back the housemates headings asap?

The housemates list must be updated asap.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.98.14 (talk • contribs)

Article is no longer semi-protected. 72.244.206.77 (talk) 07:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Daily updates and problems with BB links

I am updating the daily summaries and trying to reflect events in the house in the updates as far as possible. As this series has take a salacious turn, I am translating the action as politely as possible but also as frankly as possible as events happen.

Updates and links for daily clips on the Channel 5 dedicated site and Facebook have been poor so far and won't play. They all link simply to channel 5 site, unlike the CBB clips.

I will keep updating events as they happen from the limited sources beyond the highlights shows which lag a day behind events in the house. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.98.14 (talk) 15:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Icarusgeek

Would Icarusgeek stop reverting and altering updates? These take time and patience to research and download. Only revert if there is an obvious spelling mistake or incorrect fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.98.14 (talk) 17:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Daily summaries

The long daily summaries will be condensed at the end of each week. The daily updates summarise events in the absence of live feed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.69.117 (talk) 07:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Eye logo

The eye logo at the top pf the housemates bar is not the one channel 5 released. Fair enough it is used in the opening titles but i think the eye which was officially released should be used. 82.40.82.168 (talk) 16:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Carl sixthsmith vandalism

Would the above not remove whole sections of article that have taken a lot of effot to research? The summary is changing at the end of week 1 when it will be reduced down. The long summary is to record the early days' events as people are having problems accessing the clips and there's no live feed. It will be edited down as time goes on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.226.33 (talk) 20:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

PS, this aricle is getting several thousand hits per day. It is a record of factual events as they happened in the house, not gossip!

Wikipedia is not a gossip or news site. It is not vandalism to remove unsourced, none-notable drivel from articles. It is your responisbility as the adder of information to prove why it is note worthy, not mine to prove it is not, Carl Sixsmith (talk) 05:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Not gossip, a record of published fact on TV and social media. None is speculation. Wikipedia contain links to the adult themes you may have a problem with. You are trying to censor an open access site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 08:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Daily Summaries

Please stop re-adding the summaries. They are unsourced and not notable, the article does not exist to promote gossip or give a running commentary on what is happening in the house. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 05:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC) Please see the following policies on fansites, gossip, indiscriminate details. And the policy on what makes something notable. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 05:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The summaries follow the accepted diary pattern for Celebrity Big Brother 2011 and you are the vandal for keep reverting them. Three strikes and you're out. Your deletions are in bad faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 06:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

You are mistaken, you are attempting to enforce the pokemon argument that is invalid. It is on you to prove both the notability and verifiability of edits. To continue to ignore established rules is vandalism, not enforcing them. I suggest your read up on what is and is not acceptable. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 07:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

You're in the wrong. It has been accepted thus far and conforms to the accepted pattern for Celebrity Big Brother 2011. All material is references and is a record of the videoed facts. None is gossip, you are out on a limb. Others are fine with the content, it's you that has the problem. The summary is being editd down. That the content is cited and appeared on British TV makes it fact. You must get consensus before deleting whole sections. A tidy-up is in progress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 08:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Please read this something being verifiable does not make it notable. Also the fact that something exists on another article does not make it right here. I notice from your edits that the only article you modify are big brother, do you work for Channel 5 or something? Carl Sixsmith (talk) 08:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Please stop removing tags from the article until the issues have been addressed. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Are the summary sections in this document valid content for a wikipedia page, or are they overlong and fan crufty? 08:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

No, they record the facts recorded on the media of a reality show. It is one trying to stir up an edit war against the consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 09:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• They are overly detailed and poorly written. LadyofShalott 10:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

No, they're clearly written and tell the early events in the house exactly as they happened.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk)

We don't need to give every detail "exactly as they happened". LadyofShalott 10:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• • I agree - only the main events like tasks, nominations, entrys and exits are needed not what is happening every minute of every day. --MSalmon (talk) 10:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The summary has already been trimmed and will be further tided up at the end of week 1. The detailed information will be reduced to the basics now that the social media are coming on stream for updates.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk)

This sounds like an admission that they are overly detailed and contain information that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia (at least one not titled Big Brotherpedia). LadyofShalott 10:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

It's getting worse and worse. There is way too much detail in this article. LadyofShalott 22:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

As explained, it will be precied down to a condensed form at the end of week 1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 06:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Still waiting for the condensing. Week 1 is still way too large. And please, out of common courtesy for everyone here, sign your posts! (Jandal3c) 08:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I did create a shorter version of events but it was reverted by the user (I have just given up now) --MSalmon (talk) 10:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I honestly propose this article be locked, and only registered members be able to edit it. The poorly written summary makes me wanna cry, to be honest. Jandal3c(talk) 06:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm obviously involved, so no way will I touch admin tools here. WP:RFPP is what you want. LadyofShalott 06:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I don't think your request will be granted, but you can ask. LadyofShalott 06:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The summaries are excellent and being improved every day. The above just wants ownership of the article and wants to block free access. That goes against the wiki principles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 22:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

You really should avoid saying "excellent," because if these articles were "excellent" as you so brilliantly state, then there wouldn't be any tags on this page telling users to reformat the writing so it suits the encyclopedia format that Wikipedia is known for. Not to mention there would be a star in the top right corner of the article if it were written "excellently." By whose standards are the summaries being written "excellently?" If it's your own, I hate to say it, but you're severely deluded. Again, encyclopedias do discuss fact, but just because it's "factual" doesn't mean it needs to be written down. And please, SIGN YOUR POSTS! Jandal3c (talk) 22:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Is a separate table needed for total noms recd?

Propose to keep summaries shorter from week 2. Details can be left for launch and early days.

Don't like too many tables where can be said in text.

Nominations Total

Why do we need a seperate table for the total number of nominations, what is wrong with the way it is now? --MSalmon (talk) 13:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no need for it. Their no of noms is mentioned elsewhere. Don't like too many tables. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 13:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Weekly summaries

I propose to hive off the detailed summary of each week's events to a

Main article: Summary of events in Big Brother 2011

link. A condensed version of the present text (not tabulated) can then be placed above the current week's events. Launch night's details can be placed under their own heading in the main article as was done in Celebrity Big Brother 2011. After each Friday night, each past week's detailed summary will then be archived onto the link and a condensed version added onto the main page for easy reference

Eg.

Link to detailed summary of previous weeks

Brief cumalative summary here: Week 1 Day 1: X did so and so, etc. Day 2, Day 3 etc. One paragraph at most.

Week 2 More detailed account of current week's ongoing events here.

If an editor can create the link and new sub-article, this would be helpful.

A new article is not needed, it just needs to be cut down massively so there is a similar amount of information as previous series. 12bigbrother12 (talk) 00:11, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I am working out a way to cut it down once more things happen in week 2. I don't think it has to conform with the C4 series article as it's a new series and the new more detailed summary was trialled on Celebrity BB2011. If a link to the housemates, why not one to the past week's events with a short summmary on the main page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 07:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I have added a new short summary of main events at the top of the section. Do not remove the main summary, it will be cut down to accommodate future events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 08:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd recommend a table be used to summarize the events, like what was done in certain series' articles (e.g. BB9, BB8, CBB7, etc.). The user adding all this nonsense to the weekly summary needs to remember to keep everything above all else user-friendly. I'm not really interested in the male housemates discussing the size of their genitalia, romance between housemates, etc. That sort of information is best for sites like Digital Spy, BBSpy, Inside Big Brother, etc. Jandal3c (talk) 19:51, 17 September 2011, PDT

You are trying to censor the reality of what happened on the show. If not to your taste, don't read it, it was included in the show. That is the nature of the show and it's what they did and appeared on the highlights.

I agree, the summary is way too long and should be cut down to a paragraph for each week at least (semi protect page perhaps until the end of the series?). I would use previous series as a guide. --MSalmon (talk) 08:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not trying to censor the reality of what happened on the show; rather, I'm only summarizing major events that went on. The only sort of "conversations" that would be qualified to be on the summary would be ones that led into major events (e.g. Fight Night in BB5 and Fight Night II in BB9). Any sort of entertaining small talk, like love live, sexual escapades, penis size, romance, philosophical talks about politics and religion, etc., should be best kept to a minimum on a semi-professionally written article like this one. Jandal3c (talk) 19:11, 19 September 2011, PDT

The social details are the essentials of the show, the tasks just keep them busy. If you going to do a table, give the tasks their correct title as I did, you did not say it was a VIP party and give the titles of the tasks. Nominations are not exits, they haven't gone yet. The tabulated form is too inflexible, the running summary I did was better as it gave evetns at a glance. I will continue to update the main summary and see the table gets facts right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 07:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

It is being cut down on an ongoing basis as more events happen. The short summary is there for those not wanting the daily updates. It is following a similar format to the detailed summaries for BB2010 and CBB2011. The page should be open access, with no live feed, followers need to know what happened each day in once place as the social media offerings are too dispersed. As the weeks go on, much of the everyday detail will be trimmed. It's a work in progress.

Yes, but it is still too long even now --MSalmon (talk) 12:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, the "summary" continues to be ridiculously long, and the discussions of how big everyone's genitals are is itself ridiculous. Also, sign your posts. LadyofShalott 01:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I have converted the table that was there in to prose (refrences needed) and removed the detailed summary, so now it is just a weekly summary which is much better that all that rubbish that was there before. --MSalmon (talk) 08:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your changes were in vain there, lol. I think the person editing (who really needs to sign their posts out of common courtesy) is deluded in thinking that because 3K people hit this page, the weekly summary is worth writing, let alone well-written. Jandal3c (talk) 20:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Your changes are vandalism as the detailed summary was accepted for CBB 2011 and the tabel is innaccurate and poorly written. I'll be putting the detaisl back soon, they are needed with no live feed and social media updates all over the place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 09:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Did you not read what I just said above? --MSalmon (talk) 09:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you vandalised after 10 days of content and went ahead off your own back. Most readers were fine with it, you're out on a limb. There's nowhere else to keep up with events in one place. You'e wrong and the table is pitiful and inaccurate.

I don't see a table, do you? --MSalmon (talk) 09:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

"Essential details"?

86 has promised to reduce the overlarge summaries, but they are still overlarge. I took a stab at reducing the size of the day one portion and was reverted with the comment "essential details of launch night replaced, this is wha the said". Why are these "essential details"? I contend that we do not need every detail of what people said. The masturbation bit is ridiculous - I reduced it down to they "discussed masturbation" - that's what they did. Why do we need some claim to have jerked off however many thousand times a night? 86, a summary is not a listing of every comment made in the show. LadyofShalott 15:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

That is what they said on the night. To address your sarcastic comments, it is a gameshow and they call them boys and girls, it's not an age issue. Your edits are unhelpful, you are removing detail just because it's not to your taste. I won't waste time on any further updates while you vandalise all my hard work. Another of you people can do it and have your table and update it yourself. Had enough of this meddling, most have been fine with it as it stood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 17:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

It is a gameshow. It uses terminology like "girls and boys" for adults. This is an encyclopedia. That was not sarcasm; it's a simple statement of truth. Just because we are discussing a game show does not mean we act like one. LadyofShalott 19:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Point taken, but as some are teenager, I will use the term males and females. The entry concerning boys and girls in a game is correct as they were dressed as schoolchildren for the task. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Weekly summaries table

The running summary I started gave an accurate at a glance view of events in the house. I took care to give the correct titles to the tasks. Tables are too inflexible, we have used prose in Celebrity Big Brother 2011 and this is the convention for the new series, not a table. If the table must stay, make it short, not repeat what's said below. Give the tasks their names and the right days. Make a row for nominations, they are not exits, they are still in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 07:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

You don't need to give a summary of every single event that happens in the house just main ones like tasks, nominations, entries, exits etc. Week 1 should only be a paragraph ot two not half a page! --MSalmon (talk) 08:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

That so-called summary is tripe. It ignores the days and does not give the task names and has no refs. I will put the full version back in due course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 09:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Then put the task names and days in, it is not that hard to do --MSalmon (talk) 09:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I won't waste any more time with you keep vandalsing. I have better things to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 10:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

No more updates if vandalised again. Leave summary and stop removing refs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 10:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I shall be pruning down week 1 shortly and getting rid of a lot of the butts and small talk stuff now that it's past. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 14:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Can't see what the fuss is as the summary is way below the main details and with modern technology, navigating is hardly an issues if you have a keyboards or scroll button. But cut down it will be after the second eviction night when I predict there will be big developments in the house to come. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 22:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Housemates section

Two vandal sock puppets keep removing material from the housemates details. They are trying to censor details seen on the TV highlights shows. Stop them now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 22:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

You need to stop accusing everyone who disagrees with you about content of vandalism. Good faith edits to content not vandalism even if people disagree vehemently. LadyofShalott 14:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Chopping out random text isn't condensing. I am waiting to conclude week 2 and then have a review of previous days and trim it further. I will then compact it down into a paragraph per week. It is only following the pattern of Celebrity big brother which used the same. By week 3, a lot will have changed and a lot of the old stuff can go. At least wait till then.

Otherwise, no more updates and one of you people can do it and we'll get a week old table full of inaccurate info and no social content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 15:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference between editing and censoring. Besides, a lot of detail will go as each housemate leaves the house. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 14:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

MSalmon, Shallot, stop censoring and cherry picking summary section

Stop reverting edits to summary section willy nilly. Keep deleting and cherry picking content is censoring. I have already said a lot will be pruned after week 2. If you keep doing disruptive edits to recorded events, this will prov impossible and there will be no more updates. Perhaps that is what you want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 21:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I haven't touched week two. There is no need to add so much then reduce - be more judicious in your additions. (My name is Shalott, not Shallot.) LadyofShalott 22:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The value of the summaries

The summary serves a useful purpose as many incidents are shown out of context and edited for effect on the highlights shows since live feed ended. They can be read in the correct context here, as happened with Faye's tattoo incident which the highlights made out was only a fake tattoo, in fact she was offered a real one. Many incidents such as beergate are no appearing on the highlights so, with social media so transient, this is actually the only definitive record of many incidents in their correct context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 23:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

What references can be cited for these things then if they didn't actually appear on the show? Also, how significant can something for a show be if it doesn't actually appear on the show? (These are not rhetorical questions.) LadyofShalott 23:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The sources are multi-media, social media, being updated at regular intervals, not just a static table like the above wants. You don't like it because it's spontaneous and up-to-date. We live in a multi-media age, look at the way Facebook is evolving. The new summary style for BBUk reflects that, it's the age we live in, the days of static media are over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 22:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

(a) Don't make assumptions about why I do or don't like something. (b) You have not answered the question of significance. If something done for a tv show doesn't even show up in that show, it can't be more than trivia. (c) Learn to sign your posts. Four tildes - not that difficult. LadyofShalott 01:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The "small" details often add up and fill in the gaps unexplained in the bad editing of the highlights show. For instance, in week 2, Jay consumed 3 chickens, but the show did not include this. They add in this incident the next day, but it was important as it allowed them to pass the task. Again, when I record, X spoke to Y, very often it is part of a relationship unfurling or the start of a row, etc. The 1 hour show very often leaves this out, so on here, the threads are drawn together. Up to 3,000 visits again, can't be that bad, can it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 19:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

You still haven't really addressed the referencing. It seems to be implied in the article that these things are all in the television program, but from your comments above, that's not true. That means you need to be citing all these Twitter posts and wherever else you are geting your information. If you can't do that, then it fails WP:V, which is policy. Also, hit counts say nothing about quality, and the page is very poorly written. It is dismaying that in your blind reversals of edits by others, you have restored errors such as comma splices, and then claim that it is excellently written. I think you need to rethink your claims of ownership issues regarding this article. LadyofShalott 07:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't claim ownership. Big Brother is a continuous format, not just what's included in the TV show, it is just this year, there's no central way of following what's happening as sources are dispersed between Twitter, etc. and there is no source that pulls these together in one place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 08:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

You keep missing the point. You aren't referencing all those sources. No reference = not verifiable. Not verifiable is not acceptable by Wikipedia policy. LadyofShalott 13:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

You must be blind as there are refences throughout. Plus, I can't reference every Tweet as they are ongoing but anyone can link to the Twitter feed. It's made plain that the sources are social media, website and press, which are refd. The pattern has bee accepted by consensus since CBB2011 so this must be fine with the majority. Don't get your thing about commas, is it that you want semicolons? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 11:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Attempt to lock article

One of the above has taken it on themselves to try to lock down the article because they want to stop the summaries. This would be against wiki free access principles. The summary reflects the exact content of the social media outputs, programme highlights and other sources on what's going on in the absence of live feed. It's the only centralised summary of events in the house, blocking would deprive many of the only such available source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 22:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

That's just tough. The current detailed content is not consistent with or supported by any Wikipedia policy. It will, sooner or later, be successfully challenged and replaced with a more encyclopaedic interpretation. As it stands it is pure, banal, fan written, non-encyclopaedic drivel. Leaky Caldron 19:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Do not remove whole sections, it is vandalism. The summmaries reflect events in the house. Most are fine with principles of freedom of expression. You have the problem, do not censor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 13:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion. It is what happened and is already being trimmed down with time. It is not "fan written" as the contents just reflects what happens on the show, nothing is promoted or given commercial promotion. It's a reality show, stuff happens, it's not a Shakespeare play. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 08:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

We do not list every event that occurs in a tv program. Just because it happened does not mean we detail every second of it. This is not what Wikipedia does. You can go to Wikia and start a Big Brotherpedia (maybe there already is one) and do that there. It's not appropriate here. LadyofShalott 13:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Censoring and summary vandalism is against freedom

A user has remove the detailed summmary without consensus. This goes against wiki principles, the summaries are evolving and have taken a lot of work and refeencing. They reflect the actions in the house, even when not to one's taste. Censoring is against open-acess principles, this is what happened. Let Freedom reign! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 13:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, please. Your cries of "censorship!" are over the top. Wikipedia is an edited work. It is not an anything-goes place for freedom of expression. It is an encyclopedia. As everyone on this talk page except you have argued against this content, you are the one editing against consensus. LadyofShalott 14:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I happened to swing by here when I noticed the edit wars and, whilst I generally couldn't care less about the coverage of this banal pile of crap, I couldn't help noticing that, to a neutral eye, what is going on here is one user flooding the article with fancruft and crying "censorship" when more sensible editors try to turn the article into something that is of a reasonable and readable length for a general encyclopedia. To include lengthy and detailed sections on what went on daily makes the article unusable. Also, the crap you spout about editing down later is worthless. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Although articles about current or recent events will invariably be edited in the fullness of hindsight, the aim should always be to write now what will be in the article next year - if the detail won't be needed later, it's not needed now. In relation to your other claims about editors trying to claim ownership of the article, I can only refer you to WP:POT. Finally, as has been pointed out to you any number of times, sign your posts and edits. Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 14:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Removal of non-encyclopaedic material

I have removed material that does not conform to policy and guidelines on acceptable content for WP. Content should be worthy of inclusion and supported by appropriate and acceptable references. I would draw attention to the following policies and guidelines for starters, there are others that apply equally. WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:NOR AND WP:MOS.

According to WP:BOLD content should be reintroduced following discussion and not simply reverted. Leaky Caldron 13:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Well done! LadyofShalott 13:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Same old users, forgot the one overriding principle, free access to information and freedom of expression. It's jus the same old ones trying to censor and 100s of readers have been fine for 3 weeks. PS No more updates if removed again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 13:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• Censoring? Really. That's not what is going on here: three different editors (clearly indicating a consensus) are removing the material they deem unencyclopedic. Please stop edit-warring. And please start signing your contributions to talk pages. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

"No more edits if removed again" - you said that before, want to stick to it now? Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 14:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The 3 reverts rule applies to you, too. How come 3, 000 readers are fine, just a minority trying to censor the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 14:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

If you censor the summary again, I shall also remove the short summary I am working on. It has stood in this form for 3 weeks. There will be no further updates and you will going against free access principles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 14:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

If you think there are actual Wikipedia policies being violated, refer to them. Here, let me show you a few: WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, WP:IINFO and WP:NOTFREESPEECH seem to be the ones you are either trying to violate or unable to comprehend. You can even point at essays which, whilst not policy, are often useful summaries of generally accepted guidelines, such as WP:WIN. Read those, then come back and try to improve the article within the real guidelines. And when you do, sign your damn posts.Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 15:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Restore the full summaries now

I have removed my material and you do not have permissin to use it until the full summary is restored. You are censoring open access material against wiki principles. You have also destroyed the only central source without the live feed. People will now have to go to disperesed media sites to find out what's happening. 3, 000 hits per day were fine, it's just the handful of same old names who destroyed 3 weeks of research and refences. All work now stopped and you have gagged the facts. Pleased with yourselves, no doubt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 14:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

You need to read the licensing agreement. You don't get to remove permission to use material previously added. Also, Learn. To. Sign. Your. Posts! LadyofShalott 14:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I will remove all updates as you have started an edit war and it is intolerable to use this material out of context. You people will have to do it yourself, no more updates here. And why is the vandal now putting Days into lower case. It is Day 1, Day 2 in Big Brother, a proper name. This edit war by you people is out of hand, you need to get a grip. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 14:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

"But he started it" doesn't even work in the playground. The only contentious editor round here is you, and if you start deleting valid edits because consensus didn't go your way you'll just get banned. Now grow up and lose the sense of entitlement.Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Editor has been reported to WP:3RRNBLeaky Caldron 14:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Twice (Sorry, LC - didn't realize you were making a report as well.) LadyofShalott 15:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I have left an advisory on the user's talk page. Leaky Caldron 15:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, working together are we? How did I guess. And you have the cheeck to use my other material. You cannnot use this, must do your own material, censors. I thought this went out with blue pencils. But at least we can see the "consensus" the same half dozen names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 15:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, the self appointed page owner is blocked and I've reverted the latest blanking - now others who actually care more about BB than I do (not hard) can go about making the article more encyclopedic. I may drop in again around this time tomorrow to see if the IP has learned something from the ban, but I won't hold my breath.Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 15:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the summaries, the content was spurious. The rest of the page is pretty ok, if a little overlong. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 17:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I started a table summary a few weeks ago. Tried to put it on the summary to cut the crap short, but it was removed and reverted to the poorly written summary. Haven't updated it completely; maybe I'll post it on the article later on today, and other editors can add to it as they see fit. And just for precautionary measures, please avoid all discussion of genitals and masturbation. Thanks. ;) Jandal3c (talk) 22:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

More unencyclopedic stuff to fix

If anyone feels like more fixing, the same contentious IP seems to have turned List of Big Brother 2011 housemates (UK) into a similar running list of reporting of the minutiae of the event in the house, in marked contrast to the far better short summaries relating to previous years.Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 11:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. If the consensus page watchers here also agree with the removal of non-encyclopaedic material from that article they may wish to add it to their watch list since I fear a further edit war over there in a few hours! Leaky Caldron 11:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

You have removed so-called un-encyc material to the extent that the article fails to reflect the social diary of events in the house. The show is not just a gameshow about tasks and exits, it is a social experiment. If they show penises and talk about willies and masturbation, that is part of the show and has been a major theme from Week 1. So the present summary and table are not encyclopedic as they leave out the whole picture, reminding you that encyclopedia means ALL-ROUND education, not the selected bits that suit one individual's agenda.86.176.153.183 (talk) 10:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Your interpretaton of what we mean by "encyclopaedic" is inaccurate. We don't mean that there isn't enough information, we mean that the information presented in an encyclopaedia should be succinct and limited to the important details. If you want to see specifically why we think that every last thing that goes on in the house shouldn't appear in the article, you should perhaps take the time to read WP:IINFO and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Go ahead, click on the links. Wikipedia isn't going to change to suit you (at least, not very quickly nor without a lengthy campaign on your part elsewhere on the project pages), and what we mean by "encyclopaedic" is what is outlined in the policies and guidelines. The only way you're going to convince us that we're wrong (and I for one am on record as having been persuaded to change my stance based on sound arguments from policy) is to actually demonstrate that you have read the relevant policies and that you can offer a sensible interpretation of them that differs from ours. If you want to look at a parallel for the amount of detail an individual day deserves on this article, try looking at articles about a single season of a TV show. See how much plot is summarised for each episode there. That's about the length of summary that each episode of this TV show needs. I was getting tired of repeating myself on this one, but I'm heartened by the fact that you've finally started signing your posts, so maybe there's hope for you yet. Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 13:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Blanking of housemates' detail

You removed most of the housemates' biographical details without consulting on the relevant page which had no consensus. In the present climate, there is not point in working any further on this material and you will start another edit war, as you did previously to get your way. This is unacceptabel, this is a free access site and it is censorship. As its stands, there is now no point in a seperate article as so much essential detail has now been blanked by one user in collusion with supporters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 18:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

1) If you're talking about the housemates page, discuss it over there. 2) The removal was perfectly in line with policies: WP:BOLD, WP:BLP and WP:IINFO come to mind. 3) You're the one edit warring against the consensus supported by policy. 4) You keep bleating on about free access and censorship, and I'll keep pointing you at WP:NOTFREESPEECH. 5) You realise "by one user in collusion with others" is self-contradictory, don't you? 6) For fuck's sake, if you listen to nothing else people try to help you with, will you at least learn to sign your fucking posts? 7) I think people have been incredibly patient with you, assuming good faith and trying to show you why Wikipedia doesn't work the way you think it does. We are trying not to bite the newbie. However, I for one have pretty much reached the end of my patience with you. If you can't at the very least read the policies and guidelines I've pointed you at (they're just a click away up there) and explain why you think we're interpreting them incorrectly without bleating about censorship or claiming you have a majority position when you very clearly don't, then I'll stop being educational and just help to prevent you from causing further damage to this encyclopedia. It's not too late - I urge you to actually take on board the advice you've been given both here and on your talk page (I know you blanked it in a fit of petulant rage, but you can still see the old versions in the history). If you do this and act in a collaborative rather than confrontational manner, you can help to make this article and others better. If you don't, you'll just continue getting frustrated. Your choice. Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 18:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)::

!!!Your language is offensive and threatening. This is against netiquette and constitutes web bullying. I shall raise this offensive behavior with a moderator. You are threatening and out of order. Action will be taken.!!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk)

Go ahead and raise it with whomever you wish. The only point at which I swore or was in any way less than as polite as could be reasonably expected given your actions was in asking you for the umpteenth time to sign your fucking posts. I was hoping that swearing at you on that point might actually make you take some notice of this very simple request that has been repeated to you ad nauseam, but it seems at this point that even the most generous soul could only conclude that you are wilfully ignoring this. If you're trying to needle me into sinking to your level of drama, I should warn you that you will fail. If you actually seriously believe that I'm acting aggressively rather than doing my utmost to help you to salvage some scrap of respect from your fellow Wikipedians, then I don't think I (or anyone) can effectively communicate with you. Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 22:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Well said Dr M. No one has assumed bad faith. If we were to do so the IP would have been described as ignorant, malicious or having an ulterior motive in pushing their content, etc. As far as I can see, no such accusations have been made. Leaky Caldron 18:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

You and the above are web bullies and will be reported for your threatening behaviour and deleting of content. It must be stopped, swearing and repeat reverting of content are serious violations of this community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 20:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

And again, someone forgets to sign their posts. Sigh. Jandal3c (talk) 06:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Weekly summary table incomplete and inaccurate

The weekly summary table is incomplete, does not mention all tasks, poorly written and not being updated by its instigators. Either update and give the correct details with citations or give up. This shabby mess does not reflect the goings on in the house which as much about social interaction as this task, that exit. You do not understand the basis of the show. Funny how its just the same two rabbiting on. I've moved on, can't be bothered with timewasters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 19:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Really? Have you read articles of previous series of BBUK? None, and I repeat NONE(!) of the summaries discuss every minute detail of the goings-on in the house. And evidently, you still haven't learned to sign your post. At least do this for the sake of my and everyone else's sanity, thanks. Jandal3c (talk) 06:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

We've pointed this out before, and pointed at WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:IINFO any number of times. At this stage I think we've pretty much run out of good faith to assume, the IP is simply not willing to be part of the community and is likely to continue the attempts to edit counter to consensus, policy and precedent. Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 07:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

As the above has stated he loaths the programme, his obsession with this talk page is puzzling. If they have nothing constructive to add, will they withdraw from leaving acidic comments here and leave the editing to others?un — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 11:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

As I've tried to explain to you before, my reason for being here is to improve Wikipedia. Which is why I'm adding constructive comments and, especially, trying to teach you how to be a better editor by such actions as trying to get you to read the policies and sign your posts. Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 12:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: I notice that your latest edits have been sensible and useful. Well done, now keep that up and learn to sign your posts. Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 12:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Weekly summary inaccurate, unreferenced and poorly written

The so-called weekly summary is incomplete, poorly written, inconsistent and fails to record essential details on tasks such as the fact Anderson held a VIP party and is not being updated to reflect current events.

The diary format used for Celebrity Big Brother is the format that has the consensus for the Channel 5 series. I propose to reintroduce a cut-down version of the narrative summary deleted by others. Either do it properly or don't bother. Big Brother is a social experiment and game show, not just a series of tasks. The table is not good and full of mistakes. The diary format was referenced and reflected events in the house. Either rememdy it or return to the running diary format with previous weeks condensed as I had been doing before. I shall be raising this with a moderator unless a solution is found. As it stands, the weekly summary is being hidden with the collapsible format. The summary is important as the social events are what the show is about, not just exits and tasks. And now I've found these things, here they are. Once a balance had been agreed between the social and mechanical events, any deleting of events will be deemed vandalism. I propose around a paragraph for old weeks and a daily summary of around 4 to 5 lines for the current week in prose format. And no censoring of adult themes, but a reduced mention of these, i.e. not recording every time they show their dick.86.176.153.183 (talk) 07:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Before you reintroduce any material I strongly encourage you to familiarise yourself with the detail of what Wikipedia is NOT. You will find the policy explained in detail here WP:NOT (just click the blue link since you have previously indicated that you do not understand hyperlinks). Social events may be important IN YOUR OPINION. As you will see from the policy however, it is highly likely that it will not be encyclopaedic. If it fails to meet the inclusion criteria it will be deleted. Also, bear in mind that you are writing about living people. This policy provides all the direction that you need - WP:BLP. If you infringe, not only will the material be removed immediately but persistent inclusion of inappropriate content about housemates that infringes policy will result in you being blocked. Finally, for the clarification of doubt, this policy WP:VAND describes what vandalism is. If I or anyone else remove material that infringes any of the policies detailed it will not be vandalism and your assertion that you will regard it as such is, I'm afraid, incorrect.

With all that said, good luck with your proposed contributions. Leaky Caldron 10:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, pointing out that the celebrity version from this year differs from the articles for all previous years isn't an argument to add detail to this page, it's an argument for editing down this year's celebrity page. Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 11:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, who cares? The diary entries did their job and people are now picking up on the show, as they did with CBB. I am surprised they stayed as long as they did, were only meant to be temporary from the outset. They can now access the social media sites, so as this isn't tablete of stones, have fun wasting time editing down an TV series that finished over a month ago. Job done, have your blank page as you wish, all the fans are on Twitter, nobody under 25 will bother with wiki for BB. (But many well over 25 spend their time deleting stuff all day.)86.176.153.183 (talk) 19:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Ratings section incomplete and confused

The ratings section with its incomplete table is a confused mess. As with the summary, either keep up and update or don't bother. The previous table at least gave the daily overnight figure with an easy comparison to the previous week. Remedy this now, my efforts were all up to date and referenced but I cannot continue to contribute to such shabby excuses for a summary and ratings table.86.176.153.183 (talk) 10:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The ratings table was changed to give the official viewing figures and will be updated once BARB have released the rest. --MSalmon (talk) 10:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopedic means ALL-ROUND picture of events, we need to see the whole picture

The reversion of the record of social interactions and day to day life events in the house makes the article un-encyclopedic as the term means ALL-ROUND view, not just the self-appointed judge's notable events. That is why the diary format truly gives and all-round view of events in the house in the way the table is failing to do badly. I propose a return to a narrative diary format in cut down form. Leaving out the social events in the house is not showing the whole picture and leaves out what the show is about.86.176.153.183 (talk) 10:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Please stop adding so many sections. It's not useful. This comment would have followed the one you placed two sections above, and would help keep conversation coherent. LadyofShalott 10:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

One step at a time - at least the last couple of comments were actually signed. Coherence can be added to the goals after reading policies. Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 13:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Yawn, would be nice to hear some different views other than the same old ones. It's open access that means the same three or four do not have the monopoly here and in time, I will get some other views here as this is pretty arid at present (with such arid repeat posters with so little to say).86.176.153.183 (talk) 14:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Heh, the point of an RfC is to bring in additional voices (and it is how I came to this article), but you objected to that. LadyofShalott 14:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, and that voice has added nothint to the article as it may as well be a blank piece of paper. But have it your way, and I trust you will not complain if I go through and delete anything that cannot be supported with at least one reliable reference.86.176.153.183 (talk) 19:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it is an indication that the subject matter does not have such a wide interest group as you imagine. Regardless, you could get a dozen people with views that are the same as yours, that would not make your content any more acceptable. If you've read WP:NOT as suggested many times, you will find the sub-section titled WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Leaky Caldron 14:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I also came here as a result of seeing the fuss about it elsewhere. Consensus is formed among whichever editors want to pitch in. How many people disagreeing does it take before one person recognises they are not only in the minority, but being argued against by people who care about the standards of this project and use its guidelines to actually guide them? Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 14:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Bye bye, see you'all on Twitter

Well, now the social media have come onstream, nobody under 25 will bother to look on here for updates, so any fans will be migrating over to Twitter. Job done.86.176.153.183 (talk) 19:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

"Social media" have been "onstream" as you put it, for weeks. As I suggested to you earlier, that's where your "skills" are probably better put to use. You've clearly wasted your time here. Leaky Caldron 19:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Certainly not, and once I get consensus, I'll be getting back on track with a more rounded account. The stuff about masturbation and pensises is all out there on the media so it hardly needs to be here any more.86.176.153.183 (talk) 14:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Start here...WP:CONSENSUS but unless you change your tune you will not achieve consensus so I'd be interested to know how you intend consensus building. Leaky Caldron 15:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, this is just further evidence that our assumptions that the IP began with no clue about how this place works were correct. I'm just disappointed that he/she hasn't realised that he/she could be widely reporting minutiae on Twitter where they belong and helping to write a more sober account for the longer term here. Also, I may be wearing rose tinted spectacles, but I seem to remember acquiring significant reserves of clue well before my 25th birthday - and I know there are a fair few good editors here who, in physical age rather than cognitive and emotional maturity, are adolescents. Well, I suspect that my work here is done - good luck keeping this article up to standards. Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 09:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll miss working with you, Doc I am about to be banned for harrasment and bullying. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 09:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Weekly summary, please get task details correct

On the weekly summary table, for one thing, I don't see why needs to be hidden. It is annoying. Also, if your going to do it, please get the details and order of events correct. For instance, the previous editor left out two tasks and put them in the wrong order. I had taken care to put them in the correct order on the detailed summary, so could you get the details right. Also, it is a mistake to leave out the social events, the programme is a social exercise above all, the tasks are just there to relieve the boredom and win shopping, this table fails to refect the full picture. There is more to the house than a mechanical list of tasks and exits.86.176.153.183 (talk) 19:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the intended or alleged purpose of the programme, an indiscriminate collection of social anecdotes is not encyclopaedic, as explained to you numerous times. Please refer to WP:PLOT for the policy. Leaky Caldron 19:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

They are not "indiscriminate", they are referenced on the official site, the media and social media. The social events are as much a part of the house as the tasks, it is a social exercise, not just a game show.86.176.153.183 (talk) 21:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

That's bullshit. Might have been true in the first couple of series (which you probably didn't see) but it is now a non-notable sterotype in a virtually unchanged annual format. Regardless, none of the daily housemate interactions have the slightest enduring interest and that is the test for inclusion here per WP:NOTABILITY. Leaky Caldron 22:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Extreme rudeness does not improve your chances of winning a losing argument. The show is about filming a dozen people 24/7 and tasks make up about 10% of that activity, the rest is social. By locking out any mention of the interactions and social qualities of the contestants, you are leaving out 90% of what the show is about - people. The tasks are a side show, it's a people thing and you and the other mob are in denial. PS, you are not only rude, but also guess at facts, I've seen most series from the start and this one is closest to the original UK and pilot Dutch series.86.176.153.183 (talk) 06:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

In which case you should be able to find reliable sources, which is what we require here. Start meeting Wp:RS and other content POLICY requirements instead of shoving your insular point of view. BTW, you will find bullshit referenced here WP:BULLSHIT. Leaky Caldron 07:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

You're the one that's insular. The majority were fine with the original summary until you and the other lot came along. The social interactiosn were all referenced, you were the one who removed them. So, you, along with one or two others, have made it your life's work to see that the social life in the house is ignored. The major social interactions for each week should be recorded, you want to label them "bullsh*T" even when they have been recorded in published media sources, i.e. all the citations you removed.86.176.153.183 (talk) 08:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't the social interactions that I was referring to as bullshit. It is your opinion that they are, in some way, significant enough to be useful, enduring, encyclopaedic content in line with WP:5P etc. Until you get a grip on policy your continued insistence will achieve nothing but criticism and ridicule. Have you read any of the policy yet? Leaky Caldron 09:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea why I didn't look there before, but the editors whose aim is to improve BB coverage agree that the sections on weekly summaries should be brief, covering only evictions and tasks, and even the tasks should only be briefly covered. I'd suggest 86 goes over to that project page and returns here only when he/she has managed to change the consensus over there. Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 12:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Caudron adds nothing to this article but is a stirrer. This article can only be improved once its moved off.86.176.153.183 (talk) 13:00, 1 October 2011 (UTC)