Talk:Bigg Boss Halla Bol

India Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article was last assessed in January 2015.

Television

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Declined speedy

@R.18.22.26.21.V:, I'm not quite sure all of what you were trying to say when you wrote out that speedy nomination. From what I can see there is a show by this name, so the show does seem to exist. ([1]) I can't really tell if you're saying that this is just an extra long run of another season or what- don't take this badly, but it doesn't appear like English is your first language and I'm having trouble seeing what it is that you are trying to get across here. I'm going to ask someone from WP:INDIA to come and speak with you to see what you're trying to say. I can't really make heads or tails of what it is that you're trying to say here and I figured that it might be easier if you were to talk to someone in your native language. In any case, if this season does exist as a spinoff of the main series and includes people from several different seasons then it wouldn't make sense to merge this into one of the articles for the other seasons. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tokyogirl79: Bigg Boss 8 got an extension for a month which is termed as Bigg Boss Halla Bol. Yes, a show named Bigg Boss halla bol exists but it is just a continuation of Bigg Boss 8. It is a spin-off of season 8 only and includes 5 people (crowned as champions on 3rd Jan'15) of Bigg Boss 8, who had never exited the house and 5 people entered the house on Day 105 except Ajaz Khan, who entered on Day 99. Taking this 10 contestants the show (Bigg Boss 8) got an extension for a month named Bigg Boss Halla Bol. Where, Bigg Boss 8 is not yet over as it haven't got any winner (the winner will be declared on 31st Jan' 15). So my opinion is, as it is just a continuation of Bigg Boss season 8, we can continue it in the Bigg Boss 8 page only. Kindly Read the topics - Team Challengers, Duration and The House under the link attached. ([2]) R.18.22.26.21.V

Day Count

@LulzWhateven: Is Day 105 is counted as Halla Bol Day 1 or Day 106 is counted as Day 1?. Because, according to the official website of Bigg Boss,

According to this, Ejection of Ajaz and first Tabadla is noted correct but Sana's eviction is noted wrong because if 4th Jan 15 is counted as Halla Bol-Day 1 then 18 Jan'15 (the day sana got evicted) should be Halla Bol-Day 15.

But then, I saw the website itself counted 18 Jan'15 as Halla Bol-Day 14 as because it have counted,

10th Jan'15 as Halla Bol-Day 7 whereas, 12th Jan'15 is counted as Halla Bol-Day 8 and there is no record of 11th Jan'15.

So, which date to count as Halla Bol-Day 1, 4th January'15 (Bigg Boss 8-Day 105) or 5th January'15 (Bigg Boss 8-Day 106)?

I guess it's better to count 5th January'15 (Bigg Boss 8-Day 106) as Halla Bol-Day 1 so that, the Sundays can be counted as a multiple of 7. R.18.22.26.21.V (talk) 04:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped watching this whole thing since Halla Bol started. But what I do remember is that the challengers entered on Day 105 which was supposed to be the last day of Bigg Boss 8. I think it seems okay for the count to start off from Day 106, being the first day of Halla Bol. So if you want to change the whole thing as per this idea you're allowed to. Also, #TeamKarishma. --LulzWhateven (talk) 07:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Significant changes

In these edits I made a number of significant changes to bring this article slightly closer to normal article standards. There were far too many tables being employed, for instance. Prose is almost always favored over raw data presented in tabular format. I converted the broadcast section per WP:TVINTL. I think much of the data in the article is only of importance to a small number of people, particularly when we get into the multiple footnotes in Contestant status and Voting history, the complex coloration schemes, boldface and whatever else. I suppose much of this was based on other TV shows of a similar format, like Big Brother 3 (U.S.), but wow. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyphoidbomb: If your reaction to that was 'wow' wait till you see this. Pinoy Big Brother: Unlimited nomination history. --LulzWhateven (talk) 22:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LulzWhateven My un-official response to that is "FML!". My official reaction is not appropriate for mixed company. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Silent resubmission of eyesore table

In this edit I again removed the eyesore table for the housemates list. It's unclear to me why LulzWhateven silently restored the problematic content. There is absolutely no reason why we need to present the information in tabular format if it can be easily presented in prose format, which the WikiProject Television community favors over data tables anyway. Instead of the paragraph format, I've used a bulleted list, which is the preferred format anyway per MOS:TV#Cast. I have detailed more reasons in this discussion, the crux of which is:

The fact that problematic formatting exists in other articles is not a suitable argument for why the problematic formatting should be included in this article.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Big Brother says, The need for a large amount of tables has been eliminated with the integration of colours in the infobox, but the use of one or two as a way to clearly and easily provide information is not a bad thing. A small table can be made that needs only have two rows, and if implemented effectively, can provide information easily. The article already has three tables, so it is already inconsistent with Big Brother community formatting, if that is supposed to be the model for these articles.
Big Brother 6 (Australia) only has two tables and the rest is prose.

I will also stress that we need to make our content available to the widest possible readership, and that means we need to think about those who have visual impairments. Excessive tables are not consistent with WP:ACCESSIBILITY because people using screen readers may have difficulty understanding the content. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cyphoidbomb I'll be reverting it back until I see you converting the sections, referenced below, to prose. Oh, wait. You won't dare to intervene in those article because...they're populated by editors who'll give you a harder time than me perhaps. Since you've quoted your example I'm going to quote mine (I've tried to use Australian Big Brother articles to make this consistent with your reference) and if this results in edit warring than so be it. I won't let you selectively target the indian articles when the same thing is happening over the US and UK ones. If it's the community consensus it should be applicable on all communities not just the indian communities unless you have something against the indians. To be honest if this is such a community issue I'd like to see more editors get involved and I assure you we'll get better input from others if you try implementing these changes to those articles too.

References:

[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] --LulzWhateven (talk) 07:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Community consensus already exists in the form of MOS:TV#Cast and the changes have already been made to the other Big Boss articles. Not sure what your aversion to change is, but I don't particularly care. Rather than feeling that I am somehow meddling with India's crown jewel articles, you could, with an easy shift of the mind, realize that this is an opportunity to set a good example for these show articles instead of just perpetuating bad ones. "Why don't we do what they're doing at the Big Boss articles?" Your threat to revert until I do X task is absurd. Change begins where change begins. It doesn't have to first begin somewhere else. And if your plan is to stonewall change because "other stuff exists", that's not going to fly with the greater Wikipedia community. The goal for any article is GA and FA status, and I don't see how any of these articles can come close to either when they're so cruft and table laden. None of the examples you've provided above have any hint of GA or FA status. Most of the articles have glaring inconsistencies. Blah blah blah. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I STILL DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY YOU WON'T CHANGE THOSE LINKS TO PROSE AS WELL. WHY. WHY. WHY. Let's say we agree on the so-called Community consensus then why won't you volunteer to clean the UK articles. Just answer this. WHY. WHY. WHY ARE YOU SO HESITANT TO MAKE THE SAME CHANGES THERE? WHY! I just don't understand. I have already noticed the changes you've made and like I said I will revert them. I wanted you to read this first. We will reach consensus the minute you apply the same changes to those articles. What's good for the goose is good for gander. Make the same changes to the UK/US articles and we will be in consensus. Do we have a deal here? --LulzWhateven (talk) 19:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you revert against consensus (there appears to be clear consensus on the project page(s)) you are editing disruptively. You cannot place conditions on the application of those agreements. What you could do is take the bull by the horns and make the other pages compliant. Drmies (talk) 19:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I literally just saw that Cyphoid has made those changes to all those articles. Like I said a consensus will be reached and it has indeed. Cheers. --LulzWhateven (talk) 19:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Factual accuracy and BLP issues

This article has been frequently edited by User:LulzWhateven, a sockpuppet of a vandal notorious for inserting false and/or WP:BLP-violating information supported by references which are superficially plausible-looking but, on further inspection, turn out to be spurious. It is important that all claims made in this article be thoroughly checked against the cited sources. Any information not actually supported by the sources should be removed. Please do not remove the maintenance tags until an established editor in good standing has done this. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Material from the article which was unreferenced or not supported by the existing references has been removed. The hoax tag has therefore been removed. Please do not re-insert this material unless you support it with a reference to a reliable source. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bigg Boss Halla Bol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141230222349/http://colors.in.com:80/in/biggboss/news/colors-paves-way-for-a-new-series-snapdealcom-presents-bigg-boss-halla-bol-2418.html to http://colors.in.com/in/biggboss/news/colors-paves-way-for-a-new-series-snapdealcom-presents-bigg-boss-halla-bol-2418.html#nav

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]