Talk:Big Brother (British TV series) series 10

BBUK Task Force

In November Alucard16 proposed task forces here. At the time BB was off air and I guess very few saw, but now we seem to have a lot of active editors, and a feeling that the BBUK articles need attention, I think that we should form a task force to centralise any changes. A lot of the discussions about this page will allpy to all the previous 9 BB articles. I made a start with BB7, and today I did an overhaul of the first BB article. I think that the housemates section could be trimmed, and an extra section about the aftermath of BB could be added. In addition the nom total table could be lost. If others want to take a look at that page it would be appreciated.
Also (and with the proviso that voting is evil or not).

All in favour of a task force:

1. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
2. DJ 21:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
3. Finally someone has read the project talk page :) ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 21:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
4. Geoking66_talk 22:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
5. MegaPedant (talk) 01:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
6. leaky_caldron (talk) 12:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC) I've done the noms. tables back to BB4 but BB1 - BB3 does not have a C4 BB microsite (at least not containing the noms. details). Any thoughts on the validitity of the article's tables and whether consolidation is ok?

Note: started a discussion for a BBUSA task force here. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 22:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Which week?

According to Channel 4, here, the housemates first nominated during week 2, not week 1. It has been suggested before that the first 11 days ought to be considered as two short weeks rather than one long one and that this would explain the 13- vs 14-week duration discrepancy. Perhaps we are currently in week three, not week two. MegaPedant (talk) 23:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That wouldn't make any sense as it would be Thu-Tue, Wed-Sun, Mon-Sun for weeks 1, 2 and 3. For the sake of consistency week 1 is entrance to first Friday eviction, then Saturday after each eviction is the start of the next week. The show runs for thirteen calendar weeks plus two days. If Channel 4 started a new week every three days we don't need to follow them, as stated many times before, this is not a fansite. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm simply telling you what Channel 4 says on its website. Sense, consistency, and being a fan or not have nothing to do with it. Nor am I necessarily advocating any changes. Channel 4 makes the rules, however illogical you may think they are, and I'm merely passing on that information to anyone who may be interested. MegaPedant (talk) 02:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The extra few days that include launch night are always considered week 1 for the sake of convenience. Geoking66_talk 04:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It may be convenient, however it's a fact that at the beginning of last night's highlights programme Davina said that it's the end of week three. MegaPedant (talk) 03:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

She also said "they entered the house a couple of weeks ago". Darrenhusted (talk) 09:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I can see no justification in following a diferent "week" regime to that used by the show. Why have weeks at all in that case? Either allign with the show [1] or remove the table headings and replace with "days". leaky_caldron (talk) 09:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

For the sake of consistency it is easier to stick with an extended week one. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

consistency with what? It's misleading as it stands. It also makes using the official source [2] inappropriate so we need an alternative source showing "our" week numbering. Otherwise it's WP:OR isn't it? leaky_caldron (talk) 09:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

How about some consistency with the truth? Is it not arrogant in the extreme to ignore facts from Channel 4 and substitute an alternative idea of which week it is, simply because it may be more convenient? This is after all an encyclopædia, not a fan site! MegaPedant (talk) 23:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

My take on this topic is to follow what the sources for the article are going by. If your sources are saying that we are in week three then we are in week three. While the USA version does count the days before launch and leading up to the first eviction as "Week 1" (making the first week last anywhere from 9-14 days) it seems the UK version splits the first 9 days into two weeks with the "housemates" task being in week one and the first round of nominations & second eviction in week two. I don't think they did this last year but it seems they are this year. The only time information in the article should conflict the official site is when the official site is clearly conflicting with what was shown on TV/live feeds. An example would be Week 5 in Big Brother 7 (U.S.). ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 00:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

However, the numbers don't make any sense. We're saying that they've been in until the end of Week 7 at the end of this week which would be Day 49/50/51 (depending on the day of the launch), but it's only Day 44 at the end of Week 7 as it stands now; that's physically impossible. Geoking66_talk 02:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

We're simply following the cited source: http://www.channel4.com/bigbrother/voting/nominations-history.html leaky_caldron (talk) 10:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Surely it would make more sense to follow the timeframe of previous series for each week, rather than have conflicting time frames? Previous series have all considred the end of the first week as the second Friday and going against this by presenting a conflicting idea would be confusing. What is considered a week in one series should be considered a week in another for consistency. BB7 and BB9 had first weeks which ended on day 9. BB8 had a week 1 which ended on day 10. Why should this series be different from all previous and have a 1st week ending on Day 4? Shouldn't either all previous articles change to fit in with the true definition of a week (7 days) or this article be changed to fit in with what BB has previously established as a week? Otherwise it's inconsistant and confusing. 027huds (talk) 01:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Except that it won't match the source. Darrenhusted (talk) 01:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I've checked 2007 - 2008. They are (a) consistent with the relevant source and (b) appear to be consistent with this article. Cross-article consistency, while attractive from a cosmetic point of view, cannot override the accuracy of individual articles and allignment with their available source. Anything else will raise the WP:OR debate again. leaky_caldron (talk) 09:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Total Nominations Received

I thought the total nominations bit was considered trivia and no necessary for the article. Someone has integrated individual nomination total tables into the main nomination table which shouldn't be there and makes the table looked cramped. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 20:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a conversation about his up above. But the settled opinion is that a separate table it too much WP:SYN but an extra column is just simple math and fine. Although I do agree the width needs to resolved. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if this is of any value to the Wikipedia page here, but I also have been annoyed at the lack of weekly subtotals for nominations, etc. However, I recognize this would really clutter up the page. So I made a spreadsheet myself with the details. I plan on updating this weekly and am happy for a link to be posted somewhere in the article, if that is somehow allowed. Or not, if it is not... http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=rtW8kn0Dc2h7l_8ykMYVzPw&output=html Paul Thompson (talk) 23:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

there is a fault: angel received 9 nominations so far, not 10. 3 votes in week 3 and 6 votes in week 4.

Preferred names - Freddie & Sophie should be used throughout

Sophie and Freddie may have changed their names by deed poll (we can't be sure) but as they have not decided to activate their new names, there is no reason why this article should use the terms 'halfwit' and 'dogface' to refer to them.

Unless they emerge from the house and request that their bank accounts, driving licenses, job contracts etc be changed, the deed poll documents are meaningless.

It seriously undermines the credibility of this article to collude with the Big Brother producers 'joke' and I'm requesting that someone with editing powers change their names in the article to the names they are known as by their friends and family.

Mjdakadem (talk) 20:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)mjdakadem 18/6/09

remember; don't feed trolls. ;) leaky_caldron (talk) 20:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Mr Mjdakadem, if you want to join the BBUK taskforce then we will be more than happy to discuss why you are wrong. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

If these replies are representative samples of the level of debate on here I won't bother. Enjoy your arrogance guys. Mjdakadem (talk) 22:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Dude, you've made three edits, the first and third are above me. If you want a longer answer I'll say that we don't care what happens to them after they leave the house, if they have to get all new documents, that really doesn't matter. This article is about Big Brother 2009, and its concerns are about who is in the house, when they arrived, when they left, what they did, who they voted for and what the ratings for their departure were. Anything outside of what happens on this program is outside of the scope of this article. For Freddie and Sophie they went in to the house and changed their names by deed poll, so that is what we report then we agreed to change the names in the article, what they do about it when they leave the house; not our concern. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Darren, calm down and stop owning the article (which you are clearly doing, and if you're going to espouse Wikipedia regulations on other editors including me I'll do the same back at you). Mjdakadem, here's the simple answer: Channel 4 and Endemol clearly refer to Freddie and Sophie as Halfwit and Dogface, respectively. Regardless of its legality, it is imperative that we edit the article in accordance with the way that the show if officially produced. Not doing so would undermine the credibility of the article. Of course we can write in their housemate sections whether or not they change the names back (and I believe a lawyer was present as he was a guest on BBLB, something I recently learned), and Darren it is perfectly acceptable to write about the housemates before and after their time in the house assuming it's not in massive detail. Geoking66_talk 02:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

You know I have made only 40 edits, and am in no way trying to own this article. I have however made suggestions to improve it, in the hope that we can get all the BBUK articles up to a higher standard. But the truth is that all the housemates of the past ten series a handful only do anything outside the house. If we take Cairon as an example, he was in, he dunked a biscuit, he was nominated, he was out. On the housemates page there is stuff about he is a student who lived with his mother, then his father then he lived her and there, none of which is really that important or that interesting. This article (and the other nine) should focus on what happened when the cameras were on. The winner gets an article and the other housemates get forgotten, the housemates article just attracts this kind of question (and edit wars over names). Freddie and Sophie entered the house, they changed their names and they will leave, and after that there will be very little to say about them. The consensus is to refer to them as their new names, but if consensus (or their names) change again then we will change them. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Houemates section

I've restored the Housemates section in accordance with both sense and in keeping with the other BB articles. Vexorg (talk) 01:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The first time you did that I reverted it because you included the contents of the Summary section in the new Housemates section and that clearly didn't make sense. My feeling is that there should be a Housemates section but the one you've created needs fleshing out. As it stands it's pretty meaningless as the content reads as follows: "Sixteen participants entered the House as non-housemates on Day 1:...". In other words, the content is about non-housemates not, as the section title suggests, housemates. So, in order to be considered complete this section needs more work. The sentence about the prize is repetition of a similar sentence is the lead. MegaPedant (talk) 13:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: get rid of the "Housemates" heading. Incorporate the first sentence and main article link only in the summary and get rid of the duplicate and therefore unnecessary duration and prize money. As Aleksandr says, "simpul" leaky_caldron (talk) 14:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I've done as Leaky caldron suggests. I hope Vexorg reads this discussion before reverting. MegaPedant (talk) 15:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi There. Some points. The other Big Brother UK series articles on Wikipedia use the same/similar format of a Housemates section followed by a weekly summary

for example

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Brother_2007_(UK)#Housemates

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Brother_2008_(UK)#Housemates

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Brother_2006_(UK)#Housemates

further it's a common Wikipedia format to include a section heading even if the main content is within another linked article. For example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madonna_(entertainer)#Discography. The reason for this is that, for example, someone looking for BBB10 housemates can quickly click on the contents heading and then click the link to the housemates article itself. Having the link to the housemates article buried in the Summary section is not good Wikipedia article formatting at all. I'm going to revert, not because of a tit for tat edit war, but because I've outlined the rationale above. Thanks Vexorg (talk) 18:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

And yes you're right the piece on 'sixteen non-housemates' was in the wrong section at the last edit. My bad. Vexorg (talk) 18:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, I feel there ought to be a Housemates section. My objection was to the artificial creation of such a section with the only content being irrelevant and transplanted from elsewhere. All it needs now is some actual content. Would you like to write some? MegaPedant (talk) 19:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we need a separate Housemates article, I think the information could be compressed into four short paragraphs before the weekly summary. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

@ MegaPedant - It's common wikipedia formatting to have a seperate section even if it contains a link to another article. Vexorg (talk) 22:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

@ Darrenhusted - It's common wikipedia formatting to stub out to a seperate article if the section becomes large. i.e the BB10 housemates. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Big_Brother_2009_housemates_(UK) Vexorg (talk) 22:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I am aware of that, I'm saying that we don't need it. And once I finish this comment I will add all the housemates relevant information to the housemates section. Observe. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

personally I don't have a problem with putting the main Housemates list in the main article. But I think you'll get some opposition if you do as it's common Wikipedia policy to expand into a separate article if the main article becomes too long. It's probably best to just have a list of their names and leave the main HM article for their details. Or is that what you meant? Vexorg (talk) 23:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The first four BB series don't have separate lists, they include the housemate profiles in the body of the article. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't like the content of the Housemates section. It makes for very boring reading. I really dislike the repetitive "name was the nth person to enter the house" and I see no justification for the arbitrary splitting into three paragraphs. Surely it ought to be either one paragraph or sixteen. As it stands it would be much better as a table. To be acceptable as prose it needs considerable reworking. If this is a serious offering I'm prepared to have a go at it but for the time being I'm not even going to bother correcting the typos as I suspect it will be deleted before long. MegaPedant (talk) 01:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we need a separate article. As for the order of entry, that is juts an account of what happened on day 1, it seems normal that we would list what happened, and all that happened was that they entered. Any extra information is already in the summary, with a sepearate article the is a lot of repetition as we need to give details of when they became housemates and when they were evicted, with the information on one article there in no need for repetition. Is there ever anything useful on the expanded housemate articles? Not really, just their bio information (which ends up being trivia). Plus the housemate article attracts a ton of BLP and OR, with editors either vandalising it or adding trivial day-by-day detail, such as when people had fights. The purpose of this article should be to inform anyone who has never seen one episode of Big Brother as to what this was about. The trivia of housemates can be saved for other places. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so if it's here to stay let's discuss what information we include about each housemate and how the section can be improved. Here are a few questions that spring to mind. Why is Rodrigo's sexuality alone mentioned of the 16 contestants? There must be something that can be included about Lisa, if only that she's unemployed and from Birmingham. If it's ok to mention Dogface's breast size and her nude appearance in Playboy, then why drop the fact that Charlie was Mr Gay Newcastle? If Sree's religion is notable, then why not Beinazir's, Noirin's or anyone else's? MegaPedant (talk) 03:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Because I did it quickly. Trim out everything that is not needed. Stick with the name, job, age. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I've had a go at the paragraph for the first four contestants and think it reads better now. The paragraphs for the other 12 are quite difficult as there isn't much with which to work. It would be so much easier as a list and it would read better than it does at the moment. I see nobody else has tried to improve this section so I'll keep mulling it over and hopefully something will come out of it in the end. MegaPedant (talk) 19:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Update: Another editor removed the entire content from this section, replacing it with two sentences. I reverted the change and hope editors will read this discussion before removing it again. I've since reworked the remaining three paragraphs, removing arbitrary references to religion and sexuality. I think they read better now but the fact remains that the information contained in this section is pretty dull and I'm at something of a loss as to how to make it more interesting without adding trivia. It really is the kind of information that would be better presented as a list. Suggestions for improvements, anyone? MegaPedant (talk) 11:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep it as a paragraph, it is only meant to be a set of factual statements, it ain't never gonna be exciting. But does prove we don't need a whole separate article. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Further ratings

Cairon got 2.2m but I'm not sure insidebb is an RS. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Fansites are not used as reliable sources (I think there was a discussion about fansites on a previous article of the American or British version, can't remember exactly). Also Inside Big Brother doesn't have an archive from year to year, so using their news articles as a reference would only be good until they stop their BB10 coverage.♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 00:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Angel got 1.6m and I know insideBB isn't reliable, just leaving these here until an RS can be found. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Sree got 2.3m. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

BBUK Task Force set up

I have set up the BBUK Task Force page. It is a pretty basic page right now. Also I need help tagging BBUK articles, if you come across any article relating to BBUK please add "|UK=yes" to the {{WikiProject Big Brother}} talk page template. For example the banner for this article should read {{WikiProject Big Brother|class=C|importance=High|UK=yes}}. For editors interested in the USA task force I should have it up by 8 PM EST today as well. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 18:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Editors that wanted a BBUK task force, the task force needs to be expanded on so future editors that work on BBUK articles and would like to join the task force will know how to structure BBUK articles. For more discussion see the BBUK Task Force talk page. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 23:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Nominations Table colours for Tudor Task

I'm thinking that Marcus's box needs to be yellow to denote he gained immunity based on the task results, and that Charlie should more likely have the "Not eligible" box rather than the "Banned" box. Thoughts? T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 22:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

His immunity was nothing to do with the results of the task. He was simply selected by Henry VIII as part of the task at his discretion. leaky_caldron (talk) 22:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Charlie wasn't banned (which suggests he broke a rule) but rather excused. We need e better way of describing what Siavash did. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Charlie should have "not eligible", but I didn't think we had a colour for people who couldn't be nominated. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 00:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yellow is for Exempt/Immunity, if a housemate can't be nominated then their box should be yellow, if they can't be nominated and are exempt from nominating fellow housemates their box should be yellow with Exempt in the box italicized. Housemates that can't nominate but can be nominated should have the blue color. In Charlie's case it should be grey with the words Not eligible italicized. This is based on the project guidelines for nomination/voting history tables. See Big Brother 8 (U.S.)#Voting history week one for an example. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 13:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Death of Michael Jackson

It's been decided not to tell them [3]. I think this is a notable decision about a notable event and should be included as a brief mention with a link to Jackson family#Death of Michael Jackson. Any idea where to locate this? Nothing was added during Big Brother 2005 (UK) about the decision not to tell them about the London Bombings, which surprises me. leaky_caldron (talk) 14:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not a surprise, they tell them nothing outside of family deaths. I have no idea where it would be put, or if it is relevant. The bombings were relevant as they happened in this country, whereas MJ dying 3000 miles away has very little impact on the BB House. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Notable? No contact with the outside world is one of the basic rules of BB. Surely it's far more notable when they do make an exception.

Though reading the DS article, in particular

"The show's producers have decided that telling the housemates would breach rules which forbid contestants from having any contact with the outside world,"

I'm a little confused - does the rule ban the housemates from contacting the outside world, or ban BB from providing information from the outside world? -- Smjg (talk) 23:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Both. Housemates are isolated from the outside world and are not allowed to contact the outside world (Dawn from BB7 was ejected for that). Geoking66_talk 08:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually Dawn received a message from the outside world, rather than sent one, but I think Kate Lawler got a telling off for something she wrote on a t-shirt during a task, as it was seen as a message to her sister. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 10:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Eviction %

Why the hell are they always so high 70.80 even 90 percent for one person? Never are they close?--Cooly123 (talk) 22:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Halfwit's obviously very popular. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, this isn't the place. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Sortable Nominations table

Do you think it is a good idea to have a sortable nominations table? Personally I don't think so beause it messes up the table otherwise when you click the sort button. MSalmon (talk) 12:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it's impossible to sort a table with merged cells. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 12:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

makes no sense and adds no value. leaky_caldron (talk) 13:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok thanks, just wanted to get peoples opions on it before I reverted it MSalmon (talk) 13:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I know what they were trying to do, but it just messes the table up. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Non-standard archiving practices on this talk page

There is ostensibly a dated archive of this talk page, yet the current page has inactive posts on it that are older than the date of the archive. This is not acceptable. The standard archiving practice for most pages is to archive grousp of posts into dated archives, and/or for busier talk pages, to archive posts after set period of inactivity, in order of becoming inactive. If editors here feel the need to link to previous discussions, then they should do as is commonly practiced elsewhere, and link to those discussions in the archive, they should not be left inactive on the talk page while newer posts are manually archived. I am now going to properly archive all the old discussions that are on here that beling in the June archive, up to the date of the last discussion in the archive as I found it, which was 12 June. If the common practices are not clear, I suggest that an archive bot is implemented to do it automatically. MickMacNee (talk) 14:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

So I don't fully understand that, but if you're saying that you are going to pull threads which are finished and add them to the most recent archive for the month then I'm fine with that. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

It's quite simple. If you intend to manually archive this page to dated archives, the most appropriate method for a relatively quiet page like this is to archive each post in order of posting, i.e. top post here to bottom of the archive, and to not selectively pick and choose which post to archive from this page, leaving older but still inactive posts here. MickMacNee (talk) 14:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

So removed threads once they are done. But in the archive I would keep them in date order. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The first words of the article

Big Brother 2009 or Big Brother 2009 ? Can we decide once and for all which it's to be and then leave it alone? MegaPedant (talk) 22:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The actual title needs to be in italics the whole needs to be in bold. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Question about posting information via live feed

Was a consensus reached this year to add information like twists, nominations, etc. as they unfold on the live feeds or wait until the broadcast of such events or until a reliable third party posts the information? I am asking because this question is coming up on Big Brother 11 (U.S.) and in the past the consensus was to add the information as it unfolded on the live feeds. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 20:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the consensus was to wait until after the event and use RS. But no reason why you couldn't update with {{cn}} after until a source becomes available. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I was just wanting to make sure on the consensus because in the USA articles this becomes a very hot issue with various editors and can cause the USA articles to go into edit wars. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 23:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't watch the US series and don't edit the articles, so if you want a 3rd opinion don't hesitate to call, but I would see nothing wrong in adding information with a CN then finding sources. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Alucard 16, live feed here unfortunately now isn't 24/7 so it wouldn't be possible to add it as it happened. D.M.N. (talk) 12:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Call me old fashioned, but do we not need to stick to policies? In particular WP:V which I will quote: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed."

It goes on "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source cited must clearly support the information as it is presented in the article. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books.

If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."

Anyway, next to nothing happens on the very limited live feeds of BB10! leaky_caldron (talk) 09:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Marcus' warning

I'm afraid I cannot find any citations for my mention of Marcus' warning, but I'm sure they will come out soon. Can anyone help find them? Grieferhate (talk) 23:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Here. D.M.N. (talk) 12:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

It's full of "allegedly", BB said he did it, so in the context of the programme and this article, he WAS threatening, so why all the maybes. --Pridds (talk) 14:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Allegedly is actually more acceptable because it's in the controversy section as many viewers don't actually believe the warning was fair and correct. Geoking66_talk 05:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that we only have BBs pronouncement on the matter in a cited article. Would be good to get a broader public view documented somewhere. leaky_caldron (talk) 10:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Surnames in the summary - where does that come from?

This looks ridiculous. In fact I thought it was vandalism until I saw that Darren (a reliable contributor) had made the changes. I have no idea who these people are by surname. Big Brother does not refer to housemates EVER in 9 years by surname, they are effectively stripped of their full identity on entering the house. I think it should be discussed here first since it is a fundamental change in approach. I will change back pending proper discussion. leaky_caldron (talk) 08:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, this is an encyclopaedia, not a fan site, and encyclopaedias refer to people by their last name. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 09:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Cannot see anything in WP:MOS or WP:EIW, although I'll keep looking. Can you point me to the WP:Policy or WP:Guideline? In this case, the article is about a subject that historically and intentionally never refers to surnames. It seems illogical to introduce surnames into the prose which are never used in the subject. Not just from a fan perspective but from the lay-reader's. Surely we should reflect the reality of the subject? leaky_caldron (talk) 10:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Further to above, this cannot be relied on WP:NAMES#Subsequent_uses_of_names since that particular style guide is about biographical articles. WP:POL offers sensible guidance - "Policies need to be approached with common sense; adhere to the spirit rather than the letter of the rules, and be prepared to ignore the rules on the rare occasions when they conflict with the goal of improving the encyclopedia." leaky_caldron (talk) 11:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I can agree with that, but let's see what others think. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 11:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I made the change in the controversy section as it is essentially about events not directly concerned with Big Brother "events", such as tasks or nominations. In most other articles (such as other film or TV articles) subjects are referred by full name then surname on subsequent mentions. Within the summary it makes sense to refer to them by first name only (as they are addressed by Big Brother), but if a housemates full name is used then is makes sense to use the surnames on subsequent use. Of course if others don't like this then I am open to it being changed back. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I see your point now. I was mistaken about the location. I thought I had read the surnames in the Summary section - not the Criticism & controversies section. I'll reinstate the surnames. leaky_caldron (talk) 11:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It only occurred to me because the statement about Saffia says "Saffia Corden", and it seems a bit fan-ish to then call her Saffia. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Week 6 nominations

Any idea on how to do this, because we know Charlie is the only one up for now but there are more to come? MSalmon (talk) 09:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

That's why I put "others to be announced" because it looks like Charlie is the only person facing the public vote this week, but we know he won't be. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 10:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

How about removing Charlies name from the 'Against Public Vote' box but leave the nomination note and the blue colour in the info box? MSalmon (talk) 10:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe if we waited until it's officially confirmed rather than trying to keep up with "gossip". However, if a citation is needed here are 2: http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/bigbrother/a163871/this-weeks-nominations-revealed.html, http://www.mrpaparazzi.com/post/7573/This-Weeks-Nominations-Are.aspx. leaky_caldron (talk) 10:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

That's fine with me, I wasn't sure what to do MSalmon (talk) 10:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I provided a link from the official Channel 4 site confirming that Dogface and Kris are nominated, this was reverted. Why was this reverted when Charlie's name remains? - Bearing in mind that the link i provided is confimation from the official Big Brother website. 12bigbrother12 (talk) 15:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it just me or did Channel 4 sort of, well, miss out the nominations entirely from broadcast? :/ weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Shocking. The noms. will eventually appear on the official website or some other trusted source. leaky_caldron (talk) 21:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I bloody hope so :( That's the only reason I watched it tonight... weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I have attempted to clarify why everyone is up Friday, and remove parentheses. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

An RS for Ratings?

It may be worth searching Broadcast for information, as it is the TV industry's paper, so must be reliable. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

BARB, who actually compile the ratings, was who we used in previous years and is the most reliable source as it is the official source for British TV ratings. Geoking66_talk 05:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Good for dry figures. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Nominations table, source row

Before the separate source row was added to the nominations table references to each week's nominees and evictee were included inline and it was clear to which event each referred. With the introduction of the separate row for sources it is now not so obvious and, in my opinion, the amount of information conveyed and therefore the usefulness of the table have both been reduced. May I suggest a review or, at least, that an effort be made to preserve the chronological order of the references? MegaPedant (talk) 05:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

List of Big Brother 2009 housemates (UK)

Is there anything in this article which is not contained in the main article? And if not is it worth getting rid of this article? It seems that it is mostly a repetition of information from this page (such as listing Halfwit's nominations). As the winner will be the only one to achieve anything of note outside the house this article seems like a BLP-vio magnet. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I think we should merge it in. DJ 11:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Content from that article has in fact been copied into this article and subsequently rewritten. There are similar pages for previous years so I would prefer to improve it rather than remove it. I don't know how it is possible to predict that the winner will be the only contestant to achieve anything of note but I agree that the page is vulnerable to vandalism and should perhaps be protected. MegaPedant (talk) 12:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Would we have a section here about nominations and then have an article on the same issue? No. Therefore, either the section or the article needs to go. As it is best for everything to be kept together, I think it is best that the article goes. The section is a much more compact and clear way of communicating everything that is said in such a broad and cluttered article anyway. DJ

I think the difference between a section in this article and a separate article is the fact that the latter can contain more information while the former is just a summary. Hence the Main article reference. The information in the Housemates section of this article was originally copied from that article and it reads better because it has since been rewritten. I agree that a section about nominations would not need further amplification in a separate article but I would argue that a section on, say, tasks would certainly benefit from a separate article. MegaPedant (talk) 13:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The Housemates aerticle will simply end up like previous years listing tasks the housemates took part in (already in this article) the nominations they got (already in this article) and the day and % of thier eviction (already in this article). The first four BBUK articles don't have a housemates article and there is little relevant detail in the housemates articles for BBUK5, 6, 7, 8 or 9 that could not be (or is not already) in the main article. The first few housemates have little outside of the audition tapes and the last few simply end up with lists of tasks and trivia (such as who they kissed/hated). MegaPedant you did a good job trimming down the housemate section for this article, in trimming it down did you not see the bloat that exists in the separate article? Worse than that it draws vandals to an article and invites trivia. What can be said extra about Kris or Saffia which in not already in this article? Darrenhusted (talk) 16:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the examples you give: Kris and Saffia were two of the most one-dimensional housemates ever to enter the House. Thing is, I believe there is some useful information in that article that you'd likely object to merging into this article. I give, as an example, Marcus's likening himself to the Wolverine character. I've read the discussion for and against and do honestly believe it is a significant aspect of who Marcus is, an observation that has been borne out in his behaviour inside the House, and not to be dismissed as fandom or trivia. Ok, I've put my argument forward but if the consensus is to delete that article then so be it. May I ask that it be discussed on its own talk page before seeking a consensus though as there are people who contribute to it who rarely come here? Thanks. MegaPedant (talk) 17:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

May I ask that it be discussed on its own talk page before seeking a consensus though as there are people who contribute to it who rarely come here? Does that not say it all? Darrenhusted (talk) 17:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by that, Darren. My interpretation of what I wrote is that there are people who contribute to that article who deserve to be included in any discussion about its future and that they don't necessarily read this discussion page. MegaPedant (talk) 18:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Direct them here then, to this discussion. I don't think there is anything non-trivial which could not be in this article, and if it can't be merged to this article then the truth is it doesn't need to be in any articles (who needs or indeed cares that Marcus looks like Wolverine?). I think that the summary information in this article is more than adequate in reflecting the housemate's time in the house, and that we can do without a separate article, but I am more than willing to change my mind if someone can demonstrate the opposite to be true. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits to the Controversy and criticism section

I notice that a large block of text has been copied verbatim from this section and pasted into the Controversy and criticism of Big Brother (UK) article and that a sizeable part of it, dealing with Davina encouraging viewers to protest against the reduction in the live feeds, has been deleted from this article. Is that the intention or is the feeling that it ought to be reinstated? MegaPedant (talk) 13:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Reinstated. How did that happen? DJ 18:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the revision history, it happened around 10:30 this morning when Mosherdude91 copied and pasted a large block of text into the Controversy and criticism of Big Brother (UK) article. It looks as though it was an intentional deletion, though no reason was given, and it was partly reinstated by you later, Dale. In view of the discussion about the separate housemates article, above, I have to ask whether this separate Controversy and criticism of Big Brother (UK) article is necessary since (applying the same argument) it appears simply to duplicate information already present in this and other years' articles. MegaPedant (talk) 18:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Take it to AFD and see what happens, it's not really a merge/editorial issue as all the info is in the other articles anyway. DJ 18:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Mention of Race Row

I have an issue with the Shilpa racism stuff being included here. What does it have to do with BB10? leaky_caldron (talk) 18:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Context. The Daily Mail made the link and it's quite obvious. Here at Wikipedia, we need to speak to the readers as if they've never expierienced BBUK before. They'll need to know about the previous incident, as it seems a tad odd that the BB10 issue would recieve such attention otherwise. It's only one sentence of background info. DJ 18:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I have removed this: The incident follows a racism controversy that occured in the 2007 edition of Celebrity Big Brother, which saw a record number of OFCOM complaints and an "international outcry" over the behaviour of Jade Goody, Danielle Lloyd and Jo O'Meara towards Shilpa Shetty. It's 2 1/2 years ago, a long dead issue and has no bearing on or connection with what transpired to be a non-racist event in BB10. I have similar reservations about the inclusion of the Sree/Halfwit arguement. It turned out to be a non-event. leaky_caldron (talk) 18:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Reliable, secondary sources made the connection - not me. Therefore it should be included to provide context. I really don't see what the issue is - you wouldn't have and article on World War III without mentioning that World Wars I and II had appeared beforehand, even if they weren't directly linked. As for the Sree/Halfwit issue; the controversy occured, sparked an investigation and was reported on by various media outlets. Regardless of the outcome, it should still be included. DJ 19:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems like a stretch, I mean the controversy with Emily Parr and Charlie Uchea are more recent. We can't keep crow-baring in a ref to the Jade/Shilpa incident. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

There is not a genuine contemporary connection between the 2007 incident (global, embroiling the Prime Minister etc.) and this relatively trivial event. That’s why I have an issue. It’s like chalk and cheese. Saying that “it follows” something in the same sentence implies a shared status.

If you really want to include this and connect it with anything approaching a similar situation, can I suggest Emily’s ejection in BB8? [4] Even that is stretching the comparison but at least it involves BB HMs, not celebrities and not genuine bullying racism per CBB5. leaky_caldron (talk) 19:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

No one was ejected though, he was warned, and as I understand several housemates in the last few years have had warnings which have lead to nothing, if Marcus gets warned again or evicted then it would be worth linking it to Emily, otherwise the context of the OFCOM stuff is enough. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer not to have it there at all, see above. The original edit covered the incident in summary well enough for what it amounted to and introducing CBB5, OFCOM etc. just doesn't reflect the low level nature of the Sree/Marcus argument. leaky_caldron (talk) 20:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Big Brother's 10th year - new section?

As there has been so much hype over Big Brother's 10th year, is it worth splitting the second half of the "Pre-series" section into a new "10th year commemorations" section, which will include details of the former HMs returning and the twist on Friday? I don't think that this should be developed until later on in the week until much more info comes to light. What do we think? DJ 21:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Certainly sets a challenge! The weekly summary may not be the appropriate place and could be busy with the daily tasks each of the former HMs are going to be set - if we think they should be recorded. Let's see what the article regulars think. leaky_caldron (talk) 21:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

As with everything I would counsel waiting until a few days after the events to put a proper perspective on the events. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Week 7's Protest

I think it should definitely be included in the summary! But IPs are blocked from editing on this page - can someone add it in? It is certainly notable! 83.71.108.45 (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)