Talk:Big Brother 2009 (UK)/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

I'm going to suggest something radical...

Resolved: The side bar stays for the time being

I think we should lose the Nominated/Up for eviction colouring on the sidebar. The reasoning being that it is often only there for about 2 days and it is rather trivial and fan site-ish, breaking not one but two parts of What Wikipedia is not. As this would affect the BB articles worldwide, I'll post a link to this discussion on other pages. Thoughts? DJ 22:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I would have to be honest, I don't know a reason for keeping it, apart from that someone may be too lazy to scroll down to the nominations table. Post a link to the global discussion and I will be there with a vote to remove. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Maybe I didn't explain correctly, this will be the discussion. I've directed foreign editors here. DJ 22:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
And if the consensus is that it stays as it is, can we please change the colour of either the walked or nominated bar because, as a colourblind person, I can't tell the difference... DJ 22:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so keen on getting rid of it. The table is there to give a quick idea of each Housemate's status in the game. T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 23:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, but that is unencyclopedic. DJ 23:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I have no strong feeling either way because ultimately the result, once the series is over, will be the same. I do agree with Dale's point re the choice of colours though. With a whole gamut to choose from they are surprisingly similar and insipid. MegaPedant (talk) 23:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
It does not need to be removed. The two policies you listed are really not broken. It is hard to say something should be encyclopedic when the events are actually going on simultaneously. Once the seasons are over, then the sidebar will be stagnant, aka encyclopedic. –Turiantalk 03:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Definitely keep the sidebar, none of the cited policies have been broken, as Turian said. It sounds like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT (yes I know that refers to deletion discussions, but the principle applies). Jeni (talk) 13:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, I didn't say the sidebar should be removed. Secondly, if WP:IDONTLIKEIT, then why am I the editor with the most contributions to this page? Please read WP:AGF. DJ 17:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Does it honestly matter? The table serves a purpose that is actually quite useful. I'm sorry DJ, but just because you don't like something in the article doesn't mean that it must be changed. It hasn't broken any rules and other programmes use the same system. Geoking66talk 04:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. And just because you have the most contributions to the page doesn't mean anything (see WP:OWN). –turiantalk 15:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Should Isaac be on the nominations table?

Resolved: He stays despite only being in for 24 hours, per precedent

I think that he should be removed as he never participated in a round of nominations or eviction-related activity, but I feel that he should stay in order to keep consistency. Discuss. DJ 22:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I think he should stay, after all he was a housemate. Beinazir was not and was never really up for eviction (only for her to become a housemate) but she is still included. Whoniverse93 talk? 22:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
But that's different. She participated in the equivalent of nominations. Isaac did not. DJ 22:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
He should stay, so should Saffia, Tom and Kenneth. It would be odd to not have them there, as it needs to be indicated that they never took part. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Isaac was a full housemate, so was Beinazir, it was just a twist (none housemate thing). --BigOz22 (talk) 23:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Beinazir was never a housemate. Isaac was. Had he stayed he would have been eligible to nominate and be nominated, therefore he should stay in the table. MegaPedant (talk) 23:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
This kinda goes with Justin from BB2 USA and Scott from BB4 USA where they were expelled prior to the eviction vote of Week 1. If those two can remain then Issac should remain as well. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 09:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Well that's kind of different since that's the American series, but still he should be kept. Whoniverse93 talk? 10:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
for completeness if nothing else and to avoid an unneccesary edit war. However, we are using C4BB as the source and he's unlikely to be mentioned in that. leaky_caldron (talk) 11:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Just because it is the American series really isn't a valid point. If Issac is removed then the same standard should be applied to all nomination and voting history tables not just one national variant. Otherwise it would mess up the goal of standardization between all Big Brother articles if housemates were omitted from the tables in one national variant but not the other. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 02:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

This is similar to discussion on Big Brother Australia 2008 dealing with two housemates who never nominated. I think that Isaac should be on the nominations table, because he was a housemate.Fugio (talk) 13:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Article size

Resolved: The article has a large amount of tables

This article is currently 91KB and WP:SIZERULE says that articles over 60KB "probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)" and articles over 100KB "certainly should be divided". We are fast approaching 100 and I don't think the scope of the topic justifies the extra reading time. Should we split the article? And if so, which section? Thoughts? DJ 17:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the table makes the 91KB a "misnomer," so to speak. However, if there were to be a section to move, I would say it would be the entire "Receptions" part of the article. It has enough girth to sustain it as its own article. –turiantalk 17:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
That was my first thought but without the Reception section, the article becomes an in-universe plot summary. DJ 17:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Readable prose is only about a third, then a third table code and the final third is refs, the table and refs for this article are huge. At most this would touch 41k, and with a month to go I don't see the readable going above 60k.Darrenhusted (talk) 19:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Does WP:SIZE mention removing refs, tables and images? DJ 20:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Readable prose, there is a tool to check the page, but the easiest way to do it is to copy and paste the text from the lead to the summary into a wikipage and see if it tells you to split it. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Where does Rodrigo live in the UK?

Resolved: We don't know where he lives but the only source says Manchester

The Channel 4 website says he lives in Manchester so that's what it says in this article. However I'm pretty sure he told the housemates he lives in Leeds and he went on to discuss meeting up with David and Charlie when the series is over. I notice there is some discussion here and I see that in the List of Big Brother 2009 housemates (UK) article he's listed as coming from Leeds so I'm minded to change the entry in this article to match. Perhaps the confusion arose because he attended auditions in Manchester. MegaPedant (talk) 16:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd leave it as Manchester. At 23, maybe he has now left University in Manchester and is moving to Leeds? If there's ever any confusion over matters like this I always feel its best to go with C4. DJ 17:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


I noticed some topics today have been archived, despite the fact they have received replies today, surely that is a completely inappropriate action? I propose we setup MiszaBot to archive this page automatically, I suggest getting the bot to archive after a topic has been inactive for 15 days is a reasonable course of action. If there is consensus, I'll set this up later. (And I'll restore some of the inappropriately archived threads now) Jeni (talk) 20:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Turian and I have already had this discussion today. You really shouldn't have bought the discussions back unless you had something relevant to add to them. DJ 20:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Where have you had the discussion? It certainly wasn't here. Jeni (talk) 20:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
On our talk pages. Thanks for bringing them back Jeni. I was planning on it later. Also, just because there hasn't been anything said, doesn't mean there can't be anything new. The topics were only a week old. –turiantalk 21:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
There was one link which I put her on the 28th which was fine to be archived. If the matter has been resolved then it should be archived. Mark it with a tick and close it off if necessary. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like 15 days of inactivity may be too long, should we set it up to go with 10 days? Though to be honest, there shouldn't be a rush to archive on here as soon as a discussion dies, its not like its a very busy talk page! Jeni (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Archives 2 and 3 have at least 30 topics each, that is one a day since the program began, that is fairly busy, I know of talk pages that have less than two a year. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I have added the code above to automatically archive threads after 10 days of inactivity, seems reasonable enough. Jeni (talk) 21:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It can be a rather busy talk page. There's no need to over-complicate things; like Darren said - archive when the discussion comes to its natural end and it can be brought back if something relevant needs to be added, not just because someone wants to keep it lying dormant on the talk page for another 3 days. DJ 21:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

And I will remove the code - consensus has yet to be reached. DJ 21:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
So we are going to continue with the system where you personally archive threads based on your personal opinion on when a thread has run its course, hereby extending your ownership issues related to this article? You have already shown today that you are unable to judge when its appropriate to archive. Jeni (talk) 21:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
No. We are going to wait until a consensus has been reached. Weren't you harping on about consensus on this very page just a few weeks ago? And it is purely your opinion that I archive incorrectly, so don't state it as fact. DJ 21:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Well mine and Turian if we are being honest. Jeni (talk) 21:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I've added a table of ongoing notices and discussions (which shouldn't be archived) to improve readability and organisation. DJ 21:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

My opinion - your first two items in that permatable are old and the third one doesn't belong on this talk page. And I !vote for having MiszaBot archive the page, it's a neutral solution and if there's any argument,you can always blame the bot.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm fine with there being a bot, but this shouldn't stop editors archiving a thread if it has been answered and doesn't need to hang around for five days waiting for a bot. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm fine with users archiving, its just very dodgy when threads get archived on the same day as the last post! Jeni (talk) 22:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Not when the thread has come to a conclusion. DJ 22:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Surely it's better for a thread that has run its course to hang around for a few days than one that it unfinished to be archived prematurely. Let the bot do the tedious job and get on with living. MegaPedant (talk) 01:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Christ. The idea that talk page sections can be archived and then "be brought back if something relevant needs to be added" is totally wrong, per the consensus of the million past editors who have developed the standard archiving practices used all over the pedia, which btw do not include bright red 'permanent notice' templates for old discussions, and data that belongs on project pages. MickMacNee (talk) 01:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

So just why do threads continue to be archived manually and prematurely? MegaPedant (talk) 05:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
"Prematurely" is subjective, and this section is an object lesson in a thread getting comments after the matter has been settled. Just because you have a bot doesn't mean you can't archive manually. But I would think the bot can handle it for the next four weeks, once the series finishes I don't see this page being as active. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Noirin: 60.0% or 60%?

On the nominations table, all of the percentages are to one decimal place. However, as Noirin got 60.0% of the vote, I changed it to just "60%", feeling that the ".0" was redundant and looked out of place. However, User:MegaPedant reverted this, claiming consistency. Now as it's only a very very very trivial issue, I'm not too bothered either way. However, I was just wondering if any one else feels that the ".0" should be removed? Afterall, we wouldn't put £100,000.0 as the prize money.... DJ 23:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be kept as it is but that's because I think it looks okay, not any other reasons. I suppose you wouldn't write money in that way but by stating it's .0%, maybe people could have got confused before thinking someone rounded it off. Whoniverse93 talk? 23:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

For consistency it should be .0%, if we are finishing all with one place, or .00 if we are finishing them all with 2. And you would put £100,000.00 or 10,000,000p, but the prize money isn't up for eviction each week. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Also if we don't put .0 for Noirin then Benazir was evicted by 7% and Hira by 6%. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
We've had the discussion here before and decided that the results of votes should be shown to a precision of one decimal place. If you don't understand what that means then take a look at Arithmetic precision and Significant figures where the mathematical concept is explained and, believe me, it is anything but trivial. Bringing the prize money into this discussion is just plain silly as it has nothing to do with the way voting percentages are displayed. In pounds sterling it is an exact integer amount: 100,000. If, however, you wanted to convert that sum into an alternative currency we could have a discussion as to how precisely it ought to be displayed, in which case I'd suggest three significant figures giving, for example, €118,000 or US$167,000 at the current exchange rates. MegaPedant (talk) 02:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

There's no need for some people to get so worked up. It was just a suggestion and as I said, it really doesn't matter.... DJ 08:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

If you mean me, I'm not getting worked up at all. I'm having a great time. The thing is, it's a mathematical concept and it really does matter. Reporting the voting results each week requires that they always be presented with the same precision. The same is true of the viewing figures, in terms of millions (I suggest one decimal place) and as a percentage (I suggest zero decimal places). The majority meet that spec but two of three need a bit of tweaking. MegaPedant (talk) 14:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

To get this from C to B class...

...there are some concepts which need to be fully explained within this article rather than sitting in other articles. These include: what is the Diary Room, it has capital letters but this article does not explain what it is. There is a paragraph about the change to the eviction format but this has not been updated. How do the housemates get food, there is talk of a basic food budget and luxury food budget but this is not explained. Could the actual dates of events be worked in alongside the "Day 1" format which is really BB jargon (and by Day 40 does anyone actually know the date referred to?). Thoughts. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

IDEA- We change the summary to include real-time dates. For instance, something like "In week three, beggining on Saturday, 21 June (Day 21), saw Angel...". Clearly the punctuation needs to be improved, but you get the idea. Day 40 was Monday, July 13th. DJ 21:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't asking specifically about when Day 40 was, just that the further we get in the less easy it is for a casual reader to figure out when we are talking about. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Aren't the Diary Room and shopping budget adequately explained in Big Brother (UK)#Current format, as indicated at the beginning of the Format section of this article, along with the idea of nominations, tasks and other Big Brother-specific concepts. It says that "the format remains largely unchanged from previous series" so is there really a need to duplicate it here? If there really is then let's add it. Perhaps a copy and paste, followed by a rewrite and polish would do the trick. I don't think that dates would co-exist comfortably with BB Days within the prose but the date span of each week could be mentioned in parentheses, like this: "In week nine (25–31 July), in the early hours of Day 53, Tom voluntarily left...". As I see it, BB Day numbers are a consistent way of referring to events within the House but I agree that on occasions when events in the House interact with events on the outside, as in the case of entrances and evictions, then perhaps the date ought to be recorded somewhere too. How about in the nominations table? MegaPedant (talk) 04:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
The Diary room and shopping budget are routinely referred to during the summary, so a short paragraph under the format would mean that readers can stay in on this page, I would be happy with a copy and paste then copy edit. The use of "Day" is in universe, so some reference to the real dates should be included, although I don't think ranges for the weeks would be an elegant way but maybe a "week starting 31 July" and a date for the evictions (On Day 53, 28 July, ...). We shouldn't clutter the nominations table any further, it is already becoming a data overload. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources roundup - with a snazzy graph


167 sources:
Digital Spy- 54
Daily Mail- 25
Guardian- 20
Channel 4- 15
BBC- 9
Heat- 8
STV- 4
MSN- 3
Evening Herald- 3
Telegraph- 3
Independant- 2
Times- 2
Welwyn & Hatfield Times- 2
Misc. singular sources- 17

As we can see, DS is still dominating (32.3%) but I think that's justified; it's our most frequent of the reliable sources. Daily Mail use has improved and I think that all objectors to the C4-limit will be satisfied to see that its our 4th most used source. Comments? DJ 23:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Are there any DS sources that can be swapped with Guardian and BBC sources, as the BBC and Guardian links won't die. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
DS sources won't die either. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I was under the impression DS clear stuff after a period of time. Will the Channel4 links die? Darrenhusted (talk) 17:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
No - DS still has stuff from Day 1 of BB1: [1]. At around Christmas time, C4 pages will be moved to an archive section of the BB site so we'll have to search for them all over again. However, some of these C4 sources are cite episode templates, Channel 4 News articles (seperate website) or videos from the official BB channel. 2 of the sources are also from the already-archived BB9 site (the 2 on the rules). So for the most part, we're OK. When it becomes a problem, I suggest we replace any outliers with the cite episode template. DJ 18:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Something that can easily be achieved...

This is a WP:BIGBRO matter but as we're likely to get most of the traffic through here for the next few weeks, this is a good place to discuss it.
I was browsing around Wikipedia just now when I noticed that List of American Idol finalists is a featured list. As there's been a lot of talk of raising the standard of the WikiProject here, I was wondering if anybody else would consider getting List of Big Brother (UK) contestants to this level also. It would take almost no effort - move the article to "List of Big Brother (UK) housemates", improve the introduction and add some references. As it's a case of just of sourcing simple facts, we could use the Channel 4 microsites of past years for most of the sources. Anyone agree? DJ 14:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like a good idea to me. T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 00:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I've started a sandbox attempt at User:Dalejenkins/BBHMS. Everyone/anyone is more than welcome to edit away. DJ 00:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Halfwit & Dogface

It appears that Halfwit & Dogface have changed their names back to Freddie & Sophie via a special prize, is this worth a mention? MSalmon (talk) 12:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

With a couple of sources, yes. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
([2])I was about to start a discussion on this. Do we change the nom table, HM section, HM article and sidebar to "Freddie/Halfwit" and "Sophie/Dogface"? DJ 14:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure, that is why I wanted to check first MSalmon (talk) 14:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I think all (including nominations table) parts of the article that name "Halfwit" and "Dogface" should be changed to "Freddie" and "Sophie" to avoid confusion for the reader. 12bigbrother12 (talk) 19:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with 12bigbrother12. As it is now, it says Halfwit was nominated but Freddie was evicted. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I feel it should start off as "Freddie", then stand as "Halfwit" until he changed his name back and then be "Freddie (Halfwit)" in that final sentence of the summary, nom table, HM article etc... DJ 23:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd think we should keep it as Halfwit/Dogface while they were called that in the Summary, but the Nominations table should pick one of the options and not go with two names for one person, too confusing. T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 23:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

But otherwise it doesn't cross-correspond. A reader would be glancing along the summary, read "Halfwit and Cairon were up for eviction" and get lost when looking down at the nominations table and there being no "Halfwit" row. "Freddie/Halfwit" and "Sophie/Dogface" is a happy compromise for the nom table and sidebar. DJ 23:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should put a nomination note saying : Both Halfwit and Dogface legally changed their names back to Freddie and Sophie on Day 72. ? --BigOz22 (talk) 21:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I've changed the HMs article, sidebar and noms table to Freddie/Halfwit and Sophie/Dogface per WP:BOLD, as no firm consensus has been reached. It's a happy compromise and the casual reader will know who we're reffering to without confusion. DJ 19:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I think that's the best compromise. MegaPedant (talk) 00:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Users adding references

Could all editors please remember to use the {{Cite episode}}, {{Cite web}} and {{Cite news}} templates. It's very tedious when editors add sources with purely the reference tags and others have to clean up after them. Thanks, DJ 20:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC).

Agreed. However, there is a tool you can use to fill out the references. See WP:REFLINKS. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Does the nominations table and summary actually need sources?

WP:MOSTV#Plot section: "Plot summaries do not normally require citations; the television show itself is the source, as the accuracy of the plot description can be verified by watching the episode in question. An exception to this rule may be shows containing plot details that are unclear or open to interpretation, in which case the different interpretations should be sourced to reliable sources."

Please can nobody be bold and remove all of the sources; we need to have a discussion and form a consensus first. Please add to the advantages/disadvantages list as you see fit and contribute to the discussion. DJ 21:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


  • Less of a DS overload; most of the DS sources are in the summary.
  • Easier to edit
  • Improved readability


  • Harder to monitor what is fact and what is speculation - editors sneekily adding in things that weren't specifically stated in the programme but were documented in sources.
  • Could decrease our chances at GA/FA - may end up being a waste of time if sources need to be replaced.
  • Some infomation will need sources anyway; percentages etc.
  • It makes the article unreliable.


I am tired of being dragged over here from the U.S. article to discuss things that don't need discussing. This seems like a major non-issue in my eyes. Having the sources is a necessity due to the show's episodes not being live. Without the sources, who is to say what has and has not happened? And the plot summary idea is not even relevant; there is a major difference between fictional shows and reality television. We need the sources; end of story. –túrianpatois 21:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Who dragged you? You aren't obliged to comment here.  GARDEN  21:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Nobody dragged him. If you like, we can ignore your opinion Turian? DJ 21:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Stop making stuff out of nothing. It is pointless. And arguments need to stop being hosted here and need to be hosted on the main project's talk page. –túrianpatois 21:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Nobody looks there. And nobody's "making stuff out of nothing". You are being very aggressive. Stop it please. DJ 21:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
You can easily leave messages on both articles talks page directing it to the main talk page. –túrianpatois 21:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Well everything directs here now, so it really makes no difference. DJ 21:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I am obliged when you seek consensus for a page from a different page. –túrianpatois 22:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
No you aren't. I asked for comment on an article talk page, I did not demand you to come and have your say. You were not "dragged". WP:OWN would do you nicely - the encyclopedia will manage without you. DJ 22:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Then any consensus reached on this page will not affect the U.S. version. And I do not own the article, I just know how to detect ulterior pushes. Any consensus need for the American version will need to be reached on the BB11 article or task force page. And personally, you need to read WP:OWN. –túrianpatois 22:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
"Then any consensus reached on this page will not affect the U.S. version" - yes it will affect the American version. It's called uniformity. And don't just throw policies back in my face with no substance or evidence. DJ 22:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
No, it won't. Anything affecting both versions will need to be discussed here. Discuss it here, and it will only pertain to this article. –túrianpatois 22:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
If a decision is made on one article, it becomes uniform on all other articles. See here, here and here for just some examples. DJ 22:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Not anymore. That kind of process is flawed. 1. The shows are very different. 2. All of those were on the UK page (not shockingly). 3. If you want to change the US page, take my previous advice. The US task force is up and running again so the UK version is no longer the decision maker. –túrianpatois 22:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Well you're the only user who thinks so. Consensus decrees otherwise. And the shows are not "different"; they are both under WP:BIGBRO so should both follow the MoS of that project. You seem very critical of the UK pages and its editors, despite the fact that the UK pages are of a much better quality. Interesting... DJ 22:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
There will be a new consensus in due time. And now attacking our articles? Nice. –túrianpatois 22:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
"Our articles" = WP:OWN. DJ 22:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Stop equivocating, please. –túrianpatois 22:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I think they do - the whole idea of them is to back up information which could be disputed, and this is certainly liable to be disputed.  GARDEN  21:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Gee... I thought Big Brother was fiction... no? OK, seriously... Essentially, yes... you are using a primary source (the TV show) to support a discriptive comment about itself. That is an appropriate use of the primary source (this is discussed at WP:NOR) and the show itself is a reliable source for what occured on the show. Please note, however, that the plot summary must be purely descriptive. Any analysis or conclusionary statements made about the show will need a secondary source. Blueboar (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • It is not a plot like a film or TV plot, it is reporting of events, and as such needs sources. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Not a work of fiction, but it is a plot. So long as it is purely a recount of the episode and does not add original research, I don't see why they would need sources. The episodes themselves are the sources. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • certainly needs sources. leaky_caldron (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

List of Big Brother (U.S.) HouseGuests upgraded to FL-Class

Everyone, Another Believer has been working on List of Big Brother (U.S.) HouseGuests and has gotten the list up to FL-Class! This is a great achievement and the first FL-List for WP:BIGBRO as a whole. I honestly think that we can get more of the BB articles up to A-Class, GA-Class or even dare I say it FA-Class. I think that we should take a look at other reality based competition shows that have FA-Class articles and see what we can incorporate to make the BB USA/BB UK articles and other BB articles around the world to FA-Class. I believe this year the editors of the USA and UK articles have a great start here. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 04:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Posted to Big Brother 11 (U.S.), Big Brother 2009 (UK) and WP:BIGBRO. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 04:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

List of Celebrity Big Brother (UK) housemates is nominated for Featured List status

Posted to Big Brother 11 (U.S.), Big Brother 2009 (UK) and WP:BIGBRO.
...and it would be appreciated (and highly useful) if editors with knowlege of Big Brother could help review the article on its nominations page. It would be amazing for WP:BIGBRO to get its second FL in such a short space of time. DJ 22:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Finish date has next Friday as the final, and that will be in print tomorrow. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Apparently C4 confirmed it last week, but let's wait until tommorow and then put it in. DJ 19:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Template is anti-colour blind

There is a discussion occuring here on whether the colours of the sidebar are too similar. Please discuss the matter there, thanks. DJ 17:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Week 12 eviction; Sophie and Siavash's nominations

I don't think the "Didn't nominate" square should be used, because they did nominate, be it knowingly or unknowingly. 12bigbrother12 (talk) 20:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

But they didn't nominate, Big Brother nominated on their behalf. And the note on the table should reflect that. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Edit conflict - Big Brother nominated for them. DJ 20:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Or more accurately the twist has been revealed, Siavash "nominated" the first two people who he touched after leaving the diary room. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

They were clearly told that "you will nominate". Therefore didn't nominate is incorrect. Clarify in a foot note by all means but the table needs the names beside it to be consistent with the source. leaky_caldron (talk) 21:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
They didn't actually say two names, and that is what the table is for, to report the names said by housemates in the diary room. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Where does it specify that? Here is the official source. [3] It lists the nominations made by Sophie and Siavash. You cannot abitrarily decide that they are not nominations to be included in the article nominations table just because they didn't speak. leaky_caldron (talk) 20:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
It's not arbitrary, +it's simply reporting what happened, neither housemate nominated. Big Brother chose how the names would be picked and didn't tell the housemates. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
what happend totally - not selectively - is that they did not speak but nominations were ascribed to them. They were told "you will nominate" and the official source clearly shows this. There is no official source available to show that they did not have nominees attributed to them. The table is a table of nominations - not just spoken nominations. The names need to go in. There is not one plausible shred of logic in not including them, along with an appropriate note. leaky_caldron (talk) 21:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Leaky Caldron. My opinion is that Siavash and Sophie did nominate. Their intention was not to nominate but Big Brother said that they would nominate, and nominate they did. It wasn't by choice and speaking in the Diary Room has nothing to do with it, but by touching and naming they certainly nominated. The nominations for Bea (x2), Sophie and Rodrigo were as valid as any other nominations and add to the totals, just like other nominations. MegaPedant (talk) 17:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I had intended to leave this for 48 hours but the argument for is so compelling and the case against so weak that I have followed WP:Bold. The argument that BB nominated for them is a plainly wrong. They personally nominated by a method determined by Big Brother - but it was their action which resulted in the nomination and the twist is explained in the note. !!! leaky_caldron (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted that. Not only did you WP:CANVASS MegaPedant into the discussion (your fault, not his), but the debate is still ongoing. If this was AfD, the consensus would be "No consensus, revert to keep" as there is a 2-2 scenario. Therefore, the article stays as it is until the issue is resolved. DJ 18:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Stating that they nominated Bea, Rodrigo and Sophie is misleading - the first option offers a happy compromise as it shows that they didn't nominate and the consequences are explained in the notes. Otherwise, it looks like they nominated the three through choice - we need to differentiate, as the rules state: "Each week, usually on a Monday, the Housemates are individually called to the Diary Room by Big Brother in alphabetical order, where they must Nominate two fellow Housemates for Eviction privately. They must provide full and frank reasons for Nominating their chosen Housemates and cannot Nominate themselves". I do feel that the nominations should be added into the total numbers though. DJ 19:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Their nominations are already counted in the total nominations MSalmon (talk) 19:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
The Big Brother rules are clear. OTHER MATTERS Big Brother reserves the right to change the rules at any time. Big Brother’s decision is final.
Big Brother changed the rules for nominations, just as it had dispensed with the nominations discussion rule. It advised the HMs that they would nominate which they did following the revised rules. They HMs were also notified that they had nominated. The nominations counted as normal and are recorded in the source article. This could not be more simple and you are, I'm afraid to say, being typically confrontational in taking the view you have. I am content to leave this until the inevitable consenus is reached. leaky_caldron (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
You've misunderstood. "The rules" wikilinked to the main BBUK article, which says that the rules of the game HMs nominate who they want to evict. Therefore, the nominations section should display who the housemates want to evict. Siavash and Sophie did not want to evict Bea, Rodrigo and Sophie. The "BB can change the rules" clause is redundant - this is an encyclopedia and we need structure. It's like saying that Kermit the Frog speaks in an American accent - he does not, Jim Henson does (if you understand my logic). DJ 20:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Please do not tell me I've misunderstood and do not leave patronising advice on my talk page. I disagree with you and believe that your interpretation is both incorrect and hair-splitting. leaky_caldron (talk) 21:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
You did misunderstand. If you find WP:UTM patronising, then you need to take that up there. And hair-splitting is sometimes necessary when writing an encyclopedia. DJ 21:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I found it insulting and your accusation of canvassing a disgrace. Yes I have read WP:CANVASS so please do not ask me to look at it. I was requesting a non-involved, subject matter expert to confirm my opinion before making a change. The user concerned certainly would take no telling from me or anyone else as to how to respond. leaky_caldron (talk) 22:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

If you invite somebody into a discussion, you should approach them in an impartial way. This seems rather biased in my eyes. Also, you didn't inform anyone else, just this one user. It would have been more appropriate to simply inform other uninvolved editors at WP:BIGBROUK or WP:BIGBRO that the discussion was taking place, without adding a viewpoint (be it yours or somebody else's) DJ 22:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Right, let's sit down and see how we can resolve this. My opinion is that the "Didn't nominate" entry in the nominations table is incorrect. Siavash and Sophie really did nominate, though they really didn't intend to. Suppose the wording be changed to "Refused to nominate" with note 7 staying as is to provide the explanation. Would that be an acceptable compromise? MegaPedant (talk) 09:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
"Refused to nominate" is the simple truth of what happened. The note explains what happened after that, I'm happy with that. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I like that idea too. However, should we therefore change Siavash's previous incident to "Refused to nominate" also? I think this change now needs to be written into the WP:BIGBRO guidelines in order to prevent potential confusion should the problem arise next year. DJ 11:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
"refused" is certainly better than the factually incorrect "didn't". However, I'm not convinced of the reasoning for not including them (with shading if necessary). "They didn't actually say two names, and that is what the table is for, to report the names said by housemates in the diary room". Where is this specified? Is there a reference for this or is it just an opinion?
The noms. table was discussed 3 months ago. There was only agreement about including the totals column when it was argued that it was based on the totals of the x & y axis. Now we are removing names but including them in the totals, there is an issue with the validity of the totals column. Should it be removed?
In my opinion, editors have jumped on the novelty of the situation without thinking through the consequences. In simple terms this is a table of nominations. The de facto starting point is that names should be included with variances explained, rather than omitting them on what appears to be a tenuous opinion as to the table's purpose. That the Periodic Table includes elements that do not occur in nature is a better analogy than kermit the frog speaking English.
As things stand there is a need for better justification before accepting the compromise, although I certainly welcome it as a step forward from the entrenched and egotistical position of the last 6 days. leaky_caldron (talk) 12:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks will get you absolutely nowhere. DJ 12:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

why not assume good faith and answer the questions? There is no personal attack - I have made an observation about the general standard of editing in this matter. If the cap fits wear it, but remember, I didn't make the cap. leaky_caldron (talk) 12:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
"entrenched and egotistical position"...hrm... DJ 12:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Siavash's previous refusal to nominate should, I feel, also be marked "Refused to nominate" in the table. Housemates have genuinely not nominated in the past for various reasons but I don't recall anyone actually refusing. This is a new case that needs to be treated differently from previous series and the instance in this series where "King Henry VIII" gave Charlie exemption from nominating. Regarding the tallying up of nominations into totals, I feel that Siavash and Sophie's inadvertant nominations ought to be included, and also for the week where every housemate faced the public vote everyone's total should be incremented. That may have already been done. To be honest, I don't pay much attention to the accuracy of these figures as there are plenty of others who seem to be well across it and I'd rather spend my time fixing grammar and spelling. MegaPedant (talk) 14:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
To be completely accurate, they only refused to nominate "in the normal manner". However, since Big Brother devised an alternative method in which Siavash and Sophie "would nominate" they did not, in actual fact, refuse. Since it is entirely up to the Big Brother producer's to vary their fundemental rules, the fact that this alternative method of nominating was used does not alter the absolute fact that they nominated. Therefore the table should show the names, with a colour or shading, in order to maintain the full accuracy of the "nominations table". Leaving names out for special reasons - which are not actually that significant since the table is just a voting record - seems alien to commonsense. Surely the table should simply record the result matter of factly as tables generally do, leaving the twists and turns to be covered by the summary, notes etc. leaky_caldron (talk) 15:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
A similar argument now also applies to week 13. The "Didn't nominate" legend is especially wrong this time. MegaPedant (talk) 00:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm failing to see the point in retaining clearly incorrect information, which has now been corrected and wilfully reverted at least 3 times. My argument is that the table is a simple voting record of fact. There is no evidence for the view that it is is for spoken nominations only - that's just unsupported fiction or WP:POV I believe we are supposed to call it. It should be fully consistent with the source and needs to be so in order to satisfy the rules about the totals column debated at length 3 months ago. It should contain the names of housemates nomintated (by whatever process because the end result is identical) and be supported by colour highlight and footnotes to identify the so called twists. There will already be, in most cases, further supporting commentary in the summary without the need to fragment the table with explanation. My Periodic Table example above illustrates this. I will not be satisified until this is debated more thoroughly, but would prefer we change the "didn't nominate" text because that is totally erroneous. leaky_caldron (talk) 08:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Change it to "refused to nominate" then indicate the choice Big Brother made in the notes. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I hope that this is not the end of the discussion. The change is fine as far is it goes but I want to know where I can get the more appropriate tabular changes I have proposed discussed more than they have been so far. Anyone who can help I would be grateful for discussion here. leaky_caldron (talk) 18:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I have raised this here [4]. leaky_caldron (talk) 18:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The final push

As stated previously, it is felt that this article could quite easily make it to GA after the series ends. IP protection on the article ends on 11/9 (or 9/11) and this is an ideal oppurtunity for a clean-up before taking the article to peer review. There are a couple of issues that need sorting and feel free to list any more and comment on what is here. DJ 11:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Viewing figures section - I'll finish it soon.  Done
  • Some of the sources on the noms table are duplicated - as we've been editing as we go, we've been adding one source for who's up for eviction and another for who is evicted, where the latter will often provide both pieces of infomation.
  • The same can be said for the summary with the "X and X were nominated...X was evicted" sentences.
I think the chronological order of events is important and that means that the following order ought to be maintained: nominations, task, eviction. MegaPedant (talk) 14:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I was talking about the duplicated sources. There's no need for one source saying 2 people were nominated and another source saying that one was evicted when the odds are that both pieces of imfomation can be found in the latter. Make sense? Dale 14:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • The nominations notes look messy - I don't think they should be in small text.
  • Improve the intro per WP:LEAD.
  • Double check the nominations totals bar (after final Sunday noms).
  • Provide real-life dates in the Week seven shopping task section (and possibly in the summary).
  • Improve the housemates list article - it's protected until tommorow so I'm going to give it a shot.
  • Change the housemates table into order of eviction (like this, but without the "position" bar).  Done
Why is that more valid than the original order in which they entered the House? MegaPedant (talk) 14:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
The order they entered the house isn't specified anywhere else, but the order of eviction is. Had this not been brought up now, it would have definately been brought up at GA. Or we could compromise and put them in alphabetical order by surname? Dale 14:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • In the references, does every instance of each publisher (Digital Spy, Daily Mail, BBC, etc) really need to be wikilinked? Surely the first instance of each is sufficient? MegaPedant (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Every one needs to be wikilinked. And that's another thing - each magazine/newspaper needs to be in italics. Dale 02:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Is that consistent with WP:OVERLINK? leaky_caldron (talk) 09:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Look at The Apprentice (UK) and Dumped for examples of good or featured content. Reference ordering can change, so it's too pedantic to just link one. And nothing has been said at the FLC for List of Celebrity Big Brother (UK) housemates. Dale 10:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
mmmm, they don't have tables with incorrect/misleading info. in either. Maybe we should dump the table. It's not even accurately named. It should be nominations, evictions and percentages. leaky_caldron (talk) 11:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
It's a table about the nominations, who is evicted and the percentage are simply reporting the outcome of what happened, the title of "Nominations table" is enough. Leave any wholesale changes for the GA review. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest that the prize fund tasks be given a separate paragraph, just like the week 7 task, then each of the money tasks (such as Siavash's outfit) can be detailed. Also how is the housemates table organised? By alphabetical first name, last name, order of entry, order of exit, age? Because at the moment I can't see any of those. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

They are ordered in alphabetical order of remaining housemates then in order of most recent to first person to leave the house. As for order of the prize fund task, i suggest putting in order in which they got offered. This means Siavash and Marcus would be first in the list and would continue in that order. Danda012 (talk) 01:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I think we may be able to fit it into the summary. Look at the last week here. If that were this year the paragraph would be almost empty as we aren't including redundant mini-tasks. Let's keep going and, if it gets too excessive, we'll have the discussion again. Dale 10:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


surely that should be in the main article, not the 2009 series? Especially the quote about 200 hours etc. which has nothing to do with 2009. leaky_caldron (talk) 13:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I would say that is has nothing to do with this year, but for BB11 then the mention that it will be the last will suffice. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
It should be in both. It should be in here because this series clearly had an effect on the programme's cancellation. Dale is supporting Lisa Wallace to win Big Brother 2009 15:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
you would need clear evidence that this year directly contributed to the decision. The citation from the BBC doesn't mention it and the word "factor" in quotes from Bellemy isn't in it. leaky_caldron (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Watch the video ;) Dale is supporting Lisa Wallace to win Big Brother 2009 16:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not really a cancellation, as they will meet the contract for the eleventh series, but simply not a renewal of the current contract, I think cost more than rating is a factor. Either way a passing mention would be enough, the details should go on the general article and BB11 next year. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

"Cancellation" is certainly not the right name for it and I don't think it has a place in this article either. I also think the decision is cost related. Davina suggested last week on BBLB that the ratings had picked up after a shaky start. Does anyone know if there's any truth in that? MegaPedant (talk) 00:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Prize Fund

The Prize Fund being removed from £100,000 to £0 should be mentioned and the fact they will have chances to win it back in the remaining days left. The money was taken away as punishment for the housemate's attempted breakout on Day 83.

[5] (sorry it's a video) [6] [7]

Danda012 (talk) 12:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

quite so. feel free to put this in the summary, everyone can contribute  :) leaky_caldron (talk) 12:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually i can't edit due to my account being a new account and the page being semi-protected. Danda012 (talk) 12:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

okay. put your suggested edit here and I'll insert it for you. leaky_caldron (talk) 12:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I can try but it may need tweaked for grammar and to make it more neutral.

"On Day 83 after Big Brother told housemates they were being boring, housemates escaped through a fire door and ran through the studio. [8]. The housemates eventually all returned to the house. Later that evening, Big Brother informed housemates that as punishment for their breakout the prize fund would go from £100,000 to £0 and that over the remainder of the series they would have oppertunities to win back the prize money. [9] [10] [11]"

How is that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danda012 (talkcontribs) 13:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the summary is the place for it, as it more generally applies to the whole outcome of the program. A better written account needs to go in the lead or format. Where ever it is place the refs need to be properly formatted first. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah it wasn't very well written either. It will probably need slightly amended before it gets put into the article. Should also probably say "some of the housemates" since Lisa and David were in London as part of their shopping task. Although Siavash has won back £10,000 of the prize fund, this should probably wait until after all the housemates have done their tasks to win back money. It would make more sense and be easier to edit too rather having to keep editting it every day or few hours. Danda012 (talk) 00:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
there may need to be a section depending on the extent of it. It was a worthy attempt and I think the initial placing of it is correct - it is an event that has occurred during the weekly shopping task. Their failure to impress Big Brother - and the subsequent breakout. The extent of the consequence is irelevant, it was still linked to the shopping task, not any other sort of misdemenor. Why have sections for weekly events and not include material. It's like the noms. table containing incorrect data which it does at the moment. Let's keep it straightforward. leaky_caldron (talk) 09:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I removed it (again). Format the references, change the syntax and improve the punctuation before adding it in again. Dale 09:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Do not further disrupt this work. In am working on it and your constant disruption is unhelpful and lacking in good faith. leaky_caldron (talk) 09:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Then work on it in a WP:SANDBOX. Dale 09:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Please do not be so rude and unhelpful. The insertion I copied from a new user is essentially accurate and there is no need for it's wholesale removal. It was not vandalism but an ernest attempt to improve the article and you undermine people's confidence by removing wholesale. It is quite unfair. I will improve the links. I have been busy reverting wholesale vandalism to many of the earlier BB articles in the last half an hour. If you can help with the changes here I'd be grateful. leaky_caldron (talk) 10:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
We don't want WP:CLEANUP tags being placed on the article. Simply re-format the references. I'll do the sentence structure. Deal? Dale 10:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
This was removed at 13:40 after the above discussion and following quite a bit of work on the refs. and with no discussion. I have reinstated it yet again. It is accurate. If it needs to be put somewhere else as suggested at 00:34 this morning fine - lets agree that but can we please stop removing content that has been agreed since it is frustrating and a likely cause of friction. leaky_caldron (talk) 08:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I've cleaned it up now. Dale 10:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

"Not in House" is not a sentence

Earlier, I changed the "Not in House" bars of the noms table to "Not in the House", as the former is not a sentence. You wouldn't say "Bea was not in house" in a sentence, so why would you put it in a table? However, my edit was reverted because (apparently) we need to have a discussion before "changing anything". I've reverted it back now per WP:COMMONSENSE. Does this warrent a discussion? Dale 11:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Extended content
Due to a lack of willingness to accept other people's edits it seems that discussion is needed on many commonsense changes. leaky_caldron (talk) 12:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
leaky_caldron, you're coming across as extremely bitter in these talk page conversations. Please don't drag previous matters into other discussions and accept that the consensus was against you. In other words - WP:GETOVERIT. Dale 12:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I am not bitter. I find you dificult to work with because you appear not to tolerate other good faith contributions (such as yesterday's) and any alteration to your grammar even though it is not precise and is therefore ambiguous. You have persistently reverted minor edits this morning where I was trying to avoid confusion between David & Lisa and their non-participation in the breakout and you have used exactly the reason (that it looks like they were not included in the punishment) which I had read into your changes. Your latest change is just as ambiguous and I have further amended it. I am entitled to add clarification to articles and will not be bullied into accepting your poor English by you throwing bits of policy at me. leaky_caldron (talk) 13:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Since the attempted break out happened while David and Lisa were in London I found it easy to separate them from the incident simply by reworking the paragraph. Hopefully the changes are acceptable to everyone. MegaPedant (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I've placed the unrelated content in a collapsable box. The "Not in House" was restored again and I changed it back for the same reasons. Does anybody have a decent reason why it should stay as "Not in House"? Dale 22:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Well for what it's worth "in house" or more correctly "in-house" has a totally diferent meaning to that which we are seeking here. For example, "in house" might refer to a service provider being internal or external. "Not in the house" is the correct British English. leaky_caldron (talk) 22:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the support! :) Dale 22:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Siavash's "Playboy Bunny-inspired outfit"

I don't think so, Sunny Jim! Without a reference that can't stand, I'm afraid. The outfit is the wrong colour, has no tail or ears and is only similar in that it is worn with separate collar and cuffs. The reality is it's just a ridiculous outfit whose intention is to amuse the audience at the expense of its wearer, though Siavash, to his credit, doesn't seem to care. MegaPedant (talk) 14:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Oops! My mistake - I thought that Marcus (narrator Marcus, not housemate Marcus) had branded it as such, but then realised that it was Sophie. I'll remove it now. Dale 14:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
We do, however, need a (sourced) description of the outfit... Dale 14:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
One might well appear during the next 24 hours. I'll keep an eye out. I think we need to mention the £20 cheque though, since the prize fund currently stands at £20 (the £10,000 for Siavash's costume won't be added until he's left the House wearing that costume. MegaPedant (talk) 15:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

This source doesn't make it clear whether they ordered a special prize on the list or that Big Brother just randomly gave them £20. Let's wait until the HLs and then make the edit. Dale 17:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

This is from the C4 Big Brother Press Release Spoiler (don't have the URL): 7.11pm:

"Earlier today housemates bought a Mystery Prize as part of their shopping list. Big Brother gave them a cheque for £20, which will go towards the winner's prize fund." leaky_caldron (talk) 17:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems as if they may be posted directly into Digital Spy forums. Here is tonights: [12] leaky_caldron (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Spoiler for Friday refers to "a bunny rabbit playboy style costume". leaky_caldron (talk) 18:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The DS forums fail WP:RS. Dale 19:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
It's also here [13] and presumably elsewhere. leaky_caldron (talk) 19:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Fan sites fail RS too. I'll use the cite episode template on tonight's HLs. Dale 19:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
It was shown last night.... leaky_caldron (talk) 20:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

More nominations

On BBLB today (or should I say yesterday?) George Lamb said there will be another round of nominations on Sunday with an eviction on Tuesday, so I think we need another column added in the nominations table. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 00:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

We need a link reference first before it can be added though. Danda012 (talk) 01:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
The noms table will need to be modified. Can I suggest we wait until we know exactly what the format of these noms. is since it may not be straightforward. leaky_caldron (talk) 09:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Well here's a ref to show the basics, but I imagine it won't be straightforward too. (I imagine the "To Win" lines open on Friday. The HMs nominate, they aren't told and we aren't told the result, and the nominated housemate with the least votes goes on Tuesday. But I can dream....) Dale 10:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I never considered it might not be straightforward nominations as normal (but I hope it is as I hate fake nominatons, plus in this series, fake noms are pointless as they can discuss noms and Siavash always refuses). AnemoneProjectors (talk) 12:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
careful AP, this isn't a fan site! lol. I cannot stand the way Siavash has managed to manipulate things this year. On the subject of the Table, there is an ongoing discussion, above. leaky_caldron (talk) 13:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Siavash's plan actually backfired when only he and Marcus faced the vote (he had wrongly assumed that David had received nominations from those who refused to discuss the matter), but the public saved him anyway. MegaPedant (talk) 15:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

There would not be nominations on the final Monday anyway, as they open the lines to win in the final week, so the Sunday nominations would be the Week 14 nominations anyway, the table doesn't need to be altered. They nominate on Sunday, someone goes on Tuesday and then the final column reflects the final night on Friday, a note about the nominations taking place a day early will be enough. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Best thing to do is wait until Sunday when it is revealed what is actually going to happen rather than speculating now. After that we can sort out the table for the nominations. Danda012 (talk) 14:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Now confirmed as Tuesday. This would be the end of Week 13 - not 14. leaky_caldron (talk) 17:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
No it wouldn't. Every other week begins on a Saturday; why is this any different? Dale 17:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
They've only been in 13 Saturdays (Day 3, 10, 17, 24, 31, 38, 45, 52, 59, 66, 73, 80, 87). They won't be in for a 14th Saturday. I don't think that is novel original research or synthesis. It's just a straightforward fact. Noms. were on day 88 and the eviction is on Day 90. Both of these are contained in the w/c the 13th Saturday. leaky_caldron (talk) 18:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

As I posted below - it's WP:OR. The weekly summary and nom table sections are plot summaries and should therefore abide by what the programme states, even if that is not logical. Dale 18:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Forget the weeks then, change them all to days, for when the nominations were made, or label them round 1, round 2... Darrenhusted (talk) 20:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Day numbers is a good idea, but not rounds. It gives no clear sense of perspective. Dale 20:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
No issue with days other than it makes the correlation with the preceeding summary more difficult. Also there might be issues with consistency with the overall BB project. Can I suggest we wait until the official source [14] is updated later this week and for other contributors views. leaky_caldron (talk) 21:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I have revised my opinion on this. Although the show did not begin on a Saturday, the first 2 days were in effect week 1. Thereafter the weeks are as above with day 3 the start of week 2 and day 87 therefore the start of week 14. leaky_caldron (talk) 22:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


Should be mentioned that on day 88 (monday 30, August) that 4 houseguests threatened to walk: Charlie, Rodrigo, Siavash and Sophie Big Brother had obvioulsy convinced them to stay. -- 19:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)-- 19:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 (talkcontribs)

HMs often threaten this. If it turns out to have been a major, orchestrated thing it might be worth mentioning but from what I've picked up on a forum it didn't amount to much of a rebellion TBH. leaky_caldron (talk) 19:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Week 1 evictions

The nominations which took place the week Sophia was evicted were in Week 1 NOT Week 2, Sophia was only in the house a week, not two weeks, so why is it not classed as Week 1, she was evicted on Day 9, as was Stephanie from last year, but Stephanie is classed as Week 1 evictee, Beinazir was evicted on Day 4, so why isn't the Week 1 list of nominations in Week 1 not just split in two like the Week 14 (which should be Week 13) list is?

That's what I thought but that is the way it is done MSalmon (talk) 17:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Does this help [15]? It's the official source. There were no nominations in week 1 and Beinazir was never a housemate. leaky_caldron (talk) 17:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes but 93 days is 13 weeks not 14 MSalmon (talk) 17:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
of course it is. 93/7 = 13 (weeks) remainder 2 days. The 2 days represents wk 14 when the final takes place. This was debated 3 months ago. Look in archive 1 or 2. It's not going to change - it is in accordance with the source an as far as I know historical precedent. There is an argument for saying that this week's eviction is in week 13 however. leaky_caldron (talk) 17:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't want to start another argument about it so just leave the table as it is for now MSalmon (talk) 17:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
It's here [16] below. leaky_caldron (talk) 17:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Here is a source [17] MSalmon (talk) 18:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

That's pure WP:OR. The weekly summary and nom table sections are plot summaries and should therefore abide by what the programme states, even if that is not logical. Dale 18:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)