![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
During CBB6, I attempted to use C4+1 ratings; it failed. The ambiguity and lack of consistent sources made getting those ratings a nuisance and a formatting nightmare. I think we should just avoid using them and stick solely to BARB ratings. Geoking 66 talk 20:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Every year the BB articles rely on primary (Channel 4) sources too much, and some of these sources need to be replaced with reliable, third party sources which pass WP:RS. I suggest that only about 1/4 of the sources should be from C4 or the {{ Cite episode}} template. Website I reccomend are:
Remember to use {{ Cite web}} and {{ Cite news}}. I'm sure we can all do it together :) DJ 13:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Using a primary source is perfectly acceptable for basic facts or uncotroversial opinions. Arguing that the Daily Mail/Heat/Digital Spy are flat out preferrable than Channel 4 is just seriously worrying, considering this exact topic is a magnet for the sort of un-attributed speculation they like to frequently peddle. This 1/4 demand is totally arbitrary, and misunderstands WP:RS completely. I for one urge anybody adding to the article to ignore it, and read the sourcing policies for yourselves. DJ, I'd be more worried if I were you about appearing to own this article - I've removed your unneccessary "ALL editors read!" header, it is wholly insulting. MickMacNee ( talk) 20:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not going to reply because I don't like your attitude. Wikipedia suggests that we assume good faith and keep an air of civility to our discussions. Darren and myself have been nothing but polite - the same can't be said for you. As you have not followed these basic guidlines, I think it's best that the discussion go no futher until you approach the scenario with the right frame of mind. DJ 11:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
As the aim of every article on here is to end up as a GA or FA then we should strive to behave as if our goal is that. RS says limit primary sources, use more third party, and any GA of FA reviewer will pick out sources before even looking at prose, DJ's statement is based on past actions: that is the previous years end up relying on Ch4 when there are plenty of third party sources out there, and during the run of the show they are easier to find than after. As an example for the evictions each Friday the BBC give a detailed report (even if they never report about the day to day happenings) so rather than linking Ch4 only for the eviction we could agree to use the BBC as the third party. And 25% for primary sources is an agreeable limit, I'm not sure why you seem to want to pick a fight over this Mick. Darrenhusted ( talk) 12:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Can I suggest that you calm down? You are acting as if you are outraged when nobody else appears to see the issue. At the end of the day, it's only a Wikipedia article on a Reality TV Show. It's not going to change the world. If it's that much of an issue to you, got the the administrator's noticeboard and report the incident. DJ 13:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Even though this issue has been reported on by third-party sources ( [1]), it still shouldn't be included in the article. However, if one of the broadsheets (and maybe the high quality tabloids such as the Daily Mail) picks up on it, we'll put a sentence in. DJ 18:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
D.M.N. ( talk) 15:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Davina said on Big Mouth that it BB10 will run for 14 weeks. So it has to be updated.. -- 82.40.230.161 ( talk) 00:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
The sponsorship deal with Lucozade is mentioned in the introduction, does it really need to be repeated in the Broadcasts section? 83.104.249.240 ( talk) 00:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Since the information about Housemates and Non-Housemates is repeated can the same terminology and colour codes be used please? 83.104.249.240 ( talk) 00:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I think someone should put a banner warning that this page may contain spoilers for those who dont watch the live feed. Im not particularly upset, but I just came on here to find four more housemates are safe on top of the 2 that we saw on the main show last night (Rodrigo and Noirin) I'm sure nobody can really object to a warning being put up, it would stop a lot of moaning and stop people from getting things ruined, but will still allow information on the page to be upto date. ( Kyleofark ( talk) 11:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC))
The final shot in the launch show was a picture of Jade entering/leaving the house* and the caption, 'In memory of Jade 1981 - 2009'.
A certain persistent editor is removing this as WP:TRIVIA. I hardly think any tribute of this kind in a notable programme is trivia.
MickMacNee ( talk) 12:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
It was her leaving the house in BB3 (when she came third; she's bent over slightly because in those days, when it was filmed in Bow, the housemates had to take their stuff with them... 78.148.140.123 ( talk) 22:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
A certain editor is insisting that the section Television programmes, that is essentially just listing three specific programmes, needs to be presented in prose, rather than a bulletted format. Compare:
Three special, one-off programmes aired on E4 before the launch to commemorate 10 years of the programme. The first of which, entitled Jade: As Seen On TV aired on 26 May and commented on the life of Big Brother 2002 contestant Jade Goody and the infamy that surrounded her. [1] The most successful Big Brother housemate worldwide, Goody died of cervical cancer two months before the programme aired. [1] The programme was watched by 305,000 people; 1.8% of the TV audience. [2] Big Brother's Big Quiz, hosted by Davina McCall, aired on 29 May and featured celebrity team captains singer Jamelia, TV presenter Ulrika Jonsson and comedians Danny Wallace and Jack Whitehall. [3] It also featured former Big Brother housemates such as Craig Phillips and Sam and Amanda Marchant. [3] Big Brother: A Decade in the Headlines was transmitted on 30 May and looked back at the social, political and cultural changes that Big Brother has made to society since it began. [4] The documentary was hosted by Grace Dent and featured participation from Mark Frith, Carole Malone, Oona King, Peter Tatchell, Krishnan Guru-Murthy and Ian Hyland. [4] [5] [6]
Three special, one-off programmes aired on E4 before the launch to commemorate 10 years of the programme.
From a basic common sense perspective, blindly insisting on prose over basic and instant readability, is rather nonsensical. It should be restored. MickMacNee ( talk) 12:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
From the MoS on lists "Do not use lists if a passage reads easily using plain paragraphs", and I would say it reads easier as a paragraph. Darrenhusted ( talk) 12:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Prose is definitely better IMO. D.M.N. ( talk) 13:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
The only elements of WP:BULLY I've seen are from MickMacNee on the above discussion on references. May I point you to WP:AGF. DJ 13:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I also prefer the bulletted format. It's clearly easier to read, so make it 4-3 in favour. Go ahead and make the change, Mick. 93.174.217.140 ( talk) 12:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry but this is ridiculous. Just because 4 people don't agree with a policy it does not mean that we should completely ignore it. WP:MOS is there for a reason, whether people agree with it or not. I also find it very suspicious that most of those who appose the prose style are on IP accounts.... DJ 15:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
If you ask me, this could (and will) get very long inevitably. As a suggestion, I think this could be converted into prose as well, I think it'd flow quite well keeping specific sections together, i.e. if an event in day 5 and an event in day 8 are linked you can easily add to it. Failing that, instead of weeks have days so it flows better like a timeline. I'm not sure, but I just think the table will grow excessively long. D.M.N. ( talk) 13:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
And I don't think that we should be so strict with the word count on launch and final weeks. And maybe weeks with big twists. DJ 14:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Based on the above, I've decided to be bold and change it into prose. That way, if paragraphs do get too long, it would be possible to shorten. Of course, if it does get out of hand we can always change it back into a table. As a general, the first paragraph should be on housemates arrivals, however I don't think it needs to have it's own (very small) section. The prose which I've written based on whats happened so far could probably be tightened up a lot. D.M.N. ( talk) 15:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I've had a go at tidying up the Summary section as far as Beinazir's eviction and I've managed to reduce its size considerably by removing repetition and by polishing. MegaPedant ( talk) 13:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Totally wrong. I got Dumped to GA status, helped get The Apprentice (UK) to FA status and Big Brother 2006 (UK) is a former GA. Not a pipe dream at all. DJ 19:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Considering the length of the series at thirteen weeks and the length of the Week 1 paragraph, going through this will be a nightmare if it's not organised in a consistent manner (tabular form with tasks, events, etc split up in bullets) and just left as edited prose. Geoking 66 talk 05:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
It looks silly as a prose and jumbled. When its a table its MUCH easier to read, than having to read through all this long prose. Put it back, like the other ones -- Andybigbro2 ( talk) 19:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
As the names have been changed legally, should be put this into the the Main Table with their name that they entered the house in in brackets? Adamml13 ( talk) 19:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Looks like Deed of change of name has been used here. DJ 20:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
The scenario was different though. That task was set as a "fake wedding"; this one has not. Anyway, lets wait until tommorow. DJ 21:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
You do realise this won't be their "legal" name, they are only doing it I'm guessing for the fun of the show? D.M.N. ( talk) 10:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
The official website now has them as Dogface and Halfwit:
http://www.channel4.com/bigbrother/housemates/sophie.html
http://www.channel4.com/bigbrother/housemates/freddie.html
( 92.22.178.187 ( talk) 21:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC))
The nomination twist section of the nomination table needs to be filled out to replace the sources which can be used in the note and the end of the table MSalmon ( talk) 20:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
The article needs to mention that it wasn't really glass that Saffia and Charlie walked across but sugar glass used in films.-- 92.1.83.162 ( talk) 21:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Should the word Housemate be capitalised? What ever the consensus it should be applied consistently. MegaPedant ( talk) 13:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
If House is capitalised, I think that Housemates should be too. DJ 17:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Isn't everyone an official housemate now? I heard it on BBLB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.146.60 ( talk) 18:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
The BBUK series articles each year get over-run with tables - nomination table, weekly summary table, housemates table and so on. In keeping with
WP:MOS, I think it would be much better if the piece was written in prose and provided contextual support. For example, it's easy to state that the launch had 5million viewers, but how does that relate contextually to all of the other channels and so on? Also, all of the numbers for EVERY single episode borders onto
WP:TRIVIA and as we aren't providing narrative coverage of each INDIVIDUAL episode, it seems abit pointless. The section is always hard to find
reliable sources for and the whole thing often ends in a mess.
Therefore, I suggest that we do something similar to
this. Now I realise that this covers the programme as a whole, rather than a series, but the layout still transfers. Instead of putting figures in for every episode, we focus on main episodes (launch, special/live programmes, highest-rated and lowest-rated evictions and the final) and provide contextual factors such as how programmes on other channels fared etc. This not only makes for a better article but also helps us to get the article to GA or even FA status. The "Ratings Roundup" section of Digital Spy is good for this and MediaGuardian also has a section on viewing figures.
Thoughts? DJ 12:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
The thing is Geoking and Darren, can't you see that the table is hard to maintain and source and that most of the information in it would be trivial? DJ 14:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
...does that mean that we'll have two "Week 1" columns in the nomination table? As in the BB universe, Week 1 is 7 days plus the remaining days until the Friday. DJ 17:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't the first round of nominations say No Nominations or not? MSalmon ( talk) 14:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that would do. In fact it was like that for a while but someone changed it. MegaPedant ( talk) 16:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I've made that change. I think it looks better and conveys the most information. Hopefully editors will read this discussion before reverting it. MegaPedant ( talk) 17:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
If the aim of the Nominations table is to represent a snapshot of the state of the House at the time of the public vote then it currently satisfies that requirement. MegaPedant ( talk) 18:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
This section begins with "The majority of Big Brother is screened using daily highlights programmes". I removed the words "The majority of" on the grounds that the sentence isn't actually true. Daily highlights programmes make up about an hour per day of coverage, while live coverage, though reduced, makes up about seven times this. However, the original wording has been reverted. Can whoever did that (Dalejenkins) change the wording to make their intention clear, please? MegaPedant ( talk) 02:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Update: Dalejenkins, I've just noticed your edit summary for the above: "It is the "majority", as more people watch and it shows things that the live feed does not." Apologies for not spotting it before. I agree with the sentiment but the fact remains that the sentence as it appears in the article is untrue. I'm quite happy with it if "The majority of" is removed but you obviously are not, therefore can you rework it to convey your intended meaning, please? MegaPedant ( talk) 11:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Also, the paragraph about Channel 4 no longer making donations to charity from its income from the premium-rate voting lines seems out of place in this section, as it has nothing to do with the broadcasts. MegaPedant ( talk) 02:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
The length of controversy and coverage surrounding the live feed issue has meant that I split it into a sub-section for now. If any more notable, controversial events occur we'll have to start a "Criticism and controversy" section. DJ 19:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Suddenly, it seems as though a number of users on this page have been heralding that we try to make this article featured. That's a great aspiration and one that I'm glad to work on, but for now should it be our first priority? Would we be better served editing our heads off on minutiæ or clearly and consicesly reporting information and whittling down the article what ends up being important during the series? The latter seems more appropriate; the merciless arguments are stalling any sort of progress on this page. Geoking 66 talk 23:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
One user has argued that the paragraph on the removal of charity voting does not belong in the Broadcasting section, as it is not related to broadcasting, and has suggested that it should be deleted altogether as it fails WP:TRIVIA. I completely disagree on both counts, as the issue is related to broadcasting and has recieved coverage from third party, reliable sources, passing WP:RS and WP:TRIVIA. Comments? DJ 18:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
And you're again using personal attacks. DJ 18:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Again, completely disagree with that comment. DJ 20:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Would it be ok for me or someone to add a nominations total table? MSalmon ( talk) 18:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Moreover, why should simple addition be included? If readers really want to, they can add up themselves. Like I said, this is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. DJ 20:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Outrageous. I've removed it yet again. I'm sorry, but common sense decrees that, however "difficult", people can count. Again, this is NOT a fan site, it is an encyclopedia. DJ 23:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes. And besides, I don't think that a UK election has the same notability as a realtity TV programme. DJ 18:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
<---------------------this would do--------------------->
Housemate | Week 1 | Week 2 | Week 3 | Week 4 | Week 5 | Week 6 | Week 7 | Week 8 | Week 9 | Week 10 | Week 11 | Week 12 | Week 13 | Nominations received | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Day 4 [10] | Day 6 [11] | ||||||||||||||
Angel | Non- Housemate |
Dogface, Sophia |
|||||||||||||
Cairon | Housemate | Sree, Charlie |
1 | ||||||||||||
Charlie | Housemate | Sophia, Halfwit |
3 | ||||||||||||
Dogface | Housemate | Charlie, Sree |
1 | ||||||||||||
Halfwit | Housemate | Sree, Lisa |
6 | ||||||||||||
Karly | Housemate | Halfwit, Marcus |
1 | ||||||||||||
Kris | Housemate | Halfwit, Sophia |
|||||||||||||
Lisa | Housemate | Halfwit, Karly |
2 | ||||||||||||
Marcus | Non- Housemate |
Lisa, Sree |
3 | ||||||||||||
Noirin | Housemate | Halfwit, Sophia |
1 | ||||||||||||
Rodrigo | Housemate | Cairon, Siavash |
|||||||||||||
Siavash | Non- Housemate |
Charlie, Halfwit |
1 | ||||||||||||
Sree | Non- Housemate |
Sophia, Marcus |
4 | ||||||||||||
Sophia | Non- Housemate |
Saffia, Noirin |
Evicted (Day 9) |
6 | |||||||||||
Saffia | Housemate | Sophia, Marcus |
Walked (Day 8) |
1 | |||||||||||
Beinazir | Non- Housemate |
Evicted (Day 4) |
0 | ||||||||||||
Nomination note |
See note 1 |
none | |||||||||||||
Against public vote |
Angel, Beinazir, Marcus, Siavash, Sophia, Sree [10] |
Halfwit, Sophia [11] |
|||||||||||||
Walked | none | Saffia [12] | |||||||||||||
Evicted | Beinazir 6.8% [13] to become a housemate |
Sophia 91.2% [12] to evict |
<------------------------------------------------> leaky_caldron ( talk) 20:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
You just answered your own question there. "minor". DJ 19:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
That is not acceptable here, as it is a primary source. The nominations totals need to be highlighted by reliable, third-party sources. DJ 16:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Refs 38 and 39 in the nominations table have somehow become crossed over. MegaPedant ( talk) 19:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I've been getting a lot of replies recently that my additions aren't "valid" because there has been no consensus on the material that I've added (this goes for other users as well). The whole point of Wikipedia is that you can edit anything that is in some way relevant and useful for the article. Anyone who has been reverting this has violated the fundamental principle of the site. Now onto my main point, there's a lot of FA talk around here by one or two users, but since when have we had consensus on this? It's never been brought up as a formal section within talk, and I'm sure assumptions aren't valid either. So before my edits get reverted because someone thinks that adding a table or putting in nominations (whose source is the show itself) is not FA quality and uses consesus rationale, think about how there has been no consensus on FA status before you tell me that my edits were not the result of it either. Geoking 66 talk 20:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Geoking; in regards to the ratings; if there's no reliable, secondary sources, then the information clearly isn't notable and therefore should not be included in an encyclopedia. As I have said various times - this is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. It has been decided in previous discussions that we only include notable ratings (evictions, specials, launch, final, series average), delivered in a prose style. We're denying people of infomation? Read WP:EFFORT. Again, encyclopedia, not fan page. I AM, however, starting to think that the weekly summary would be better in a table. DJ 15:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Oooh it looks good... DJ 19:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I did that on Dumped and it got to GA - seems OK with me. DJ 20:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Are these really Idents as described in the Idents article? That article describes channel idents. The BB sponsorship ads. for Lucozade Energy are really only related to the Programme intro and commercial break start and end. I know that the description Ident is used in the cited link, but it seems like marketing jargon rather that refering to the type of Ident in the linked wiki article. Any thoughts please? leaky_caldron ( talk) 10:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to be clear, the changes that were applied to this article (no summary table, sourcing nomination/voting table, etc.) be applied to future articles like Big Brother 11 (U.S.)? Since the upcoming American version will be viewed/edited just as much as this article I think we should apply these changes to Big Brother 11 USA as well to keep with the goal of standardization of all Big Brother articles. After the current UK & USA editions end we can go back to previous articles and standardize them as well. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 00:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Instead of having sources at various spots in the table would it be acceptable to have a row labeled "Sources" which contains all of the sources for the week like this. (Note: for this example I removed some housemates to save space.)
Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7 Week 8 Week 9 Week 10 Week 11 Week 12 Week 13 Day 4 Day 6 Angel Non-
HousemateDogface,
SophiaCairon Housemate Sree,
CharlieSaffia Housemate Sophia,
MarcusWalked
(Day 8)Beinazir Non-
HousemateEvicted
(Day 4)Nomination
noteSee
note 1Against
public voteAngel,
Beinazir,
Marcus,
Siavash,
Sophia,
SreeHalfwit,
SophiaWalked none Saffia Evicted Beinazir
6.8%
to become a housemateSource [13] [10] [11] [14] ^Note 1 : On Day 1, the sixteen people who entered the house were not officially housemates; they had to gain housemate status. In order, Rodrigo and Noirin, Lisa, Kris, Charlie and Saffia, Karly, Freddie and Sophie, and Cairon gained housemate status. As they did not complete a challenge successfully, Angel, Beinazir, Marcus, Siavash, Sophia, and Sree faced a public vote on Day 4 to decide which five remaining non-housemates would be given housemate status. The one with the least number of votes was evicted. [10]
♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 00:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I mentioned earlier up (in the "Broadcasts section" section, to be precise) that if any more controversial issues surrounding the programme, bar the live feed saga, were to come up then it would be best to add a section of this nature. Due to the criticism of Saffia's involvement from Kidscape, I have started such a section. Just a few queries - is it too low down in the article? Should it be named "Controversy" or "Criticism and controversy"? As usual, feel free to make any edits and reply here. DJ 20:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Should the information about the new interview format be included anywhere in the article as it was confirmed by Davina on her Twitter page? MSalmon ( talk) 10:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Ref 46 is now a dead link. See here Dt128 19:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
MegaPedant argues that some of the links have died. I just went through every single one and noticed that not one is "dead". I do notice, however, that this user added 2 references to the Sun and BBSpy - both unreliable sources who have a habit of deleting their articles. DJ 15:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I got on talk today to see any new developments as usual, and the first thing I see is this FAQ section at the top. I don't have a problem with it in its purpose, but what was written is almost entirely verbatim from certain editors, leading me to believe that what's gone on here is complete and total article ownership. For example, the first question has a response directly from the first post by DJ without any regard to the subsequent discussion during which any dissenting views were almost entirely ignored. This is completely unacceptable by Wikipedia standards. Geoking 66 talk 23:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I've removed it, it was pretty much total nonsense. The only part that even comes close to resembling a proper FAQ as used in decent articles was the point about why you can't add things you see on the live feed. A FAQ should represent specific long term interpretations of policy, it has no use outlining various content decisions a few people have made, because consensus can change. You certainly don't add things in a FAQ that represent consensus when that is patently false. The FAQ should represent a solid representation of cast iron consensus. The level of repetition on this page barely warrants one anyway. Others have it right that these sort of decisions are more appropriately reflected in a topic specific manual of style, but those editors pre-disposed to owning this entire subject should be aware that the order of precedence is Policy>Guidline>Topic Guides. MickMacNee ( talk) 12:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
sophiaevicted
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).evictionone
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
During CBB6, I attempted to use C4+1 ratings; it failed. The ambiguity and lack of consistent sources made getting those ratings a nuisance and a formatting nightmare. I think we should just avoid using them and stick solely to BARB ratings. Geoking 66 talk 20:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Every year the BB articles rely on primary (Channel 4) sources too much, and some of these sources need to be replaced with reliable, third party sources which pass WP:RS. I suggest that only about 1/4 of the sources should be from C4 or the {{ Cite episode}} template. Website I reccomend are:
Remember to use {{ Cite web}} and {{ Cite news}}. I'm sure we can all do it together :) DJ 13:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Using a primary source is perfectly acceptable for basic facts or uncotroversial opinions. Arguing that the Daily Mail/Heat/Digital Spy are flat out preferrable than Channel 4 is just seriously worrying, considering this exact topic is a magnet for the sort of un-attributed speculation they like to frequently peddle. This 1/4 demand is totally arbitrary, and misunderstands WP:RS completely. I for one urge anybody adding to the article to ignore it, and read the sourcing policies for yourselves. DJ, I'd be more worried if I were you about appearing to own this article - I've removed your unneccessary "ALL editors read!" header, it is wholly insulting. MickMacNee ( talk) 20:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not going to reply because I don't like your attitude. Wikipedia suggests that we assume good faith and keep an air of civility to our discussions. Darren and myself have been nothing but polite - the same can't be said for you. As you have not followed these basic guidlines, I think it's best that the discussion go no futher until you approach the scenario with the right frame of mind. DJ 11:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
As the aim of every article on here is to end up as a GA or FA then we should strive to behave as if our goal is that. RS says limit primary sources, use more third party, and any GA of FA reviewer will pick out sources before even looking at prose, DJ's statement is based on past actions: that is the previous years end up relying on Ch4 when there are plenty of third party sources out there, and during the run of the show they are easier to find than after. As an example for the evictions each Friday the BBC give a detailed report (even if they never report about the day to day happenings) so rather than linking Ch4 only for the eviction we could agree to use the BBC as the third party. And 25% for primary sources is an agreeable limit, I'm not sure why you seem to want to pick a fight over this Mick. Darrenhusted ( talk) 12:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Can I suggest that you calm down? You are acting as if you are outraged when nobody else appears to see the issue. At the end of the day, it's only a Wikipedia article on a Reality TV Show. It's not going to change the world. If it's that much of an issue to you, got the the administrator's noticeboard and report the incident. DJ 13:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Even though this issue has been reported on by third-party sources ( [1]), it still shouldn't be included in the article. However, if one of the broadsheets (and maybe the high quality tabloids such as the Daily Mail) picks up on it, we'll put a sentence in. DJ 18:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
D.M.N. ( talk) 15:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Davina said on Big Mouth that it BB10 will run for 14 weeks. So it has to be updated.. -- 82.40.230.161 ( talk) 00:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
The sponsorship deal with Lucozade is mentioned in the introduction, does it really need to be repeated in the Broadcasts section? 83.104.249.240 ( talk) 00:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Since the information about Housemates and Non-Housemates is repeated can the same terminology and colour codes be used please? 83.104.249.240 ( talk) 00:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I think someone should put a banner warning that this page may contain spoilers for those who dont watch the live feed. Im not particularly upset, but I just came on here to find four more housemates are safe on top of the 2 that we saw on the main show last night (Rodrigo and Noirin) I'm sure nobody can really object to a warning being put up, it would stop a lot of moaning and stop people from getting things ruined, but will still allow information on the page to be upto date. ( Kyleofark ( talk) 11:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC))
The final shot in the launch show was a picture of Jade entering/leaving the house* and the caption, 'In memory of Jade 1981 - 2009'.
A certain persistent editor is removing this as WP:TRIVIA. I hardly think any tribute of this kind in a notable programme is trivia.
MickMacNee ( talk) 12:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
It was her leaving the house in BB3 (when she came third; she's bent over slightly because in those days, when it was filmed in Bow, the housemates had to take their stuff with them... 78.148.140.123 ( talk) 22:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
A certain editor is insisting that the section Television programmes, that is essentially just listing three specific programmes, needs to be presented in prose, rather than a bulletted format. Compare:
Three special, one-off programmes aired on E4 before the launch to commemorate 10 years of the programme. The first of which, entitled Jade: As Seen On TV aired on 26 May and commented on the life of Big Brother 2002 contestant Jade Goody and the infamy that surrounded her. [1] The most successful Big Brother housemate worldwide, Goody died of cervical cancer two months before the programme aired. [1] The programme was watched by 305,000 people; 1.8% of the TV audience. [2] Big Brother's Big Quiz, hosted by Davina McCall, aired on 29 May and featured celebrity team captains singer Jamelia, TV presenter Ulrika Jonsson and comedians Danny Wallace and Jack Whitehall. [3] It also featured former Big Brother housemates such as Craig Phillips and Sam and Amanda Marchant. [3] Big Brother: A Decade in the Headlines was transmitted on 30 May and looked back at the social, political and cultural changes that Big Brother has made to society since it began. [4] The documentary was hosted by Grace Dent and featured participation from Mark Frith, Carole Malone, Oona King, Peter Tatchell, Krishnan Guru-Murthy and Ian Hyland. [4] [5] [6]
Three special, one-off programmes aired on E4 before the launch to commemorate 10 years of the programme.
From a basic common sense perspective, blindly insisting on prose over basic and instant readability, is rather nonsensical. It should be restored. MickMacNee ( talk) 12:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
From the MoS on lists "Do not use lists if a passage reads easily using plain paragraphs", and I would say it reads easier as a paragraph. Darrenhusted ( talk) 12:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Prose is definitely better IMO. D.M.N. ( talk) 13:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
The only elements of WP:BULLY I've seen are from MickMacNee on the above discussion on references. May I point you to WP:AGF. DJ 13:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I also prefer the bulletted format. It's clearly easier to read, so make it 4-3 in favour. Go ahead and make the change, Mick. 93.174.217.140 ( talk) 12:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry but this is ridiculous. Just because 4 people don't agree with a policy it does not mean that we should completely ignore it. WP:MOS is there for a reason, whether people agree with it or not. I also find it very suspicious that most of those who appose the prose style are on IP accounts.... DJ 15:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
If you ask me, this could (and will) get very long inevitably. As a suggestion, I think this could be converted into prose as well, I think it'd flow quite well keeping specific sections together, i.e. if an event in day 5 and an event in day 8 are linked you can easily add to it. Failing that, instead of weeks have days so it flows better like a timeline. I'm not sure, but I just think the table will grow excessively long. D.M.N. ( talk) 13:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
And I don't think that we should be so strict with the word count on launch and final weeks. And maybe weeks with big twists. DJ 14:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Based on the above, I've decided to be bold and change it into prose. That way, if paragraphs do get too long, it would be possible to shorten. Of course, if it does get out of hand we can always change it back into a table. As a general, the first paragraph should be on housemates arrivals, however I don't think it needs to have it's own (very small) section. The prose which I've written based on whats happened so far could probably be tightened up a lot. D.M.N. ( talk) 15:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I've had a go at tidying up the Summary section as far as Beinazir's eviction and I've managed to reduce its size considerably by removing repetition and by polishing. MegaPedant ( talk) 13:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Totally wrong. I got Dumped to GA status, helped get The Apprentice (UK) to FA status and Big Brother 2006 (UK) is a former GA. Not a pipe dream at all. DJ 19:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Considering the length of the series at thirteen weeks and the length of the Week 1 paragraph, going through this will be a nightmare if it's not organised in a consistent manner (tabular form with tasks, events, etc split up in bullets) and just left as edited prose. Geoking 66 talk 05:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
It looks silly as a prose and jumbled. When its a table its MUCH easier to read, than having to read through all this long prose. Put it back, like the other ones -- Andybigbro2 ( talk) 19:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
As the names have been changed legally, should be put this into the the Main Table with their name that they entered the house in in brackets? Adamml13 ( talk) 19:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Looks like Deed of change of name has been used here. DJ 20:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
The scenario was different though. That task was set as a "fake wedding"; this one has not. Anyway, lets wait until tommorow. DJ 21:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
You do realise this won't be their "legal" name, they are only doing it I'm guessing for the fun of the show? D.M.N. ( talk) 10:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
The official website now has them as Dogface and Halfwit:
http://www.channel4.com/bigbrother/housemates/sophie.html
http://www.channel4.com/bigbrother/housemates/freddie.html
( 92.22.178.187 ( talk) 21:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC))
The nomination twist section of the nomination table needs to be filled out to replace the sources which can be used in the note and the end of the table MSalmon ( talk) 20:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
The article needs to mention that it wasn't really glass that Saffia and Charlie walked across but sugar glass used in films.-- 92.1.83.162 ( talk) 21:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Should the word Housemate be capitalised? What ever the consensus it should be applied consistently. MegaPedant ( talk) 13:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
If House is capitalised, I think that Housemates should be too. DJ 17:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Isn't everyone an official housemate now? I heard it on BBLB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.146.60 ( talk) 18:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
The BBUK series articles each year get over-run with tables - nomination table, weekly summary table, housemates table and so on. In keeping with
WP:MOS, I think it would be much better if the piece was written in prose and provided contextual support. For example, it's easy to state that the launch had 5million viewers, but how does that relate contextually to all of the other channels and so on? Also, all of the numbers for EVERY single episode borders onto
WP:TRIVIA and as we aren't providing narrative coverage of each INDIVIDUAL episode, it seems abit pointless. The section is always hard to find
reliable sources for and the whole thing often ends in a mess.
Therefore, I suggest that we do something similar to
this. Now I realise that this covers the programme as a whole, rather than a series, but the layout still transfers. Instead of putting figures in for every episode, we focus on main episodes (launch, special/live programmes, highest-rated and lowest-rated evictions and the final) and provide contextual factors such as how programmes on other channels fared etc. This not only makes for a better article but also helps us to get the article to GA or even FA status. The "Ratings Roundup" section of Digital Spy is good for this and MediaGuardian also has a section on viewing figures.
Thoughts? DJ 12:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
The thing is Geoking and Darren, can't you see that the table is hard to maintain and source and that most of the information in it would be trivial? DJ 14:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
...does that mean that we'll have two "Week 1" columns in the nomination table? As in the BB universe, Week 1 is 7 days plus the remaining days until the Friday. DJ 17:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't the first round of nominations say No Nominations or not? MSalmon ( talk) 14:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that would do. In fact it was like that for a while but someone changed it. MegaPedant ( talk) 16:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I've made that change. I think it looks better and conveys the most information. Hopefully editors will read this discussion before reverting it. MegaPedant ( talk) 17:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
If the aim of the Nominations table is to represent a snapshot of the state of the House at the time of the public vote then it currently satisfies that requirement. MegaPedant ( talk) 18:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
This section begins with "The majority of Big Brother is screened using daily highlights programmes". I removed the words "The majority of" on the grounds that the sentence isn't actually true. Daily highlights programmes make up about an hour per day of coverage, while live coverage, though reduced, makes up about seven times this. However, the original wording has been reverted. Can whoever did that (Dalejenkins) change the wording to make their intention clear, please? MegaPedant ( talk) 02:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Update: Dalejenkins, I've just noticed your edit summary for the above: "It is the "majority", as more people watch and it shows things that the live feed does not." Apologies for not spotting it before. I agree with the sentiment but the fact remains that the sentence as it appears in the article is untrue. I'm quite happy with it if "The majority of" is removed but you obviously are not, therefore can you rework it to convey your intended meaning, please? MegaPedant ( talk) 11:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Also, the paragraph about Channel 4 no longer making donations to charity from its income from the premium-rate voting lines seems out of place in this section, as it has nothing to do with the broadcasts. MegaPedant ( talk) 02:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
The length of controversy and coverage surrounding the live feed issue has meant that I split it into a sub-section for now. If any more notable, controversial events occur we'll have to start a "Criticism and controversy" section. DJ 19:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Suddenly, it seems as though a number of users on this page have been heralding that we try to make this article featured. That's a great aspiration and one that I'm glad to work on, but for now should it be our first priority? Would we be better served editing our heads off on minutiæ or clearly and consicesly reporting information and whittling down the article what ends up being important during the series? The latter seems more appropriate; the merciless arguments are stalling any sort of progress on this page. Geoking 66 talk 23:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
One user has argued that the paragraph on the removal of charity voting does not belong in the Broadcasting section, as it is not related to broadcasting, and has suggested that it should be deleted altogether as it fails WP:TRIVIA. I completely disagree on both counts, as the issue is related to broadcasting and has recieved coverage from third party, reliable sources, passing WP:RS and WP:TRIVIA. Comments? DJ 18:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
And you're again using personal attacks. DJ 18:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Again, completely disagree with that comment. DJ 20:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Would it be ok for me or someone to add a nominations total table? MSalmon ( talk) 18:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Moreover, why should simple addition be included? If readers really want to, they can add up themselves. Like I said, this is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. DJ 20:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Outrageous. I've removed it yet again. I'm sorry, but common sense decrees that, however "difficult", people can count. Again, this is NOT a fan site, it is an encyclopedia. DJ 23:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes. And besides, I don't think that a UK election has the same notability as a realtity TV programme. DJ 18:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
<---------------------this would do--------------------->
Housemate | Week 1 | Week 2 | Week 3 | Week 4 | Week 5 | Week 6 | Week 7 | Week 8 | Week 9 | Week 10 | Week 11 | Week 12 | Week 13 | Nominations received | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Day 4 [10] | Day 6 [11] | ||||||||||||||
Angel | Non- Housemate |
Dogface, Sophia |
|||||||||||||
Cairon | Housemate | Sree, Charlie |
1 | ||||||||||||
Charlie | Housemate | Sophia, Halfwit |
3 | ||||||||||||
Dogface | Housemate | Charlie, Sree |
1 | ||||||||||||
Halfwit | Housemate | Sree, Lisa |
6 | ||||||||||||
Karly | Housemate | Halfwit, Marcus |
1 | ||||||||||||
Kris | Housemate | Halfwit, Sophia |
|||||||||||||
Lisa | Housemate | Halfwit, Karly |
2 | ||||||||||||
Marcus | Non- Housemate |
Lisa, Sree |
3 | ||||||||||||
Noirin | Housemate | Halfwit, Sophia |
1 | ||||||||||||
Rodrigo | Housemate | Cairon, Siavash |
|||||||||||||
Siavash | Non- Housemate |
Charlie, Halfwit |
1 | ||||||||||||
Sree | Non- Housemate |
Sophia, Marcus |
4 | ||||||||||||
Sophia | Non- Housemate |
Saffia, Noirin |
Evicted (Day 9) |
6 | |||||||||||
Saffia | Housemate | Sophia, Marcus |
Walked (Day 8) |
1 | |||||||||||
Beinazir | Non- Housemate |
Evicted (Day 4) |
0 | ||||||||||||
Nomination note |
See note 1 |
none | |||||||||||||
Against public vote |
Angel, Beinazir, Marcus, Siavash, Sophia, Sree [10] |
Halfwit, Sophia [11] |
|||||||||||||
Walked | none | Saffia [12] | |||||||||||||
Evicted | Beinazir 6.8% [13] to become a housemate |
Sophia 91.2% [12] to evict |
<------------------------------------------------> leaky_caldron ( talk) 20:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
You just answered your own question there. "minor". DJ 19:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
That is not acceptable here, as it is a primary source. The nominations totals need to be highlighted by reliable, third-party sources. DJ 16:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Refs 38 and 39 in the nominations table have somehow become crossed over. MegaPedant ( talk) 19:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I've been getting a lot of replies recently that my additions aren't "valid" because there has been no consensus on the material that I've added (this goes for other users as well). The whole point of Wikipedia is that you can edit anything that is in some way relevant and useful for the article. Anyone who has been reverting this has violated the fundamental principle of the site. Now onto my main point, there's a lot of FA talk around here by one or two users, but since when have we had consensus on this? It's never been brought up as a formal section within talk, and I'm sure assumptions aren't valid either. So before my edits get reverted because someone thinks that adding a table or putting in nominations (whose source is the show itself) is not FA quality and uses consesus rationale, think about how there has been no consensus on FA status before you tell me that my edits were not the result of it either. Geoking 66 talk 20:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Geoking; in regards to the ratings; if there's no reliable, secondary sources, then the information clearly isn't notable and therefore should not be included in an encyclopedia. As I have said various times - this is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. It has been decided in previous discussions that we only include notable ratings (evictions, specials, launch, final, series average), delivered in a prose style. We're denying people of infomation? Read WP:EFFORT. Again, encyclopedia, not fan page. I AM, however, starting to think that the weekly summary would be better in a table. DJ 15:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Oooh it looks good... DJ 19:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I did that on Dumped and it got to GA - seems OK with me. DJ 20:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Are these really Idents as described in the Idents article? That article describes channel idents. The BB sponsorship ads. for Lucozade Energy are really only related to the Programme intro and commercial break start and end. I know that the description Ident is used in the cited link, but it seems like marketing jargon rather that refering to the type of Ident in the linked wiki article. Any thoughts please? leaky_caldron ( talk) 10:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to be clear, the changes that were applied to this article (no summary table, sourcing nomination/voting table, etc.) be applied to future articles like Big Brother 11 (U.S.)? Since the upcoming American version will be viewed/edited just as much as this article I think we should apply these changes to Big Brother 11 USA as well to keep with the goal of standardization of all Big Brother articles. After the current UK & USA editions end we can go back to previous articles and standardize them as well. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 00:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Instead of having sources at various spots in the table would it be acceptable to have a row labeled "Sources" which contains all of the sources for the week like this. (Note: for this example I removed some housemates to save space.)
Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7 Week 8 Week 9 Week 10 Week 11 Week 12 Week 13 Day 4 Day 6 Angel Non-
HousemateDogface,
SophiaCairon Housemate Sree,
CharlieSaffia Housemate Sophia,
MarcusWalked
(Day 8)Beinazir Non-
HousemateEvicted
(Day 4)Nomination
noteSee
note 1Against
public voteAngel,
Beinazir,
Marcus,
Siavash,
Sophia,
SreeHalfwit,
SophiaWalked none Saffia Evicted Beinazir
6.8%
to become a housemateSource [13] [10] [11] [14] ^Note 1 : On Day 1, the sixteen people who entered the house were not officially housemates; they had to gain housemate status. In order, Rodrigo and Noirin, Lisa, Kris, Charlie and Saffia, Karly, Freddie and Sophie, and Cairon gained housemate status. As they did not complete a challenge successfully, Angel, Beinazir, Marcus, Siavash, Sophia, and Sree faced a public vote on Day 4 to decide which five remaining non-housemates would be given housemate status. The one with the least number of votes was evicted. [10]
♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 00:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I mentioned earlier up (in the "Broadcasts section" section, to be precise) that if any more controversial issues surrounding the programme, bar the live feed saga, were to come up then it would be best to add a section of this nature. Due to the criticism of Saffia's involvement from Kidscape, I have started such a section. Just a few queries - is it too low down in the article? Should it be named "Controversy" or "Criticism and controversy"? As usual, feel free to make any edits and reply here. DJ 20:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Should the information about the new interview format be included anywhere in the article as it was confirmed by Davina on her Twitter page? MSalmon ( talk) 10:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Ref 46 is now a dead link. See here Dt128 19:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
MegaPedant argues that some of the links have died. I just went through every single one and noticed that not one is "dead". I do notice, however, that this user added 2 references to the Sun and BBSpy - both unreliable sources who have a habit of deleting their articles. DJ 15:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I got on talk today to see any new developments as usual, and the first thing I see is this FAQ section at the top. I don't have a problem with it in its purpose, but what was written is almost entirely verbatim from certain editors, leading me to believe that what's gone on here is complete and total article ownership. For example, the first question has a response directly from the first post by DJ without any regard to the subsequent discussion during which any dissenting views were almost entirely ignored. This is completely unacceptable by Wikipedia standards. Geoking 66 talk 23:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I've removed it, it was pretty much total nonsense. The only part that even comes close to resembling a proper FAQ as used in decent articles was the point about why you can't add things you see on the live feed. A FAQ should represent specific long term interpretations of policy, it has no use outlining various content decisions a few people have made, because consensus can change. You certainly don't add things in a FAQ that represent consensus when that is patently false. The FAQ should represent a solid representation of cast iron consensus. The level of repetition on this page barely warrants one anyway. Others have it right that these sort of decisions are more appropriately reflected in a topic specific manual of style, but those editors pre-disposed to owning this entire subject should be aware that the order of precedence is Policy>Guidline>Topic Guides. MickMacNee ( talk) 12:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
sophiaevicted
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).evictionone
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).