![]() | 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 |
I thought the total nominations bit was considered trivia and no necessary for the article. Someone has integrated individual nomination total tables into the main nomination table which shouldn't be there and makes the table looked cramped. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 20:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if this is of any value to the Wikipedia page here, but I also have been annoyed at the lack of weekly subtotals for nominations, etc. However, I recognize this would really clutter up the page. So I made a spreadsheet myself with the details. I plan on updating this weekly and am happy for a link to be posted somewhere in the article, if that is somehow allowed. Or not, if it is not... http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=rtW8kn0Dc2h7l_8ykMYVzPw&output=html Paul Thompson ( talk) 23:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
there is a fault: angel received 9 nominations so far, not 10. 3 votes in week 3 and 6 votes in week 4.
Sophie and Freddie may have changed their names by deed poll (we can't be sure) but as they have not decided to activate their new names, there is no reason why this article should use the terms 'halfwit' and 'dogface' to refer to them.
Unless they emerge from the house and request that their bank accounts, driving licenses, job contracts etc be changed, the deed poll documents are meaningless.
It seriously undermines the credibility of this article to collude with the Big Brother producers 'joke' and I'm requesting that someone with editing powers change their names in the article to the names they are known as by their friends and family.
Mjdakadem ( talk) 20:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)mjdakadem 18/6/09
Mr Mjdakadem, if you want to join the BBUK taskforce then we will be more than happy to discuss why you are wrong. Darrenhusted ( talk) 21:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
If these replies are representative samples of the level of debate on here I won't bother. Enjoy your arrogance guys. Mjdakadem ( talk) 22:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
You know I have made only 40 edits, and am in no way trying to own this article. I have however made suggestions to improve it, in the hope that we can get all the BBUK articles up to a higher standard. But the truth is that all the housemates of the past ten series a handful only do anything outside the house. If we take Cairon as an example, he was in, he dunked a biscuit, he was nominated, he was out. On the housemates page there is stuff about he is a student who lived with his mother, then his father then he lived her and there, none of which is really that important or that interesting. This article (and the other nine) should focus on what happened when the cameras were on. The winner gets an article and the other housemates get forgotten, the housemates article just attracts this kind of question (and edit wars over names). Freddie and Sophie entered the house, they changed their names and they will leave, and after that there will be very little to say about them. The consensus is to refer to them as their new names, but if consensus (or their names) change again then we will change them. Darrenhusted ( talk) 21:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I've restored the Housemates section in accordance with both sense and in keeping with the other BB articles. Vexorg ( talk) 01:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think we need a separate Housemates article, I think the information could be compressed into four short paragraphs before the weekly summary. Darrenhusted ( talk) 22:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I am aware of that, I'm saying that we don't need it. And once I finish this comment I will add all the housemates relevant information to the housemates section. Observe. Darrenhusted ( talk) 22:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think we need a separate article. As for the order of entry, that is juts an account of what happened on day 1, it seems normal that we would list what happened, and all that happened was that they entered. Any extra information is already in the summary, with a sepearate article the is a lot of repetition as we need to give details of when they became housemates and when they were evicted, with the information on one article there in no need for repetition. Is there ever anything useful on the expanded housemate articles? Not really, just their bio information (which ends up being trivia). Plus the housemate article attracts a ton of BLP and OR, with editors either vandalising it or adding trivial day-by-day detail, such as when people had fights. The purpose of this article should be to inform anyone who has never seen one episode of Big Brother as to what this was about. The trivia of housemates can be saved for other places. Darrenhusted ( talk) 10:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Cairon got 2.2m but I'm not sure insidebb is an RS. Darrenhusted ( talk) 22:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Angel got 1.6m and I know insideBB isn't reliable, just leaving these here until an RS can be found. Darrenhusted ( talk) 20:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm thinking that Marcus's box needs to be yellow to denote he gained immunity based on the task results, and that Charlie should more likely have the "Not eligible" box rather than the "Banned" box. Thoughts? T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 22:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
It's been decided not to tell them [1]. I think this is a notable decision about a notable event and should be included as a brief mention with a link to Jackson family#Death of Michael Jackson. Any idea where to locate this? Nothing was added during Big Brother 2005 (UK) about the decision not to tell them about the London Bombings, which surprises me. leaky_caldron ( talk) 14:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Why the hell are they always so high 70.80 even 90 percent for one person? Never are they close?-- Cooly123 ( talk) 22:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Do you think it is a good idea to have a sortable nominations table? Personally I don't think so beause it messes up the table otherwise when you click the sort button. MSalmon ( talk) 12:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
There is ostensibly a dated archive of this talk page, yet the current page has inactive posts on it that are older than the date of the archive. This is not acceptable. The standard archiving practice for most pages is to archive grousp of posts into dated archives, and/or for busier talk pages, to archive posts after set period of inactivity, in order of becoming inactive. If editors here feel the need to link to previous discussions, then they should do as is commonly practiced elsewhere, and link to those discussions in the archive, they should not be left inactive on the talk page while newer posts are manually archived. I am now going to properly archive all the old discussions that are on here that beling in the June archive, up to the date of the last discussion in the archive as I found it, which was 12 June. If the common practices are not clear, I suggest that an archive bot is implemented to do it automatically. MickMacNee ( talk) 14:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Big Brother 2009 or Big Brother 2009 ? Can we decide once and for all which it's to be and then leave it alone? MegaPedant ( talk) 22:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Was a consensus reached this year to add information like twists, nominations, etc. as they unfold on the live feeds or wait until the broadcast of such events or until a reliable third party posts the information? I am asking because this question is coming up on Big Brother 11 (U.S.) and in the past the consensus was to add the information as it unfolded on the live feeds. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 20:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid I cannot find any citations for my mention of Marcus' warning, but I'm sure they will come out soon. Can anyone help find them? Grieferhate ( talk) 23:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
It's full of "allegedly", BB said he did it, so in the context of the programme and this article, he WAS threatening, so why all the maybes. -- Pridds ( talk) 14:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
This looks ridiculous. In fact I thought it was vandalism until I saw that Darren (a reliable contributor) had made the changes. I have no idea who these people are by surname. Big Brother does not refer to housemates EVER in 9 years by surname, they are effectively stripped of their full identity on entering the house. I think it should be discussed here first since it is a fundamental change in approach. I will change back pending proper discussion. leaky_caldron ( talk) 08:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I made the change in the controversy section as it is essentially about events not directly concerned with Big Brother "events", such as tasks or nominations. In most other articles (such as other film or TV articles) subjects are referred by full name then surname on subsequent mentions. Within the summary it makes sense to refer to them by first name only (as they are addressed by Big Brother), but if a housemates full name is used then is makes sense to use the surnames on subsequent use. Of course if others don't like this then I am open to it being changed back. Darrenhusted ( talk) 11:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Any idea on how to do this, because we know Charlie is the only one up for now but there are more to come? MSalmon ( talk) 09:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Is it just me or did Channel 4 sort of, well, miss out the nominations entirely from broadcast? :/ weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I have attempted to clarify why everyone is up Friday, and remove parentheses. Darrenhusted ( talk) 19:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
It may be worth searching Broadcast for information, as it is the TV industry's paper, so must be reliable. Darrenhusted ( talk) 22:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Good for dry figures. Darrenhusted ( talk) 11:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Before the separate source row was added to the nominations table references to each week's nominees and evictee were included inline and it was clear to which event each referred. With the introduction of the separate row for sources it is now not so obvious and, in my opinion, the amount of information conveyed and therefore the usefulness of the table have both been reduced. May I suggest a review or, at least, that an effort be made to preserve the chronological order of the references? MegaPedant ( talk) 05:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Is there anything in this article which is not contained in the main article? And if not is it worth getting rid of this article? It seems that it is mostly a repetition of information from this page (such as listing Halfwit's nominations). As the winner will be the only one to achieve anything of note outside the house this article seems like a BLP-vio magnet. Darrenhusted ( talk) 11:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
The Housemates aerticle will simply end up like previous years listing tasks the housemates took part in (already in this article) the nominations they got (already in this article) and the day and % of thier eviction (already in this article). The first four BBUK articles don't have a housemates article and there is little relevant detail in the housemates articles for BBUK5, 6, 7, 8 or 9 that could not be (or is not already) in the main article. The first few housemates have little outside of the audition tapes and the last few simply end up with lists of tasks and trivia (such as who they kissed/hated). MegaPedant you did a good job trimming down the housemate section for this article, in trimming it down did you not see the bloat that exists in the separate article? Worse than that it draws vandals to an article and invites trivia. What can be said extra about Kris or Saffia which in not already in this article? Darrenhusted ( talk) 16:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
According to Channel 4, here, the housemates first nominated during week 2, not week 1. It has been suggested before that the first 11 days ought to be considered as two short weeks rather than one long one and that this would explain the 13- vs 14-week duration discrepancy. Perhaps we are currently in week three, not week two. MegaPedant ( talk) 23:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I have set up the BBUK Task Force page. It is a pretty basic page right now. Also I need help tagging BBUK articles, if you come across any article relating to BBUK please add "|UK=yes" to the {{ WikiProject Big Brother}} talk page template. For example the banner for this article should read {{WikiProject Big Brother|class=C|importance=High|UK=yes}}. For editors interested in the USA task force I should have it up by 8 PM EST today as well. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 18:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I notice that a large block of text has been copied verbatim from this section and pasted into the Controversy and criticism of Big Brother (UK) article and that a sizeable part of it, dealing with Davina encouraging viewers to protest against the reduction in the live feeds, has been deleted from this article. Is that the intention or is the feeling that it ought to be reinstated? MegaPedant ( talk) 13:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I have an issue with the Shilpa racism stuff being included here. What does it have to do with BB10? leaky_caldron ( talk) 18:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
If you really want to include this and connect it with anything approaching a similar situation, can I suggest Emily’s ejection in BB8? [4] Even that is stretching the comparison but at least it involves BB HMs, not celebrities and not genuine bullying racism per CBB5. leaky_caldron ( talk) 19:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I think it should definitely be included in the summary! But IPs are blocked from editing on this page - can someone add it in? It is certainly notable! 83.71.108.45 ( talk) 17:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
So we've got to 100 sources and we're around halfway through - I'd imagine we'll get to around 165ish by the end of the show. After my suggestions earlier on in the series, I've done a breakdown of the refs that we have.
Coincidentally, I suggested that around 10% of the refs should be from C4 and that appears to be what we have here. The number of DS refs is woorying - I think that we should try and reduce and maybe replace them with BBC sources, as they do a report on each eviction. Overall, the refs are of good quality and are all formatted well. There's a few niggly problems that we can sort out after. Thoughts? DJ 21:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I find the notion that some things on here don't need to be cited as they are "general knowledge" pure garbage. This is a TV programme watched by 2 million people - the only things that can really be cited as "general knowledge" are that Davina hosts the evictions and that it airs on Channel 4. Look at some sections of Michael Jackson - the man had BILLIONS of followers across the world, yet almost everything is referenced. And Geoking, you are wrong when stating that all sources are equal as they all derive from the programme. This is unture, as it is clear by reading the sources that Digital Spy, Daily Mail and The Guardian all have different ideologies and target audience, and this effects the way that events surrounding the programme are reported. C4, on the other hand, are unlikely to hold a bias but will also cover up facts or exaggerate details in order to fit into its own ideological stance. Mick seems to have such a problem with the reason why I suggested the sparse use of Primary sources, but is not presenting any alternative ideas or suggestions on what we should do otherwise. I really do feel like he's complaining for complaining's sake. DJ 08:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Now how anybody can argue with this is beyond me. DJ 21:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Well of course it doesn't - that was an editorial policy for this article proposed on this page. Just like it doesn't day that weekly summary paragraphs in this article should be limited to x number of words; that was a decision made here. I'm not "blindly disregarding sites" at all, sometimes C4 sources need to be used and they are - 1 in 10 times on this article. What I am saying is that the use of these sources should be kept to a minimum due to the endless reasons I have stated above and the quotes from the 2 Wiki articles. It's this "We've done X on the other articles so we'll do X this year" attitude that has made WP:BIGBRO such a pants project. All of the other articles rely too much on C4 sources and it shows - because they're crap. I honestly belived that if the series was to end tommorow then we could, with a small clean-up, get this article to GA without much fuss. DJ 10:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry DJ, what 'endless reasons' have you given that, for this article, the relevant policies state that 10% primary sources is a requirement, or even a good thing? PRiMARY for example, how many of the 90% secondary sources are for anything other than supporting "descriptive claims". 90% of this article does not deal with complex interpretations of different aspects of the program, needing different perspectives by the Mail/Guardian etc. From SOURCES for example, are you seriously telling me that for the 90% of secondary sources use here, they have independently fact checked the things they support? Or are they merely reprinting C4 information. And finally, the idea that we should use secondary sources because they have a better tone is pure garbage. I am not complaining for complaining sake, I am preventing your bad practices from being passed onto other editors. MickMacNee ( talk) 12:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
The result of the week 7 task has not been posted. Can someone do so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.134.21 ( talk) 16:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I notice in the Noms table that the newbies are now exempt from Friday's eviction...is the reasoning as thus? Their secret task was to ensure (one way or another) that Halfwit and Noirin faced eviction. Because Halfwit and Noirin (amongst the others) refused to vote, they face the public vote thus the newbies task of getting Halfwit and Noirin to face the public vote has been passed? I don't know though hehe db1987db ( talk) 16:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
For the one's you missed, Rodrigo nominated Noirin and Marcus, and Noirin nominated Rodrigo and Lisa.
Accusations of favouritism and lack of continuity over cancelled eviction. I can't help but think that it's a bit of a non-story... DJ 20:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
It should be in the summary section, not the controversy section. DJ 16:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Well then put it in the summary section. DJ 16:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone else think that too much detail has been added? I'd like to delete it but would prefer to discuss it first. I have no problem with the detail per se (though there is an inaccuracy: Siavash was required to strike a pose, not dance) but it is out of balance with the coverage of the other tasks and inappropriate for a Summary section. Perhaps a new section entitled Tasks is needed, but would anyone be prepared to write about the other tasks with a similar amount of detail? MegaPedant ( talk) 15:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
OK. What you've listed there is mostly WP:OR. At Wikipedia, we go by what the sources tell us. Regardless of wheter you think it was more Mission Impossible than James Bond or whether you think that the prop may or may not have been made out of plastic or whether you heard on a forum that the goo was milkshake, we go by the sources. You waited little over 10 minutes for a reply and reverted another user's edits just because you couldn't be bothered to change them. How very responsible. DJ 16:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
That looks great to me :). DJ 13:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Do you think N/A should be displayed when a housemates has left the house and they haven't nominated or been nominated? MSalmon ( talk) 13:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I think we should clean up this section. First of all, in my opinion, it is really messy and very unorganized. What I'm thinking is that we should re-write it to make it like Big Brother 2008's, with readers to go to the page to read about the housemates. -- Dudejerome ( talk) 16:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Since User:Darrenhusted has confirmed upfront in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Big Brother 2009 housemates (UK) that his desire is to delete the list article and move all the info into the main article for all bb articles, I have taken the bold move of doing the reverse, and removing all the info on the housemates, which does indeed appear to be a copy of the other article. Information should only be in one place, and the two article format is much tidier. I've done it all in one edit, so you can revert me if you like (but I'd really rather you didn't) -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 17:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I note DJ has reverted me. Could he perhaps point me to this consensus to do this year's article different to all the rest?-- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 17:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
CONSENSUS - Talk:Big_Brother_2009_(UK)/archive3#Houemates_section. DJ 17:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
information about the housemates in play, so looking at it again seems quite reasonable. I'm for the two article format - it's worked well for the last few years, allowing more info about individuals to be added for those who are interested in such stuff, without overloading the main article which is now quite big enough with details of all the goings on.-- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 18:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I protected this page for 24 hours while you work this out. Too much edit warring going on here. RxS ( talk) 18:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
The information about housemates used to be includes (see BB1-4), but then the section became too large and so for BB5 to BB9 it was spun out (usually part way through when size became and issue). This year (and last year to the best of my recollection) it was started on the first day, problem being in previous years the article became cluttered and full of trivia (see BB5 housemates and lots of Jungle Cats/Lipgloss Bitches nonsense). So this year I trimmed it all back down (and most of the information was simply copying events from the summary and metering it out to individuals) and put it back in as there was no context for the summary without details descriptions of the housemates. The AfD for the housemates article has focused attention back on the section. The AfD really has nothing to do with the section, without this article the housemates article would not be notable as none of these housemates are not notable without the program, the opposite is not true. However if the other article is kept then there is nothing wrong in having a detailed description so that the summary makes sense otherwise references to any housemates don't have any context without a reader reading another article first. There is no reason to remove the section. Darrenhusted ( talk) 19:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
To keep this relatively argument free, lets have a simple POLL, with everyone signing ~~~~ under which option they want. I will invite a range of editors who have edited this article to participate, but anyone who has an opinion can vote. Lets wait 3 days until we count the votes. DJ 18:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
( edit conflict)* I don't even like the show. I just think this is a better format. This article is already 70k - articles should normally be split at 60k, and the separate list format has worked well in the past.-- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 18:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Consensus isn't formed by voting. Jeni ( talk)(Jenuk1985) 18:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Consensus isn't formed by voting but by sensible discussion. Perhaps DJ might care to explain why he believes his option is better.
Also, a solution consensed at one point may become redundant later. The list article format has allowed further info on the housemates to be inserted, by and for those who enjoy such things, without overburdening the main article. Keeping the full list of housemates with information in the main article runs the risk that it will become overblown with detail (should any of them actually prove interesting), and the section gets split out to a separate article at a later date.-- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 19:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Also, the housemate section was summarized with the short paragraphs for a month without alteration, which would constitute consensus by silence. Not every consensus needs action, if an edit is made and not altered then consensus can be assumed. Regardless of what happens to the content fork there will still need to be a housemate section. Darrenhusted ( talk) 01:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
How about something like this - Dumped#Contestants, from an article that I single-handedly got to GA. DJ 13:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
We appear to have come to a happy compromise. It's basically a replica of Dumped#Contestants, linking to the "List of..." article. You know the drill. DJ 13:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Admin has just extended page protection till 10th August!!! for "disruption". Anyone seeing disruption in the history because I'm not (other than an IP drive-by with the usual unsourced speculation)? I thought we've all been very good.-- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 22:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
As there has been so much hype over Big Brother's 10th year, is it worth splitting the second half of the "Pre-series" section into a new "10th year commemorations" section, which will include details of the former HMs returning and the twist on Friday? I don't think that this should be developed until later on in the week until much more info comes to light. What do we think? DJ 21:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
It's good to see a positive comment has been added. It was looking very unbalanced. As "the series has also received praise from various parties" it would be beneficial to include a few more examples. MegaPedant ( talk) 13:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Someone likes this series. Darrenhusted ( talk) 10:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
...the least watched. Darrenhusted ( talk) 22:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Does anybody think this story is worthy for the Crit/Con section? We'd obviously only state the facts - Sree taken to hospital after REPORTEDLY slashing wrists/C4 quote/Herts Uni Quote. Might also be worth adding this, an article before the series in which Sharon Powers said that extra care would be taken after the Susan Boyle incident. It's certainly more notable than the usual "BB Girl Slapped in Nightclub" story. Thoughts? DJ 11:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Guys, I really think that this should be included. The Times and The Evening Standard are reporting it as fact, whereas the story has also been reported by ITN, The Daily Mail and STV, albeit with "The Sun claims". Now I hate mindless additions to this section as much as the rest of us, but I really do think that this will have major repercussions and is definitely notable. DJ 16:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
It list's Issac's job as "Reality show participant". WTF? 80.44.254.156 ( talk) 10:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Looking at the two guidelines for when the template should be used I don't believe this article fits the usage. Note that every article on Wikipedia has a General disclaimer indicating that the article contents may not be accurate. As such, this template is redundant. This seems like the reason it has been added (as tasks and such are not updated like on a fansite). As an advisory to editors, the template may optionally be used in those occasions that many editors (perhaps a hundred or more) edit an article on the same day, for example, in the case of natural disasters, the death of celebrities, or other breaking news. This page has frequent edits, but not hundreds of edits, so this does not seem like a reason to have this on this. Generally it is expected that this template and its closely related templates will appear on an article for perhaps a day or so, occasionally several days. The intention seems to be to leave this on the page for the next five weeks, and seems slightly unsuitable. I would say in short I am in favour of removing it. Darrenhusted ( talk) 21:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
![]() | 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 |
I thought the total nominations bit was considered trivia and no necessary for the article. Someone has integrated individual nomination total tables into the main nomination table which shouldn't be there and makes the table looked cramped. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 20:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if this is of any value to the Wikipedia page here, but I also have been annoyed at the lack of weekly subtotals for nominations, etc. However, I recognize this would really clutter up the page. So I made a spreadsheet myself with the details. I plan on updating this weekly and am happy for a link to be posted somewhere in the article, if that is somehow allowed. Or not, if it is not... http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=rtW8kn0Dc2h7l_8ykMYVzPw&output=html Paul Thompson ( talk) 23:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
there is a fault: angel received 9 nominations so far, not 10. 3 votes in week 3 and 6 votes in week 4.
Sophie and Freddie may have changed their names by deed poll (we can't be sure) but as they have not decided to activate their new names, there is no reason why this article should use the terms 'halfwit' and 'dogface' to refer to them.
Unless they emerge from the house and request that their bank accounts, driving licenses, job contracts etc be changed, the deed poll documents are meaningless.
It seriously undermines the credibility of this article to collude with the Big Brother producers 'joke' and I'm requesting that someone with editing powers change their names in the article to the names they are known as by their friends and family.
Mjdakadem ( talk) 20:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)mjdakadem 18/6/09
Mr Mjdakadem, if you want to join the BBUK taskforce then we will be more than happy to discuss why you are wrong. Darrenhusted ( talk) 21:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
If these replies are representative samples of the level of debate on here I won't bother. Enjoy your arrogance guys. Mjdakadem ( talk) 22:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
You know I have made only 40 edits, and am in no way trying to own this article. I have however made suggestions to improve it, in the hope that we can get all the BBUK articles up to a higher standard. But the truth is that all the housemates of the past ten series a handful only do anything outside the house. If we take Cairon as an example, he was in, he dunked a biscuit, he was nominated, he was out. On the housemates page there is stuff about he is a student who lived with his mother, then his father then he lived her and there, none of which is really that important or that interesting. This article (and the other nine) should focus on what happened when the cameras were on. The winner gets an article and the other housemates get forgotten, the housemates article just attracts this kind of question (and edit wars over names). Freddie and Sophie entered the house, they changed their names and they will leave, and after that there will be very little to say about them. The consensus is to refer to them as their new names, but if consensus (or their names) change again then we will change them. Darrenhusted ( talk) 21:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I've restored the Housemates section in accordance with both sense and in keeping with the other BB articles. Vexorg ( talk) 01:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think we need a separate Housemates article, I think the information could be compressed into four short paragraphs before the weekly summary. Darrenhusted ( talk) 22:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I am aware of that, I'm saying that we don't need it. And once I finish this comment I will add all the housemates relevant information to the housemates section. Observe. Darrenhusted ( talk) 22:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think we need a separate article. As for the order of entry, that is juts an account of what happened on day 1, it seems normal that we would list what happened, and all that happened was that they entered. Any extra information is already in the summary, with a sepearate article the is a lot of repetition as we need to give details of when they became housemates and when they were evicted, with the information on one article there in no need for repetition. Is there ever anything useful on the expanded housemate articles? Not really, just their bio information (which ends up being trivia). Plus the housemate article attracts a ton of BLP and OR, with editors either vandalising it or adding trivial day-by-day detail, such as when people had fights. The purpose of this article should be to inform anyone who has never seen one episode of Big Brother as to what this was about. The trivia of housemates can be saved for other places. Darrenhusted ( talk) 10:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Cairon got 2.2m but I'm not sure insidebb is an RS. Darrenhusted ( talk) 22:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Angel got 1.6m and I know insideBB isn't reliable, just leaving these here until an RS can be found. Darrenhusted ( talk) 20:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm thinking that Marcus's box needs to be yellow to denote he gained immunity based on the task results, and that Charlie should more likely have the "Not eligible" box rather than the "Banned" box. Thoughts? T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 22:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
It's been decided not to tell them [1]. I think this is a notable decision about a notable event and should be included as a brief mention with a link to Jackson family#Death of Michael Jackson. Any idea where to locate this? Nothing was added during Big Brother 2005 (UK) about the decision not to tell them about the London Bombings, which surprises me. leaky_caldron ( talk) 14:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Why the hell are they always so high 70.80 even 90 percent for one person? Never are they close?-- Cooly123 ( talk) 22:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Do you think it is a good idea to have a sortable nominations table? Personally I don't think so beause it messes up the table otherwise when you click the sort button. MSalmon ( talk) 12:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
There is ostensibly a dated archive of this talk page, yet the current page has inactive posts on it that are older than the date of the archive. This is not acceptable. The standard archiving practice for most pages is to archive grousp of posts into dated archives, and/or for busier talk pages, to archive posts after set period of inactivity, in order of becoming inactive. If editors here feel the need to link to previous discussions, then they should do as is commonly practiced elsewhere, and link to those discussions in the archive, they should not be left inactive on the talk page while newer posts are manually archived. I am now going to properly archive all the old discussions that are on here that beling in the June archive, up to the date of the last discussion in the archive as I found it, which was 12 June. If the common practices are not clear, I suggest that an archive bot is implemented to do it automatically. MickMacNee ( talk) 14:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Big Brother 2009 or Big Brother 2009 ? Can we decide once and for all which it's to be and then leave it alone? MegaPedant ( talk) 22:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Was a consensus reached this year to add information like twists, nominations, etc. as they unfold on the live feeds or wait until the broadcast of such events or until a reliable third party posts the information? I am asking because this question is coming up on Big Brother 11 (U.S.) and in the past the consensus was to add the information as it unfolded on the live feeds. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 20:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid I cannot find any citations for my mention of Marcus' warning, but I'm sure they will come out soon. Can anyone help find them? Grieferhate ( talk) 23:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
It's full of "allegedly", BB said he did it, so in the context of the programme and this article, he WAS threatening, so why all the maybes. -- Pridds ( talk) 14:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
This looks ridiculous. In fact I thought it was vandalism until I saw that Darren (a reliable contributor) had made the changes. I have no idea who these people are by surname. Big Brother does not refer to housemates EVER in 9 years by surname, they are effectively stripped of their full identity on entering the house. I think it should be discussed here first since it is a fundamental change in approach. I will change back pending proper discussion. leaky_caldron ( talk) 08:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I made the change in the controversy section as it is essentially about events not directly concerned with Big Brother "events", such as tasks or nominations. In most other articles (such as other film or TV articles) subjects are referred by full name then surname on subsequent mentions. Within the summary it makes sense to refer to them by first name only (as they are addressed by Big Brother), but if a housemates full name is used then is makes sense to use the surnames on subsequent use. Of course if others don't like this then I am open to it being changed back. Darrenhusted ( talk) 11:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Any idea on how to do this, because we know Charlie is the only one up for now but there are more to come? MSalmon ( talk) 09:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Is it just me or did Channel 4 sort of, well, miss out the nominations entirely from broadcast? :/ weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I have attempted to clarify why everyone is up Friday, and remove parentheses. Darrenhusted ( talk) 19:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
It may be worth searching Broadcast for information, as it is the TV industry's paper, so must be reliable. Darrenhusted ( talk) 22:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Good for dry figures. Darrenhusted ( talk) 11:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Before the separate source row was added to the nominations table references to each week's nominees and evictee were included inline and it was clear to which event each referred. With the introduction of the separate row for sources it is now not so obvious and, in my opinion, the amount of information conveyed and therefore the usefulness of the table have both been reduced. May I suggest a review or, at least, that an effort be made to preserve the chronological order of the references? MegaPedant ( talk) 05:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Is there anything in this article which is not contained in the main article? And if not is it worth getting rid of this article? It seems that it is mostly a repetition of information from this page (such as listing Halfwit's nominations). As the winner will be the only one to achieve anything of note outside the house this article seems like a BLP-vio magnet. Darrenhusted ( talk) 11:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
The Housemates aerticle will simply end up like previous years listing tasks the housemates took part in (already in this article) the nominations they got (already in this article) and the day and % of thier eviction (already in this article). The first four BBUK articles don't have a housemates article and there is little relevant detail in the housemates articles for BBUK5, 6, 7, 8 or 9 that could not be (or is not already) in the main article. The first few housemates have little outside of the audition tapes and the last few simply end up with lists of tasks and trivia (such as who they kissed/hated). MegaPedant you did a good job trimming down the housemate section for this article, in trimming it down did you not see the bloat that exists in the separate article? Worse than that it draws vandals to an article and invites trivia. What can be said extra about Kris or Saffia which in not already in this article? Darrenhusted ( talk) 16:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
According to Channel 4, here, the housemates first nominated during week 2, not week 1. It has been suggested before that the first 11 days ought to be considered as two short weeks rather than one long one and that this would explain the 13- vs 14-week duration discrepancy. Perhaps we are currently in week three, not week two. MegaPedant ( talk) 23:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I have set up the BBUK Task Force page. It is a pretty basic page right now. Also I need help tagging BBUK articles, if you come across any article relating to BBUK please add "|UK=yes" to the {{ WikiProject Big Brother}} talk page template. For example the banner for this article should read {{WikiProject Big Brother|class=C|importance=High|UK=yes}}. For editors interested in the USA task force I should have it up by 8 PM EST today as well. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 18:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I notice that a large block of text has been copied verbatim from this section and pasted into the Controversy and criticism of Big Brother (UK) article and that a sizeable part of it, dealing with Davina encouraging viewers to protest against the reduction in the live feeds, has been deleted from this article. Is that the intention or is the feeling that it ought to be reinstated? MegaPedant ( talk) 13:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I have an issue with the Shilpa racism stuff being included here. What does it have to do with BB10? leaky_caldron ( talk) 18:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
If you really want to include this and connect it with anything approaching a similar situation, can I suggest Emily’s ejection in BB8? [4] Even that is stretching the comparison but at least it involves BB HMs, not celebrities and not genuine bullying racism per CBB5. leaky_caldron ( talk) 19:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I think it should definitely be included in the summary! But IPs are blocked from editing on this page - can someone add it in? It is certainly notable! 83.71.108.45 ( talk) 17:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
So we've got to 100 sources and we're around halfway through - I'd imagine we'll get to around 165ish by the end of the show. After my suggestions earlier on in the series, I've done a breakdown of the refs that we have.
Coincidentally, I suggested that around 10% of the refs should be from C4 and that appears to be what we have here. The number of DS refs is woorying - I think that we should try and reduce and maybe replace them with BBC sources, as they do a report on each eviction. Overall, the refs are of good quality and are all formatted well. There's a few niggly problems that we can sort out after. Thoughts? DJ 21:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I find the notion that some things on here don't need to be cited as they are "general knowledge" pure garbage. This is a TV programme watched by 2 million people - the only things that can really be cited as "general knowledge" are that Davina hosts the evictions and that it airs on Channel 4. Look at some sections of Michael Jackson - the man had BILLIONS of followers across the world, yet almost everything is referenced. And Geoking, you are wrong when stating that all sources are equal as they all derive from the programme. This is unture, as it is clear by reading the sources that Digital Spy, Daily Mail and The Guardian all have different ideologies and target audience, and this effects the way that events surrounding the programme are reported. C4, on the other hand, are unlikely to hold a bias but will also cover up facts or exaggerate details in order to fit into its own ideological stance. Mick seems to have such a problem with the reason why I suggested the sparse use of Primary sources, but is not presenting any alternative ideas or suggestions on what we should do otherwise. I really do feel like he's complaining for complaining's sake. DJ 08:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Now how anybody can argue with this is beyond me. DJ 21:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Well of course it doesn't - that was an editorial policy for this article proposed on this page. Just like it doesn't day that weekly summary paragraphs in this article should be limited to x number of words; that was a decision made here. I'm not "blindly disregarding sites" at all, sometimes C4 sources need to be used and they are - 1 in 10 times on this article. What I am saying is that the use of these sources should be kept to a minimum due to the endless reasons I have stated above and the quotes from the 2 Wiki articles. It's this "We've done X on the other articles so we'll do X this year" attitude that has made WP:BIGBRO such a pants project. All of the other articles rely too much on C4 sources and it shows - because they're crap. I honestly belived that if the series was to end tommorow then we could, with a small clean-up, get this article to GA without much fuss. DJ 10:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry DJ, what 'endless reasons' have you given that, for this article, the relevant policies state that 10% primary sources is a requirement, or even a good thing? PRiMARY for example, how many of the 90% secondary sources are for anything other than supporting "descriptive claims". 90% of this article does not deal with complex interpretations of different aspects of the program, needing different perspectives by the Mail/Guardian etc. From SOURCES for example, are you seriously telling me that for the 90% of secondary sources use here, they have independently fact checked the things they support? Or are they merely reprinting C4 information. And finally, the idea that we should use secondary sources because they have a better tone is pure garbage. I am not complaining for complaining sake, I am preventing your bad practices from being passed onto other editors. MickMacNee ( talk) 12:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
The result of the week 7 task has not been posted. Can someone do so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.134.21 ( talk) 16:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I notice in the Noms table that the newbies are now exempt from Friday's eviction...is the reasoning as thus? Their secret task was to ensure (one way or another) that Halfwit and Noirin faced eviction. Because Halfwit and Noirin (amongst the others) refused to vote, they face the public vote thus the newbies task of getting Halfwit and Noirin to face the public vote has been passed? I don't know though hehe db1987db ( talk) 16:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
For the one's you missed, Rodrigo nominated Noirin and Marcus, and Noirin nominated Rodrigo and Lisa.
Accusations of favouritism and lack of continuity over cancelled eviction. I can't help but think that it's a bit of a non-story... DJ 20:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
It should be in the summary section, not the controversy section. DJ 16:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Well then put it in the summary section. DJ 16:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone else think that too much detail has been added? I'd like to delete it but would prefer to discuss it first. I have no problem with the detail per se (though there is an inaccuracy: Siavash was required to strike a pose, not dance) but it is out of balance with the coverage of the other tasks and inappropriate for a Summary section. Perhaps a new section entitled Tasks is needed, but would anyone be prepared to write about the other tasks with a similar amount of detail? MegaPedant ( talk) 15:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
OK. What you've listed there is mostly WP:OR. At Wikipedia, we go by what the sources tell us. Regardless of wheter you think it was more Mission Impossible than James Bond or whether you think that the prop may or may not have been made out of plastic or whether you heard on a forum that the goo was milkshake, we go by the sources. You waited little over 10 minutes for a reply and reverted another user's edits just because you couldn't be bothered to change them. How very responsible. DJ 16:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
That looks great to me :). DJ 13:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Do you think N/A should be displayed when a housemates has left the house and they haven't nominated or been nominated? MSalmon ( talk) 13:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I think we should clean up this section. First of all, in my opinion, it is really messy and very unorganized. What I'm thinking is that we should re-write it to make it like Big Brother 2008's, with readers to go to the page to read about the housemates. -- Dudejerome ( talk) 16:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Since User:Darrenhusted has confirmed upfront in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Big Brother 2009 housemates (UK) that his desire is to delete the list article and move all the info into the main article for all bb articles, I have taken the bold move of doing the reverse, and removing all the info on the housemates, which does indeed appear to be a copy of the other article. Information should only be in one place, and the two article format is much tidier. I've done it all in one edit, so you can revert me if you like (but I'd really rather you didn't) -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 17:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I note DJ has reverted me. Could he perhaps point me to this consensus to do this year's article different to all the rest?-- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 17:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
CONSENSUS - Talk:Big_Brother_2009_(UK)/archive3#Houemates_section. DJ 17:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
information about the housemates in play, so looking at it again seems quite reasonable. I'm for the two article format - it's worked well for the last few years, allowing more info about individuals to be added for those who are interested in such stuff, without overloading the main article which is now quite big enough with details of all the goings on.-- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 18:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I protected this page for 24 hours while you work this out. Too much edit warring going on here. RxS ( talk) 18:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
The information about housemates used to be includes (see BB1-4), but then the section became too large and so for BB5 to BB9 it was spun out (usually part way through when size became and issue). This year (and last year to the best of my recollection) it was started on the first day, problem being in previous years the article became cluttered and full of trivia (see BB5 housemates and lots of Jungle Cats/Lipgloss Bitches nonsense). So this year I trimmed it all back down (and most of the information was simply copying events from the summary and metering it out to individuals) and put it back in as there was no context for the summary without details descriptions of the housemates. The AfD for the housemates article has focused attention back on the section. The AfD really has nothing to do with the section, without this article the housemates article would not be notable as none of these housemates are not notable without the program, the opposite is not true. However if the other article is kept then there is nothing wrong in having a detailed description so that the summary makes sense otherwise references to any housemates don't have any context without a reader reading another article first. There is no reason to remove the section. Darrenhusted ( talk) 19:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
To keep this relatively argument free, lets have a simple POLL, with everyone signing ~~~~ under which option they want. I will invite a range of editors who have edited this article to participate, but anyone who has an opinion can vote. Lets wait 3 days until we count the votes. DJ 18:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
( edit conflict)* I don't even like the show. I just think this is a better format. This article is already 70k - articles should normally be split at 60k, and the separate list format has worked well in the past.-- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 18:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Consensus isn't formed by voting. Jeni ( talk)(Jenuk1985) 18:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Consensus isn't formed by voting but by sensible discussion. Perhaps DJ might care to explain why he believes his option is better.
Also, a solution consensed at one point may become redundant later. The list article format has allowed further info on the housemates to be inserted, by and for those who enjoy such things, without overburdening the main article. Keeping the full list of housemates with information in the main article runs the risk that it will become overblown with detail (should any of them actually prove interesting), and the section gets split out to a separate article at a later date.-- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 19:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Also, the housemate section was summarized with the short paragraphs for a month without alteration, which would constitute consensus by silence. Not every consensus needs action, if an edit is made and not altered then consensus can be assumed. Regardless of what happens to the content fork there will still need to be a housemate section. Darrenhusted ( talk) 01:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
How about something like this - Dumped#Contestants, from an article that I single-handedly got to GA. DJ 13:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
We appear to have come to a happy compromise. It's basically a replica of Dumped#Contestants, linking to the "List of..." article. You know the drill. DJ 13:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Admin has just extended page protection till 10th August!!! for "disruption". Anyone seeing disruption in the history because I'm not (other than an IP drive-by with the usual unsourced speculation)? I thought we've all been very good.-- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 22:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
As there has been so much hype over Big Brother's 10th year, is it worth splitting the second half of the "Pre-series" section into a new "10th year commemorations" section, which will include details of the former HMs returning and the twist on Friday? I don't think that this should be developed until later on in the week until much more info comes to light. What do we think? DJ 21:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
It's good to see a positive comment has been added. It was looking very unbalanced. As "the series has also received praise from various parties" it would be beneficial to include a few more examples. MegaPedant ( talk) 13:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Someone likes this series. Darrenhusted ( talk) 10:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
...the least watched. Darrenhusted ( talk) 22:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Does anybody think this story is worthy for the Crit/Con section? We'd obviously only state the facts - Sree taken to hospital after REPORTEDLY slashing wrists/C4 quote/Herts Uni Quote. Might also be worth adding this, an article before the series in which Sharon Powers said that extra care would be taken after the Susan Boyle incident. It's certainly more notable than the usual "BB Girl Slapped in Nightclub" story. Thoughts? DJ 11:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Guys, I really think that this should be included. The Times and The Evening Standard are reporting it as fact, whereas the story has also been reported by ITN, The Daily Mail and STV, albeit with "The Sun claims". Now I hate mindless additions to this section as much as the rest of us, but I really do think that this will have major repercussions and is definitely notable. DJ 16:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
It list's Issac's job as "Reality show participant". WTF? 80.44.254.156 ( talk) 10:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Looking at the two guidelines for when the template should be used I don't believe this article fits the usage. Note that every article on Wikipedia has a General disclaimer indicating that the article contents may not be accurate. As such, this template is redundant. This seems like the reason it has been added (as tasks and such are not updated like on a fansite). As an advisory to editors, the template may optionally be used in those occasions that many editors (perhaps a hundred or more) edit an article on the same day, for example, in the case of natural disasters, the death of celebrities, or other breaking news. This page has frequent edits, but not hundreds of edits, so this does not seem like a reason to have this on this. Generally it is expected that this template and its closely related templates will appear on an article for perhaps a day or so, occasionally several days. The intention seems to be to leave this on the page for the next five weeks, and seems slightly unsuitable. I would say in short I am in favour of removing it. Darrenhusted ( talk) 21:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)