![]() | 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 think we should lose the Nominated/Up for eviction colouring on the sidebar. The reasoning being that it is often only there for about 2 days and it is rather trivial and fan site-ish, breaking not one but two parts of What Wikipedia is not. As this would affect the BB articles worldwide, I'll post a link to this discussion on other pages. Thoughts? DJ 22:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not so keen on getting rid of it. The table is there to give a quick idea of each Housemate's status in the game. T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 23:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Definitely keep the sidebar, none of the cited policies have been broken, as Turian said. It sounds like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT (yes I know that refers to deletion discussions, but the principle applies). Jeni ( talk) 13:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Does it honestly matter? The table serves a purpose that is actually quite useful. I'm sorry DJ, but just because you don't like something in the article doesn't mean that it must be changed. It hasn't broken any rules and other programmes use the same system. Geoking 66 talk 04:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I think that he should be removed as he never participated in a round of nominations or eviction-related activity, but I feel that he should stay in order to keep consistency. Discuss. DJ 22:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
This is similar to discussion on Big Brother Australia 2008 dealing with two housemates who never nominated. I think that Isaac should be on the nominations table, because he was a housemate. Fugio ( talk) 13:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
This article is currently 91KB and WP:SIZERULE says that articles over 60KB "probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)" and articles over 100KB "certainly should be divided". We are fast approaching 100 and I don't think the scope of the topic justifies the extra reading time. Should we split the article? And if so, which section? Thoughts? DJ 17:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
The Channel 4 website says he lives in Manchester so that's what it says in this article. However I'm pretty sure he told the housemates he lives in Leeds and he went on to discuss meeting up with David and Charlie when the series is over. I notice there is some discussion here and I see that in the List of Big Brother 2009 housemates (UK) article he's listed as coming from Leeds so I'm minded to change the entry in this article to match. Perhaps the confusion arose because he attended auditions in Manchester. MegaPedant ( talk) 16:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I noticed some topics today have been archived, despite the fact they have received replies today, surely that is a completely inappropriate action? I propose we setup MiszaBot to archive this page automatically, I suggest getting the bot to archive after a topic has been inactive for 15 days is a reasonable course of action. If there is consensus, I'll set this up later. (And I'll restore some of the inappropriately archived threads now) Jeni ( talk) 20:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
It can be a rather busy talk page. There's no need to over-complicate things; like Darren said - archive when the discussion comes to its natural end and it can be brought back if something relevant needs to be added, not just because someone wants to keep it lying dormant on the talk page for another 3 days. DJ 21:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I've added a table of ongoing notices and discussions (which shouldn't be archived) to improve readability and organisation. DJ 21:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Christ. The idea that talk page sections can be archived and then "be brought back if something relevant needs to be added" is totally wrong, per the consensus of the million past editors who have developed the standard archiving practices used all over the pedia, which btw do not include bright red 'permanent notice' templates for old discussions, and data that belongs on project pages. MickMacNee ( talk) 01:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
On the nominations table, all of the percentages are to one decimal place. However, as Noirin got 60.0% of the vote, I changed it to just "60%", feeling that the ".0" was redundant and looked out of place. However, User:MegaPedant reverted this, claiming consistency. Now as it's only a very very very trivial issue, I'm not too bothered either way. However, I was just wondering if any one else feels that the ".0" should be removed? Afterall, we wouldn't put £100,000.0 as the prize money.... DJ 23:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
For consistency it should be .0%, if we are finishing all with one place, or .00 if we are finishing them all with 2. And you would put £100,000.00 or 10,000,000p, but the prize money isn't up for eviction each week. Darrenhusted ( talk) 23:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
There's no need for some people to get so worked up. It was just a suggestion and as I said, it really doesn't matter.... DJ 08:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
...there are some concepts which need to be fully explained within this article rather than sitting in other articles. These include: what is the Diary Room, it has capital letters but this article does not explain what it is. There is a paragraph about the change to the eviction format but this has not been updated. How do the housemates get food, there is talk of a basic food budget and luxury food budget but this is not explained. Could the actual dates of events be worked in alongside the "Day 1" format which is really BB jargon (and by Day 40 does anyone actually know the date referred to?). Thoughts. Darrenhusted ( talk) 15:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
167 sources:
Digital Spy- 54
Daily Mail- 25
Guardian- 20
Channel 4- 15
BBC- 9
Heat- 8
STV- 4
MSN- 3
Evening Herald- 3
Telegraph- 3
Independant- 2
Times- 2
Welwyn & Hatfield Times- 2
Misc. singular sources- 17
As we can see, DS is still dominating (32.3%) but I think that's justified; it's our most frequent of the reliable sources. Daily Mail use has improved and I think that all objectors to the C4-limit will be satisfied to see that its our 4th most used source. Comments? DJ 23:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
This is a
WP:BIGBRO matter but as we're likely to get most of the traffic through here for the next few weeks, this is a good place to discuss it.
I was browsing around Wikipedia just now when I noticed that
List of American Idol finalists is a
featured list. As there's been a lot of talk of raising the standard of the WikiProject here, I was wondering if anybody else would consider getting
List of Big Brother (UK) contestants to this level also. It would take almost no effort - move the article to "List of Big Brother (UK) housemates", improve the
introduction and add some
references. As it's a case of just of sourcing simple facts, we could use the Channel 4
microsites of past years for most of the sources. Anyone agree?
DJ
14:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
It appears that Halfwit & Dogface have changed their names back to Freddie & Sophie via a special prize, is this worth a mention? MSalmon ( talk) 12:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
But otherwise it doesn't cross-correspond. A reader would be glancing along the summary, read "Halfwit and Cairon were up for eviction" and get lost when looking down at the nominations table and there being no "Halfwit" row. "Freddie/Halfwit" and "Sophie/Dogface" is a happy compromise for the nom table and sidebar. DJ 23:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Could all editors please remember to use the {{ Cite episode}}, {{ Cite web}} and {{ Cite news}} templates. It's very tedious when editors add sources with purely the reference tags and others have to clean up after them. Thanks, DJ 20:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC).
WP:MOSTV#Plot section: "Plot summaries do not normally require citations; the television show itself is the source, as the accuracy of the plot description can be verified by watching the episode in question. An exception to this rule may be shows containing plot details that are unclear or open to interpretation, in which case the different interpretations should be sourced to reliable sources."
Please can nobody be bold and remove all of the sources; we need to have a discussion and form a consensus first. Please add to the advantages/disadvantages list as you see fit and contribute to the discussion. DJ 21:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I am tired of being dragged over here from the U.S. article to discuss things that don't need discussing. This seems like a major non-issue in my eyes. Having the sources is a necessity due to the show's episodes not being live. Without the sources, who is to say what has and has not happened? And the plot summary idea is not even relevant; there is a major difference between fictional shows and reality television. We need the sources; end of story. – túrian patois 21:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Everyone, Another Believer has been working on List of Big Brother (U.S.) HouseGuests and has gotten the list up to FL-Class! This is a great achievement and the first FL-List for WP:BIGBRO as a whole. I honestly think that we can get more of the BB articles up to A-Class, GA-Class or even dare I say it FA-Class. I think that we should take a look at other reality based competition shows that have FA-Class articles and see what we can incorporate to make the BB USA/BB UK articles and other BB articles around the world to FA-Class. I believe this year the editors of the USA and UK articles have a great start here. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 04:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Posted to Big Brother 11 (U.S.), Big Brother 2009 (UK) and WP:BIGBRO. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 04:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Posted to
Big Brother 11 (U.S.),
Big Brother 2009 (UK) and
WP:BIGBRO.
...and it would be appreciated (and highly useful) if editors with knowlege of Big Brother could help review the article on its
nominations page. It would be amazing for
WP:BIGBRO to get its second FL in such a short space of time.
DJ
22:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
radiotimes.com has next Friday as the final, and that will be in print tomorrow. Darrenhusted ( talk) 19:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Apparently C4 confirmed it last week, but let's wait until tommorow and then put it in. DJ 19:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
There is a discussion occuring here on whether the colours of the sidebar are too similar. Please discuss the matter there, thanks. DJ 17:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the "Didn't nominate" square should be used, because they did nominate, be it knowingly or unknowingly. 12bigbrother12 ( talk) 20:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Or more accurately the twist has been revealed, Siavash "nominated" the first two people who he touched after leaving the diary room. Darrenhusted ( talk) 20:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I've reverted that. Not only did you WP:CANVASS MegaPedant into the discussion (your fault, not his), but the debate is still ongoing. If this was AfD, the consensus would be "No consensus, revert to keep" as there is a 2-2 scenario. Therefore, the article stays as it is until the issue is resolved. DJ 18:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
If you invite somebody into a discussion, you should approach them in an impartial way. This seems rather biased in my eyes. Also, you didn't inform anyone else, just this one user. It would have been more appropriate to simply inform other uninvolved editors at WP:BIGBROUK or WP:BIGBRO that the discussion was taking place, without adding a viewpoint (be it yours or somebody else's) DJ 22:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Personal attacks will get you absolutely nowhere. DJ 12:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Change it to "refused to nominate" then indicate the choice Big Brother made in the notes. Darrenhusted ( talk) 13:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
As stated previously, it is felt that this article could quite easily make it to GA after the series ends. IP protection on the article ends on 11/9 (or 9/11) and this is an ideal oppurtunity for a clean-up before taking the article to peer review. There are a couple of issues that need sorting and feel free to list any more and comment on what is here. DJ 11:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
May I suggest that the prize fund tasks be given a separate paragraph, just like the week 7 task, then each of the money tasks (such as Siavash's outfit) can be detailed. Also how is the housemates table organised? By alphabetical first name, last name, order of entry, order of exit, age? Because at the moment I can't see any of those. Darrenhusted ( talk) 00:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
surely that should be in the main article, not the 2009 series? Especially the quote about 200 hours etc. which has nothing to do with 2009. leaky_caldron ( talk) 13:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
It's not really a cancellation, as they will meet the contract for the eleventh series, but simply not a renewal of the current contract, I think cost more than rating is a factor. Either way a passing mention would be enough, the details should go on the general article and BB11 next year. Darrenhusted ( talk) 16:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
The Prize Fund being removed from £100,000 to £0 should be mentioned and the fact they will have chances to win it back in the remaining days left. The money was taken away as punishment for the housemate's attempted breakout on Day 83.
[5] (sorry it's a video) [6] [7]
Danda012 ( talk) 12:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually i can't edit due to my account being a new account and the page being semi-protected. Danda012 ( talk) 12:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
"On Day 83 after Big Brother told housemates they were being boring, housemates escaped through a fire door and ran through the studio. [8]. The housemates eventually all returned to the house. Later that evening, Big Brother informed housemates that as punishment for their breakout the prize fund would go from £100,000 to £0 and that over the remainder of the series they would have oppertunities to win back the prize money. [9] [10] [11]"
How is that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danda012 ( talk • contribs) 13:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Then work on it in a WP:SANDBOX. Dale 09:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I've cleaned it up now. Dale 10:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Earlier, I changed the "Not in House" bars of the noms table to "Not in the House", as the former is not a sentence. You wouldn't say "Bea was not in house" in a sentence, so why would you put it in a table? However, my edit was reverted because (apparently) we need to have a discussion before "changing anything". I've reverted it back now per WP:COMMONSENSE. Does this warrent a discussion? Dale 11:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
I've placed the unrelated content in a collapsable box. The "Not in House" was restored again and I changed it back for the same reasons. Does anybody have a decent reason why it should stay as "Not in House"? Dale 22:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think so, Sunny Jim! Without a reference that can't stand, I'm afraid. The outfit is the wrong colour, has no tail or ears and is only similar in that it is worn with separate collar and cuffs. The reality is it's just a ridiculous outfit whose intention is to amuse the audience at the expense of its wearer, though Siavash, to his credit, doesn't seem to care. MegaPedant ( talk) 14:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
This source doesn't make it clear whether they ordered a special prize on the list or that Big Brother just randomly gave them £20. Let's wait until the HLs and then make the edit. Dale 17:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
"Earlier today housemates bought a Mystery Prize as part of their shopping list. Big Brother gave them a cheque for £20, which will go towards the winner's prize fund." leaky_caldron ( talk) 17:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Spoiler for Friday refers to "a bunny rabbit playboy style costume". leaky_caldron ( talk) 18:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
On BBLB today (or should I say yesterday?) George Lamb said there will be another round of nominations on Sunday with an eviction on Tuesday, so I think we need another column added in the nominations table. AnemoneProjectors ( talk) 00:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
There would not be nominations on the final Monday anyway, as they open the lines to win in the final week, so the Sunday nominations would be the Week 14 nominations anyway, the table doesn't need to be altered. They nominate on Sunday, someone goes on Tuesday and then the final column reflects the final night on Friday, a note about the nominations taking place a day early will be enough. Darrenhusted ( talk) 13:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
As I posted below - it's WP:OR. The weekly summary and nom table sections are plot summaries and should therefore abide by what the programme states, even if that is not logical. Dale 18:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Should be mentioned that on day 88 (monday 30, August) that 4 houseguests threatened to walk: Charlie, Rodrigo, Siavash and Sophie Big Brother had obvioulsy convinced them to stay. -- 19:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)-- 19:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 ( talk • contribs)
The nominations which took place the week Sophia was evicted were in Week 1 NOT Week 2, Sophia was only in the house a week, not two weeks, so why is it not classed as Week 1, she was evicted on Day 9, as was Stephanie from last year, but Stephanie is classed as Week 1 evictee, Beinazir was evicted on Day 4, so why isn't the Week 1 list of nominations in Week 1 not just split in two like the Week 14 (which should be Week 13) list is?
That's pure WP:OR. The weekly summary and nom table sections are plot summaries and should therefore abide by what the programme states, even if that is not logical. Dale 18:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
![]() | 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 think we should lose the Nominated/Up for eviction colouring on the sidebar. The reasoning being that it is often only there for about 2 days and it is rather trivial and fan site-ish, breaking not one but two parts of What Wikipedia is not. As this would affect the BB articles worldwide, I'll post a link to this discussion on other pages. Thoughts? DJ 22:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not so keen on getting rid of it. The table is there to give a quick idea of each Housemate's status in the game. T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 23:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Definitely keep the sidebar, none of the cited policies have been broken, as Turian said. It sounds like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT (yes I know that refers to deletion discussions, but the principle applies). Jeni ( talk) 13:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Does it honestly matter? The table serves a purpose that is actually quite useful. I'm sorry DJ, but just because you don't like something in the article doesn't mean that it must be changed. It hasn't broken any rules and other programmes use the same system. Geoking 66 talk 04:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I think that he should be removed as he never participated in a round of nominations or eviction-related activity, but I feel that he should stay in order to keep consistency. Discuss. DJ 22:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
This is similar to discussion on Big Brother Australia 2008 dealing with two housemates who never nominated. I think that Isaac should be on the nominations table, because he was a housemate. Fugio ( talk) 13:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
This article is currently 91KB and WP:SIZERULE says that articles over 60KB "probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)" and articles over 100KB "certainly should be divided". We are fast approaching 100 and I don't think the scope of the topic justifies the extra reading time. Should we split the article? And if so, which section? Thoughts? DJ 17:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
The Channel 4 website says he lives in Manchester so that's what it says in this article. However I'm pretty sure he told the housemates he lives in Leeds and he went on to discuss meeting up with David and Charlie when the series is over. I notice there is some discussion here and I see that in the List of Big Brother 2009 housemates (UK) article he's listed as coming from Leeds so I'm minded to change the entry in this article to match. Perhaps the confusion arose because he attended auditions in Manchester. MegaPedant ( talk) 16:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I noticed some topics today have been archived, despite the fact they have received replies today, surely that is a completely inappropriate action? I propose we setup MiszaBot to archive this page automatically, I suggest getting the bot to archive after a topic has been inactive for 15 days is a reasonable course of action. If there is consensus, I'll set this up later. (And I'll restore some of the inappropriately archived threads now) Jeni ( talk) 20:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
It can be a rather busy talk page. There's no need to over-complicate things; like Darren said - archive when the discussion comes to its natural end and it can be brought back if something relevant needs to be added, not just because someone wants to keep it lying dormant on the talk page for another 3 days. DJ 21:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I've added a table of ongoing notices and discussions (which shouldn't be archived) to improve readability and organisation. DJ 21:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Christ. The idea that talk page sections can be archived and then "be brought back if something relevant needs to be added" is totally wrong, per the consensus of the million past editors who have developed the standard archiving practices used all over the pedia, which btw do not include bright red 'permanent notice' templates for old discussions, and data that belongs on project pages. MickMacNee ( talk) 01:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
On the nominations table, all of the percentages are to one decimal place. However, as Noirin got 60.0% of the vote, I changed it to just "60%", feeling that the ".0" was redundant and looked out of place. However, User:MegaPedant reverted this, claiming consistency. Now as it's only a very very very trivial issue, I'm not too bothered either way. However, I was just wondering if any one else feels that the ".0" should be removed? Afterall, we wouldn't put £100,000.0 as the prize money.... DJ 23:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
For consistency it should be .0%, if we are finishing all with one place, or .00 if we are finishing them all with 2. And you would put £100,000.00 or 10,000,000p, but the prize money isn't up for eviction each week. Darrenhusted ( talk) 23:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
There's no need for some people to get so worked up. It was just a suggestion and as I said, it really doesn't matter.... DJ 08:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
...there are some concepts which need to be fully explained within this article rather than sitting in other articles. These include: what is the Diary Room, it has capital letters but this article does not explain what it is. There is a paragraph about the change to the eviction format but this has not been updated. How do the housemates get food, there is talk of a basic food budget and luxury food budget but this is not explained. Could the actual dates of events be worked in alongside the "Day 1" format which is really BB jargon (and by Day 40 does anyone actually know the date referred to?). Thoughts. Darrenhusted ( talk) 15:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
167 sources:
Digital Spy- 54
Daily Mail- 25
Guardian- 20
Channel 4- 15
BBC- 9
Heat- 8
STV- 4
MSN- 3
Evening Herald- 3
Telegraph- 3
Independant- 2
Times- 2
Welwyn & Hatfield Times- 2
Misc. singular sources- 17
As we can see, DS is still dominating (32.3%) but I think that's justified; it's our most frequent of the reliable sources. Daily Mail use has improved and I think that all objectors to the C4-limit will be satisfied to see that its our 4th most used source. Comments? DJ 23:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
This is a
WP:BIGBRO matter but as we're likely to get most of the traffic through here for the next few weeks, this is a good place to discuss it.
I was browsing around Wikipedia just now when I noticed that
List of American Idol finalists is a
featured list. As there's been a lot of talk of raising the standard of the WikiProject here, I was wondering if anybody else would consider getting
List of Big Brother (UK) contestants to this level also. It would take almost no effort - move the article to "List of Big Brother (UK) housemates", improve the
introduction and add some
references. As it's a case of just of sourcing simple facts, we could use the Channel 4
microsites of past years for most of the sources. Anyone agree?
DJ
14:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
It appears that Halfwit & Dogface have changed their names back to Freddie & Sophie via a special prize, is this worth a mention? MSalmon ( talk) 12:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
But otherwise it doesn't cross-correspond. A reader would be glancing along the summary, read "Halfwit and Cairon were up for eviction" and get lost when looking down at the nominations table and there being no "Halfwit" row. "Freddie/Halfwit" and "Sophie/Dogface" is a happy compromise for the nom table and sidebar. DJ 23:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Could all editors please remember to use the {{ Cite episode}}, {{ Cite web}} and {{ Cite news}} templates. It's very tedious when editors add sources with purely the reference tags and others have to clean up after them. Thanks, DJ 20:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC).
WP:MOSTV#Plot section: "Plot summaries do not normally require citations; the television show itself is the source, as the accuracy of the plot description can be verified by watching the episode in question. An exception to this rule may be shows containing plot details that are unclear or open to interpretation, in which case the different interpretations should be sourced to reliable sources."
Please can nobody be bold and remove all of the sources; we need to have a discussion and form a consensus first. Please add to the advantages/disadvantages list as you see fit and contribute to the discussion. DJ 21:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I am tired of being dragged over here from the U.S. article to discuss things that don't need discussing. This seems like a major non-issue in my eyes. Having the sources is a necessity due to the show's episodes not being live. Without the sources, who is to say what has and has not happened? And the plot summary idea is not even relevant; there is a major difference between fictional shows and reality television. We need the sources; end of story. – túrian patois 21:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Everyone, Another Believer has been working on List of Big Brother (U.S.) HouseGuests and has gotten the list up to FL-Class! This is a great achievement and the first FL-List for WP:BIGBRO as a whole. I honestly think that we can get more of the BB articles up to A-Class, GA-Class or even dare I say it FA-Class. I think that we should take a look at other reality based competition shows that have FA-Class articles and see what we can incorporate to make the BB USA/BB UK articles and other BB articles around the world to FA-Class. I believe this year the editors of the USA and UK articles have a great start here. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 04:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Posted to Big Brother 11 (U.S.), Big Brother 2009 (UK) and WP:BIGBRO. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 04:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Posted to
Big Brother 11 (U.S.),
Big Brother 2009 (UK) and
WP:BIGBRO.
...and it would be appreciated (and highly useful) if editors with knowlege of Big Brother could help review the article on its
nominations page. It would be amazing for
WP:BIGBRO to get its second FL in such a short space of time.
DJ
22:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
radiotimes.com has next Friday as the final, and that will be in print tomorrow. Darrenhusted ( talk) 19:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Apparently C4 confirmed it last week, but let's wait until tommorow and then put it in. DJ 19:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
There is a discussion occuring here on whether the colours of the sidebar are too similar. Please discuss the matter there, thanks. DJ 17:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the "Didn't nominate" square should be used, because they did nominate, be it knowingly or unknowingly. 12bigbrother12 ( talk) 20:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Or more accurately the twist has been revealed, Siavash "nominated" the first two people who he touched after leaving the diary room. Darrenhusted ( talk) 20:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I've reverted that. Not only did you WP:CANVASS MegaPedant into the discussion (your fault, not his), but the debate is still ongoing. If this was AfD, the consensus would be "No consensus, revert to keep" as there is a 2-2 scenario. Therefore, the article stays as it is until the issue is resolved. DJ 18:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
If you invite somebody into a discussion, you should approach them in an impartial way. This seems rather biased in my eyes. Also, you didn't inform anyone else, just this one user. It would have been more appropriate to simply inform other uninvolved editors at WP:BIGBROUK or WP:BIGBRO that the discussion was taking place, without adding a viewpoint (be it yours or somebody else's) DJ 22:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Personal attacks will get you absolutely nowhere. DJ 12:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Change it to "refused to nominate" then indicate the choice Big Brother made in the notes. Darrenhusted ( talk) 13:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
As stated previously, it is felt that this article could quite easily make it to GA after the series ends. IP protection on the article ends on 11/9 (or 9/11) and this is an ideal oppurtunity for a clean-up before taking the article to peer review. There are a couple of issues that need sorting and feel free to list any more and comment on what is here. DJ 11:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
May I suggest that the prize fund tasks be given a separate paragraph, just like the week 7 task, then each of the money tasks (such as Siavash's outfit) can be detailed. Also how is the housemates table organised? By alphabetical first name, last name, order of entry, order of exit, age? Because at the moment I can't see any of those. Darrenhusted ( talk) 00:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
surely that should be in the main article, not the 2009 series? Especially the quote about 200 hours etc. which has nothing to do with 2009. leaky_caldron ( talk) 13:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
It's not really a cancellation, as they will meet the contract for the eleventh series, but simply not a renewal of the current contract, I think cost more than rating is a factor. Either way a passing mention would be enough, the details should go on the general article and BB11 next year. Darrenhusted ( talk) 16:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
The Prize Fund being removed from £100,000 to £0 should be mentioned and the fact they will have chances to win it back in the remaining days left. The money was taken away as punishment for the housemate's attempted breakout on Day 83.
[5] (sorry it's a video) [6] [7]
Danda012 ( talk) 12:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually i can't edit due to my account being a new account and the page being semi-protected. Danda012 ( talk) 12:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
"On Day 83 after Big Brother told housemates they were being boring, housemates escaped through a fire door and ran through the studio. [8]. The housemates eventually all returned to the house. Later that evening, Big Brother informed housemates that as punishment for their breakout the prize fund would go from £100,000 to £0 and that over the remainder of the series they would have oppertunities to win back the prize money. [9] [10] [11]"
How is that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danda012 ( talk • contribs) 13:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Then work on it in a WP:SANDBOX. Dale 09:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I've cleaned it up now. Dale 10:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Earlier, I changed the "Not in House" bars of the noms table to "Not in the House", as the former is not a sentence. You wouldn't say "Bea was not in house" in a sentence, so why would you put it in a table? However, my edit was reverted because (apparently) we need to have a discussion before "changing anything". I've reverted it back now per WP:COMMONSENSE. Does this warrent a discussion? Dale 11:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
I've placed the unrelated content in a collapsable box. The "Not in House" was restored again and I changed it back for the same reasons. Does anybody have a decent reason why it should stay as "Not in House"? Dale 22:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think so, Sunny Jim! Without a reference that can't stand, I'm afraid. The outfit is the wrong colour, has no tail or ears and is only similar in that it is worn with separate collar and cuffs. The reality is it's just a ridiculous outfit whose intention is to amuse the audience at the expense of its wearer, though Siavash, to his credit, doesn't seem to care. MegaPedant ( talk) 14:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
This source doesn't make it clear whether they ordered a special prize on the list or that Big Brother just randomly gave them £20. Let's wait until the HLs and then make the edit. Dale 17:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
"Earlier today housemates bought a Mystery Prize as part of their shopping list. Big Brother gave them a cheque for £20, which will go towards the winner's prize fund." leaky_caldron ( talk) 17:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Spoiler for Friday refers to "a bunny rabbit playboy style costume". leaky_caldron ( talk) 18:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
On BBLB today (or should I say yesterday?) George Lamb said there will be another round of nominations on Sunday with an eviction on Tuesday, so I think we need another column added in the nominations table. AnemoneProjectors ( talk) 00:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
There would not be nominations on the final Monday anyway, as they open the lines to win in the final week, so the Sunday nominations would be the Week 14 nominations anyway, the table doesn't need to be altered. They nominate on Sunday, someone goes on Tuesday and then the final column reflects the final night on Friday, a note about the nominations taking place a day early will be enough. Darrenhusted ( talk) 13:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
As I posted below - it's WP:OR. The weekly summary and nom table sections are plot summaries and should therefore abide by what the programme states, even if that is not logical. Dale 18:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Should be mentioned that on day 88 (monday 30, August) that 4 houseguests threatened to walk: Charlie, Rodrigo, Siavash and Sophie Big Brother had obvioulsy convinced them to stay. -- 19:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)-- 19:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 ( talk • contribs)
The nominations which took place the week Sophia was evicted were in Week 1 NOT Week 2, Sophia was only in the house a week, not two weeks, so why is it not classed as Week 1, she was evicted on Day 9, as was Stephanie from last year, but Stephanie is classed as Week 1 evictee, Beinazir was evicted on Day 4, so why isn't the Week 1 list of nominations in Week 1 not just split in two like the Week 14 (which should be Week 13) list is?
That's pure WP:OR. The weekly summary and nom table sections are plot summaries and should therefore abide by what the programme states, even if that is not logical. Dale 18:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)