Talk:Big Brother (British TV series) series 12/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Weekly summary inaccurate, unreferenced and poorly written

The so-called weekly summary is incomplete, poorly written, inconsistent and fails to record essential details on tasks such as the fact Anderson held a VIP party and is not being updated to reflect current events.

The diary format used for Celebrity Big Brother is the format that has the consensus for the Channel 5 series. I propose to reintroduce a cut-down version of the narrative summary deleted by others. Either do it properly or don't bother. Big Brother is a social experiment and game show, not just a series of tasks. The table is not good and full of mistakes. The diary format was referenced and reflected events in the house. Either rememdy it or return to the running diary format with previous weeks condensed as I had been doing before. I shall be raising this with a moderator unless a solution is found. As it stands, the weekly summary is being hidden with the collapsible format. The summary is important as the social events are what the show is about, not just exits and tasks. And now I've found these things, here they are. Once a balance had been agreed between the social and mechanical events, any deleting of events will be deemed vandalism. I propose around a paragraph for old weeks and a daily summary of around 4 to 5 lines for the current week in prose format. And no censoring of adult themes, but a reduced mention of these, i.e. not recording every time they show their dick.86.176.153.183 (talk) 07:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Before you reintroduce any material I strongly encourage you to familiarise yourself with the detail of what Wikipedia is NOT. You will find the policy explained in detail here WP:NOT (just click the blue link since you have previously indicated that you do not understand hyperlinks). Social events may be important IN YOUR OPINION. As you will see from the policy however, it is highly likely that it will not be encyclopaedic. If it fails to meet the inclusion criteria it will be deleted. Also, bear in mind that you are writing about living people. This policy provides all the direction that you need - WP:BLP. If you infringe, not only will the material be removed immediately but persistent inclusion of inappropriate content about housemates that infringes policy will result in you being blocked. Finally, for the clarification of doubt, this policy WP:VAND describes what vandalism is. If I or anyone else remove material that infringes any of the policies detailed it will not be vandalism and your assertion that you will regard it as such is, I'm afraid, incorrect.

With all that said, good luck with your proposed contributions. Leaky Caldron 10:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, pointing out that the celebrity version from this year differs from the articles for all previous years isn't an argument to add detail to this page, it's an argument for editing down this year's celebrity page. Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 11:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, who cares? The diary entries did their job and people are now picking up on the show, as they did with CBB. I am surprised they stayed as long as they did, were only meant to be temporary from the outset. They can now access the social media sites, so as this isn't tablete of stones, have fun wasting time editing down an TV series that finished over a month ago. Job done, have your blank page as you wish, all the fans are on Twitter, nobody under 25 will bother with wiki for BB. (But many well over 25 spend their time deleting stuff all day.)86.176.153.183 (talk) 19:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Ratings section incomplete and confused

The ratings section with its incomplete table is a confused mess. As with the summary, either keep up and update or don't bother. The previous table at least gave the daily overnight figure with an easy comparison to the previous week. Remedy this now, my efforts were all up to date and referenced but I cannot continue to contribute to such shabby excuses for a summary and ratings table.86.176.153.183 (talk) 10:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The ratings table was changed to give the official viewing figures and will be updated once BARB have released the rest. --MSalmon (talk) 10:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopedic means ALL-ROUND picture of events, we need to see the whole picture

The reversion of the record of social interactions and day to day life events in the house makes the article un-encyclopedic as the term means ALL-ROUND view, not just the self-appointed judge's notable events. That is why the diary format truly gives and all-round view of events in the house in the way the table is failing to do badly. I propose a return to a narrative diary format in cut down form. Leaving out the social events in the house is not showing the whole picture and leaves out what the show is about.86.176.153.183 (talk) 10:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Please stop adding so many sections. It's not useful. This comment would have followed the one you placed two sections above, and would help keep conversation coherent. LadyofShalott 10:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

One step at a time - at least the last couple of comments were actually signed. Coherence can be added to the goals after reading policies. Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 13:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Yawn, would be nice to hear some different views other than the same old ones. It's open access that means the same three or four do not have the monopoly here and in time, I will get some other views here as this is pretty arid at present (with such arid repeat posters with so little to say).86.176.153.183 (talk) 14:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Heh, the point of an RfC is to bring in additional voices (and it is how I came to this article), but you objected to that. LadyofShalott 14:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, and that voice has added nothint to the article as it may as well be a blank piece of paper. But have it your way, and I trust you will not complain if I go through and delete anything that cannot be supported with at least one reliable reference.86.176.153.183 (talk) 19:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it is an indication that the subject matter does not have such a wide interest group as you imagine. Regardless, you could get a dozen people with views that are the same as yours, that would not make your content any more acceptable. If you've read WP:NOT as suggested many times, you will find the sub-section titled WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Leaky Caldron 14:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I also came here as a result of seeing the fuss about it elsewhere. Consensus is formed among whichever editors want to pitch in. How many people disagreeing does it take before one person recognises they are not only in the minority, but being argued against by people who care about the standards of this project and use its guidelines to actually guide them? Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 14:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Bye bye, see you'all on Twitter

Well, now the social media have come onstream, nobody under 25 will bother to look on here for updates, so any fans will be migrating over to Twitter. Job done.86.176.153.183 (talk) 19:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

"Social media" have been "onstream" as you put it, for weeks. As I suggested to you earlier, that's where your "skills" are probably better put to use. You've clearly wasted your time here. Leaky Caldron 19:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Certainly not, and once I get consensus, I'll be getting back on track with a more rounded account. The stuff about masturbation and pensises is all out there on the media so it hardly needs to be here any more.86.176.153.183 (talk) 14:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Start here...WP:CONSENSUS but unless you change your tune you will not achieve consensus so I'd be interested to know how you intend consensus building. Leaky Caldron 15:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, this is just further evidence that our assumptions that the IP began with no clue about how this place works were correct. I'm just disappointed that he/she hasn't realised that he/she could be widely reporting minutiae on Twitter where they belong and helping to write a more sober account for the longer term here. Also, I may be wearing rose tinted spectacles, but I seem to remember acquiring significant reserves of clue well before my 25th birthday - and I know there are a fair few good editors here who, in physical age rather than cognitive and emotional maturity, are adolescents. Well, I suspect that my work here is done - good luck keeping this article up to standards. Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 09:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll miss working with you, Doc I am about to be banned for harrasment and bullying. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 09:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

ANI discussion

I've taken a punt at reporting our favourite friend on WP:ANI if anyone cares to look. Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 21:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes and it is just the same two or three bugging my account. The latest edits I have made have been fine. Plus, the edits I contributed to BB2011 stood for 3 weeks unchallenged until a user started an edit war. You have admitted you have zero personal interest in the programme, so it's getting to look like a personal vendetta. I have been subject to foul language and an oppressive attitude from this and the two or three users with which he is in regular contact. So, your problem? I have done all I can to edit within the very restricted climate that has been imposed on this article.86.176.153.183 (talk) 23:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Can I suggest that you repeat that at ANI in your defense? Any admins looking at the discussion may not read the whole talk page, so they might miss this. You should also include links to recent diffs (see WP:D&L for details on how to do this) to show any recent edits that you think demonstrate that you're now acting in accordance with policy. Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 08:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

No need to "defend" as I'm not in the wrong. I have kept to the consensus in recent edits, so no case to answer.86.176.153.183 (talk) 11:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits do seem to be a bit more thought out (I don't necessarily think they're all OK, but you do seem to be trying to bear policy in mind now), so I've amended my comments on ANI. Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 13:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they are aren't they, but why has the ratings section been reduced to an out of date table and the notes removed? This is destructive editing and not helpful at all.86.176.153.183 (talk) 17:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I am going to withdraw from editing on this article. Been reading WP:ATAEW and I've been guilty of a few of these, think it's time to avoid. Good luck everyone, I may come back when I've had some time away. Apologies to 86.176.153.183 I think you are genuinely interested in this topic and are only guilty of a being new to wikipedia. Thanks everyone. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 17:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I think we have all gotten overheated over these issues. I am intending to stick to the agreed framework for the summary but would like to see some of the social interactions included in a concise and referenced form. Plus, doing the detailed updates was taking up too much of my time and it's up to the channel to improve its own coverage. The apology is accepted if genuinely meant. In turn, I am not putting back stuff about willies and bums here, I think we have seen enough of that on the show now. I hope other editors could try to be less arrogant and intimidating, some of the above could learn from this. Removing all the material I included on the ratings was hurtful and inconsiderate.86.176.153.183 (talk) 21:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The rating content was removed because it was not required. Nothing to do with having consideration for your feelings. Any non-encyclopaedic content will be edited/removed per policy, including trivial social interactions which breach WP:BLP, etc. WP is not here as a substitute for the failings of the C5 website. Leaky Caldron 21:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Only because you judged it so, you don't have ownership of this article. And I' very thick-skinned, so you haven't hurt anyone except those wanting a recent summary of overnight ratings figures.86.176.153.183 (talk) 22:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Policy, policy, policy. Nothing to do with my judgement, I just follow the policies, along with the other editors in the consensus. And if you are thick-skinned why say that "removing all the material I included on the ratings was hurtful and inconsiderate."? Leaky Caldron 22:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Content, content, content. Where's the point in banging on about 'policy' if it prevents the article saying anything meaningful about the topic? (No reply required). I am sure there is also a 'policy' on reverting referenced material and ownership in an impolite fashion.86.176.153.183 (talk) 07:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Your accusation of ownership is as wholly erroneous as it reprehensible. Please read WP:OWN and check just how many of the ownership traits you have exhibited, including:

• accusations of vandalism,
• snide personal attacks suggesting the article would be improved if certain editors no longer contributed to it,
• malformed complaints about other editors to various noticeboards,
• warnings not to change your content in your edit summaries,
• pushing your non-policy based POV,
• canvassing other editors to attempt (unsuccessfully) to sway them to your non-encyclopaedic, fancruft approach.

If you insist on continuing with unsubstantiated accusations against me or other editors a further approach to the appropriate admin/behaviour noticeboard will be inevitable. Leaky Caldron 10:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

No it isn't. You have removed large swathes of referenced text and also 'canvased' other editors in this edit war. I have done all I can to keep within the consensus. Editors have a right to communicate with whomsoever they like. But I will not pass further comment to avoid it being twisted as my opionons on what has been done have been made clear and while I know what your doing in keep posting here, I will keep my wise counsel for now.86.176.153.183 (talk) 11:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Facebook Official Site as a source

Whether or not it can be used should be confirmed at WP:RSN. As can be seen, it is not a foregone conclusion [1]. Leaky Caldron 22:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

It is one of the official mouthpieces of the programme from the BBUK site, so yes, it is a reliable source.86.176.153.183 (talk) 09:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

As an outsider to this endless sniping, User:Leaky_caldron looks like he has embarked upon a deliberate and concerted attempt to block everything 86.176.153.183 is doing, just for the hell of it. This sort of behaviour is just painful to read. I cannot imagine how frustrated 86.176.153.183 is feeling having this endless array of needless hurdles thrust in his path every single time he tries to contribute to this article. Leaky_caldron, your contributions to this talk page are testing my WP:AGF to its very limits. Consider yourself warned.

I will continue to remove every non-policy based contribution by whoever makes them and will be happy to justify my actions in the edit summary, talk page and at any appropriate noticeboard if necessary. Your warning is completely baseless and I will totally disregard it.Leaky Caldron 12:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course announcements on Big Brother's own official Facebook page are WP:RS. If anything, the main objection to such a source would lie in WP:PRIMARY. Deterence ^Talk 10:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

HM threatening to leave

See WP:NOTCRYSTAL. That is the policy guidance I have relied on for removing this speculation. Leaky Caldron 09:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

It should be included, by constantly reverting updates, you are making the article outdated.

The article does not need to be up-to-the-minute. WP is not a ticker tape. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER is clear as is the policy on speculation referred to above. Leaky Caldron 09:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Not ticker tape, exit confirmed as official, notable event in programme.86.176.153.183 (talk) 10:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

If I see WP:NOTNEWSPAPER linked one more time, my head will explode. Deterence ^Talk 10:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Mark has walked

Mark has left the house. References are in process. Do not revert or I will report.86.176.153.183 (talk) 10:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I have modified your entry. Here is why. WP requires facts to be sourced. When we say "someone has done x" that action needs to be contained in the source. If, instead, we interpret what someone has done, and use our own words to summarise the actions as "someone has done x because of y", then we are departing from what the quoted source supports. That is unacceptable for obvious reasons, including giving the wrong reason or slant on a person's behaviour, mental state etc. We cannot interpret stuff just because it fits the picture we have built up. This is all covered by implications not supported by the sources and I hope it helps to explain why many of your contributions are modified and why reliable sources are essential. Leaky Caldron 14:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Inaccurate edits and reversions

Take care when reverting accurately researched edits as Carl Sixsmith did with the Week 5 shopping task in the weekly summary. If you watch the clip, you will hear that Faye read out the term "snogged" in the instructions Big Brother gave her. Plus, a snog is more than a kiss, it is a passionate kiss which Aaron faked with Tom and did for real with Maisy and Faye. I have reverted this to the actual quote, remember, this is a light-hearted gameshow with young people and they use slang terms frequently.86.176.153.183 (talk) 18:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

See WP:COLLOQUIAL. This is an international website, not just aimed at teenage Brits Carl Sixsmith (talk) 19:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC).

But it is about a UK-based show aimed at teens and the changing terms to standardise language takes it out of context, snog is a commonly understood term worldwide.86.176.153.183 (talk) 21:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

"Snogged" is the correct term to use here. A snog is, as 86.176.153.183 points out, very different from a mere kiss. For goodness sake, Carl Sixsmith, stop looking for things to whinge about. Deterence ^Talk 19:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Another guide to ignore? Carl Sixsmith (talk) 19:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The above claimed to have left editing this article but is back to keep disputing minor edits which is unproductive. Wikipedia doesn't work like this, it cannot function if every other minor edit is subject to a dispute. It will be impossible to update this article otherwise.86.176.153.183 (talk) 21:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I also object to the above trying to make claims about my posting to other posters' talk pages. I am free to post to whomsoever I like, do not comment upon it or try to make anything sinister of it.86.176.153.183 (talk) 22:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Jem immunity

Big Brother told the housemates last Monday that Jem was immune from both nominations and eviction. Therefore her immunity lasts until next Friday (14/10) and the legend code 3 is correct.86.176.153.183 (talk) 18:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Jem is exempt from both nominations and the eviction (immunity means that a housemate can still nominate but cannot be nominated) --MSalmon (talk) 21:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

We'll agree to leave it at that then.86.176.153.183 (talk) 21:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

That is what it should have been in the first place --MSalmon (talk) 21:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Tried to be civil with you but it backfired.86.176.153.183 (talk) 22:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Nomination table - Week 7

The "Against public vote" and "evicted" sections for this week should take over two columns, to make it clear that the lines opened for the vote against Aaron and Jem that was cancelled, and that Jem was never facing the vote against the four listed. It is currently unclear from the table what has happened. 12bigbrother12 (talk) 17:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, that's fine by me --MSalmon (talk) 17:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Seems sensible Leaky Caldron 17:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the normal "Evicted" section should still be there as there is still an eviction, just the vote has been cancelled (spread across 2 cols)--MSalmon (talk) 17:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Deletions and reversions by LC and others

User "LC" and other are engaging in a new pattern of deleting and reverting updated and referenced material from this article and the housemates article. Removing reliable citations is unacceptable, stop now. This is verging on an edit war again and I will report any such users who keep reverting material to the moderators. Stop now!109.151.62.74 (talk) 18:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Your threats are terrors for children, not for me. I can stand by every edit as being in accordance with the source you have provided. I have not inferred or synthesised or otherwise interpreted the sparse details provided by your sources, unlike you, for example, stating that the eviction show had been cancelled earlier today. Nor have I, as you have claimed on my talk page, removed any sources. I did rename your source by removing the pointy "donotrevert" part of the refname. Leaky Caldron 19:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

TV ratings

Very useful table, but why is "Share %" at the top when the ratings are in millions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nvw (talk • contribs) 21:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Unopposed for over two weeks. Jenks24 (talk) 07:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

---

Big Brother 2011 (UK) → Big Brother 12 (UK)

Due to the discussion that can be found here, I don't think I need to explain it. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 18:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC) Unreal7 (talk) 14:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Big Brother 12 (UK). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100916234549/http://www.bbspy.co.uk/0912/news/ubb/endemol-applies-to-keep-big-brother-house to http://www.bbspy.co.uk/0912/news/ubb/endemol-applies-to-keep-big-brother-house

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Celebrity Big Brother 1 (U.S.) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:22, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Big Brother 1 (UK) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 12:31, 22 December 2018 (UTC)