Talk:Big Brother (British TV series) series 8/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

A week?

Because the launch fell on a Wednesday does week one end on Day 7, or with the first eviction on Day 10? Then each week would fall seven days after Day 10, that is with each eviction. Darrenhusted 15:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I would have said Week 2 started last saturday, but i doubt everyone will agree with that. Paul Norfolk Dumpling 19:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Week 1 should be up until the first eviction on Friday. This is how it's traditionally been, with a new week starting on day 11. I know it's technically longer than a week but it's unpractical to have weeks starting and ending on a wednesday or thursday. Seaserpent85 19:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with both of you, the weeks should end on Friday. Whether this means the first week only has 3 days, or 10 days is a tough question though. John Hayes 09:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Last year, the series started on Thursday and we counted the first week as that Thursday until the following Friday, which I think is the best way of doing it this year. Nothing "happened" during the first three days (no nominations, no evictions), so the nominations table for week one is effectively redundant. — Xy7 15:40, 06 June 2007

Well Ziggy happened, but that doesn't affect the nominations table. Maybe we should start on week two for that. John Hayes 16:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I still think the first ten days should be considered as Week 1 (day 10 is nearer to day 7 than day 14 after all). But I'll accept the separate weeks if it seems to be the consensus. — Xy7 16:48, 06 June 2007

1 week is 7 days, but it does make sense to make week 1, 10 days due to the fact BB started on a Wednesday. AxG ^{@ ►talk} 18:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I think consensus is for Week 2 to start on Saturday 9th June, at the moment the split has been made on Day 5, I'm going to edit it. Darrenhusted 22:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know, Dermot (on BBLB) said that Week one was Wednesday (day 1) to Saturday (day 4), then week 2 started on Sunday (day 5)... -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

(moved from below)

Can I just ask why we decided to have week one as 10 days or whatever? BB thinks of the first eviction as Week 2 [1] and personally, I think it makes much more sense their way... godgoddingham ³³³ 10:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

We have already discussed this at the top of this page. Please continue the discussion there. John Hayes 10:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

God, your link doesn't contradict the consensus, and seeing how the housemates entered day 1 with three hours left and then had only 48 hours after that before Ziggy joined them and there was no eviction on Day 10, it makes sense to lump the first 51 hours in with Day 3-10 and sum them up as Week 1, after all the only events in the first 51 hours were entries, the only other option is to cut it on day 7 which means nominations and evictions would fall in to different "weeks", and complicate the matter far too much. Darrenhusted 11:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, calm down, I was just asking why we decided it like this! That's fine! godgoddingham ³³³ 12:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Images

I can't help but notice the lack of images in this article. I'm not sure about the fair use regulation here, but if I took a screenshot of some house action, would it be allowed in the article? FireSpike 02:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

We use to have images of the housemates next to their info, but they were deleted and to be honest the picture available of seany is really un-nerving. we could do with a picture of the lay out of the house or something like that? steve 11:29, 10 June 2007

The housemate screenshots were removed from previous series due to there being one for each housemate - this was deemed to exceed the "limited number" allowed by fair use. However, over at List of The Apprentice candidates (UK), we got around that by taking 2 screenshots with half of the candidates in each. Whether or not that's achievable with the amount of hms in big brother, I don't know though. Seaserpent85 11:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Peraps we could have a montage of the housemates? steve 15:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking that maybe I could take some screenshots of things from tasks and such. Of course, we would have to be careful to not show a POV by having certain housemate depicted several times. FireSpike 17:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

A montage of screenshots or a montage of the publicity pictures, steve? Because the publicity pictures aren't allowed to be used. I think 2 or 3 screenshots showing groups of housemates would be good. One with Chanelle, Ziggy and Samanda, one with Carole, Nicky and Charley, etc. for example. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I added an image that contains four of the housemates. It counts as a screenshot under fair use, so I think we're good. FireSpike 00:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Terminology

Combined to make this more coherent - Discussion moved to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Big_Brother#Big_Brother_UK_terminology

No nominations/Not eligible/Ineligible

Just wanted to raise a point for the nominations table. I think that for week one, where there was only one housemate nominating, the terminology "no nominations" was fine. However this week, four housemates are nominating and I think that using "no nominations" for this situation is not really true. So, I propose a change to "not eligible" for cases like these, and only to use "no nominations" for weeks where there actually no nominations. What does everyone think? — Xy7 19:05, 10 June 2007

I agree, it makes it simpler and much easier to understand for someone who is not familiar with the process. Andrewjd 19:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Whilst I agree that "not eligible" would also be a good choice, I think "no nominations" is fine; read as a table, to me, it is clear that if a housemate has "no nominations" for a certain week, it means that they have, or had no nominations that week. Just by the fact that it is stated for all housemates makes it obvious that each "no nominations" is for each housemate. There are various other terms which could be used, but personally I don't see the value in changing it, as ideally it should then be changed in all other Big Brother articles for consistency. Finally I don't see the difference between your examples of week 1 and week 2, there were nominations in both weeks, surely by your logic that would mean we couldn't use "no nominations" for week one either. John Hayes 19:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are right in saying I think we should not use "no nominations" for week one either [I was only using it an example as it was vaguely acceptable when only one housemates was nominating, but not when four are]. But I disagree with it being obvious that "no nominations" is directed at each individual housemate. To me, and probably to many other people, "no nominations" immediately suggests that there were absolutely no nominations made by any of the housemates for the entire week, which is not true. Thanks, — Xy7 19:21, 10 June 2007

Well, if that's the case, I'm happy for you the change it, I do see the value in saving "no nominations" for when there are none, I don't mind which is used, but on a personal level I don't think it's worth the effort (assuming it's done for every Big Brother article), so I won't be changing it. John Hayes 19:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I think there is only one other article in which this applies. I'm quite happy to change any that do, but of course want a general consensus before I do so :) — Xy7 19:29, 10 June 2007

I've had a look, and I think it applies for series 2003 and 2006, and Celebrity Big Brother 2002 and 2006. Tra (Talk) 20:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

We need to check all the international versions too (Big Brothers not Wikipedias). John Hayes 23:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This search would help find them. Tra (Talk) 23:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well as I said, I'm quite happy to do them all. Just need some kind of consensus, that's all. — Xy7 16:54, 11 June 2007

I think it should be "not eligible" - and this talk page is for discussing this article - changes to other atricles should be discussed at Wikiproject Big Brother. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Will change this article and all other applicable United Kingdom articles later today unless I get any objections. Will leave other versions of the show to be changed by other people if necessary, as I am not familiar with their format. — Xy7 10:53, 12 June 2007

Geoking changed it back, but I have changed it to "not eligible" again as that is the consensus. John Hayes 06:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I just thought that for grammatical reasons, that if you're going to do this, it should read, "Ineligible" not "not eligible." Geoking66_talk 02:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. John Hayes 06:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Me, too, if that's the correct grammar. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Both are grammatically valid expressions as far as I know. "Not eligible" sounded (and looked) better in my opinion, but it's not important. — Xy7 16:08, 14 June 2007

Ditto godgoddingham ³³³ 10:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you continue this on the project talk page. Thanks. John Hayes 10:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Changed it! -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the style of the 'inelligible' entries to grey, as this makes the actual nominations easier to pick out from the table. Guinness 13:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted. It is already the standard practice to make 'Not in house' white, if you look at the tables for previous series. If you think it would be better to have them grey then you could perhaps bring this up at WT:BIGBRO. Personally, I think it's better to have a distinguishing colour for when a housemate is not physically in the House at the time of nominations, as it allows the table to double up as a chart of when each contestant was in the House. Tra (Talk) 15:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Left voluntarily/Walked/Withdrawn and Disqualified/Ejected

Why are these terms used when Big Brother itself uses "Walked" and "Ejected"? -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Those words aren't clear enough. Articles are written for a general audience, not just Big Brother fans that would understand what the words mean and how they are being used. J Di 17:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The consensus is Walked and Ejected, and has been for seven years, you need to raise this on the project page and get a consensus, rather then changing the terms on just this page. Darrenhusted 18:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Consensus already exists, see Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible and Wikipedia:Explain jargon. J Di 18:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

(ec) It's hardly jargon, and it's plain to see what "Walked" and "Ejected" mean - I think we should use them as Big Brother itself does. There clearly isn't a consensus on the use of these words, you're just hiding behind policies and guidelines that may or may not relate to this depending on opinion... -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It's plain to you, a person who I'm guessing watches Big Brother regularly enough to know what these words mean when they are used on the show or website. It isn't plain to every other person in the world. You're right, the policies I have linked to may or may not relate to this situation depending on one's opinion. Clearly, depending on yours, but not necessarily everybody else's, they don't. J Di 18:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with J Di, you have to assume the person reading the article has never seen Big Brother. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 18:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

And people walk away from things everyday, and are ejected from concerts all the time, consensus has been reached on this, but discussing it here does no one any good, if you feel so strongly then take it to the project talk page because this will affect ten articles within BB UK, not just this one. As it stands I don't think Walked and Ejected are particularly difficult to understand whether or not you have watched the show, there is always wikitionary for those who don't understand, but they are not jargon. Darrenhusted 18:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess you're right. I'm not bothered really. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 19:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want to look at Wiktionary definitions, then yeah, "ejected" is fine. "Walked", however, is not; Wiktionary does not have a definition suitable for Big Brother. J Di 18:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

How about 'Withdrew' instead of walked? Tra (Talk) 18:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds better than "left voluntarily". J Di 18:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm assuming that you are going to change all the previous years to match this one. Darrenhusted 23:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it might be better to wait a bit first after its been added to this article, because I've noticed from previous experience that people often tend to make objections to a change after it has been made, and if it ends up having to be changed back, I'd rather only have to revert one article than several articles. As it happens, an objection has been made (see bottom of page). Tra (Talk) 00:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I write from Italy. I want to explain that in foreign country (like Italy, of course), the word "walked" is extremely more clear than "withdrew", even if a person doesn't watch big brother.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.66.6.186 (talk • contribs) 11:35, 14 June 2007

I think walked is a much better word. "Withdrew" can mean "was withdrawn", as in they were removed, so it's less confusing than "walked" which always means that it was their own choice. Plus walked has always been used over withdrawn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.184.30.19 (talk • contribs)

I agree, but it seems that J Di has made his mind up. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please take a look at the discussion at #"Left voluntarily" and "Disqualified"? for why this was introduced. I can sort-of see your point about the ambiguity but personally, I think 'withdrew' leans more towards the contestant withdrawing themself. The important thing is that the term used should be understandable to someone who is unfamiliar with Big Brother. Regarding your point about 'walked' always being used, it would be quite easy to change all the Big Brother articles to use the preferred term to ensure consistency. Tra (Talk) 21:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Channel 4 uses "Walked", and so should we. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.184.30.16 (talk) 12:51, 14 June, 2007 (UTC)

It's not just about what Channel 4 uses, as mentioned above. John Hayes 13:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we should use walked. It's always been used to describe a BB contestant leaving of their own accord. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. It's been "walked" for seven years now. 139.184.30.16 13:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

What it has been is not important though, what is important is what it should be, all the other articles can be changed. I don't mind either, though probably prefer walked, but as a Big Brother viewer I am biased. John Hayes 13:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This page starts from a basic template and includes terms which are BB jargon; Walked, Ejected, Evicted, Nominated, Tasks. There meaning is not exactly as it is in everyday life but they do no obfuscate the gist of what is happening, and they are used within the show, and this article is about the show. It's called the Big Brother House, but I doubt most people would recognise it as a "house", in fact it is more like a bungalow but no one is going to suggest calling it the Big Brother bungalow, and essentially any changes here are going to affect all other years and I don't think this is the appropriate place to discuss changes to the basic terminology of BB, that should be moved to the project page. Darrenhusted 13:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Ideally it should yes, but realisticly, as Tra mentions on it, it doesn't get used much, it seems mainly to be used by the Project members, which isn't the entirety of the editing community for this page. I too would prefer this discussion to be there. John Hayes 14:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with all that Darrenhusted said. :) -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Then this is the link [2] so the discussion can continue in plain sight rather than hidden on this one talk page. And I think that the common terms should be left until consensus suggests a change. Darrenhusted 14:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Biased

"After the criticism they received for not handling the Celebrity Big Brother 2007 racism allegations properly back in January, they were quick to intervene after Emily used the word in conversation with Charley. On the other hand, Charley and Nicky subsequently used the same contentious word several times. No action was seen to be taken against them."

This paragraph is very biased. I can't be completely sure but the rule break was reffering to a fellow housemate as *the offensive word* not just saying the offensive word on television. For example i'll use a less contensious word. If I was at junior school and I called my teacher an idiot I'd be punished, but if I reffered to someone else calling a teacher an idiot I would not be. This paragraph implies double standards by only removing Emily but Emily was the only one who called somebody that word directly, tyhe others were just talking about its use. Please comment on what people think and I'll remove it if no objections. Hyperfeedback 13:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyperfeedback (talk • contribs) 13:11, 12 June 2007

I totally agree with you, I have removed this quite a few times already, but it keeps on coming back. John Hayes 13:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It's factually accurate, and of course the disparity in treatment has been remarked upon elsewhere, e.g. "Parr, who is white, was thrown out of the house while little was made of the fact that housemate Charley Uchea, who is black, also used the word..." [3]. Nick Cooper 13:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It is factually accurate, but it is also biased. It doesn't explain, as mentioned above, that they were saying it in reference to her saying it. John Hayes 14:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Nick cooper I would see your point if Charley called another person that word, maybe a another black contestant , but she didn't. She used the word to discuss whether it should be used by Emily. If Emily didn't say it it would not even have been said! There is a difference between discussing the word and calling someone it. There is no evidence to suggest it is an just evictable offence to say the word. I can't be sure but surely the offence is directly calling someone it which the two other contestants did not do. The link you provided has nothing to do with this story!Hyperfeedback 14:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The explanation given by the producers was that it constituted "unacceptable behaviour," which includes, "behaving in a way that could cause serious offence to either their fellow housemates or members of the viewing public including serious offence based on the grounds of race." It has been widely accepted that Emily's comment was not meant maliciously, and certainly Charley's initial reaction was that she had used the word per se, not that it had been directed at her. The logical inference of this is that context is immaterial, and that it is the word itelf that is inherently offensive, as is speculated in general terms in the above-referenced BBC article, and certainly that is a view that has been widely expresssed since the incident. That being the case, any use of it by anyone must therefore constitute "unacceptable behaviour." Nick Cooper 16:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Total number of nominations

I just wondered if perhaps we could/should have a table like the actual nominations table for the total number of nominations, done on a weekly basis, like this...

	Week 1	Week 2	Week 3	Week 4	Week 5	Week 6	Week 7	Week 8	Week 9	Week 10	Week 11	Week 12	Total
Amanda	0	0											0
Carole	0	2											2
Chanelle	0	0											0
Charley	0	0											0
Gerry	Not in house	0											0
Laura	0	0											0
Nicky	0	1											1
Sam	0	0											0
Seány	Not in house	0											0
Shabnam	1	3											4
Tracey	0	2											2
Ziggy	0	0											0
Lesley	0	Walked (Day 11)											0
Emily	1	Ejected (Day 9)											1

...instead of just the total across the whole series. Would be easier to see how many nominations each person actually got each week. We'd have one table for nominations given and one for nominations received. Good idea or no? — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 20:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It is a very good idea to put this table on the page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.131.27 (talk) 21:12, 12 June, 2007 (UTC)

No. Tables should be minimised as much as possible, all that info is there to see already. I would actually argue the total nominations should be removed as well, as it is not even a Big Brother concept, it doesn't add to the article, but as it is a standard in Big Brother Wikipedia articles it can stay. John Hayes 22:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Also there is no need for it to be so big, the other table is only so big to fit in all the names, here there are just numbers. if your going to do it, do something like this, but I still think it's not needed at all: John Hayes 22:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Week	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
Amanda	0	0
Carole	0	2
Chanelle	0	0
Charley	0	0
Gerry		0
Laura	0	0
Nicky	0	1
Sam	0	0
Seány		0
Shabnam	1	3
Tracey	0	2
Ziggy	0	0
Lesley	0
Emily	1

Actually the small table works, as long as all columns can be the same width (not sure I like it centred on the page though). I never liked the total number of nominations table as it can be misleading, as someone evicted earlier on might appear more popular because they got less nominations than someone who stayed to the end... which is why I thought it made sense to total them week by week. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 23:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it shouldn't be centered on the page itself, i've removed that here now. Well you could add the total column, standardise the width, and left align, that was just a suggestion. John Hayes 23:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Ratings Table

The complete ratings table was added again to the article (after the seperate page was deleted), I removed it again. As was previously agreed, and recommended on that articles deletion page, important ratings should be included in the prose, anything else is not part of Wikipedia. John Hayes 16:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Podcast

The podcast is weekly, and was done both on the first and second friday, they are available to download at iTunes Store, Lesley did the second one, I would at it to the weekly summary table but when I go to edit I can't find where to put it. Darrenhusted 23:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been putting the weekly podcast information in the "Tasks" section as the first one was classed as a task.Babygurl1853 16:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Considering the huge amount of sources this page has, and which is likely to increase, would it be a good idea to set them up in a scroll box in a manner similar to the Madeline McCann article? Spugmeister 10:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

My personal preference is no, as it's the bottom of the article anyway, and doesn't look half as good in a scroll box, but let's see what the consensus is. John Hayes 10:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I just think it makes the page look much longer then necessary without a scroll box, but I'm not overly bothered either way. Spugmeister 11:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the scroll box is a good idea, there is no real reason for dedicating so much space to sources and I agree that it looks unsightly. I must admit that I didn't expect something so trivial to be discussed, so apologies for my recent reverted change. RaseaC 17:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that in my opinion the scroll box loos good, and somewhat tidies up an article. Bearing in mind that this article now has roughly as many references as the last Big Brother series, something needs to be done. I would support the scrollbox idea. Andrewjd 20:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the scroll box looks terrible, and it makes it so much harder to get an overview of all the sources. You have to remember it's at the bottom of the article, so it's not like anyone has to scroll past it, but it makes it so much easier for someone who is working on the references (as I do). John Hayes 23:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree (which I think is the consensus of the other replies too). The scroll box does improve the aesthetics of the page and doesn't really affect overall readability.RaseaC 23:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a question of what's more important to someone I guess. I work on, and read, the sources far more than I do the article itself. If the consensus is for the scroll box then so be it, but it's going to make daily tasks I do (for example scanning all sources for duplicates), that much harder, for almost no gain. John Hayes 07:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I support the use of the scroll box leaky_caldron 11:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh well, 3 to 1 with 1 not bothered, I guess is a consensus, I don't like it but I accept the decision. John Hayes 11:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Made the change, but used reflist rather than references, so that it still uses the small format. John Hayes 11:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Request

Could someone with AWB please go through the page and make sure it's spelt "Seány", not "Seany", all the way through, and that "Big Brother" (when referring to the show, not the fictional character who they talk to in the diary room) is italicised (also, "Celebrity Big Brother"). -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I notice this has also been applied to the titles of the references. Should it really? John Hayes 16:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You don't need AWB to do that, you can just copy to notepad, use edit>replace and paste back to Wikipedia. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 18:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Colour?

Someone should colour the 'Not in House' red.81.159.59.153 21:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)�

But then it might get confused with the colour for evicted. Tra (Talk) 21:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I can see the shade of red used in the 'Evicted' row in the table has been changed to match the rest of the table. I think this improves the table. Does anybody object to making this colour change for the other series? Tra (Talk) 23:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I thought it was a mistake as it was (nearly?) the same colour as "Ejected"! I like it though. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

2 Male Housemates

What happened to these two guys the Sun predicted were going to join? No sign of them yet. PatGallacher 00:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Next time when you make a topic can you make your own section please? Regarding your question, I believe that they are still joining because the statement is still on the main article but inside I think they are fake and rumours that are obviously not coming true. (Pleasantview 08:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC))

Gerry an Seány? Billi, Jonathan, Liam and Brian? Oh, and Wikipedia is not a forum. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe they are refering to the two rumoured housemates, listed in the article. We should probably remove that bit as it's only a rumour (even if it is sourced). If they do turn up after all we can mention it. John Hayes 09:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It is obviously a place where people make irrelevant statements. We are talking about some guy from Essex and some bisexual that were supposed to come in. And yes I do agree this isn't a forum. (Pleasantview 08:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC))

As I already said on this talk page (think the discussion is archived now), I interpret WP:NOT#FORUM liberally in that while a discussion about who the most attractive female in the house is would obviously be inappropriate, if there are press releases about upcoming possible developments then there's the possibility of improving the article.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Nominations confusion

Last night Shabnam was shown two nominations, but we have her as having received three... I know there was earlier confusion over Seány's nominations, so did he actually nominate her? — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 14:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought he may have nominated Gerry instead? — Xy7 14:31, 16 June 2007

This says he nominated Tracy and Gerry. Tra (Talk) 14:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I know it's original research but I wrote down from watching the show that he nominated Tracey and Shabnam. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 14:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Looking at this YouTube video, at 6 minutes in he nominates Tracy, then at 7 minutes in he nominates Shabnam, then at 9:20 minutes the voiceover says "With 3 nominations, Shabnam will face the public vote, as will Carole and Tracey, who each received 2 nominations. Nicky received 1 nomination. [The other housemates] didn't receive a single nomination." Tra (Talk) 15:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

So did the confusion reach the Big Brother house and they forgot that Seány nominated her? — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 21:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, this edit was made to the nominations table before the show was broadcast, and the nominations are correct apart from the order and the Gerry/Shabnam mix up. This may mean that the nominations were leaked beforehand (with errors), and external sources based their own tables off this information. Tra (Talk) 21:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't find it now but someone did say they had seen wrong information beforehand which was added to the page. Interestingly after the nominations had been shown, the papers still said Seány nominated Gerry. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 23:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the incorrect information was in an embargoed press release, which would explain why the papers printed it and why it must have leaked so easily. Tra (Talk) 00:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Chanelle Adopted

I noticed someone removed the whole Chanelle adopted comment, but was quickly reverted by Darrenhusted. I actually agree with removing it, yes she has mentioned it, and yes it has been mentioned in the press, but is it really important to an article on Big Brother? John Hayes 13:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It is just as important as any other comment in the articles, its a part of her life, there is so much else in the other housemates comments that is way more useless info. -- Chris as I am Chris 15:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would say we should get rid of that too. This was just an example which noticed due to the events above. John Hayes 16:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, this is not one of the pieces of information that should be included according to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Big_Brother#Housemates. Therefore this, and other similar unimportant infomation, should be removed. John Hayes 16:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't see too much of a problem with gradually trimming down each section. I suppose the main issue is that it might make the article temporarily appear biased towards particular housemates but as long as they all eventually get trimmed down, this shouldn't be too bad. Tra

(Talk) 17:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm going to get on with that then. John Hayes 22:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I put it back because I feel that either all the information is kept or all of the housemates information is trimmed, but selective trimming doesn't help. If you remove a large amount of the stuff to meet the guidelins I won't revert it. Darrenhusted 16:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the revert, just wondering about the general principle. John Hayes 18:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Shabnam and Tracey

It would appear that these subsections blend into one. I believe "(Tracey)is a cleaner... should be part of a new subsection re Tracey Unfortunately don't exactly know how to best alter section. Can anyone help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davinashetty (talk • contribs) 17:09, 18 June, 2007 (UTC)

I fixed it. The problem was that the ref you added was missing a </ref> tag to close it, so it made the section heading and everything else up to the next ref become 'part' of the reference (consequently making them not appear in the main body of the article). Tra (Talk) 17:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

House plan

I was wondering if someone would be kind enough to create a plan of the house like the excellent one we got last year. Is this at all possible? — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 18:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

That was supplied by BB, particularly as they wanted to reveal the House Next Door, no doubt if such a twist occurs again then we will get a plan. I suppose someone could try to sketch something. Darrenhusted 18:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Some newspapers and websites have already made their own House plans, but the problem is that theirs could just be estimations of the room sizes based on photos. Tra (Talk) 18:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, they showed us a plan of the house and someone made their own plan based on that. Well I hope we get the opportunity again this year. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 23:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Colour for Ejected

I much preferred the one it was before. Someone change it please. :) 139.184.30.17 16:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

 Done I presume you're referring to the lighter shade of orange. Tra (Talk) 18:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

That's the one. The darker orange didn't fit as well as the "walked" yellow and "evicted" red. Very pastel-y. If that's the right word. :S 139.184.30.18 23:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Total number of nominations

Wouldn't the table be better if the housemates were listed in order of eviction rather than alphabetically? It makes more sense that way because the longer a person stays, the more nominations they can receive. - LeonWhite 01:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep. I agree. I still don't think it should be there at all though, as total number of nominations a) is not part of big brother b) doesn't really mean much as the longer you are in the more you will get, even if you are popular. John Hayes^talk 07:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Although this is not always true, Stu in BB5 was evicted without getting a single nomination. Darrenhusted 13:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

My point exactly, number of nominations has little relevance to anything. John Hayes^talk 13:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I personally find the table interesting, but I would agree that the table should be changed to order of eviction, as it is in the housemates list, and the nominations list. I'll go and do that now, but if anyone disagrees, feel free to revert the edit.Babygurl1853 16:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

On the number of nominations bit, it has tracey listed as receiving no nominations, and Ziggy as receiving 5. This is obviously just a typo, and it would be much appreciated if it was corrected, as it can be a bit confusing. 82.44.19.189 18:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

What about the suggestions given in the section with the same title above? — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 21:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Names reorganised

Just to note, I reorganised the names to ordering by last name (names are not to be sorted by first name unless that is the only name they are commonly known by, per policies) so I just thought I'd note that here. - ^Estoy_Aquí^{(t • c • e)} 22:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

They're only really known by their first name while in the house, though. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not a very compelling reason - anyone in that situation would only be known by their first name while in the house. I don't think they're sufficiently notable just from the show, to make their names exempt to Wikipedia, and standard English sorting rules. The housemates are hardly going to be going around saying things like "Shabnam Paryani, stole my banannas" ;). - ^Estoy_Aquí^{(t • c • e)} 22:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I undid it for the reasons outlined on Estoy Aqui's talk page. Triangle e 22:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It's clearly reasonable for them to refer to each other by first name only (and therefore shouldn't affect sorting). I'm guessing what Channel 4 refers to the housemates as is the main factor here (like I said, no matter what, to refer to each other by full name is unreasonable to expect). But what Channel 4 refers to them as can easily be equated to how, for example fictional TV show characters are usually referred to by first name within the show, or by channel presenters (e.g. Peter Griffin), but remain sorted by last name in categories on Wikipedia. Maybe you won't agree its parallel, but I really see it as such. - ^Estoy_Aquí^{(t • c • e)} 22:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that I agree with what Estoy says, it is policy and there is no important reason not to stick to it. I do think another choice would be to rename the headings to only include the name they are known as in the house, with content under the heading using their full name, that way they can stay in alphabetical order, by their first name. John Hayes^talk 22:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be better to keep the surnames in the headings, since people are normally generally referred to by their full names in page names etc. I presume the page Estoy is referring to is Wikipedia:Categorization of people#Ordering names in a category. If the order does get changed, then the order in the infobox and for other series should probably be changed as well. Tra (Talk) 22:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Right, well while I'm writing this, I don't have much time (just popped in to check about the discussion) so if someone wants to do it there's always my previous edit which can be used as a guide (since the individual sections have been edited since). - ^Estoy_Aquí^{(t • c • e)} 13:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes you are right, I had forgotten the impact on the page names (when and if they are created). Well I think we have a consensus and the backing of policy, so lets change it. For all the other articles we should discuss on the project talk page. John Hayes^talk 14:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I've done the main list of housemates, but haven't got time at the moment to do the rest. can someone do this? John Hayes^talk 14:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I've done the infoboxes for BB8 UK and BB UK. I left the nominations table since that only uses first names and I'll probably do the other articles later as long as no-one objects at WT:BIGBRO. Tra (Talk) 15:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I am very against sorting by surname. When are housemates EVER organised by last name? Big Brother doesn't even release their last names! And no other BB Wikipedia page has followed this format (For example The 2006 BB UK). This is also the order all other websites sort them by (including official big brother websites, and their affiliates, such as Virgin Media). But fine, if the general consensus wants this changed, they can change every other Big Brother. Babygurl1853 17:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. No-one really knows their surnames, and they have always been sorted by their First names... godgoddingham ³³³ 20:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Yea, they should be sorted the same way Big Brother and Channel 4 sort them, and thats by first name, because thats the way we know, i.e. Ammanda first, Ziggy last. -- Chris as I am Chris 20:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Their surnames are irrelevant to the show. I don't even think surnames should be in the section headers (they could be mentioned in the housemate descriptions though). - LeonWhite 03:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I think we should remove the last names from the infobox and just have the name they are known by in the house. Having surnames complicates things and sorting by surnames makes the infobox very hard to use. Seaserpent85 10:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

This is REALLY annoying. I'm finding the page CONSIDERABLY harder to refer to now the names have been "organised" in this way. You have to be able to remember each housemate's surname in order to refer to the one you want to. These articles are supposed to be written for people to refer to - makes it considerably harder to do this if the names are organised in a way incompatable with how they are referred to on Big Brother. Triangle e 13:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

When you say "refer to" a housemate, do you mean scrolling down the page to find the one you want or being able to make links like Big Brother 2007 (UK)#Ziggy without knowing the surname? If the latter then this can be solved by putting <span id="First name"/> before each heading. As for the order of sections, I'll put it back to ordering by first name for now as there seems to now be a consensus that this order would be better. Tra (Talk) 13:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The former - for when you're using the article as a punter rather than an author. Triangle e 14:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

That's much better! Does anyone think we should just have first names in the infobox and seperate headings and then their full names in their info section? Like in the BBAustralia articles? godgoddingham ³³³ 14:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if we are going to order by first name, on the basis that big brother doesn't use surnames, which is valid enough, then we should only list the first names, in the infobox, and section headings. The surname should only be in the info. John Hayes^talk 08:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Correction, given name rather than first name, as in Ziggy rather than Zac or Zachary John Hayes^talk 08:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Hiya, can i just say that i like to veiw there surnames, for when i look back over previous series. All the other series have there last names, so why cant BB8 have them, Does it really matter what whey they are organised. If alphabetically is to hard then why not do it they way they entered but can we please have there surnames?User:Andybigbro2

You can see their surnames in their individual sections, but as they aren't used in the show it makes no sense to use them in the section headings and infoboxes. Also it doesn't matter what we did for previous series, that can be changed, go to the Big Brother Wikiproject talk page for that. John Hayes^talk 07:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the previous BBs with seperate HM sections (BB1,5,6,7) but BB2,3,4 don't have them so I thought it would be best to leave surnames until that's done... godgoddingham ³³³ 11:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Hiya, IIt looks Dull and lonely if its just their first names. I would rather visit Wikipedia if it had there last name, Isnt wikipedia meant to have Info, then why not in the box. And it also makes it look more prefessional. I dont like it as much. Sorry :(

Well I disagree, it doesn't seem any more "dull and lonely" to me, but that's just my opinion. There isn't any less info, their full name is still the first line of their info section, but they are only ever refered to by the first name, in fact in all the copy that is written, we never refer to their first names, so is there really any need for it in the infobox? John Hayes^talk 16:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes! Why does it have to change this series cant it be the same. I liked it the way it was

Chanelle/Ziggy

Should we keep the information and sources on them breaking up in, now that they've got back together? I get the feeling by the end of the series we'll have something like "they got together, then ended it, then got back together, then ended it"...etc.Babygurl1853 20:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep 'em all. The reflist for this series will be five hundred long, may as well keep every one, says lots of cite tags. Darrenhusted 01:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

What often happened with the previous series is that once the article started to get too long, material would get trimmed down, but leaving the references in place. For example in BB7 UK week 10, there is the sentence "Throughout the week, housemates completed the "Prison" task where "The House Next Door" had become a prison.^{[63][64][65][66]}" If you click through to each of the references, it can tell the whole story without using up too much space on the page. Perhaps something like this could be used to allow the relationship to be very briefly covered, e.g. "Ziggy's relationship with Chanelle varied throughout the series" followed by the relevant references or even better, an article showing what happened over a long period of time rather than just individual events. Tra (Talk) 01:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Chanelle Cleanup

Currently has been severely vandalised. Pronto fix needed (but I can't edit it myself) (Drawntowardsthewater 21:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)).