Talk:Big Brother (British TV series) series 9/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Thursday 5th June

Should we be really saying that BB9 will start on the 5th of June. In23065 (talk) 09:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It has been reported on Digital Spy. Yes, it could change but until then, the post on the article reads "rumoured". Why you keep reverting it who knows seeing as its a sourced article. It was also reported in The Mirror on the same day. 172.159.137.205 (talk) 10:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Digital Spy Reported on the mirror and have not actually reported it as their own story. I suggest until it has been officially confirmed that you leave it. In23065 (talk) 19:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

And i suggest you be the one who leave it. You've been reported for your constant reverts. You don't rule this site you know. Any information that has a source should be left on the appropriate page UNTIL it is proved otherwise - and seeing as you have no source yet... 172.213.250.215 (talk) 21:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Dunno, The Daily Star seems to think it is done and dusted. Don't care for weasel words like rumoured though. Please check out verifiability guidelines before entering into an all out edit war. BpEps - t@lk 21:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

We've never had rumored dates before. If your leaving dates in because they have sources then I have 17 sources all suggesting different dates.--Hiltonhampton (talk) 23:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I have removed all of the dates and if anyone feels the need to put them back in they will be reverted ASAP. In23065 (talk) 23:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Alternative dates are not a problem in Wikipedia only verifiability is. The Daily star source def classed as a verified source - can we have your 17 sources now please? BpEps - t@lk 21:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well Star magazine has reported 6th June, The Sun has reported May, The Mirror has reported May, as have Digital Spy and The Daily Record. Also the Star isn't exactly a reliable source seen as last year they print an logo that turned out to be fan made. Now I have a lot of things going on right now so I don't have time go and get links for all of these but I hope you trust me they're true. Most importantly C4 has said May.--Hiltonhampton (talk) 00:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

citation needed above has C4 commented since 5th April 2008? -- BpEps - t@lk 01:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Not to the press no but in a email to HQ. Not sure if that counts though.--Hiltonhampton (talk) 16:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

YOU ARE NOT A MOD! YOU CANNOT MAKE THAT DECISION. PEOPLE ARE ENTITLED TO POST ANY INFORMATION TOWARD AN ARTICLE ASLONG AS IT IS SOURCED - THEY DON'T DO IT JUST FOR YOU TO BE PETTY AND PATHETIC AND HAVE IT REVERTED, JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T BELIEVE IT! 172.216.208.133 (talk) 15:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

"PETTY AND PATHETIC" says the person who edited User:In23065 YOU are petty and pathetic you little child (If anyone want to see what he did go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:In23065&diff=205343770&oldid=198639112). And you will be banned from editing soon. So good look with your tragic little life hope I dont have to speak to you again. In23065 (talk) 17:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Says the sad little WANKER who spends all his pathetic time on this pile of shite editing pages with shite HE CANNONT PROVE!!! YOU ARE A REAL WANKER! AND YOUR THE ONE WITH A SAD TRAGIC LIFE - HERE'S TO IT BEING EVEN MORE TRAGIC!!! LOSER! BOO HOO TELL EVERYONE WHAT I DID - CANT FIGHT YOUR OWN BATTLES!!! PATHETIC BABY!!

Does anyone have any suggestions in what we do with this vile person? And by the way I never told anyone to ban you they just obviously think you are as much of as idiot as I do. In23065 (talk) 23:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

God saw what he did and it looks like someone needs to chillax pronto!--Hiltonhampton (talk) 00:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Jan Hamilton

Should we include her. I don't think we should as it is mere speculation and even if she was going in she will have been told she can't now the papers have caught wind of it according to official BB rules. I have removed it.--Hiltonhampton (talk) 23:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Lock

Can we please Semi-protection this page, Semi-protection prevents edits from anonymous users (IP addresses), or from accounts which are not autoconfirmed. Due to the constant edits that go against the Wikipedia policy, I really think we need to do this. In23065 (talk) 17:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, almost everyday info about the aunch has had to be removed or what is written in the infobox. It's getting annoying.

I have changed it from "late May to the first week of June" to just "the first week of June" as Big Brother is listed in the Channel 4 listings for June and is not mentioned in May.--Hiltonhampton (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I have requested for the page to be lock after a rush of vandalism. I hope you all respect my decision In23065 (talk) 23:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Semi-Protected for a month for now. One editor blocked indefinitely. Page is watchlisted. --Rodhullandemu 23:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.In23065 (talk) 23:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I had no clue this page had this much vandalism until today. Wow for the talk page as well. I just noticed what happened today because I forgot to add this article to my watchlist due to Big Brother 9 (U.S.) but wow. I have it added now. And in a weird sense this is cool that the page was protected on my birthday. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 07:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Happy Birthday. It is also cool that the page will be come unlocked on the day of the launch. In23065 (talk) 09:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Archive Bot

I have set up a bot to archive discussions seven days old from the last comment. This will really come in handy when the season starts. Plus the {{talkheader}} will automatically update with archive page numbers. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 07:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Davina quitting?

I just noticed that Davina quitting Big Brother is included in the article. Since the source is from the unreliable tabloid News of the World isn't safe to say that is a rumor? I am sure it is and shouldn't we wait for more reputable sites to post this or wait to hear from Davina, C4/Endemol themselves. It just seems like a rumor due to the fact she is rumored to quit after every upcoming season at this point. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 16:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It can be reworded to state "It is rumoured that..." perhaps. Al Tally (talk) 17:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yea but Wikipedia isn't a place for rumors and lets face it News of the World isn't very trustworthy sometimes. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 22:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree about removing it. Untill she confirms it, it's not officially true. Similar rumour occur EVERY year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.111.86.158 (talk) 22:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I heard this too on digital spy.... i so hope its not true!! :( --Mikey-is-lost (talk) 16:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Whether it's true or not, all sources appearing on the web indicate she is committed to presenting the forthcoming series. -TonyW (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Caroline Flack

I have found a source that Caroline Flack will be the presenter of BBLB [1], I am not adding the information, as the website concentrates on the Eurovision Song Contest than Big Brother. -- [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 17:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

May 30

I log into the C4 press site everyday for current news on BB as now is normally the time they start to post things. Just logged into the C4 press site today and was presented with week 22 listings(Saturday 24 May 2008 to Friday 30 May 2008), it states, on Friday 30th May that 8:00pm as TBD(Which is the normal time the launch would start at) and 1:45am as TBA(When the all night live feed is likely to begin).

Now if C4 were to follow suit on the previous Friday (the 23rd May), they would show the next episode in the series of DEADLIEST CATCH.

Now this may be nothing, but I find it ironic that the gap between the TBD is until 10:00pm, the normal running time of launch night. And 1:45am, when the Live feed would begin.

This seems to indicate that BB won't start on June 5 after all.--Hiltonhampton (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Sponsorship?

Isn't Virgin Media sponsoring Big Brother but with the primary focus on their mobile brand? Wasn't it the same with Celebrity Hijack that they just decided to focus on their mobile brand. If so the article should be written as such. 01:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The official press release (which I don't have access to presently so don't ask) said that the sponsors being Virgin Mobile and that they are considering pushing some other products as well but as of now it it just Virgin Mobile. We should go by what the papers and press release are saying which is Virgin Mobile until they say otherwise.--Hiltonhampton (talk) 13:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The Article move not needed.

The article move was not needed. WP:BIGBRO has clear guidelines that the UK edition should follow the style of Big Brother 200x (UK) not Big Brother x (UK). The article should have not been moved without discussion and now is weird for the previous articles to follow the pattern while this article follows the pattern of the US naming scheme. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 23:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

And for discussion purposes one of the reasons the UK follows the naming scheme it does (if I remember right) mainly due to the celebrity edition. Channel 4's BB Archives calls CBB 2005 Celebrity Big Brother 5 despite it being third overall. The same was brought up with the 2007 series, the C4 archives, again, say the 2007 edition was the seventh CBB edition despite it being fifth overall. The UK uses years for its articles to avoid confusion. That was a big key point last time I believe. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 23:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

House pics

Should we add that house pictures have been leaked today???89.100.221.196 (talk) 18:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)E-To-The-Izzo

• Personally, my vote is yes, because it's relevant considering it's not a rumour, it's evidence that the previous stories about the house have been true. I think it should be added. Sky83 (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added in a description of the main features of the house, that will be enough until the the series launch.

Vandalism

Can someone semi-protect the article or something for now? Thanks Exxy (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Some of it has been restored, but it is missing a lot of real content that was added.Trious (talk) 20:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Can someone just fill out the housemate details from the profiles here http://www.channel4.com/bigbrother/housemates/ and lock it for tonight. There'll be lots more in tomorrows papers --Tshannon0 (talk) 21:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Failed to apply?

"a round up of the previous day's events will be read by mock news reader 'Dai Davis Peach', who failed to apply for the seventh and eighth season of Big Brother."

Is this sentence correct? Perhaps it's supposed to mean "whose application for [BB7+8] failed" rather than "failed to apply"? Evercat (talk) 00:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Since it's not sourced, we can't check, so I have simply removed it. Guinness (talk) 12:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:Big Brother 2008 (UK) unnecessary

Now that the article is semi-protected and the show has actually started, wouldn't it just be simpler and more effective to put Big Brother housemates back as the regular template? Geoking66_talk 21:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:Big Brother 2008 (UK) should be deleted as it is not needed. It is just a copy of Template:Big Brother housemates except it is set up to only be used with this series. I propose delete and use the regular template just like every other Big Brother article does. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 21:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Nominated Template:Big Brother 2008 (UK) for deletion. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 22:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but with the original we cannot change to the colours. StewieGriffin! • Talk 20:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Change the colors? The colors in Template:Big Brother housemates and Template:Big Brother endgame were decided upon after lengthy discussion so the two templates would be compatible with any version of Big Brother on Wikipedia regardless of format. There is no reason to change any of the colors in either template or is there any reason as to why the UK version should have an exclusive color group apart from the AU version or the US version. Here is the list of colors that was decided upon after lengthy and I do mean lengthy discussions:

     - Winner (Endgame Only)

     - Nominated (Housemates)/Runner-Up (Endgame)

     - Head of Household* (Housemates Only)

     - Evicted/Re-Evicted

     - Walked

     - Ejected/Expelled

     - Extra Color 1 (three)

     - Extra Color 2 (five)

• The Head of Household color is used in the American, African, Australian and Philippine versions.

Another reason why the colors are the way they are is so when viewers go to any Big Brother articles these colors are the same in the infoboxes and the nomination tables and voting history tables. If a color needs to be changed it can be done by editing the actual template itself but the colors should not be modified without a discussion. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 22:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

And look at my sandbox for an example for when someone is evicted, ejected, nominated, and walked. The colors seem to work to me. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 22:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

As a sidenote as it has to do with the template, remember when we had both the first and surnames in the template (until about 75% of the way through 2006)? I think that we should go back to that. It gives the template more prominence than its current form which is a thin line on the right of the screen and it looks more professional. Geoking66_talk 00:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I remember the endgame template having last names until 2006 but I don't remember them on the housemates template due to the "intricate features of template syntax" bit. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 00:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

We could probably get away with just adding last names to section headers once the housemates are split off into their own article. I don't know why so many were against it (the surnames were taken off at the same time during mid 2006 from housemates and endgame, it started with Australia). Geoking66_talk 00:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I remember in the USA versions all articles using the endgame template had the last names but the current season didn't. Someone mentioned that one of the other versions didn't use surnames in the endgame template and the USA pages shouldn't. I actually think the surnames are good when using the endgame template but just first names with the housemates template. Reason being is that the infobox becomes wider once the surnames are added and for an in-progress season its best to keep it simple since it doesn't collapse (if that makes any sense). ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 01:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Mario in Brits Behind Bars.

Gotta say, the youtube video here looks a lot like Mario. I've read in quite a few places that he was in Brits Behind Bars, so I dunno if someone maybe wants to add this in? Exxy (talk) 12:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• I think that there are many reasons not to include this, and none to include it at this time. If you can find some reliable source which specifically says it's him, then maybe this information can be included (i.e. where exactly have you read this?). Guinness (talk) 12:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Ninth Series not Series 9

All the previous BBs have the number written out and this series needs to follow the established style. Let's keep it as Ninth Series before it descends in to lamiosity. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Tables don't match

The nominations table doesn't match the weekly summary table. It says 12 housemates passed their task. The weekly summary table doesn't say those housemates had a task. The nominations table and the summary table both say 4 housemates failed their tasks, but the ref given, [2], doesn't say that. Also, the weekly summary table says that a part of the secret task of the first 4 housemates is to "convince the other housemates that Mario is in a relationship with Stephanie." That's incorrect. They only have to prevent the 12 others from discovering that Mario and Lisa are a couple. Also, the weekly summary table doesn't mention the wedding task. --Geniac (talk) 16:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• I think the Nomination Table is right, beacuse all 12 housemates HAD to guess who was the real couple, they HAD passed THEIR task really, also, I think we should add an Event table rather than add Wedding To Task section. --BigOz22 (talk) 23:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Improving Highlights Section

I think we should improve the Highlight section by making the events seperated, not like an essay, beacuse that confuses a lot. --BigOz22 (talk) 23:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Stephanie's Eviction %

Channel 4 is saying that Stephanie's eviction percentage is 48%[3] while BBC is saying it is 43%[4]. We need to find out which is real the Channel 4 % or the BBC % and stick with it. We don't need conflicting percentages. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 07:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I only changed it to 43 because there was no ref for 48, but now we are in a pickle. Does the CH4 count as a primary source and the BBC count as a third party? Which is WP:RS? Darrenhusted (talk) 08:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Use both, and source them both. John Hayes^talk 10:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Channel 4 is considered official, so I'd suggest using 48%. I had sourced it in the weekly summary when I put it in but it seems to have been deleted. Geoking66_talk 19:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Ratings table

The ratings table guidelines seem to be confusing a lot of people so I'll simplify how it works here:

• Overnight ratings must be placed in parentheses; they are not to be averaged and put in weekly, running, or series average boxes even if parenthetically written
• Only figures from BARB can be used and averaged without parentheses as these are considered official and are statistically the most accurate
• Percentages are from overnight figures as BARB does not release this information; percentages do not change with C4+1 viewing (someone can correct me on this if I'm wrong though)

Geoking66_talk 20:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Sound good to me that is how I thought it worked. But that is all I am going to say since every time I make an edit I get yelled at through edit summaries on this article (I don't mean you Geoking66). ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 07:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• Just to add, not having a border at the bottom of the table is not very attractive. I'd add it myself but I'm new to this and don't know how. —Preceding unsigned comment added by W99 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Question regarding references.

I know this article is about Big Brother 2008 (UK) but since it is one of the more active Big Brother articles I am asking this question regarding references, please do yell at me or point out this article is for the ninth British edition.

CBS has confirmed that Big Brother 10 (U.S.) will have 13 housemates this season via a advertisement on their network. The advertisement has been posted on YouTube and as of right now is the only "official" source since it is a copy of the advertisement. I know in most cases that YouTube videos are not acceptable but since this is an advertisement from CBS just on YouTube can it be used as a reference until the official CBS issues an official press release? I am unsure about this and would like some input. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 06:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I would say ideally we shouldn't use it, but if there is no alternative? It's probably just about ok for the moment. You can always mention in the article: "CBS announced the housemates in a video on youtube..."

You could cite the advert that appeared on TV but leaving out the YouTube link. Tra (Talk) 16:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Week 2's eviction.

Should we delete the RED colour, since in both BB5 (When Emma was ejected, Week 3's eviction was postponed, the box was coloured WHITE/PLAIN. and BB8, when Emily was ejected, the eviction has been cancelled, it has been coloured WHITE/PLAIN aswell, what should we do now? --BigOz22 (talk) 22:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Continue to follow past seasons/series format. Everything must be standardized. An example, Big Brother 9 (U.S.) had a fake eviction and in that season's voting history used the same color in the Big Brother 2007 (UK) nominations table for when Charley was fake evicted. It is always good to check past seasons/series and good to check the Australian version and the American version to see if similar twists were used and what color. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 04:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Overall Nominations Table

Can we put the People that has been evicted in red so we can't get confused by who the housemates can vote forAdamml13 (talk) 14:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

That table is not for that, it is simply a tally of the votes as the series progresses. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see previous series for how the table will look one the series is over. The tables are really just a record of nominations or in the case of the American version votes to evict. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 20:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Jennifer has received 3 nominations not 1 please change

Fixing the Time Table

Unfortunately, I am aware of the fact, that the Friday Live Show time is wrong, the show doens't start at 8:30 PM, it starts at 9:00 PM till 10:00 PM, with a half hour break, however, I am not sure how long does the second show lasts. --BigOz22 (talk) 15:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It lasts for half an hour, until 11:00PM -- 92.235.22.154 (talk) 16:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Spitting incident

Someone needs to completely edit the summary, there is very little info, and it seems to be weighted in Dennis' favour. "It was later reported that Dennis and Mohamed became involved in the dispute and that, according to Mohamed, Dennis had spit on him". It's very obvious to everyone he spat in his face, and Rebecca and Kathreya certainly don't need mentioning. also, the housemates weren't interrogated by the police/solicitors, that only happened with Dennis after he'd been taken out. Feudonym (talk) 01:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Can someone find the highlight show from that day on Youtube? I can go back and try to find it, too. Dcmcalpine (talk) 00:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Fansites are not sutable for External Links

Ever since I have been involved with Wikipedia, fansites should not be used as sources or placed in the "External Links" section. This includes Big Brother UK Series Nine Website which W99 keeps adding. By looking at WP:LINKSTOAVOID it falls under

• 2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research".
• 4. Links mainly intended to promote a website. See External link spamming.
• 11. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.

Fansites including the one mentioned also falls under WP:EL#ADV and WP:EL#Restrictions on linking #1. The site Big Brother UK Series Nine Website as of July 1, 2008 @ 8:19 ET contains a link so people can download/view past Big Brother series which infringes on Channel Four Television Corporation's copyrights. So by all of this fansites and this site Big Brother UK Series Nine Website should not be allowed in the "External Links" section. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 00:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Controversy

I removed this content from the controversy section:

"On Day 30, Jennifer was evicted from the house after reports from all over the country that Rex' eviction line had been not working. This has resulted in numerous online petitions from fans to return her to the house."

This is a controversial statement that is likely to be challenged, so I looked through many newspapers from the UK, including ones that have been sourced in the article, and could not find a single reference to the above incident. Therefore, until someone can verify the information, this content should not be included in the encyclopedia. Z1720 (talk) 05:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

BB 9 UK Logo is TOO BIG!

It needs to me made a little bit smaller, the Housemates Entry/Exit is streched, and it doesn't look impressive. I do like the fact, that most of the logos were re-made, but I think we should make the logo a bit smaller. --BigOz22 (talk) 00:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it seems it's hit most of the Big Brother logos, a lot of the ones in the U.S. version are like that as well. We should fixed this as soon as possible. T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 00:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You all can thank In23065 for that he did messed with the templates because he uploaded high resolution images of some of the UK logos and changed the templates Template:Big Brother housemates and Template:Big Brother endgame to render all logos to 300px. T if newer users are just going to change these templates at will I think we should look into having them protected so only administrators can edit them if needed since they are now such high usage templates and Template:Big Brother housemates employs intricate features of template syntax which could be very bad if edited inappropriately. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 04:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I am currently working on uploading lower resolution logos as I am pretty sure it is against Wikipedia's fair use policy to have such high resolution logos anyway. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 04:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

1) I am not a new member I have been editing since October 2006 and 2)I changed the template as i noticed that when opened to reveal the housemates for that series the template expands and therefore doesn't look very nice however if you have a larger picture in the template then when it expands this problem does not occur. In23065 (talk) 15:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Bomb Threat

As reported on Orange last night. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't actually last night it was the night before, in the very early hours of day 32. I don't think channel 4 have realise any official information about why there was an evacuation. In23065 (talk) 15:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

"Big Brother was pulled off the air on Sunday", I was just going on what was in the report. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Notice about the new C-Class quality classification

Copied to Big Brother Australia 2008, Big Brother 10 (U.S.), Big Brother 2008 (UK), and Secret Story 2008 (France).

I was unaware that we needed to have a discussion about the new C-Class classification on the quality scale. ((Other WikiProject responses) So my question is should we (WP:Big Brother) adopt this new classification? I think so since now B-Class has had its requirements tightened and I had demote 11 former B-Class articles to C-Class due to the new change. Also this means that some of the Start/Stub articles could move up to C-Class classification as well. Since I kinda implimented this without a proper discussion you can see which articles I had to demote from B-Class and why and from my understanding articles that moved up to C-Class. So after explaining my mistake, my question is should we continue with C-Class or just keep A-Class, FA-Class, B-Class, Start-Class, and Stub-Class? If you would like to discuss this please visit Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Big Brother #Discussion. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 00:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Nominations

Heya, does anyone mind if I add housemate's nomination every week according to Official Site (on every Tuesday, The site released a news named Who Nominated Who, so it's official and confirmed) So does anyone mind if I'll do it every week? --BigOz22 (talk) 17:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

If there not already done then of course. In23065 (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that Stuart's nominations for week 5 are the wrong way round. He nominated Rachel before Mario, but i can't change it so can someone let me be able to change or can someone change it for me--Mikopale (talk) 23:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I rearranged the nominations so that I could assimilate quickly who was voting for who on a consistent basis. I strongly believe that in three or four years time no one will care that Stuart nominated Rachel before Mario. If I have contravened WP:MOS; I will humbly stand corrected; otherwise I am inclined to edit to my preference unless the consensus is against this. Lucian Sunday (talk) 00:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

PS If the preamble to the table stated in order of nomination or words to that effect then I would again recuse; and I would also place greater weight on those who are putting most of the donkey work into the article. Lucian Sunday (talk) 00:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

All Nominations were taken from http://www.channel4.com/bigbrother/news/newsstory.jsp?id=6123&position=22 and there it says Stuart nominated Mario and Rachel. Nominations were not taken from highlights. So some of them are wrong. --BigOz22 (talk) 00:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

On tonights show of big brother Stuart nominated Rachel before Mario so it should be put in that order. Afterall the nominations for Australia are in the order they nominated them. Plus the channel 4 website put them in alphabetical order. plus the if u put them in the correct order of who the housemates nominated first then we can see who they wanted to nominate more. I would change it myself but wikipedia won't let me. Can somebody let me edit this page so that i can put it in the right order. it's not as if i am going to vandalise it.--Mikopale (talk) 01:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Mario's nominations are the wrong way round on week 5.

Vote percentages

Shouldn't there be a source from where these percentages to evict come from? Where do(es) the editor(s) get the numbers from? Dcmcalpine (talk) 06:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The BBC, and there are sources for %, on the weekly summary. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Day 26 nominations

It appears that Jen and Rex are up for eviction (seen 14:00 BST) although nothing it said on the Channel 4 website...do we have an insider on here or is it just speculation? --Sauber F1 fan since 1997 (talk) 13:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

It could be speculation. I am tempted to remove it as there is no source. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I would remove it. Even if it is an inside source it has not been officially announced and won't be until later today. I reckon it's just speculation.--82.36.177.31 (talk) 15:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

However, on the last two (1st and 8th July) Tuesdays, in the Big Brother section of The Sun *shudder*, it has revealed the result of the nominations and correctly, maybe this is the source? --Sauber F1 fan since 1997 (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, as it's not an official source, I'd keep it off the page until BBLB reveals it.--82.36.177.31 (talk) 20:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Show Ratings

As the show is on Channel 4 as well as Channel 4 +1, can we put a comment underneath the ratings table to say that it includes viwers from channel 4 +1 as well? Adamml13 (talk) 15:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Election of Head of House.

Should we note in the NOMINATION table the Election of Head of HOuse? mostly beacuse if this is nomination based, should it be noted in the nomination table? --BigOz22 (talk) 03:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

If the Head of House becomes a regular thing for the rest of the series then we may have to modify the table similar to Big Brother Australia 2008 but if it is a one time thing then we will most likely explain everything in detail in the Weekly Summary with a brief note in the table itself. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 06:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually lets see how this plays out. I have only placed an HoH row at the top. I have a feeling as long as the house is split there will be a HoH. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 06:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Should HoH really be counted in the nominations table? It is only a task that will be one week. Well what i have been led to believe. And if we are keeping it in the nominations box should we have a part in it for who voted who for the HoH out of Luke, Darnell & Dale. Andybigbro2 (talk) 22:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

We are not sure if HoH will last one week or two, the setup for this week is fine, it the HoH is a one week thing then we will remove the HoH row on the table and just leave Darnell's box that week the HoH color with a note at the bottom. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 19:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Belinda and Rex

Are Belinda and Rex deffinately up. Where has this come from. They don't confirm nominations till Tuesday.--92.9.239.127 (talk) 01:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes they are defo up, but until BBLB tomorrow leave it out.--Hiltonhampton (talk) 01:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

There are many source: Heatworld.com, digitalspy.co.uk, thesun.co.uk and dailystar.co.uk --Frank90t 13:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Cite them. Put the specific pages not just site names. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

blue seating on garden

Does anybody know what that little blue box in the garden between the luxury bedroom and those seats outside, by the swimming pool is. i have never seen anyone in there but there is a door and there seems to be a seat inside. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.65.78 (talk) 20:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I dont think it is in use at the moment but according to insiders it is a lift to a secret second floor. In23065 (talk) 22:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

there doesn't seem anywhere above it though. do u think it leads underground? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.65.78 (talk) 01:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

There is space above it. In23065 (talk) 19:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It's like a chimney that doesn't lead anywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.212.24 (talk) 23:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Apparantly there is a new diary room on the Heaven side. Do you think this might be the way to the new diary room.--92.22.29.114 (talk) 23:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It is the Luxury Jail for the housemates in heaven. Darnell went in it that night. In23065 (talk) 09:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Heaven and Hell colours

I say, not needed as the information is contained in the weekly summary. The lists of who nominated who is not contained in the summary and the idea that the Hell Housemates needed to pass a task is indicated by a note, which could easily list the Hell Housemates. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the colours are good, cause it shows who had to earn their right to nominate.--92.17.89.150 (talk) 01:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

They are not needed, a list in the weekly summary is fine plus it already mentions who had to work to nominate. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 03:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I think colours should be used because it affects the nominations in more ways than one. People in heaven nominate before people on hell and people in hell have to complete a task in order to win the right to nominate. It can also show the hoh's favorites. But most of all i think it would be a much easier way of seeing who is in heaven and hell. In23065 (talk) 09:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Head of House.

Appernatly, now we know a new HoH will be... choosen. Should we start putting that table that shows who's HoH.. like it was for few days (on Wiki that is.) --BigOz22 (talk) 22:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we should Andybigbro2 (talk) 03:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I added it back, I wonder who removed it without a reason. I placed it on in the event the HoH lasted more than one week. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 06:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed it because we can just use colour to show who is HoH futher down the nominations table. In23065 (talk) 11:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

My Proposal

Week 6			Week 7			Week 8			Week 9			Week 10			Week 11
Housemate	Voted For	Number	Housemate	Voted For	Number	Housemate	Voted For	Number	Housemate	Voted For	Number	Housemate	Voted For	Number	Housemate	Voted For	Number
Belinda	Luke		Dale	Task Used To Decide HoH
Dale	Dale	3	Darnell
Darnell	Dale	9	Kathreya
Kathreya	Darnell		Lisa
Lisa	Darnell		Luke
Luke	Darnell	2	Maysoon
Maysoon	Darnell		Michael
Michael	Darnell		Mohamed
Mohamed	Darnell		Rachel
Rachel	Darnell		Rebecca
Rebecca	Luke		Rex
Rex	Darnell		Sara
Sara	Darnell		Stuart
Stuart	Dale

In23065 (talk) 11:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is needed right now, the votes for Week 6 can be easily mentioned in the weekly summary table. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 15:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it is too much information to put into the weekly summary and will just end up confusing people. In23065 (talk) 16:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is needed, really serves no point to me. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 16:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Also you have to get sources for the table. Since you are including votes, etc. you need to source each week. The nomination table is fine as the needed sources is in the weekly summary table. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 16:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Dale voted for himself in the first HoH? Can;t be right --Sauber F1 fan since 1997 (talk) 19:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

(Reply to Sauber F1 fan since 1997) Dale, Darnell and Luke were allowed to vote for themselves if they wanted. --BigOz22 (talk) 23:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the idea of the own HoH Table is really good. I also think that the HoH bit in the nominations should be kept. It looks good the way it is just now. Andybigbro2 (talk) 02:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

the HM names should be alligned week by week to make it easier to read and to see changes in respect of each HM leaky_caldron (talk) 13:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)