Talk:Big Brother (British TV series) series 7/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Title Sequence

There are hidden messages in the new title sequence. Can anyone slow down the sequence to see what it says? There may be clues in there! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mcrosby78 (talk • contribs) .

One step ahead of you! I have already checked the title sequence, and the "words" which seem to appear are all jumbled with the actual sequence, making a lot of the ineligble. I'm not even sure if a lot of them are actual words, they seem very random. The red "test card" is all part of it too. It just says: "This is the title sequence for Big Brother", and then some stuff about "by taking part in Big Brother you agree to abide by the rules, the rules may change at any time", as well as "NOT FOR TRANSMISSION" (?) and, curiously, "(C) Channel 4 MCMIII" ... 1903?? The titles are just random as far as I can tell, and are just meant to get people like you and me talking about them... ;) Tomcage9 22:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• 1903 was the year of George Orwell's birth. walker44 17:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• I think the words 'You are being observed' appear in the text, but not necessairily in that order. -TonyW 23:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• The word "Temptation" appears to be there too. Essexmutant 00:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I slowed down the title sequence to last night's Big Brother's Big Mouth - there are four sets of scrambled words and the only complete words you see are YOU, ARE, BEING and OBSERVED in that order and one in each set - all the other words you see are incomplete. There are words in and out of the breaks too, but I forget what they are now and would have to go home to see them again. (Lee Stanley 18:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)) -- the words in and out of the breaks are UNLEASH and TEMPTATION. (Lee Stanley 16:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC))

Nikki

Hi. I know that 'Nikki' is actually a mole or fake contestant, placed by the producers into the house. She's an actress. I suppose I'm unable to cite my sources on this, given that there's secrecy involved. I suppose that because of this I can't place this information on the main page, which is frustrating. Is there any Wiki policy on citing sources for information that should be kept secret? Would it be ok to cite this information about Nikki here, on the discussion page, for posterity?

• No, I don't think you can as that info, if indeed true, cannot be verified at present. If and when it becomes apparent what you're saying is right, this would be added to the main article as it would then be in the public domain. -TonyW 23:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Ok, fair enough. It should come out in about 2 weeks or so, with rumours appearing in a few days at least.
• She does appear very false. Perhaps we could say in the article that her manner is apparently staged and there are rumours that she is an actress? --Belteshezzar 23:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

You should cite a source for it first. -- 9cds^(talk) 23:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

She's not an actress - she has always been like that - desperately seeking attention... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.158.189 (talk • contribs)

• Ooh, someone who knows her IRL! Or a Big Brother executive... Mark272 23:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I hate her! "I AM NOT ENJOYING THIS!" "I WANT MY CLOTHES!" "I WANT BOTTLED WATTER!"... brat! Trampikey 23:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Personally I find her hilarious! Sweetie Petie 18:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

She HAS to be a mole - no-one can be that bad in real life. If her hissy fit because no bottled water was available is anything to go by, she's a bloody awful actress too. I just watched her moaning about BO on clothes again. If she isn't a mole then I'll be the one to shoot her on expulsion. Promise. Griffin147 20:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think 80% of them are actors...

Is there anymore news on this? I'm suprised if it's true the mass media hasn't picked up on it yet, but she does seem to be atention seeking to a high level, and the tears flow very readily. RedHillian 15:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

New Pages Suggested

I suggest that a page be made for "Sexual Terrorist" and other words which may in the course of this series become a: largely in public domain b: quoted in daily newspapers and c: become used by the people in the house Well, i'm not sure what one is, so contributions will have to be made by the myriad of folk who read wikipedia. I'll make one myself at the weekend if there are no serious objections. --User:Darkpowder 09:45, 19 May 2006 (BST)

A turn of phrase being only notable for being used by someone on BB7 does not merit a Wikipedia article, I'm afraid. Non-neologistic terms in more common usage might fit in Wiktionary, and phrases associated with BB7 contestants if they are heavily quoted might fit in Wikiquote. —Whouk (talk) 09:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge

I suggest the two pages get merged, whatever good content is in the other page gets put into here. This page follows naming convention for the other serieses, and the same template as the other serieses and the wikiproject. -- 9cds^(talk) 01:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I could not make sense of what you have writen down. --[eddie] - pure ginger 10:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Housemates' ages

The BB website gives Bonnie's age as 19 and Mikey's as 22. The launch show gave Bonnie's as 20 and, IIRC, Mikey's as 23. See also [1]. -- Smjg 15:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the 19 and 22 were their ages at the auditions and they've since had their birthdays.

Possibly. But why has the website published these ages? Indeed, it's ridiculous if the website was never up to date. Moreover, if web coverage is updated every day as has tended to happen, then this updating ought to include the housemates' ages. Don't they have every housemate's DOB? -- Smjg 19:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the DOBs will be released soon enough.

On tonight's show, the narrator said Bonnie was 19 Trampikey 20:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

If she's 20 now, of course she was 19 before. -- Smjg 12:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

300px Mikey- age 23 Trampikey 22:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

(Removed fair use image from talk page due to Wikipedia regulations The JPS^{talk to me} 11:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC))

Why have the dubious labels been removed? Nobody's given any evidence of which information is correct, or even was correct last Thursday. And messages on the C4 forum expire much too quickly.... -- Smjg 11:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Whitespace

Can someone get rid of the whitespace between {{current}} and the main article? I've tried but can't see what's wrong. — FireFox (U T C) 13:30, 20 May '06

I think it might be related to the current tag, but I'm not sure. -- 9cds^(talk) 13:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Not the current tag - when the tag is taken away, the whitespace still appears. — FireFox (U T C) 13:54, 20 May '06

Ah, it's the housemates template - seems to be a rogue }}. -- 9cds^(talk) 15:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Mikey

Any proof for claims of drug-related and homosexual activities?

Have you stopped beating your wife?

Mu

I was just wondering if it was worth adding a list of references on the bottom of the page? Anyone know a good way to do this? Worth doing? -- 9cds^(talk) 14:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Mmmm... it would look better, but would probably be a nightmare to maintain during the show. I'd probably say keep the embedded links during the show, and perhaps do Footnotes in September. The JPS ^{talk to me} 14:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Merging

What do people think about merging this with the Big Brother (UK series 7) nominations table page, as both are closely linked?

i know that these have been kept separate in the past Joss 14:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I say keep them apart - it only makes the page look cluttered - at least, it does when incomplete. -- 9cds^(talk) 16:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Contestants

Shouldn't it be a separate page?? --Sunfazer |Talk 20:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Nah, take a look at past series pages, they're all on there. -- 9cds^(talk) 21:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Fansite

I propose very shortly to add a Pete fansite, after Nikki's ecstatic tribute in the diary room shown on yesterday's show. Any views or objections? Maybe objections on the basis of WP:EL?--luke 03:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, if you had one fansite, people might say, "Well, if a Pete fansite's here, then X housemate fansite should be here too" and so on until there's a fansite for each individual person. 59.167.138.207 11:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, and there's bound to be loads of websites for each springing up... so we'll have 12 year old webmasters trying to advertise their sites. The JPS^{talk to me} 11:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Chronology

I'm not from the UK or anything but I know how the show works and this chronology will go on way too long. Consider making it into a separate article. 59.167.138.207 11:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm also very dubious about that. It's excessive for Wikipedia. It should go, completely. We have six other seasons to act as templates. A summary for each week is sufficient. The JPS^{talk to me} 11:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it would be good if we carry on as we are until the end of the week, then summerise it? -- 9cds^(talk) 11:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be kept, other wise the information would be lost. I would agree that making a new page would make a better article. Although we have got the previous 6 series to use as templates, we need to build on these and improve them. Joss 14:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep chronology for each current week and then summarise. So much crap goes on and it's not worth keeping, the major events of each week could probably be captured in a paragraph. Budgiekiller 20:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Budgiekiller's suggestion seems sensible. We can't keep 70+ days -- it makes Wikipedia look like a crappy Geocities site. The JPS^{talk to me} 21:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm with Budgiekiller & The JPS - keep working the daily log, then summarise at the end of the week into a single paragraph. RedHillian 00:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I've brought the article that was split back into here, since there was no clear consencus. -- 9cds^(talk) 22:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

And I reverted it. Leave it where it is, the new page has been made already. JD 22:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

That's no excuse - the majority of people don't think it's worth the space (remember wikipedia is Not a list of information) so it should not have been made. -- 9cds^(talk) 23:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point, but we have 120 days (?) of it, so leaving that much info on the main article, even if it's a week-by-week summary, will probably take up a lot of space. The Chronology page should stay, even if only for weekly summaries. JD 23:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It's been done in the past, the amount of information isn't an unreasonable amount, and if the page gets too long it can be discussed at a later date. -- 9cds^(talk) 23:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Fine, be so stuck up. Oh, and thanks for that little memo about my over-reverting. I don't actually remember making more than three reverts today on any single article that wasn't because of vandalism, or any at all. But thanks all the same. JD 23:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

How come article was reverted anyway. It's going to dominate the article at a later date so why not move it now anyway? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jboyle4eva (talk • contribs)

Please remember to stay civil, everyone. — FireFox (U T C) 10:10, 25 May '06

I THINK THAT WHEN THE SHOW PROGRESSES A BIT MORE, THEN IT SHOULD BE MADE INTO A SEPERATE ARTICLE... (U T C)

I think leaving it for so long is pointless, because people are going to be used to seeing the chronology page on the main article. It should be moved as early in the series as possible. But since 9cds has decided he owns both this page and the other BB 7 UK pages, I'm just going to leave him to it until his activity dies down a bit and it can be moved without his interference. I'm sure what he's doing is against some Wikipedia rule, he's stopping other people from contributing. JD 12:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't go deleting what I have to say, it was NOT a personal attack. If I wanted to "personally attack" you, I'm sure it would be much more hostile than that. I'm merely saying what I feel, and if all you can do is hide behind Wikipedia policies, don't involve me in it in any way. JD 14:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Calm down, everyone. It's only a website about a TV show. Not worth getting stressed over. I agree it's best not to delete JD's comments. JD: please try to avoid making personal comments or assumptions. Bceause of the medium it is possible so be offended by comments that weren't intended to be hostile. The JPS^{talk to me} 14:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, we're into week 2 now. Week one really needs condensing more with very only significant events included (evictions/walk outs). The JPS^{talk to me} 13:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I've tightened the first week. The JPS^{talk to me} 14:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

End of week One

Have I got confused or does Day 8 start the second week? Surely it must! Joss 13:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It is the second week. — FireFox (U T C) 13:46, 25 May '06

A valid point was brought up above and it made me wonder... where do we class as starting the second week? Day 8 (today) is officially the start of the second week, but looking at the nominations table, tomorrow's 'evictee' will come under week one. Any comments/suggestions? — FireFox (U T C) 13:59, 25 May '06

Friday is ALWAYS the end of week. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.235.214 (talk • contribs)

Friday may ALWAYS be the end of the week, but a week is NEVER longer than seven days. Barbara Osgood 16:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Not strictly true, see Week. Convention dictates a seven day week, but it's an abitrary unit of time I'm afraid. Budgiekiller 17:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that for the page, the end of a week should be determined as Friday, it makes sense to end a week when a housemate is evicted. Also, remember when it gets to day 63 nobody without a calculater will know, or care, that we counted the first week with eight days :) -- 9cds^(talk) 16:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this also makes sense as we have counted the first 4hours as a day. It won't matter in the long run, I just got initially confused with the "but a week is NEVER longer than seven days" comment. Glad we have come to a conclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JossDude (talk • contribs)

Shahbaz

I think that the whole article is very kind to Shahbaz i think his general annoyance and his aggressive behaviour are understated but i do understand that big brother articles are very difficult to edit because not many of us can say we have no opinions about the house mates and when you have a opinion it is hard not to let it slip into the edit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.202.160.241 (talk • contribs)

I certainly think the sentence on Shahbaz's last day in the house is very accurate. It was bullying and it was Nikki who said to Sezer that he should take Shahbaz's clothes whilst he was swimming because "that would hurt him even more".--Johnbull 20:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Article title

Shouldn't the title be "Big Brother (UK series 7)"? This is the standard for pages requiring disambiguation. Same applies to series 1-6 as well. - LeonWhite 05:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting... yes... this does make sense. I'd support the move. The JPS^{talk to me} 14:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I'd support the move too. Budgiekiller 14:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Question is, are you prepared to move all Big Brother pages like this? For example, Big Brother USA season 1-6, Big Brother Australia series 1-6, Pinoy Big Brother, Season 1 etc? — FireFox (U T C) 15:11, 27 May '06

Yeah, they would need to be. Messages on talk pages first, though, to prepare everyone. The JPS^{talk to me} 15:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

{{current}} or {{in-progress tvshow}}

Which seems to be more accurate/appropriate? {{current}} or {{in-progress tvshow}}? — FireFox (U T C) 15:11, 27 May '06

I think the latter. -- 9cds^(talk) 17:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The latter Barbara Osgood 18:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Latter, natch. Budgiekiller 18:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I changed the template to {{In-progress tvshow|Big Brother UK series 7}} — FireFox (UTC) 19:10, 27 May '06

Lea's breasts

Are Lea's breasts 30M or 30MM?? I have heard and seen many sources stating both?!? - Ellisjm (U T C) 19:00, 27 May 2006 (BST)

Chronology/Housemates

Would it not be better to place the Chronology after the list of housemates? The housemates are mentioned in the chronology but are only explained afterwards. Just makes more sense to me. And it would partially lessen the burden of such a long chronology section, if it's placed further down in the article where it's less immediately obvious. ? Barbara Osgood 13:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Both series' 5 and 6 have the chronology before housemates as well. — FireFox 13:23, 28 May '06

Yes, but just because it's been done before doesn't mean it's best. Barbara Osgood 14:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's the best, which is why I noted that it was a comment and not an opinion. — FireFox 14:28, 28 May '06

I know that. I was only responding to the comment. Barbara Osgood 14:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Neither is best, neither is worst. It's the way it's done, no reason to change it now. -- 9cds^(talk) 14:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

There's every reason to change it now, especially if where it's to be moved to is better than where it is now. JD 14:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, whether or not one is worse is exactly what I'm debating. I'm of the opinion that the way it is is now IS worse. Barbara Osgood 14:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Your point seems reasonable to me--luke 17:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that Barbara Osgood has a point - it does make more sense... Ellisjm 20:22 - 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I have moved the housemates to before the chronology as it does make sense. I have also done this for series 5 and 6... Ellisjm 20:31 - 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Dawn - pushed/walked?

There is some debate as to what precisely happened. Is it true that she said she was definitely leaving and wouldn't change her mind, and then recieved the coded message (as she explained to the others) and was 'evicted'.

Comments?--luke 17:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

She wanted to leave. Then she got the coded message from Big Brother. Then she requested to leave but was told to wait. Next day, she was called to the diary room, said she was leaving, but Big Brother ejected her, kicked her out. — FireFox 17:32, 28 May '06

Thanx - so the question arises, how should this sequence be summarized?--luke 18:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The BB website itself claims that she was ejected... Ellisjm 20:34 - 28 May 2006 (BST)

Spoiler

Should there be a spoiler warning for the Chronology section? Ellisjm 20:25 - 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Hasn't everything written in the Chronology section already happened? JD 20:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but it depends if you're watching it live or watching the evening shows. Like, right now, the Glyn 'cheating' thing was here on-line before tonight's episode was aired. If you can't get access to the live stuff then it really is a spoiler. Tough one... I think it may be worthwhile... Budgiekiller 20:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Can a custom spoiler note be written, or is only the predefined one available? JD 20:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree there ought to be a spoiler note if it contains information not yet shown in the evening shows. The default should suffice. -- 9cds^(talk) 20:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

My question still stands, regardless of whether or not a default will suffice. JD 20:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it technically hasn't happened in my view - it's a TV show, remember. -- cds^(talk) 20:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Huh? I meant the question that still hasn't been answered. JD 21:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm updating things as they happen on the website, so those who are watching the TV programs will be confused and think that they may have missed something. So - the question remains... Spoiler warning or not? Yes or No? I'm for YES Ellisjm 20:52 - 29 May 2006 (UTC)

My vote is also yes. -- cds^(talk) 20:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes at least will then give people the option to read it or not

JD, I think you could safely make any kind of template up based on the Spoiler template. Could be a {{BBSpoiler}} or something similar. My vote is also yes. Budgiekiller 21:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

THANK YOU!!! Oh, while I'm here, my vote is yes, assuming I have any say in it. JD 10:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe something like this:

Thoughts/improvements? — FireFox 10:57, 30 May '06

I've made the template.. but what you put sounds better than what I put, so feel free to edit it :) -- cds^(talk) 10:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I've just edited it to try and get the best out of both. Anyone can still play around with it until everyone's happy though =] — FireFox 11:04, 30 May '06

I like it, very much, but I think it needs to go at the top of the page because the housemate (walked/evicted etc) list contains information yet to be broadcast - e.g. George leaving today. Just a thought. Budgiekiller 15:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Template

Can someone fix the weird template thing at the top - it's showing two Dawn's and I'm no good with templates =P — FireFox 21:14, 29 May '06

Same with me, even though the "edit this page" still says Shahbaz Ellisjm

My fault entirely - it was a problem with the template. Now fixed. -- cds^(talk) 21:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :) By the way - you've lost the 9 from your sig... was that deliberate? — FireFox 21:22, 29 May '06

Indeed it is :) -- cds^(talk) 21:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Ashlee^Hne^H^Hyne... her.

Does anyone have any official sources for her name yet? I can't see anything on the C4 website. -- cds^(talk) 21:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we just wait until Channel 4 release it... they're always on the slow side. So far I've seen Ashleen, Ashlene, Ashliene... *sigh* — FireFox 21:35, 29 May '06

They haven't put it up on the housemate list yet, but it's always good to know how to get round websites =P [2] — FireFox 21:38, 29 May '06

The HAVE put it up. It's Aisleyne. Which is what I changed it to before some eedjit changed it back. Triangle e 21:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Stay civil, please. — FireFox 21:42, 29 May '06

Wow, you're cool!

I'm not civil - I'm rude Triangle e 21:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Can't she have a normal name?!?!? Channel 4 are soooooo slow!! Ellisjm 21:45, 29 May 06 UTC

Yeah they are, hehe. They do all the behind the scenes stuff, which is hard to find, and that's how I found it, but they are really slow putting things up where people can see them! Anyway, sleepy time for me =] —Preceding unsigned comment added by FireFox (talk • contribs)

Yeah, their names are up in the Housemates Galleries section, but not on the home page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellisjm (talk • contribs)

Did anyone catch Aisleyne's surname on BBBB? Ellisjm 22:26 UTC 29 May 06