Talk:Celebrity Big Brother (British TV series) series 9

Too early?

Is it too early to create this page yet or not? --MSalmon (talk) 13:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Not the show page, but the rumours are pure tabloid speculation and should be avoided under WP:CRYSTAL.Carl Sixsmith (talk) 10:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The show begins in less than two months. Not too early. Bbmaniac (talk) 12:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Do we have a date yet, or is it still "some time in January"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.198.125.1 (talk) 16:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

It premiered January 5, 2012. I would update some info on the cast but there are no edit links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.9.97.114 (talk) 00:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Rumoured cast

http://www.btlife.bt.com/entertainment/are-these-the-celebrity-big-brother-2012-housemates/--68.51.87.188 (talk) 13:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

References for personal info

C'mon guys, private personal info such as DOB's, info about family etc. need to be cited to publicly available, reliable sources. I've added citations for the DOB's (if I can find them). Uncited, sensitive or personal info about living people should be removed immediately, as per Wikipedia guidelines. Sionk (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The twins in Nominations table

There's gotta be a way to decide how the twins will be listed in the nominations history, the three possible suggestion I have, are

	Original	Nowrap	The Twins Kristina and Karissa	K & K
	Kristina and Karissa, Andrew	Kristina and Karissa, Andrew	The Twins, Andrew	K & K, Andrew

Surprisingly enough, using the original might actually wrap, thus making the nominations boxes bigger, while the nowrap will just stretch the box out. I've noticed The Twins are the best version, while K & K might be confusing. --BigOz22 (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I would leave it as Kristina and Karissa without wrap for now until we know how they are portrayed during nominations (which should be either tomorrow or Monday, first eviction is Wednesday). --MSalmon (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe they're gonna be classed as one contestant, as it was stated during the revelation of Natalie's secret task. --BigOz22 (talk) 02:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it should just stay as the original. Flamingjoe (talk) 21:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Did BB refer to them as Kristina and Karissa during nominations? --MSalmon (talk) 22:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

BB listed them as K & K on their on-screen nominations list! Sionk (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Copied from my own talk page: I think it's wrong to call them "K & K" in the nominations table. Did anybody nominate "K & K" or did they nominate "Karissa and Kristina"? When they were against the vote, did Big Brother say "K & K" or did they say "Karissa and Kristina"? If on screen is the only place they were called "K & K", which I suspect it was, and that it was purely to save space, then we shouldn't call them them. We should be encyclopaedic about it. If you want to call them "K & K" in the table, you'll have to call them "K & K" everywhere else, which is ridiculous because it's not how they were named in the series. –anemoneprojectors– 13:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion of C5 +1 on Ratings

Should we include C5 +1 in the ratings table or just C5 since this is the first series to have C5 +1? --MSalmon (talk) 20:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Channel 5 +1 should be included as +1 figures were used in the channel 4 series. Here are the Actual viewing figures http://www.bbspy.co.uk/ratings — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.31.115 (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Someone keeps changing the ratings table, removing the inclusion of +1 ratings. I will re edit the table later on, however it needs to stop, including +1 ratings means the viewing figures are more representative, (they were included in Channel 4 series) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.93.163.3 (talk) 17:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I removed them because there are no sources, and BARB haven't supplied them yet (when there are sources or BARB release them they can be added in) --MSalmon (talk) 17:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Ratings table in BBSPY bbspy.co.uk/ratings Channel 5 do not subscribe, but in future I will add the source! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.93.163.3 (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Try to use refs other than fansites as they can be unreliable. --MSalmon (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism

I had just finished filling all the nominations in and then there was an edit conflict because someone added "Frankie takes cocaine." onto the nominations table. Please can we stop the vandalism some how. Flamingjoe (talk) 21:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Request protection. It will stop all the IP's from vandalizing the page. Bruvtakesover (T|C) 21:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

2 series per year

Apparently there will be another series this year. I've reverted page moves as unnecessary disambiguation, but how should we name the article once one for a second 2012 series is needed? –anemoneprojectors– 14:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that since there are two a year they should follow the American naming scheme (Celebrity Big Brother 9 (UK)/Celebrity Big Brother 10 (UK)) ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 20:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

We may have to rename the previous articles and regular series articles though so they match each other but I don't think we need to. Having Celebrity Big Brother, January 2012 is too long and unnecessary. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 20:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

If we're going with the numbers option then all past series need to be changed to numbers for consistency, it makes the articles easier to follow and appears more professional12bigbrother12 (talk) 21:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the numbers option is best and it looks professional. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 21:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this is the best way to deal with it. The person who moved the page before used a pretty bad page name. –anemoneprojectors– 12:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

AnemoneProjectors, could you move the following pages for me to the new naming scheme. I am running into messages asking for an admin to handle it:

Celebrity Big Brother 2002 (UK) → Celebrity Big Brother 2 (UK)

Celebrity Big Brother 2005 (UK) → Celebrity Big Brother 3 (UK)

Celebrity Big Brother 2006 (UK) → Celebrity Big Brother 4 (UK)

Celebrity Big Brother 2007 (UK) → Celebrity Big Brother 5 (UK)

Big Brother 2006 (UK) → Big Brother 7 (UK) (I don't have the rights to move this one.)

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

If you could fix these for me then the new naming scheme will be effective on all articles. Thanks. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 04:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

There is already a Big Brother 12 (UK) page which has been redirected to the Big Brother (UK) page. --MSalmon (talk) 09:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that we should have had a little more discussion before going ahead with this. The justification is not entirely clear and no contra views have been able to pipe up. I'm not against it per se, but there was no pressing need to get it done on such limited consensus. A bit of discussion would have done no harm. Leaky Caldron 09:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it was done because there will be two celeb series this year and the American version name them by number not year. --MSalmon (talk) 10:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to do the page moves but only if everyone else is happy - or at least consensus is reached first. Let me know on my talk page what the conclusion is. –anemoneprojectors– 12:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

First off I just want to say that just because the American articles use the season number was not a justification to change the way the articles are named. Reasons that justify the naming change:

1. Two seasons/series of Celebrity Big Brother are airing in one year, a new naming option is the only way to identify the two separate series.
2. Using numbers versus years is an easy way to identify the articles.
3. Renaming past Big Brother UK articles to the new naming option reduces confusion to new readers who may not have seen the show. For example someone could get confused if one article is named Celebrity Big Brother 2011 and then the next article is named Celebrity Big Brother 9.
4. Renaming past articles to the new naming option creates a universal, consistent naming pattern. This is the overall goal of WP:BIGBRO to create a consistent pattern/format for all Big Brother articles.
5. Past series are known by both the year and number to viewers of the program. Channel 4 would call one series "Celebrity Big Brother 2006" and in another related program refer to it as "Celebrity Big Brother 4"

I didn't mean to cause offense or make it look like WP:OWN just trying to help with the naming issue. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 04:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I think we need to agree what will happen with associated articles such as Controversy_and_criticism_of_Big_Brother_(UK). As can be seen, section headings use the year, which is arguably much more informative that a season number. While the links will still work following renaming (I assume?), it would be a mistake to change the headings in such a way that the chronology is lost. A discussion will help to identify such issues before the changes are made to the possible detriment of the Big Brother series of articles as a whole.Leaky Caldron 10:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe do like the American article but beside the show title put in parentheses the year the series aired like Big Brother 5 (2004). ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 15:26, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Why not follow the standard of other shows and use (UK series 1/2/3 etc.)? Unreal7 (talk) 12:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it has to do with consistency with the broadcaster's title for the season. Like CBS uses Big Brother (number) while Channel 4 used both Big Brother (number) & Big Brother (year). The Philippines has an entire different naming pattern because they air two to three different editions a year. At the time the naming pattern was decided on no country had done two seasons of the same edition in one year until 2008 when CBS aired two editions of Big Brother back to back and now Channel 5 with two seasons of Celebrity Big Brother. The issue now is to go with Big Brother # (UK) or Big Brother (UK series #). The easy way is just to go with Big Brother # (UK) because if we go with Big Brother (country series #) we would have to discuss changing all of the articles (including Australian & American) over to this naming pattern and with the Philippine articles that wouldn't work due to the title of the show. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 16:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually yes it would, i.e. Pinoy Big Brother, followed by series 1/2/3 etc., and there you have Pinoy Big Brother (series 1/2/3) etc. If the country is indicated in the title, no country disambiguation is needed. Unreal7 (talk) 14:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

New titles

OK, I've put "Requested moves" on all the Big Brother and Celebrity Big Brother pages which still have the year in the title and not the number. So will one of you guys please carry those moves out? Unreal7 (talk) 12:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Celebrity Big Brother 9. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120122132139/http://www.bbspy.co.uk:80/news/cbb/0119/celebrity-big-brother-live-feed-wins-record-rating-915000-viewers-for-5-star to http://www.bbspy.co.uk/news/cbb/0119/celebrity-big-brother-live-feed-wins-record-rating-915000-viewers-for-5-star
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120110110223/http://www.bbspy.co.uk:80/news/0103/celebrity-big-brother-2012-house-pictures-revealed to http://www.bbspy.co.uk/news/0103/celebrity-big-brother-2012-house-pictures-revealed

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Celebrity Big Brother 9. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140718204656/http://www.barb.co.uk/whats-new/weekly-top-10 to http://www.barb.co.uk/whats-new/weekly-top-10

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:20, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Celebrity Big Brother 9. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222030545/http://friendsnotebook.com/fiche_wiki.php?id_friend=4594 to http://friendsnotebook.com/fiche_wiki.php?id_friend=4594

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Celebrity Big Brother 9. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120114073816/http://www.idealbridemagazine.co.uk/features/2011-06-21-lauren-pope-kirk-norcross-towie-wedding.php to http://www.idealbridemagazine.co.uk/features/2011-06-21-lauren-pope-kirk-norcross-towie-wedding.php

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:53, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Celebrity Big Brother 2 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:45, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Celebrity Big Brother 1 (U.S.) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

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