Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Big Brother/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 04:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 08:52, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation

This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Capitalisation of Big Brother specific words

The project page says that the word House (in reference to the Big Brother House) should always be capitalised but no mention is made of other Big Brother specific words, such as Diary Room, Eye (in reference to the Big Brother logo) or Housemate, though there is a preference stated that in Big Brother America the term HouseGuests should be used in place of Housemates (both being capitalised). My feeling is that all these words should be capitalised and I welcome a discussion. MegaPedant (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

• Support I definitely agree that Eye should be capitalized seeing as how CBS is also known as the Eye Network and also The Eye. I also think the other terms should be capitalized as well. Jashack (talk) 18:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support If House is capitalised then it would be illogical not to capitalise Housemate. MegaPedant (talk) 12:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 22:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Project Revamp - Main Page

In Novemember I proposed to revamp this project with a goal of improving standardization and getting more articles up to GA and FA status. My proposal was overlooked until editors of BBUK took notice. I am also proposing giving the main page a face lift to make it more neater and friendly for newer editors. Here is a mockup I created at my sandbox. What do you think? ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 22:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for sidebar occuring on BB10UK talk page

I've suggested that we stop using the Nominated/Up for eviction colouring on the sidebar as it breaks Wiki policy. As this would affect the BB articles worldwide, I've posted a link to this discussion here. Please don't discuss the issue here, please take it to the link posted in order to centralise the discussion. Thanks, DJ 22:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Big Brother Origins

I find this forum too difficult to navigate, but just wanted to add one bit of information I think should be in Wikipedia along with all the other game show detail in which so many fans here are interested. Don't you think you should at least mention George Orwell and 1984 so that the whole concept of "Big Brother is watching you" is understood? If you claim to be an online "encyclopedia" this would seem obvious to me.

I don't understand this tildes thing. 69.234.216.125 (talk) 22:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Requesting Official Split of Big Brother UK and Big Brother US Projects from Project Big Brother

Seeing as these are the two largest versions of Big Brother, I feel they need to be split from the main project, meaning they fall under their own jurisdiction each. The two shows are trying to survive on the same consensus when it is obvious the two shows are operated differently. UK has each HG nominating while US has HoH and PoV (there are others, but these are the major ones). Currently, most consensus is being hosted from the BBUK articles, while it is clear that they should not be held there. Splitting will solve all issues of disputes. Again, this will split them as their own individual project with only the Television Project superseding them. Thoughts? –túrian^patois 22:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

As seem as you are the only person ever to voice any problems about this issue (and that was an hour ago), it's a resounding no from me. Just because the format of a TV programme is different, it doesn't mean that Wikipedia should split WikiProjects left, right and center. Many foreign versions are included in WP:IDOL and they manage just fine. DJ 22:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Yet, you pull stunts like: This is a WP:BIGBRO matter but as we're likely to get most of the traffic through here for the next few weeks, this is a good place to discuss it. If Project UK doesn't want to split, then I will propose a split for Project US. Since you fail to notice the massive differences between the two shows. –túrian^patois 22:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, WP:IDOL manages fine. DJ 22:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Because the idol shows are based on the same format and are extremely similar. These two shows are entirely different. The only thing they have in common is a name. –túrian^patois 23:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

No they aren't. Pop Idol and American Idol are extremely different. DJ 23:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Besides the fact that they might be doing fine, the issue is that BB isn't because the shows are two different shows. Pop Idol and AI have voting, Bottom 3, vote off. They are similar. UK and US BB are COMPLETELY different. –túrian^patois 23:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

From what I've seen of BBUS it is vastly different to BBUK outside of having people in a "house". I think that reforming the BBUK articles would be made easier if we didn't have to fit a square peg in a round hole. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I do agree that the BBUSA articles are dragging the WikiProject down, but I don't think a split is a way forward. Surely the task force idea works just fine? DJ 22:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Another insult. Keep up the cohesiveness! The task force isn't enough since you have proven to try to control the entire project with consensus on the UK page. The two games are totally different. Trying to form a consensus for both is a hassle. So each on needs to be its own project. –túrian^patois 22:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

For a third time - WP:IDOL seems to manage with many international versions. DJ 23:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Dale, once BBUK10 is over then the UK side of the project should concentrate on raising the standards of the UK articles, as it stands the differences between the two programs is going to mean constant discussion which will leave both sides dissatisfied. The Idol comparison is not relevant as Idol turning into X Factor so the two series of the UK Pop Idol have little effect on the US Idol, and the rules were the same for both. Other than a house and housemates the UK and US BB are different in nearly every aspect (no nominations, no live crowd, no public vote) to the point where they are only the same in the most basic elements. The US is not holding back the UK pages, but the different shows are not similar enough. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is the two shouldn't be split from one another. WikiProject Big Brother covers all licensed versions of the Big Brother format from Endemol. This includes Big Brother UK (produced by Brighter Pictures, an Endemol UK subsidiary) and Big Brother USA (co-produced by Endemol USA and Allison Grodner Productions). I proposed several task forces for several versions that have modified formats. I proposed one for the UK, USA, Australian, Germany, France, Africa and Philippine versions as they are the most notable and have a good amount of difference in format.

The point of the task forces is to provide greater focus on the regional differences of each format. The main project should be about policies that apply to all. The task forces work under the main project. I also like to point out that in a UK documentary after the second UK series the creator of the format pointed out that there are rules the local producers can change to adapt Big Brother to the local culture while some can not be changed. In America a more competitive format similar to Survivor was introduced because the American viewers didn't take to the true original format featured in the Netherlands version. Just because the American version has an HoH and PoV isn't enough grounds to separate it entirely from the Project. (Africa has a HoH, UK had an HoH, Brazil has an HoH and a PoV.)

Sorry for the long post but that is my view. Simply no, the task forces are meant to focus on the regional format changes of a specific Big Brother in a specific country with the main project providing policies to work with all versions. I have proposed many things that would make the project better here but no one wants to check the project talk page. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 23:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Also túrian, DJ has proposed changes to benefit both articles, I think it would be silly to say how to source an article different in the UK than the USA, this is Wikipedia after all. Also I don't agree with DJ's statement of the USA articles dragging down the project. Has any of you seen the pages for other international versions or the main Big Brother page? Most of the international versions (I am excluding the USA, UK, Philippine, Australia and to extent Africa) do not follow the guidelines set at all! Here are some problems:

• Nomination tables don't follow the guidelines established, different colors are sometimes used instead of established colors.
• Many have trivia. (Against Wikipedia's policy)
• Many are exact copies from information found on World of Big Brother
• Many only cite World of Big Brother as their only source.
• Many don't even site World of Big Brother.

See my point with all of these, none of the editors are coming together they are just doing their own thing and when some editors try to get other editors from a different country involved they are criticized. Then one country criticizes the other. No collaboration going on, noting. And where editors are only focusing on one version or for the USA one season, other articles are suffering because of it. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 23:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

My main issue is the consensus sought out to affect all of the articles. These articles cannot run on the same consensus. Period. –túrian^patois 23:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

In order to maintain peace, I suggest this: consensus for the entire project must be held on this page. No more "this page has more traffic so we will have it here". Consensus will not be used when the result would cause conflicts within the project. At that point, the consensus discussion will trickle down to the Task Forces page to suit each show. So basically, consensus discussion start on this page when it is far reaching. A decision is reached and the task forces decide how to interpret it. Sound good? –túrian^patois 00:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Um nope, how would that maintain peace? Okay the project and task force pages obviously don't generate enough people. An obvious example is all of my attempts to improve the project but they were not discussed until someone happened to look here while BB10 UK was airing and found the task forces proposal then the UK and USA were created. The task forces are meant to emphasis the difference of that version. The project should be about policies that can be enforced across all articles. I doubt a discussion to add or remove sources from the nomination table (aka voting history table in the USA) should require two different consensus. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 00:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

And if the truth be told, Turian has been the only user distrupting "the peace" in regards to a US/UK "divide". DJ 00:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Because you are trying to form consensus on a project on a page the project belongs to, not the actual project page! You can't do that and expect it to fly. I am the only one trying to resolve the major differences between the show between your insults and Alucard's "um nope"s. –túrian^patois 00:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I am talking about this

A decision is reached and the task forces decide how to interpret it.

I have no problem with a project wide discussion taking place on the project page than an article. I am all for it if it brings more people to the project page. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 00:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

\=>I am talking about consensus being reached for all pages. Then the task forces reach a consensus for that specific version. How is that bad? –túrian^patois 00:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't get how the two consensus thing would work. I mean as an example adding sources to the nomiation/voting history tables. What is your opinion on how that should be added? ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 00:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

A consensus would be reached for all Big Brother. But let's say it says, bold the nomations in the voting box. How would BBUK do that? They don't have something for that. Then once the consensus reached down to the Task Force, they can alter it accordingly.The sources is a project discussion, not one just for BBUK. –túrian^patois 01:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh I see now, that is what task forces are intended for to give more emphases on the elements of a specific part of the project that the others don't have. Such as the Coup d'État (USA) or if one variation of Big Brother uses different terms to specify an event (like the UK uses "ejected" for Housemates removed by the producers while the US uses "Expelled" for the same thing.) ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 04:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

But they aren't being utilized, which is the problem. ––túrian^patois 04:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

List of Big Brother (U.S.) HouseGuests upgraded to FL-Class

Everyone, Another Believer has been working on List of Big Brother (U.S.) HouseGuests and has gotten the list up to FL-Class! This is a great achievement and the first FL-List for WP:BIGBRO as a whole. I honestly think that we can get more of the BB articles up to A-Class, GA-Class or even dare I say it FA-Class. I think that we should take a look at other reality based competition shows that have FA-Class articles and see what we can incorporate to make the BB USA/BB UK articles and other BB articles around the world to FA-Class. I believe this year the editors of the USA and UK articles have a great start here. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 04:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Posted to Big Brother 11 (U.S.), Big Brother 2009 (UK) and WP:BIGBRO. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 04:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

List of Celebrity Big Brother (UK) housemates is nominated for Featured List status

Posted to Big Brother 11 (U.S.), Big Brother 2009 (UK) and WP:BIGBRO.
...and it would be appreciated (and highly useful) if editors with knowlege of Big Brother could help review the article on its nominations page. It would be amazing for WP:BIGBRO to get its second FL in such a short space of time. DJ 22:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Template is anti-colour blind

There is a discussion occuring here on whether the colours of the sidebar are too similar. Please discuss the matter there, thanks. DJ 17:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible new Nomination Table Color requirement

I would welcome some guidance on the use of Nominations Tables BB Use of tables. An issue has been debated on the current series BB10 UK Talk Page here (debate about nominations)].

A couple of Housemates, one miscreant in particular, has refused several times to provide nominations in accordance with the fundamental rules. Big Brother’s response, as well as doling out minor punishments, has been to allocate or assign nominations to that HM for each nomination event for which normal nominations have not been provided. Big Brother has made it clear that these are the nominations of the Housemates concerned. Indeed, on one occasion Big Brother told those refusing that “You will nominate” and via a surreptitious selection process involving touching or speaking, ensured that nominations were successfully attributed. These nomination twists are well recorded in the appropriate part of the article.

The debate is about how these should be recorded in the table of nominations. Although progress has been made by replacing the palpably incorrect “did not nominate” with “refused”, I believe that there is a strong argument that the table should contain the names of the nominations with a new colour being assigned by the taskforce to illustrate that they were as a result of “refusal” or “indirect method”. The argument that the table is for spoken nominations is specious and unsubstantiated. The case for having the names with a new color is simple; they are the official nomination of the housemate concerned. The table is a record of facts, the special circumstances are covered in the summary. Why should a table of names not show the names simply because the were chosen by non-verbal methods? As I’ve said in the discussion, the Periodic Table contains the raw details of elements that do not exist, not an explanation that they can be created for a few nano-seconds in a partical collider. Tables contain essential raw data. The name of nominees is simply raw data.

In addition, we are using an official source for the nomination details and this records the assigned nominations in just the same way. (C4BB_voting_history). That in turn is a justification for the use of a nominations total Column which was debated here (discussion_about_total_column) and here further discussion to avoid WP:SYN. That justification is blown if we continue to use “did not nominate”, “refused” or any other comment than the actual names themselves.

Is this the correct place to debate this and if so can I request a decision on the issue? leaky_caldron (talk) 17:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Winners

Why do winners automatically get their own page? I think that some (like Rachel Rice, Antony Hutton, Cameron, Brian Bello and Sophie etc) should be merged into a list of Big brother winners, or something similar. Any thoughts? GunGagdin^Moan 17:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

New Member

I'm new to the project, and just thought I would introduce myself. Sean (talk || contribs) 05:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)