Wikipedia

Talk:Big Brother (British TV series) series 10/Archive 5

< Talk:Big Brother (British TV series) series 10
Latest comment: 8 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Housemates' occupations

Latest comment: 15 years ago14 comments3 people in discussion

At some point the housemates' occupations were removed from the table. Would whoever did it care to explain why, please, as I'm considering reinstating them. MegaPedant (talk) 13:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:V issues; most were unsourced or debatable. Also, it's redundant in this article, it belongs in the HMs article as this article is about the series, and where they work outside of the programme has nothing to do with the house events. Dale 14:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I think this should be discussed rather than simply deleted as the information has been there for a number of weeks. By the same token, their ages and home towns are also redundant, and the latter even more unsourced, debatable and unverifiable. For example, from listening to housemates' conversations it is abundantly clear that Rodrigo lives in Leeds, not Manchester (previously discussed). Further, Ohio is a state, not a town, and Cheshire is a county. Sophie talks a lot about two specific towns in Cheshire and I strongly suspect that one of them (Nantwich) is her home town. I suggest we either reinstate the occupations or else remove the home towns as well. MegaPedant (talk) 14:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I would opine that the table doesn't have a good look and feel about it. Is it necessary at all? If so might it be better split into 2 arrays of 4*11 across the page rather than 4 columns by 22? leaky_caldron (talk) 15:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe that arbitrarily splitting the table in two just to make it look better is acceptable but I would like to reinstate the occupations column and correct some of the errors in the home town column, as I wrote above. MegaPedant (talk) 09:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I've done a little research and we can now officially state that Sophie lives in Nantwich and Rodrigo lives in Leeds. And I suppose we could use this 2007 source to back up that Isaac is from Cleavland If we're going to do occupations, maybe we should compile them here first with sources? It's just that there was alot of controversy over some of them (Isaac, Kenneth and David are the first to spring to mind), so maybe this will be easier in retrospect? Dale 11:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

What about the initial debate above about whether it is redundent here? Although my point was cosmetic based on "as is", the question of what is actually needed was the main issue. Does it no longer duplicate the HM article? leaky_caldron (talk) 12:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
That was one half of the original point, yes. However, MP raised the point that of they go, then the ages and hometowns should probably go to. You could also argue that the surnames are redundant too, so I now think it's best to include them as long as they're verifiable. Dale 17:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
But does any of it really belong here? There was a discussion early on which unfortunately you were unable to contribute. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Big_Brother_2009_(UK)/Archive_3#Houemates_section We started with a stub, went to prose, then went to a stub again in late July then a table on 28 July. There is nothing in the table that is not already in the separate HM article. Ages, place of birth and occupation. Why do we need a table which is a summary of a linked article referenced in the section heading? You were also keen on reducing tables in the article IIRC. Do you think we could achieve a consensus to remove it and just leave the article link and develop the HMs details in the separate article? Probably just needs MP and you to agree. Otherwise do you know the policy on duplication of articles and their stubs? leaky_caldron (talk) 18:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
The table came about as a compromise to resolve yet another impasse. There was a move to delete the Housemates article and much bickering and back biting on the talk page. My view is that as it stands it doesn't serve much of a purpose and so could be deleted. However, if the Occupation column were reinstated it would give just enough useful information to allow the casual reader to learn a little about each housemate before reading the Summary section without having to visit another article. While I hate repetition within an article, I don't see that there's a problem with duplicating information between articles. Some articles, such as the BB Controversy article, are simply copy and pastes of others. That example was proposed for deletion but it was saved so I don't see an issue here. MegaPedant (talk) 19:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Please can nobody propose that this section be altered any futher - it caused a big enough headache the last time lol. Lets just add the occupations back and see what gets reccomended at Peer Review/GA review. Dale 19:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

fine if it helps move things on. If you've both come to terms with the reservations you have "it's all good, Biggie" leaky_caldron (talk) 21:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Rock and Roll! Er, actually, I do have one other reservation. It's about the ordering of the housemates in the table. Originally it showed the order in which they entered the house and that gave useful information. Now, it shows the order in which they left the house, which triplicates information that's given in two other places, namely the nominations table and the endgame table. Does anyone object to restoring the original order? Can we be clear about what the Age column refers to, please? I take it it's their ages on entry into the House, since some have since celebrated birthdays, David being the most recent. So, does every occupation and location need a reference and at what point do we take the snapshot? Many contestants have to give up their jobs in order to enter the competition. The most obvious point to take the snapshot, then, would seem to be at the time their acceptance onto the show was confirmed, in which case their occupations were pretty much as Davina described them on launch night, given that they each wrote their own job description anyway, and we can argue whether or not "gameshow contestant" is a more honest description than "entertainer and bar owner"! MegaPedant (talk) 23:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Totally agree. It needs to be anchored to their date of entry, in entry order. If that is made clear in the pre-text it will help to give the table some meaningful context and prevent future argument. Otherwise in a few years time someone will change Siavash's occupation to retired events organiser and David's to Vivienne Westwood model!
So, let's revert it and then discuss the changes necessary, eh? MegaPedant (talk) 12:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Cite Episode template

Latest comment: 15 years ago32 comments7 people in discussion

What is the point of these? They don't provide a working link to the source being linked. leaky_caldron (talk) 17:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Episodes don't have links - they are TV episodes and the piece being cited is the episode. They're much more reliable than the C4 website sources, as the website moves the articles each Christmas, and I plan to phase out many (if not all) of the C4 website sources and replace them with their respective cite episode templates. As long as we don't have an overload of them (as discussed previously, secondary sources are better) I don't see the problem. Dale 18:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

They are not very effective and the latest one is incorrect. They actually won the shopping task on Day 90 not 89.

Where was the consensus to change to these per the specific requirement in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_templates?

"Citation templates are used to format citations in a consistent way. The use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged. Templates may be used or removed at the discretion of individual editors, subject to agreement with other editors on the article. Because templates can be contentious, editors should not change an article with a consistent citation format to another without gaining consensus."

This isn't a consensus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Big_Brother_2009_(UK)/Archive_4#Sources_roundup_-_with_a_snazzy_graph. leaky_caldron (talk) 18:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

nor was this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Big_Brother_2009_(UK)/Archive_2

They should be changed until consensus is reached, or am I wrong? leaky_caldron (talk) 18:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

You're wrong. You're complaining that one of the Day numbers is wrong; WP:SOFIXIT. The C4 web sources are unreliable due to the ticking time bomb attatched - the cite episode refs are from the same source and will never die. It's been stated since before the series started that the cite episode template could be used and there were no disagreements then and there have been no disagreements since until I asked you not to rely on C4 web sources too much in your edits. Dale 18:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
There is no consensus on this issue. In fact it suggests the use of Cite web and cite news recommended by yourself:

"Remember to use Cite web and Cite news. I'm sure we can all do it together :)" DJ 13:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It mentions cite episode once in an extremely long and inconclusive arguement in which you played a central part. You cannot possibly claim a consensus. I think you should restore the status quo. I will be changing the latest one anyway and we'll see where that takes us. I would like other editors to contribute but I think many of them have found less contentious articles on which to focus their efforts! leaky_caldron (talk) 18:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Can we approach regular editors and get their view on this specific issue? leaky_caldron (talk) 19:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Using the episode template is common sense. Why should we not use it? –túrianpatois 19:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus as required in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_templates leaky_caldron (talk) 19:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
WP:UCS. –túrianpatois 19:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Can you justify that per WP:UCS please? My points are that there is no consensus and there needs to be one. Pointing to an episode is not a great deal of use here as the detail being summarised cannot be viewed. leaky_caldron (talk) 19:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Just to clarify what I think is being suggested, we have a summary section which contains brief details of the key weekly events. We link to reputable sources because that provides more detail and avoids needing to copy too much detail into the summary. So far so good. Here is the tricky bit I'm struggling with. If we point to an episode using the cite episode template we point to a television programme? How does that enable the brief summary facts to be expanded upon? What am I missing - if I cannot see the episode how do I find out more about the abreviated summary (which we only summarised to avoid putting too much detail into the article)? leaky_caldron (talk) 19:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Leaky caldron has removed the template for a second time, despite the consensus here being against the decision. Once more and they break WP:3RR, leaving us with no choice but to alert the admins. Dale 23:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

There is absolutly no consensus to use the cite episode template within the summary section of the BB article. Can you show me it. leaky_caldron (talk) 23:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Also, the shows, being edited highlights of 60 minutes with 4 - 5 commercial breaks, contain little more that 40 minutes content. There is no certainty that anything stated in the article will appear in the broadcast material, leaving article content unverified. leaky_caldron (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
finally, no consensus here either http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=311573807#Is_Big_Brother_Network_a_reliable_source_for_events_on_the_Big_Brother_reality_TV_show.3F so it must be reverted. leaky_caldron (talk) 01:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
What has that discussion got to do with this issue? :S Dale 16:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

3rd September

Per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Canvassing, I have sent the following message to the most recent/frequent talk page contributors [1]:
Hi, this message has been sent to you in accordance with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Canvassing#Friendly_notices
It concerns the following discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Big_Brother_2009_(UK)#Cite_Episode_template
leaky_caldron (talk) 09:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

To summarise:

  • No consensus to use cite episode template (required by policy)
  • The Summary section of the BB article needs active article links to fill out the story. That's why it is a "summary" and it avoids the need for too much detail in the article itself
  • Episodes do not always contain references to cited claims in the summary, giving rise to verifiability issues.
  • Summarised issues can span several days - shopping tasks etc.
  • Episodes are not accessible - or if they are via 4oD there is no retention policy - this is worse than using C4 BB weblinks because they can be reinstated when they move
  • There is an ongoing debate about similar issues here [2]

leaky_caldron (talk) 09:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

My view:
  • There's no consensus to use C4 sources either. You don't need consensus to make every single edit.
  • You said that one of the days was wrong on the reference - this doesn't mean that there's verifability issues, it means that a user made a mistake and that we should work together as a community to fix those mistakes. I was out by one day on one cite episode template - all of the other ones are correct so I don't see the issue.
  • But we aren't using cite episodes for the whole section - we are using them sparingly and as long as there's no overload, I don't see the problem.
  • It doesn't matter wheter episodes are easily accessable - some featured articles cite old newspaper articles that are hard to track down, but this is still seen as acceptable. Also, hardly any TV episodes are accessable yet the cite episode template still exists. I don't see your argument on this point. Nobody has mentioned 4OD.
  • One final point - Channel 4 website sources die, cite episode templates do not. Dale 15:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Undoubtedly some valid points there. As I said yesterday, the main anxiety I have is using them in the summary. The summary by definition reduces the amount of direct editing by providing the back-story in the linked articles. Obviously the programmes cannot fill out the abbreviated details so a reader is left in limbo. The C4 articles that expire can be recovered when they eventually archive them. I had to do that with some of the older articles in June. A pain but manageable.

WP:UCS doesn’t really work for me here. It’s not obvious to me that the advantages of using the prog. Template outweighs the lack of back-story it causes in the summary. As it says there, “When advancing a position or justifying an action, base your argument on existing agreements, community foundation issues and the interests of the encyclopedia, not your own common sense.” The summary isn't a good place for links that cannot be accessed. leaky_caldron (talk) 16:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have trouble understanding. The cite episode template is not supposed to be a link, its just a reference. There's a difference. Dale 16:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I do understand, really. I know what you are trying to do by using cite episode. They might have their place in the article. Not where details are so abreviated in a summary and need fleshing out in links for complete understanding. As regards the link [3] it contains discussion about the need for verifiability in relation to the use of prog. references. As you can see, there are issues with them and as yet, no consensus. leaky_caldron (talk) 17:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Surely you could say that about anything? Book references aren't verifiable unless you read the piece, non-internet newspaper pieces aren't verifiable unless you check the archives, DVD commentary references aren't verifiable unless you buy the DVD etc. HOWEVER, Featured Articles like this use all three. Dale 18:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Straw poll

I think its safe to say that all points of debate have been executed above, and it doesn't look like a consensus has been formed due to contributions from just 3 editors. Therefore, I think its best to have a quick poll in order to gather the views of contributors who don't want to join in on an argument. If any editors do want to raise a point they can still do so above, meaning that this section does not break WP:PNSD. Dale 20:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

  • I believe that cite episode references should be allowed, as they are as verifiable as citing books or newspapers, but that they should only be used sparingly when no secondary sources are available.
  • I believe that cite episode references should not be allowed, due to a lack of verifability, and that C4 website sources should be used instead.
  • There is a verifiability debate taking place elsewhere which would clearly influence this. They should not be used in the abridged summary because readable links are required to bolster the summary. leaky_caldron (talk) 08:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Bea percentage sources

Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Just want to keep these somewhere safe, as the source we have listed is the ever-reliable C4 website. No need for a discussion, just here for the future if we need to change them. Dale 21:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Why not just use this for all? http://www.channel4.com/bigbrother/voting/nominations-history.html It's the noms table official source and when it disappears to archive just needs a single minor change to the URL. I did the earlier years in June. leaky_caldron (talk) 21:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Guess why I put "No need for a discussion" in the post? And we can't keep relying on C4 sources (as has been discussed to death) - read this. Dale 21:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Because you were storing only Bea's source that's why. The C4 ref. contains all previous eviction percentages as well as the noms, it is a single accurate source, and is no less reliable as far as I can see. If it's of no benefit to you Dale it might be to other editors. leaky_caldron (talk) 21:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Why do you need to make a mountain out of a molehill? I simply posted these here, just in case we need to change them at some point in the future, and you ignored the request to avoid a discussion and started on about C4 sources. Consensus and policy shows that a variety secondary sources are preffered. I don't see why you're still complaining at every oppurtunity 3 months down the line. Dale 21:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I recorded a source for the benefit of all. The statement begining "why not" is not a discussion, it's a comment, not specifically aimed at you. Putting "no need for a discussion" is fine. My response was to ensure that others can use a source for all eviction percentages - not just Bea's. Don't be so quick to assume everything is aimed at you. Incidentally, I have never had any issue with sources. My issue in the preceding section is about the use of the cite episode template which is not a source suitable for enhancing summarised details since it is not available to enhance the summary. leaky_caldron (talk) 21:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

edit warring

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'd like to remind everyone that when 2 or 3 editors revert the good faith edits of another editor in an edit war, that's not consensus, it only means all the editors making reverts are edit warring and fixing nothing. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You don't need consensus for WP:COMMONSENSE. Dale 16:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Eviction percentages and sources

Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Rodrigo - 11% [4].

Charlie - 13.2% [5]Alternative URL

David - 19% [6].

Dale 19:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Charlie was 13.2% I believe but that's unsourced atm. These are all from the same voting cut. The lines are open again for the final 2. leaky_caldron (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Rodrigo and Charlie are from the same vote, but the lines opened again before David's eviction, meaning that his is out of 3. Dale 20:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Sophie - 74.4%
Siavash - 25.6% (Cite episode) Dale 21:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It's here http://www.channel4.com/bigbrother/blog/f9825573afe09854a830cf48bc38bc34/view.c4 and will no doubt be documented elsewhere.WP:TIND leaky_caldron (talk) 21:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. The BBC normally do a good job on the final. Dale 21:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Here are the customary overall percentages, assuming no changes in the vote share during the final. As ever, this is "just a bit of fun":

  • Sophie 45.7%
  • Siavash 15.7%
  • David 14.4%
  • Charlie 13.2%
  • Rodrigo 11.0%

This result was remarkable for two reasons. Firstly, Sophie was a runaway winner, 30% clear of her nearest rival, and with almost half of the votes. Secondly it was extremely close between the rest of them, with 5% between second and fifth. --Ross UK (talk) 01:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Nominations totals - yay or nay?

Latest comment: 15 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion

Before the series began, a debate on this issue concluded with the decision that the nominations totals should be kept for now and re-debated at the end of the series. Since then, much has changed, so here is a run-down of the arguments at the time and subsequent developments. Please sign (~~~~) underneath your chosen point of view, alongside a rationale stating the reasons for your choice so not to break WP:PNSD. Dale 20:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Arguments for deletion - It was argued that this breaks WP:NOT#STATS and WP:OR. Users claimed that WP:SYNTH is also violated because the information is not derived from one singular source - this does not include the final round of nominations and, now that the series is over, probably never will. It is also felt that the column has little or no encyclopaedic value, breaking WP:NOTFANSITE. It was argued that if readers were really curious about who received the most nominations, they could do the arithmetic themselves. Since the debate, the "routine calculations" claim has been disputed, as some of the nominations are not included in the table itself, but the "Notes" subsection. To counter the argument regarding precedent; consensus can change.
"The noms. table was discussed 3 months ago. There was only agreement about including the totals column when it was argued that it was based on the totals of the x & y axis. Now we are removing names but including them in the totals, there is an issue with the validity of the totals column. Should it be removed?" posted by leaky_caldron. Dale 22:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I support this side of the argument, mostly because I feel it breaks WP:SYNTH as it gathers infomation from more than one source. Dale 20:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I support this side because I feel it breaks WP:NOT#STATS, WP:OR and WP:NOTFANSITE. I was also against having these totals separate from the table itself. Also the outcome of this should be applied to all articles. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 20:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I support this side of the argument, with conditions. While I dislike deleting information, the column is no longer simple addition of the contents of other cells due to the way the housemates' refusal to nominate is represented. I feel this is a flaw in the table, which ought to be corrected and then the column can stay. If the flaw is not corrected then the column must be deleted. MegaPedant (talk) 09:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Arguments against deletion - The main point of this side of the argument is that the column is simple addition and therefore passes Wikipedia:OR#Routine calculations. Users also commented that as this system has been used in every previous BBUK-related article, WP:PRECEDENT decrees that it should be implemented again.
  • Oppose deletion. The argument and justification has little changed except in one respect*. Consensus might change.

As far as policy is concerned:

  • WP:OR#Routine calculations permits the use of a single primary source and so removes WP:SYNTH from the argument.
  • WP:NOTFANSITE says only that WP:OR is not permitted so that’s taken care of by the same accepted policy for routine calculations.
  • WP:NOT#STATS refers to Excessive listing of statistics. “Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles.” A single column added to the existing array cannot be considered to fail that test. In fact, that policy in its next sentence actually encourages the use of tables so I’m sure that no issue exists for adherence to that policy.

Even if the current source is not updated with the final week I believe that “the table itself is the source” argument is sufficient for a non-biographical, non-text array and this can be confirmed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/noticeboard for guidance. I’m happy to do the leg work if necessary.

Precedent: The argument remains strong. It has both historical and widespread use.

Changing it in this article alone would be entirely inappropriate. Edit warring would be inevitable from a wider editor base than this discussion/consensus. I for one would also be persuaded to remove similar tables from all other BB sites (for consistency as suggested by ♪♫Alucard). This would cause widespread disruption to a large number of articles and I hope we would all be willing to back each other up in the ensuing edit wars!

For that reason I believe that wider BB community agreement is absolutely vital at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Big_Brother#Nominations_table_and_Voting_history_table

The only previous discussion I have found before this year was here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Big_Brother/A3#Total_number_of_nominations 2 years ago. No change to the U.S. style was agreed.

My view is that with U.S. precedent established and unless the BB Project supports it’s removal, it cannot be changed for BB10 (UK) alone.
There is a minor hidden consequence to some external fan sites which use a direct lift from our article. We are providing an encyclopaedic free content facility to these sites.
  • *The issue that still requires resolution is at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Big_Brother#Possible_new_Nomination_Table_Color_requirement

There has been no response. Until that is resolved it’s not worth going to the OR Noticeboard. leaky_caldron (talk) 09:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the U.S. articles I added the column because anon editors kept adding a table to the list of HouseGuests for BB11 USA. Since the table wasn't needed on that page I merged the column from that table into the voting history so all the information from the table on the list of HouseGuests for BB11 would be in the main article. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 23:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Could someone correct the article relating to anniversary celebrations

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Under the competitions it says that the Uberfan was "Jobby" but this is not true. There were 2 competitions: A "Be Big Brother" one which Jobby won, and the "George Lamb Quiz of the Decade" which was won by Jacob Stolworthy, an 18 year old A Level Student from Eltham. I know this as a fact for two reasons: 1. I have recorded the episodes from E4 and 2. I am a close friend with Jacob and attend Big Brother evictions every single week. I was at the eviction on the night he had gone into BBLB as a cameraman, and was able to discuss everything with hi, about it.

I do not know how to edit Wikipedia so I would like someone else to do so. As it currently stands the article is completely wrong.93.97.52.92 (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Kizzy Gourlay93.97.52.92 (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Recent changes and GA nomination

Latest comment: 14 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

Recent changes to this article have ignored subjects that have been discussed on this page and consensus reached. I give as an example the day on which each week was determined to have begun. Also a number of pictures have been added. While I consider Nikki Grahame to be relevant, I don't believe pictures of Henry VIII, Elizabeth II, Beyonce Knowles, Michael Jackson or Susan Boyle add anything to the article and their addition is simply gratuitous. A picture of Rodrigo meeting the ersatz Queen or of Siavash dressed as Henry VIII would be a different matter, copyright issues notwithstanding. I've asked that the editor concerned read through the archived discussion and reconsider. Please discuss. —MegaPedant 21:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I had a look through peer reviews, good article reviews and featured article reviews before nominating this article - I am new to the website and, therefore, I have little experience. I noticed that the inclusion of images that were in the public domain, that had relevance to the subject matter, was encouraged. Therefore, I added some images. There is an image of Susan Boyle a controversy surrounding the care of the contestants was compared and associated with a similar, high-profile scandal involving her. I added an image of Michael Jackson into the Reception section because critics commented that his death had an impact on the media's reception of the programme. I added images of Beyonce, Elizabeth II and Henry VIII into the summary section because they were the inspiration of some of the tasks that were described in this section and this section was a big, ugly block of text - the aforementioned reviews that I read suggested that these be broken up with images.
With regards to the day that weeks begin on - I was not involved with Wikipedia when these debates (which I can't find) occurred. There was a discrepancy between the nominations table and the summary, so I changed the summary as this was easier than changing some confusing table code. I did not act against consensus, as it is not clear in the article (via invisible comments) that there is one. You were one of the prime editors of this article when it was more active; may I politely suggest that you not leave a mess and then yell at the person who attempts to clean it up? If the table and summary paragraphs had matched when I arrived, there would be no need for this part of the discussion to take place. KingOfTheMedia (talk) 21:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Consensus isn't formed by hidden comments in the source but by discussion – in this particular case here. That "big, ugly block of text" has also been the subject of much discussion. I'm not yelling and I didn't create the mess. I've assumed good faith and because you're new I'm giving you the opportunity to reconsider some of the changes you've made rather than doing a wholesale revert as some of your edits (changing the tense to the past, for example) are welcome ones. Welcome to Wikipedia, by the way. It's a community, not a free for all. —MegaPedant 22:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I didn't say that consensus was formed by hidden comments, I said that, once a consensus has been established, it should be placed in hidden comments so new/unfamiliar users don't have to trawl through 12 months worth of discussion before editing a mistake. I've read that discussion - no consensus was established, it was just a row between some users. The only evidence provided is now a link to another page ([8]). All in all, reading that taught me nothing. "That "big, ugly block of text" has also been the subject of much discussion" - from the archive conversations I've read, there have been no chinwags about images there. May I suggest you remain WP:CIVIL please? KingOfTheMedia (talk) 22:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
When I saw these changes last week I wasn’t overly impressed by the addition of many of the photographs, which I regarded as nonrepresentational of the article – in other words abstract. These people have no direct connection to the show, with the exception of Nikki. The day of week issue together with any other consensus issues must be reversed – one way or another. Getting back to a trusted version might be easier than unpicking recent changes. Leaky Caldron 22:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

That was last week - what are your views in response to the justifications above? And, as I mentioned, no consensus has been established, so no consensus has been violated. KingOfTheMedia (talk) 22:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I also found the addition of the images to be gratuitous and abstract, and still do. That's all I have to say on the matter. anemoneprojectors talk 22:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I still regard the inclusion of pictures of Henry VIII, Elizabeth II, Beyonce Knowles, Michael Jackson and Susan Boyle as incongruous. Leaky Caldron 23:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Images changes

As you can see, I've changed and/or replaced the images that were causing problems. The only one that I'd like to stick with is the image of Susan Boyle - the Sree incident followed on from the hugely notable Boyle drama and the Daily Mail and The Times picked up on this association, placing them under the umbrella of the ongoing controversy. KingOfTheMedia (talk) 23:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I for one am not happy with the Susan Boyle photo's caption, in which you assert that the incidents were linked, but do not provide a citation. The incidents were compared, yes, but I see no evidence to suggest that they were linked. I urge you to put the week numbers back as they were and, if you're feeling brave, have a go at editing the table to match. You've clearly learnt a great deal in the short time you've been active on WP so there's no reason to be afraid of a table :) Now, in case there should be any misunderstanding, this is me being civil and complimentary: you remind me a lot of an old pal I once had. We used to lock horns occasionally (well, more than occasionally!) but there was a certain mutual respect between us. He made a considerable number of very valuable contributions but he also did a foolish thing and doesn't edit any more. That's a great pity. It's nice to see someone else with a passion. My message of welcome was genuine. —MegaPedant 01:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

One lil thing

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Saw this on the GA nom page. Wouldn't know how to do a review but one thing that sticks out just from the opening is that the prize fund being £71,320 isnt sourced anywhere in the article form what I can see. Mark E (talk) 23:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. KingOfTheMedia (talk) 00:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Big Brother (British TV series) series 10/Archive 5/GA1

Nomination of List of Big Brother 10 housemates (UK) for deletion

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Big Brother 10 housemates (UK) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Big Brother 10 housemates (UK) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

The outcome will directly affect this article.


Leaky Caldron 14:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Sophia Brown

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Her birthdate/-year seems to be wrong, if the source is right. It claims she was 30 in May 2012, so if the date is right, year must be 1981 (not 1983). 82.141.94.123 (talk) 08:22, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Big Brother 10 (UK). 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 05:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Big Brother 10 (UK). 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 05:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Big Brother 10 (UK). 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:

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) 23:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Big_Brother_(British_TV_series)_series_10/Archive_5&oldid=1216347773"