Talk:Big Brother (British TV series) series 12/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Copied text

Most of what is written on the articles main page is copied from the Celebrity Big Brother 2011 (UK) page and needs to be rewritten --MSalmon (talk) 18:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

BB due to go live

It has been announced that there will be 14 new housemates and the series will last 53 days. Updates are now being added to prepare for the launch. This is Brian: Do not revert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.98.14 (talk) 22:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Vandal alert

Darkness2005 is a vandal to this and other pages. Block him now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.98.14 (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

New housemates

Please restore bolded subheadings. The full list is: Mark, Maisy, Aaron, Africa, Tom, Tashie, Aden, Harry, Rebeckah, Anton, Alex, Faye, Jay and Louise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.98.14 (talk) 21:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

As I explained on my talk page, the page is protected because of a mixture of potential BLP violations and a lack of encyclopedic style on the trivia stuff. We can wait until the printed/online media reports after the show for character descriptions: the sources have yet to be published. Once they do, they can be expanded. But the protection and reversion was so we can not have BLP violations for the next hour or so while the sources are produced. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, those with editing access could at least leave the emboldened housemate subheadings as a template for updating.

you forgot Alex. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.83.65 (talk) 21:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Will the unblocker put back the housemates headings asap?

The housemates list must be updated asap.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.98.14 (talk • contribs)

Article is no longer semi-protected. 72.244.206.77 (talk) 07:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Daily updates and problems with BB links

I am updating the daily summaries and trying to reflect events in the house in the updates as far as possible. As this series has take a salacious turn, I am translating the action as politely as possible but also as frankly as possible as events happen.

Updates and links for daily clips on the Channel 5 dedicated site and Facebook have been poor so far and won't play. They all link simply to channel 5 site, unlike the CBB clips.

I will keep updating events as they happen from the limited sources beyond the highlights shows which lag a day behind events in the house. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.98.14 (talk) 15:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Icarusgeek

Would Icarusgeek stop reverting and altering updates? These take time and patience to research and download. Only revert if there is an obvious spelling mistake or incorrect fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.98.14 (talk) 17:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Daily summaries

The long daily summaries will be condensed at the end of each week. The daily updates summarise events in the absence of live feed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.69.117 (talk) 07:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Eye logo

The eye logo at the top pf the housemates bar is not the one channel 5 released. Fair enough it is used in the opening titles but i think the eye which was officially released should be used. 82.40.82.168 (talk) 16:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Carl sixthsmith vandalism

Would the above not remove whole sections of article that have taken a lot of effot to research? The summary is changing at the end of week 1 when it will be reduced down. The long summary is to record the early days' events as people are having problems accessing the clips and there's no live feed. It will be edited down as time goes on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.226.33 (talk) 20:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

PS, this aricle is getting several thousand hits per day. It is a record of factual events as they happened in the house, not gossip!

Wikipedia is not a gossip or news site. It is not vandalism to remove unsourced, none-notable drivel from articles. It is your responisbility as the adder of information to prove why it is note worthy, not mine to prove it is not, Carl Sixsmith (talk) 05:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Not gossip, a record of published fact on TV and social media. None is speculation. Wikipedia contain links to the adult themes you may have a problem with. You are trying to censor an open access site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 08:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Daily summaries

Please stop re-adding the summaries. They are unsourced and not notable, the article does not exist to promote gossip or give a running commentary on what is happening in the house. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 05:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC) Please see the following policies on fansites, gossip, indiscriminate details. And the policy on what makes something notable. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 05:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The summaries follow the accepted diary pattern for Celebrity Big Brother 2011 and you are the vandal for keep reverting them. Three strikes and you're out. Your deletions are in bad faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 06:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

You are mistaken, you are attempting to enforce the pokemon argument that is invalid. It is on you to prove both the notability and verifiability of edits. To continue to ignore established rules is vandalism, not enforcing them. I suggest your read up on what is and is not acceptable. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 07:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

You're in the wrong. It has been accepted thus far and conforms to the accepted pattern for Celebrity Big Brother 2011. All material is references and is a record of the videoed facts. None is gossip, you are out on a limb. Others are fine with the content, it's you that has the problem. The summary is being editd down. That the content is cited and appeared on British TV makes it fact. You must get consensus before deleting whole sections. A tidy-up is in progress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 08:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Please read this something being verifiable does not make it notable. Also the fact that something exists on another article does not make it right here. I notice from your edits that the only article you modify are big brother, do you work for Channel 5 or something? Carl Sixsmith (talk) 08:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Please stop removing tags from the article until the issues have been addressed. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Are the summary sections in this document valid content for a wikipedia page, or are they overlong and fan crufty? 08:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

No, they record the facts recorded on the media of a reality show. It is one trying to stir up an edit war against the consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 09:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• They are overly detailed and poorly written. LadyofShalott 10:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

No, they're clearly written and tell the early events in the house exactly as they happened.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk)

We don't need to give every detail "exactly as they happened". LadyofShalott 10:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• • I agree - only the main events like tasks, nominations, entrys and exits are needed not what is happening every minute of every day. --MSalmon (talk) 10:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The summary has already been trimmed and will be further tided up at the end of week 1. The detailed information will be reduced to the basics now that the social media are coming on stream for updates.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk)

This sounds like an admission that they are overly detailed and contain information that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia (at least one not titled Big Brotherpedia). LadyofShalott 10:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

It's getting worse and worse. There is way too much detail in this article. LadyofShalott 22:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

As explained, it will be precied down to a condensed form at the end of week 1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 06:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Still waiting for the condensing. Week 1 is still way too large. And please, out of common courtesy for everyone here, sign your posts! (Jandal3c) 08:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I did create a shorter version of events but it was reverted by the user (I have just given up now) --MSalmon (talk) 10:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I honestly propose this article be locked, and only registered members be able to edit it. The poorly written summary makes me wanna cry, to be honest. Jandal3c(talk) 06:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm obviously involved, so no way will I touch admin tools here. WP:RFPP is what you want. LadyofShalott 06:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I don't think your request will be granted, but you can ask. LadyofShalott 06:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The summaries are excellent and being improved every day. The above just wants ownership of the article and wants to block free access. That goes against the wiki principles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 22:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

You really should avoid saying "excellent," because if these articles were "excellent" as you so brilliantly state, then there wouldn't be any tags on this page telling users to reformat the writing so it suits the encyclopedia format that Wikipedia is known for. Not to mention there would be a star in the top right corner of the article if it were written "excellently." By whose standards are the summaries being written "excellently?" If it's your own, I hate to say it, but you're severely deluded. Again, encyclopedias do discuss fact, but just because it's "factual" doesn't mean it needs to be written down. And please, SIGN YOUR POSTS! Jandal3c (talk) 22:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Nominations total

Why do we need a seperate table for the total number of nominations, what is wrong with the way it is now? --MSalmon (talk) 13:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no need for it. Their no of noms is mentioned elsewhere. Don't like too many tables. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 13:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Weekly summaries

I propose to hive off the detailed summary of each week's events to a

Main article: Summary of events in Big Brother 2011

link. A condensed version of the present text (not tabulated) can then be placed above the current week's events. Launch night's details can be placed under their own heading in the main article as was done in Celebrity Big Brother 2011. After each Friday night, each past week's detailed summary will then be archived onto the link and a condensed version added onto the main page for easy reference

Eg.

Link to detailed summary of previous weeks

Brief cumalative summary here: Week 1 Day 1: X did so and so, etc. Day 2, Day 3 etc. One paragraph at most.

Week 2 More detailed account of current week's ongoing events here.

If an editor can create the link and new sub-article, this would be helpful.

A new article is not needed, it just needs to be cut down massively so there is a similar amount of information as previous series. 12bigbrother12 (talk) 00:11, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I am working out a way to cut it down once more things happen in week 2. I don't think it has to conform with the C4 series article as it's a new series and the new more detailed summary was trialled on Celebrity BB2011. If a link to the housemates, why not one to the past week's events with a short summmary on the main page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 07:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I have added a new short summary of main events at the top of the section. Do not remove the main summary, it will be cut down to accommodate future events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 08:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd recommend a table be used to summarize the events, like what was done in certain series' articles (e.g. BB9, BB8, CBB7, etc.). The user adding all this nonsense to the weekly summary needs to remember to keep everything above all else user-friendly. I'm not really interested in the male housemates discussing the size of their genitalia, romance between housemates, etc. That sort of information is best for sites like Digital Spy, BBSpy, Inside Big Brother, etc. Jandal3c (talk) 19:51, 17 September 2011, PDT

You are trying to censor the reality of what happened on the show. If not to your taste, don't read it, it was included in the show. That is the nature of the show and it's what they did and appeared on the highlights. Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk)

I agree, the summary is way too long and should be cut down to a paragraph for each week at least (semi protect page perhaps until the end of the series?). I would use previous series as a guide. --MSalmon (talk) 08:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not trying to censor the reality of what happened on the show; rather, I'm only summarizing major events that went on. The only sort of "conversations" that would be qualified to be on the summary would be ones that led into major events (e.g. Fight Night in BB5 and Fight Night II in BB9). Any sort of entertaining small talk, like love live, sexual escapades, penis size, romance, philosophical talks about politics and religion, etc., should be best kept to a minimum on a semi-professionally written article like this one. Jandal3c (talk) 19:11, 19 September 2011, PDT

The social details are the essentials of the show, the tasks just keep them busy. If you going to do a table, give the tasks their correct title as I did, you did not say it was a VIP party and give the titles of the tasks. Nominations are not exits, they haven't gone yet. The tabulated form is too inflexible, the running summary I did was better as it gave evetns at a glance. I will continue to update the main summary and see the table gets facts right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 07:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

It is being cut down on an ongoing basis as more events happen. The short summary is there for those not wanting the daily updates. It is following a similar format to the detailed summaries for BB2010 and CBB2011. The page should be open access, with no live feed, followers need to know what happened each day in once place as the social media offerings are too dispersed. As the weeks go on, much of the everyday detail will be trimmed. It's a work in progress.

Yes, but it is still too long even now --MSalmon (talk) 12:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, the "summary" continues to be ridiculously long, and the discussions of how big everyone's genitals are is itself ridiculous. Also, sign your posts. LadyofShalott 01:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I have converted the table that was there in to prose (refrences needed) and removed the detailed summary, so now it is just a weekly summary which is much better that all that rubbish that was there before. --MSalmon (talk) 08:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your changes were in vain there, lol. I think the person editing (who really needs to sign their posts out of common courtesy) is deluded in thinking that because 3K people hit this page, the weekly summary is worth writing, let alone well-written. Jandal3c (talk) 20:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Your changes are vandalism as the detailed summary was accepted for CBB 2011 and the tabel is innaccurate and poorly written. I'll be putting the detaisl back soon, they are needed with no live feed and social media updates all over the place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 09:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Did you not read what I just said above? --MSalmon (talk) 09:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you vandalised after 10 days of content and went ahead off your own back. Most readers were fine with it, you're out on a limb. There's nowhere else to keep up with events in one place. You'e wrong and the table is pitiful and inaccurate. Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk)

I don't see a table, do you? --MSalmon (talk) 09:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

"Essential details"?

86 has promised to reduce the overlarge summaries, but they are still overlarge. I took a stab at reducing the size of the day one portion and was reverted with the comment "essential details of launch night replaced, this is wha the said". Why are these "essential details"? I contend that we do not need every detail of what people said. The masturbation bit is ridiculous - I reduced it down to they "discussed masturbation" - that's what they did. Why do we need some claim to have jerked off however many thousand times a night? 86, a summary is not a listing of every comment made in the show. LadyofShalott 15:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

That is what they said on the night. To address your sarcastic comments, it is a gameshow and they call them boys and girls, it's not an age issue. Your edits are unhelpful, you are removing detail just because it's not to your taste. I won't waste time on any further updates while you vandalise all my hard work. Another of you people can do it and have your table and update it yourself. Had enough of this meddling, most have been fine with it as it stood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 17:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

It is a gameshow. It uses terminology like "girls and boys" for adults. This is an encyclopedia. That was not sarcasm; it's a simple statement of truth. Just because we are discussing a game show does not mean we act like one. LadyofShalott 19:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Point taken, but as some are teenager, I will use the term males and females. The entry concerning boys and girls in a game is correct as they were dressed as schoolchildren for the task. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Weekly summaries table

The running summary I started gave an accurate at a glance view of events in the house. I took care to give the correct titles to the tasks. Tables are too inflexible, we have used prose in Celebrity Big Brother 2011 and this is the convention for the new series, not a table. If the table must stay, make it short, not repeat what's said below. Give the tasks their names and the right days. Make a row for nominations, they are not exits, they are still in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 07:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

You don't need to give a summary of every single event that happens in the house just main ones like tasks, nominations, entries, exits etc. Week 1 should only be a paragraph ot two not half a page! --MSalmon (talk) 08:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

That so-called summary is tripe. It ignores the days and does not give the task names and has no refs. I will put the full version back in due course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 09:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Then put the task names and days in, it is not that hard to do --MSalmon (talk) 09:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I won't waste any more time with you keep vandalsing. I have better things to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 10:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

No more updates if vandalised again. Leave summary and stop removing refs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 10:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I shall be pruning down week 1 shortly and getting rid of a lot of the butts and small talk stuff now that it's past. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 14:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Can't see what the fuss is as the summary is way below the main details and with modern technology, navigating is hardly an issues if you have a keyboards or scroll button. But cut down it will be after the second eviction night when I predict there will be big developments in the house to come. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 22:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Housemates section

Two vandal sock puppets keep removing material from the housemates details. They are trying to censor details seen on the TV highlights shows. Stop them now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 22:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

You need to stop accusing everyone who disagrees with you about content of vandalism. Good faith edits to content not vandalism even if people disagree vehemently. LadyofShalott 14:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Chopping out random text isn't condensing. I am waiting to conclude week 2 and then have a review of previous days and trim it further. I will then compact it down into a paragraph per week. It is only following the pattern of Celebrity big brother which used the same. By week 3, a lot will have changed and a lot of the old stuff can go. At least wait till then.

Otherwise, no more updates and one of you people can do it and we'll get a week old table full of inaccurate info and no social content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 15:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference between editing and censoring. Besides, a lot of detail will go as each housemate leaves the house. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 14:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

MSalmon, Shallot, stop censoring and cherry picking summary section

Stop reverting edits to summary section willy nilly. Keep deleting and cherry picking content is censoring. I have already said a lot will be pruned after week 2. If you keep doing disruptive edits to recorded events, this will prov impossible and there will be no more updates. Perhaps that is what you want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 21:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I haven't touched week two. There is no need to add so much then reduce - be more judicious in your additions. (My name is Shalott, not Shallot.) LadyofShalott 22:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The value of the summaries

The summary serves a useful purpose as many incidents are shown out of context and edited for effect on the highlights shows since live feed ended. They can be read in the correct context here, as happened with Faye's tattoo incident which the highlights made out was only a fake tattoo, in fact she was offered a real one. Many incidents such as beergate are no appearing on the highlights so, with social media so transient, this is actually the only definitive record of many incidents in their correct context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 23:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

What references can be cited for these things then if they didn't actually appear on the show? Also, how significant can something for a show be if it doesn't actually appear on the show? (These are not rhetorical questions.) LadyofShalott 23:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The sources are multi-media, social media, being updated at regular intervals, not just a static table like the above wants. You don't like it because it's spontaneous and up-to-date. We live in a multi-media age, look at the way Facebook is evolving. The new summary style for BBUk reflects that, it's the age we live in, the days of static media are over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 22:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

(a) Don't make assumptions about why I do or don't like something. (b) You have not answered the question of significance. If something done for a tv show doesn't even show up in that show, it can't be more than trivia. (c) Learn to sign your posts. Four tildes - not that difficult. LadyofShalott 01:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The "small" details often add up and fill in the gaps unexplained in the bad editing of the highlights show. For instance, in week 2, Jay consumed 3 chickens, but the show did not include this. They add in this incident the next day, but it was important as it allowed them to pass the task. Again, when I record, X spoke to Y, very often it is part of a relationship unfurling or the start of a row, etc. The 1 hour show very often leaves this out, so on here, the threads are drawn together. Up to 3,000 visits again, can't be that bad, can it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 19:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

You still haven't really addressed the referencing. It seems to be implied in the article that these things are all in the television program, but from your comments above, that's not true. That means you need to be citing all these Twitter posts and wherever else you are geting your information. If you can't do that, then it fails WP:V, which is policy. Also, hit counts say nothing about quality, and the page is very poorly written. It is dismaying that in your blind reversals of edits by others, you have restored errors such as comma splices, and then claim that it is excellently written. I think you need to rethink your claims of ownership issues regarding this article. LadyofShalott 07:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't claim ownership. Big Brother is a continuous format, not just what's included in the TV show, it is just this year, there's no central way of following what's happening as sources are dispersed between Twitter, etc. and there is no source that pulls these together in one place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 08:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

You keep missing the point. You aren't referencing all those sources. No reference = not verifiable. Not verifiable is not acceptable by Wikipedia policy. LadyofShalott 13:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

You must be blind as there are refences throughout. Plus, I can't reference every Tweet as they are ongoing but anyone can link to the Twitter feed. It's made plain that the sources are social media, website and press, which are refd. The pattern has bee accepted by consensus since CBB2011 so this must be fine with the majority. Don't get your thing about commas, is it that you want semicolons? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 11:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Attempt to lock article

One of the above has taken it on themselves to try to lock down the article because they want to stop the summaries. This would be against wiki free access principles. The summary reflects the exact content of the social media outputs, programme highlights and other sources on what's going on in the absence of live feed. It's the only centralised summary of events in the house, blocking would deprive many of the only such available source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 22:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

That's just tough. The current detailed content is not consistent with or supported by any Wikipedia policy. It will, sooner or later, be successfully challenged and replaced with a more encyclopaedic interpretation. As it stands it is pure, banal, fan written, non-encyclopaedic drivel. Leaky Caldron 19:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Do not remove whole sections, it is vandalism. The summmaries reflect events in the house. Most are fine with principles of freedom of expression. You have the problem, do not censor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 13:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion. It is what happened and is already being trimmed down with time. It is not "fan written" as the contents just reflects what happens on the show, nothing is promoted or given commercial promotion. It's a reality show, stuff happens, it's not a Shakespeare play. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 08:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

We do not list every event that occurs in a tv program. Just because it happened does not mean we detail every second of it. This is not what Wikipedia does. You can go to Wikia and start a Big Brotherpedia (maybe there already is one) and do that there. It's not appropriate here. LadyofShalott 13:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Censoring and summary vandalism is against freedom

A user has remove the detailed summmary without consensus. This goes against wiki principles, the summaries are evolving and have taken a lot of work and refeencing. They reflect the actions in the house, even when not to one's taste. Censoring is against open-acess principles, this is what happened. Let Freedom reign! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 13:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, please. Your cries of "censorship!" are over the top. Wikipedia is an edited work. It is not an anything-goes place for freedom of expression. It is an encyclopedia. As everyone on this talk page except you have argued against this content, you are the one editing against consensus. LadyofShalott 14:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I happened to swing by here when I noticed the edit wars and, whilst I generally couldn't care less about the coverage of this banal pile of crap, I couldn't help noticing that, to a neutral eye, what is going on here is one user flooding the article with fancruft and crying "censorship" when more sensible editors try to turn the article into something that is of a reasonable and readable length for a general encyclopedia. To include lengthy and detailed sections on what went on daily makes the article unusable. Also, the crap you spout about editing down later is worthless. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Although articles about current or recent events will invariably be edited in the fullness of hindsight, the aim should always be to write now what will be in the article next year - if the detail won't be needed later, it's not needed now. In relation to your other claims about editors trying to claim ownership of the article, I can only refer you to WP:POT. Finally, as has been pointed out to you any number of times, sign your posts and edits. Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 14:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Removal of non-encyclopaedic material

I have removed material that does not conform to policy and guidelines on acceptable content for WP. Content should be worthy of inclusion and supported by appropriate and acceptable references. I would draw attention to the following policies and guidelines for starters, there are others that apply equally. WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:NOR AND WP:MOS.

According to WP:BOLD content should be reintroduced following discussion and not simply reverted. Leaky Caldron 13:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Well done! LadyofShalott 13:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Same old users, forgot the one overriding principle, free access to information and freedom of expression. It's jus the same old ones trying to censor and 100s of readers have been fine for 3 weeks. PS No more updates if removed again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 13:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• Censoring? Really. That's not what is going on here: three different editors (clearly indicating a consensus) are removing the material they deem unencyclopedic. Please stop edit-warring. And please start signing your contributions to talk pages. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

"No more edits if removed again" - you said that before, want to stick to it now? Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 14:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The 3 reverts rule applies to you, too. How come 3, 000 readers are fine, just a minority trying to censor the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 14:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

If you censor the summary again, I shall also remove the short summary I am working on. It has stood in this form for 3 weeks. There will be no further updates and you will going against free access principles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 14:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

If you think there are actual Wikipedia policies being violated, refer to them. Here, let me show you a few: WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, WP:IINFO and WP:NOTFREESPEECH seem to be the ones you are either trying to violate or unable to comprehend. You can even point at essays which, whilst not policy, are often useful summaries of generally accepted guidelines, such as WP:WIN. Read those, then come back and try to improve the article within the real guidelines. And when you do, sign your damn posts.Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 15:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Restore the full summaries now

I have removed my material and you do not have permissin to use it until the full summary is restored. You are censoring open access material against wiki principles. You have also destroyed the only central source without the live feed. People will now have to go to disperesed media sites to find out what's happening. 3, 000 hits per day were fine, it's just the handful of same old names who destroyed 3 weeks of research and refences. All work now stopped and you have gagged the facts. Pleased with yourselves, no doubt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 14:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

You need to read the licensing agreement. You don't get to remove permission to use material previously added. Also, Learn. To. Sign. Your. Posts! LadyofShalott 14:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I will remove all updates as you have started an edit war and it is intolerable to use this material out of context. You people will have to do it yourself, no more updates here. And why is the vandal now putting Days into lower case. It is Day 1, Day 2 in Big Brother, a proper name. This edit war by you people is out of hand, you need to get a grip. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 14:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

"But he started it" doesn't even work in the playground. The only contentious editor round here is you, and if you start deleting valid edits because consensus didn't go your way you'll just get banned. Now grow up and lose the sense of entitlement.Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Editor has been reported to WP:3RRNBLeaky Caldron 14:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Twice (Sorry, LC - didn't realize you were making a report as well.) LadyofShalott 15:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I have left an advisory on the user's talk page. Leaky Caldron 15:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, working together are we? How did I guess. And you have the cheeck to use my other material. You cannnot use this, must do your own material, censors. I thought this went out with blue pencils. But at least we can see the "consensus" the same half dozen names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 15:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, the self appointed page owner is blocked and I've reverted the latest blanking - now others who actually care more about BB than I do (not hard) can go about making the article more encyclopedic. I may drop in again around this time tomorrow to see if the IP has learned something from the ban, but I won't hold my breath.Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 15:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the summaries, the content was spurious. The rest of the page is pretty ok, if a little overlong. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 17:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I started a table summary a few weeks ago. Tried to put it on the summary to cut the crap short, but it was removed and reverted to the poorly written summary. Haven't updated it completely; maybe I'll post it on the article later on today, and other editors can add to it as they see fit. And just for precautionary measures, please avoid all discussion of genitals and masturbation. Thanks. ;) Jandal3c (talk) 22:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

More unencyclopedic stuff to fix

If anyone feels like more fixing, the same contentious IP seems to have turned List of Big Brother 2011 housemates (UK) into a similar running list of reporting of the minutiae of the event in the house, in marked contrast to the far better short summaries relating to previous years.Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 11:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. If the consensus page watchers here also agree with the removal of non-encyclopaedic material from that article they may wish to add it to their watch list since I fear a further edit war over there in a few hours! Leaky Caldron 11:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

You have removed so-called un-encyc material to the extent that the article fails to reflect the social diary of events in the house. The show is not just a gameshow about tasks and exits, it is a social experiment. If they show penises and talk about willies and masturbation, that is part of the show and has been a major theme from Week 1. So the present summary and table are not encyclopedic as they leave out the whole picture, reminding you that encyclopedia means ALL-ROUND education, not the selected bits that suit one individual's agenda.86.176.153.183 (talk) 10:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Your interpretaton of what we mean by "encyclopaedic" is inaccurate. We don't mean that there isn't enough information, we mean that the information presented in an encyclopaedia should be succinct and limited to the important details. If you want to see specifically why we think that every last thing that goes on in the house shouldn't appear in the article, you should perhaps take the time to read WP:IINFO and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Go ahead, click on the links. Wikipedia isn't going to change to suit you (at least, not very quickly nor without a lengthy campaign on your part elsewhere on the project pages), and what we mean by "encyclopaedic" is what is outlined in the policies and guidelines. The only way you're going to convince us that we're wrong (and I for one am on record as having been persuaded to change my stance based on sound arguments from policy) is to actually demonstrate that you have read the relevant policies and that you can offer a sensible interpretation of them that differs from ours. If you want to look at a parallel for the amount of detail an individual day deserves on this article, try looking at articles about a single season of a TV show. See how much plot is summarised for each episode there. That's about the length of summary that each episode of this TV show needs. I was getting tired of repeating myself on this one, but I'm heartened by the fact that you've finally started signing your posts, so maybe there's hope for you yet. Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 13:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Blanking of housemates' detail

You removed most of the housemates' biographical details without consulting on the relevant page which had no consensus. In the present climate, there is not point in working any further on this material and you will start another edit war, as you did previously to get your way. This is unacceptabel, this is a free access site and it is censorship. As its stands, there is now no point in a seperate article as so much essential detail has now been blanked by one user in collusion with supporters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 18:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

1) If you're talking about the housemates page, discuss it over there. 2) The removal was perfectly in line with policies: WP:BOLD, WP:BLP and WP:IINFO come to mind. 3) You're the one edit warring against the consensus supported by policy. 4) You keep bleating on about free access and censorship, and I'll keep pointing you at WP:NOTFREESPEECH. 5) You realise "by one user in collusion with others" is self-contradictory, don't you? 6) For fuck's sake, if you listen to nothing else people try to help you with, will you at least learn to sign your (Personal attack removed) posts? 7) I think people have been incredibly patient with you, assuming good faith and trying to show you why Wikipedia doesn't work the way you think it does. We are trying not to bite the newbie. However, I for one have pretty much reached the end of my patience with you. If you can't at the very least read the policies and guidelines I've pointed you at (they're just a click away up there) and explain why you think we're interpreting them incorrectly without bleating about censorship or claiming you have a majority position when you very clearly don't, then I'll stop being educational and just help to prevent you from causing further damage to this encyclopedia. It's not too late - I urge you to actually take on board the advice you've been given both here and on your talk page (I know you blanked it in a fit of petulant rage, but you can still see the old versions in the history). If you do this and act in a collaborative rather than confrontational manner, you can help to make this article and others better. If you don't, you'll just continue getting frustrated. Your choice. Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 18:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)::

!!!Your language is offensive and threatening. This is against netiquette and constitutes web bullying. I shall raise this offensive behavior with a moderator. You are threatening and out of order. Action will be taken.!!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk)

Go ahead and raise it with whomever you wish. The only point at which I swore or was in any way less than as polite as could be reasonably expected given your actions was in asking you for the umpteenth time to sign your {[redact|fucking}} posts. I was hoping that swearing at you on that point might actually make you take some notice of this very simple request that has been repeated to you ad nauseam, but it seems at this point that even the most generous soul could only conclude that you are wilfully ignoring this. If you're trying to needle me into sinking to your level of drama, I should warn you that you will fail. If you actually seriously believe that I'm acting aggressively rather than doing my utmost to help you to salvage some scrap of respect from your fellow Wikipedians, then I don't think I (or anyone) can effectively communicate with you. Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 22:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Well said Dr M. No one has assumed bad faith. If we were to do so the IP would have been described as ignorant, malicious or having an ulterior motive in pushing their content, etc. As far as I can see, no such accusations have been made. Leaky Caldron 18:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

You and the above are web bullies and will be reported for your threatening behaviour and deleting of content. It must be stopped, swearing and repeat reverting of content are serious violations of this community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 20:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

And again, someone forgets to sign their posts. Sigh. Jandal3c (talk) 06:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Weekly summary table incomplete and inaccurate

The weekly summary table is incomplete, does not mention all tasks, poorly written and not being updated by its instigators. Either update and give the correct details with citations or give up. This shabby mess does not reflect the goings on in the house which as much about social interaction as this task, that exit. You do not understand the basis of the show. Funny how its just the same two rabbiting on. I've moved on, can't be bothered with timewasters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 19:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Really? Have you read articles of previous series of BBUK? None, and I repeat NONE(!) of the summaries discuss every minute detail of the goings-on in the house. And evidently, you still haven't learned to sign your post. At least do this for the sake of my and everyone else's sanity, thanks. Jandal3c (talk) 06:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

We've pointed this out before, and pointed at WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:IINFO any number of times. At this stage I think we've pretty much run out of good faith to assume, the IP is simply not willing to be part of the community and is likely to continue the attempts to edit counter to consensus, policy and precedent. Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 07:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

As the above has stated he loaths the programme, his obsession with this talk page is puzzling. If they have nothing constructive to add, will they withdraw from leaving acidic comments here and leave the editing to others?un — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.153.183 (talk) 11:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

As I've tried to explain to you before, my reason for being here is to improve Wikipedia. Which is why I'm adding constructive comments and, especially, trying to teach you how to be a better editor by such actions as trying to get you to read the policies and sign your posts. Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 12:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: I notice that your latest edits have been sensible and useful. Well done, now keep that up and learn to sign your posts. Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 12:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Weekly summary, please get task details correct

On the weekly summary table, for one thing, I don't see why needs to be hidden. It is annoying. Also, if your going to do it, please get the details and order of events correct. For instance, the previous editor left out two tasks and put them in the wrong order. I had taken care to put them in the correct order on the detailed summary, so could you get the details right. Also, it is a mistake to leave out the social events, the programme is a social exercise above all, the tasks are just there to relieve the boredom and win shopping, this table fails to refect the full picture. There is more to the house than a mechanical list of tasks and exits.86.176.153.183 (talk) 19:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the intended or alleged purpose of the programme, an indiscriminate collection of social anecdotes is not encyclopaedic, as explained to you numerous times. Please refer to WP:PLOT for the policy. Leaky Caldron 19:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

They are not "indiscriminate", they are referenced on the official site, the media and social media. The social events are as much a part of the house as the tasks, it is a social exercise, not just a game show.86.176.153.183 (talk) 21:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

That's bullshit. Might have been true in the first couple of series (which you probably didn't see) but it is now a non-notable sterotype in a virtually unchanged annual format. Regardless, none of the daily housemate interactions have the slightest enduring interest and that is the test for inclusion here per WP:NOTABILITY. Leaky Caldron 22:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Extreme rudeness does not improve your chances of winning a losing argument. The show is about filming a dozen people 24/7 and tasks make up about 10% of that activity, the rest is social. By locking out any mention of the interactions and social qualities of the contestants, you are leaving out 90% of what the show is about - people. The tasks are a side show, it's a people thing and you and the other mob are in denial. PS, you are not only rude, but also guess at facts, I've seen most series from the start and this one is closest to the original UK and pilot Dutch series.86.176.153.183 (talk) 06:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

In which case you should be able to find reliable sources, which is what we require here. Start meeting Wp:RS and other content POLICY requirements instead of shoving your insular point of view. BTW, you will find bullshit referenced here WP:BULLSHIT. Leaky Caldron 07:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

You're the one that's insular. The majority were fine with the original summary until you and the other lot came along. The social interactiosn were all referenced, you were the one who removed them. So, you, along with one or two others, have made it your life's work to see that the social life in the house is ignored. The major social interactions for each week should be recorded, you want to label them "bullsh*T" even when they have been recorded in published media sources, i.e. all the citations you removed.86.176.153.183 (talk) 08:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't the social interactions that I was referring to as bullshit. It is your opinion that they are, in some way, significant enough to be useful, enduring, encyclopaedic content in line with WP:5P etc. Until you get a grip on policy your continued insistence will achieve nothing but criticism and ridicule. Have you read any of the policy yet? Leaky Caldron 09:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea why I didn't look there before, but the editors whose aim is to improve BB coverage agree that the sections on weekly summaries should be brief, covering only evictions and tasks, and even the tasks should only be briefly covered. I'd suggest 86 goes over to that project page and returns here only when he/she has managed to change the consensus over there. Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 12:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Caudron adds nothing to this article but is a stirrer. This article can only be improved once its moved off.86.176.153.183 (talk) 13:00, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment upon edits, not editors. Do NOT refer to another editor as 'it'. LadyofShalott 15:56, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The "social anecdotes" (arguments, showmances, pranks) are what BBUK is all about, which is why they're the focus of the vast majority of secondary sources about BBUK. Ignoring these informal developments in the BB house is like ignoring the fights in reports about Ice Hockey ;-) Deterence ^Talk 23:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

If you think they should be included, can I suggest you take it up with the BB WikiProject, who seem to differ with that view? Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 07:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Dr Marcus Hill, I do not appreciate being lied to. You need to have another look at your own link. It says nothing to preclude arguments, showmances, pranks. Indeed, it specifically states that, "There is no agreement upon what should be included in a Chronology section." Did you think I was not going to check? Consider this a friendly warning: do NOT try that again. Deterence ^Talk 19:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Lied to? How is saying the project page seem to differ from the view (see, I looked at the page more closely between the first and second time I posted that link) a misrepresentation? No agreement followed by a set of points for what is acceptable seems to indicate that the points given are those which have been agreed upon. Your interpretation may differ, and if so, go ahead and argue your case. I will generously apply Hanlon's Razor to your baseless accusation about my motivations. Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 10:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• Dr Marcus Hill, that is the second time you have called me stupid. If you pursue this line of incivility then I will have no choice but to have your misconduct dealt with by Wikipedia's disciplinary procedures. CUT IT OUT. Deterence ^Talk 12:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean to upset you, and apologise unreservedly for doing so. I'll continue to assume you weren't being malicious when you called me a liar. Since it seems that 86 has calmed down and you have taken an interest in the page and seem even more likely to be able keep it it a decent state, I'll remove my oar, having stayed here far longer than I originally envisioned already. Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 15:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the summary and biographical details should include some acknowledgement that the show is part social experiment and gameshow, especially as at least half of the highlights programmes are devoted to romances, rows and diary room musings. While I am not including this again, with the high discussion and display of penises and masturbation in the show, this aspect deserves mention in the article as it has already been widely commented that several housemates have large penises, a fact that was widely reported on one of the BB Oz winners a few years back.86.176.153.183 (talk) 21:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Ratings section

The notes are not consistent with the partially complete table. I don't think we require both. Any thoughts? Leaky Caldron 14:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The overnight ratings for the rest of the table can be added with sources until the official ratings are released --MSalmon (talk) 14:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Why do we need daily ratings? Is it not just a contravention of WP:NOT#STATS? BB2010 didn't mention ratings. I cannot see the encyclopaedic value of this section in it's present form. Leaky Caldron 14:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

TBF, other articles about TV series do contain ratings information. However, I don't see any need to have temporary versions, just wait for the official ratings. Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 19:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

BBUK and BOTS screen every day, for 9 weeks. Ratings information for every episode - amounting to around 63 episodes for each of BBUK and BOTS - would be ridiculous. Deterence ^Talk 23:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

True. I'd suggest that the ratings for the eviction shows (generally the most watched) would suffice. Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 07:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I think what would be better would be a weekly average of the ratings. That's just me. Jandal3c (talk) 02:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

That is why I've trimmed the DS figures to give an overview for each week. Ratings for eviction shows would not suffice as the ratings have shown a pattern of extreme dips and bounce backs each week since the launch. The narrow view would blinker the true picture.86.176.153.183 (talk) 11:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

We need to stick to facts - data - and not place unsourced interpretation or use an editorial style. Words like "slumped" and "picked up" is deprecated WP:EDITORIALIZING and expressions such as "repeating a pattern" makes an implication not supported by the sources per WP:SYNTH. We do not need to insert this info from a temporary source every day if a more authentic source is just around the corner. Leaky Caldron 12:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Latest BARB figures are now available to w/e 25/9 [1] if anyone is interested. I will hold off removing the DS references for a little while. Leaky Caldron 13:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Updated (Share % still needs to be added) --MSalmon (talk) 14:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Definitely reads better now with just the heading and table - thnx. Leaky Caldron 14:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Need help grouping the refs for the BARB Top 30 Programmes --MSalmon (talk) 14:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

You owe the community an explanation for your deleting of more referenced material in the ratings section. As it stands this is outdated, incomplete and out of context. It is now very poor indeed but as this article is now beyond redemption, who cares?86.176.153.183 (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is the explanation, if you could be bothered to read it and the links provided. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 17:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::As explained above and in the article edit summary, only the table is need in order to provide a summary of the rating data from a reliable source WP:RS. In removing the conflicting references I would have thought that the information about the show's ratings would be clearer. Why would we (a) want to report data for the same day which differed between one source and another and (b) what would be the point in reporting the same day using 2 sources even if they were the same. Also, data needs to be reported without the ever-present, subjective spin you were including such as "slumped", picked up" and "repeating a pattern". It is not for us to place such editorial interpretations on content. Hope this helps. Leaky Caldron 17:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Question about the lead

Not sure where I should post this, but I feel it's not necessary to list who's been evicted and who's voluntarily walked in the opening paragraphs of the article. The table to the right, the summary table, and the nominations table will do that just fine, thanks. Jandal3c (talk) 14:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The lead is meant to headline dramatic noteworthy events but may be edited out once no longer of current interest.86.176.153.183 (talk) 15:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

See WP:LEAD for guidance. I would support Mark's exit as the final sentence but not the regular evictions, or no references to leavers at all. Leaky Caldron 15:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

It should be that all people to have left the house are briefly mentioned in the lead, or none of them should be. I don't see a reason for including a housemate walking but not mentioning evictions. Jim Michael (talk) 18:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The lead is not supposed to contain so much information it is supposed to be a summary, otherwise why bother breakdown the article into sections? Carl Sixsmith (talk) 09:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It will just become a long list, duplicating info. which is in the infobox to the right and will be removed at the end of the series anyway. Leaky Caldron 11:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Removed from lead

I have removed this: "However, these are not peculiar to the Channel 5 version as they continue a tradition of nudity and outrageous sexual behaviour seen across many of the previous UK and international editions.'Big Brother news Mark and Jay shock housemates with wa@nk contest' Digital Spy 26 September 2011"

If the poster cares to find a source to justify the claim it might be worth including in the article. Unfortunately, the source provided doesn't relate to the claim contained in the preceding statement. Leaky Caldron 15:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Scope of Content in Big Brother 2011 (UK)

• Some editors have been citing the authority of Wikiproject Big Brother to claim that most of the content added by user 86.176.153.18 (I really wish he would get a proper Wikipedia name) is prohibited. This is clearly a wrongful interpretation. Wikiproject Big Brother (which may even be dead as it has no members listed) states, "There is no agreement upon what should be included in a Chronology section, but the following seems to be acceptable:" and then proceeds to provide a non-exhaustive list of specific types of content whose inclusion has previously achieved a consensus of support. It specifically excludes none of the content that 86.176.153.18 is trying to include.
• Interestingly, Wikiproject Big Brother does specifically state that the Housemates section should include, "Information to include in the section includes: ... Any major events that occurred in the house; that were due to, or involved, the said housemate." This STRONGLY suggests to me that content about showmances and fights/arguments, et cetera, is appropriate for the Big Brother article. This should come as no surprise to anyone who actually watches Big Brother as these "social anecdotes" (not my words) are what the program is all about. Especially the UK version, which is MUCH more of a social experiment than the game-show style of its American counterpart.
• Further more, some people have criticised the quality of the reliable sources used for content about Big Brother UK. Let's find some realistic perspective here. This is only Big Brother - reality TV of the trashiest kind (I say this as a fan of Big Brother). The sort of media outlets that cover Big Brother will include red tops (tabloids), trashy magazines, internet commentary and alternative non-mainstream television shows. It goes without saying that, short of some ground-shaking event, we are not going to find reliably sourced content in the Wall Street Journal, CNN, the Guardian, the BBC, or any other "reputable" journalistic outlets. So, let's stop being so precious about the standard of the WP:RSs for Big Brother content. Deterence ^Talk 10:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

So we're to lower the standards of Wikipedia to accommodate what has essentially become 86's personal BB blog? Fantastic state of affairs. I might start on some of my favourite programs, refuse to follow various guidelines and policies and use this article as precedent! Carl Sixsmith (talk) 12:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• I don't know what you mean by "lower the standards of Wikipedia". I have shown, with reference to the relevant "guidelines and policies", how social anecdotes have a rightful place in articles about Big Brother UK. These events are certainly more relevant to the topic of Big Brother than that ridiculous discussion (above) about how much detail we should include about the television ratings for each episode. I suspect that some of the resistance to this approach stems from some editors not actually watching the UK version of Big Brother, which is very VERY different to the US version (which is basically an in-door version of Survivor). Deterence ^Talk 12:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, WP:RS exists for a reason, and you are suggesting lowering the threshold. That to me seems like a backdoor way of saying this information is not notable, but lets include it anyway. I would also ask you to read WP:NOTNEWSPAPER but I don't fancy mopping up after your head explosion :-P Carl Sixsmith (talk) 12:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• The guidance in the BB Project Page is a red herring. Obviously when that was written any suggestion that non-encyclopaedic content ( per WP policy) should be included would have ended up on the discussion page. Oh, hang on a sec., it was: [2], [3], [4], [5]

Reality shows might exist in a parallel world but as far as I’m aware there isn’t a set of parallel policies for their associated WP articles. BB is a celeb style article that's never going to be encyclopaedic. All we can hope to achieve is a reasonable standard and that cannot, by the policies by which we are bound, include "social anecdotes" (my words). Obviously if a genuinely encyclopaedic event occurs, for example the fight in BB5, it would merit inclusion. The stuff IP86 wants to include isn’t encyclopaedic (and I wouldn’t lie about it ;).). The HMs are not notable in themselves and their interactions within the house are broadcast purely for the benefit of the broadcaster to boost ratings. What they get up to, romances, arguments, nudity etc. cannot be significant by any sensible interpretation of notability.

Big_Brother_2006_(UK) achieved, for a while, WP:GA status. That is a good guide for BB12 content generally and for the HM specific content.

Finally, for what it’s worth, I have contributed content to BBUK articles for years and had the BB userbox on my talkpage. I have also watched the show since 2000. None of which matters, because I don't add non-encyclopaedic content as a fan. I’m happy to abide by consensus on contributing material per WP:5P. Leaky Caldron 14:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

First you refer to WikiProject Big Brother to justify your concerted campaign of disrupting IP86.176.153.18's contributions, and now that I have demonstrated that WikiProject Big Brother actually supports the inclusion of "social anecdotes" you claim that it is nothing more than a red herring and tell us to ignore its guidance. Is there really any point in trying to build a consensus with you? I've encountered such no compromise no matter what attitudes before and they usually end up in Wikipedia's arbitration/disciplinary pages.

As for watching Big Brother UK since 2000, why do you bother if you're only interested in about 2 minutes of each episode? The predominance of the human/social side of the program must drive you insane. Deterence ^Talk 20:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I've never referred to WikiProj. BB. It was another editor so you are mistaken but unlike your reaction towards another editor who you claimed had got something wrong, I'll not call you a liar. I disagree totally with your interpretation of that project page. Project pages can't determine policy and I can see no chink of light that would allow non-encyclopaedic content for BB articles. Even if it stated it was permitted, I would disagree if the ensuing edits failed to fully satisfy fundamental WP:5P policy. I cooperate with all like minded editors to form a consensus - that much is clear from the limited content work I have done here. Happy to respond on any Wiki page you care to go to - my edits are fully supported by policy and, I believe, the majority of contributing editors here. I make no link between what I watch and what I edit. Leaky Caldron 21:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Let me get this straight - you think that Big Brother UK is encyclopaedic and it's just everything that happens in Big Brother UK that is non-encyclopaedic? I nearly spilled my coffee laughing at that "logic". What definition of "encyclopaedic" are you using? (please, for the love of God, don't answer by referencing the 5 pillars). Deterence ^Talk 21:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at my 14:55 post - paragraph 2, sentence 2. Leaky Caldron 21:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

If you're convinced that "BB is a celeb style article that's never going to be encyclopaedic", why are you even here?! Either AfD all the Big Brother articles or leave. Deterence ^Talk 21:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

You have "warned" another editor and myself, accused an editor of lying and asked me why I'm here and suggested an option that I should leave. I think you are pushing civility boundaries and suggest WP:EQ might help you to reassess your tone with editors with whom you disagree. Leaky Caldron 21:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• I stand by my suggestion. You do not believe Big Brother is sufficiently encyclopaedic for Wikipedia. So, why are you here? Why don't you just nominate these non-encyclopaedic Big Brother articles for deletion (AfD) if you think they're fundamentally incapable of attaining an encyclopaedic level of content?
• And if that mind-numbing table with the day-by-day listing of the ratings for every single episode is what you consider encyclopaedic, then we need a discussion of what "encyclopaedic" means. Deterence ^Talk 21:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Once again, you have wrongly attributed material to me. I have nothing to do with the ratings table. IIRC I raised the issue about it being overloaded here [6]. I did remove a whole bunch of incorrect, overlapping, duplicate and editorialised commentary from the section. I think it looks better than it did but I wouldn't do it in such detail. I'm here because I have a long-standing interest in the topic. I won't be raising AfDs. Leaky Caldron 22:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

You have made good points, good to have new voices on board to widen the perspective. I note that BBOTS, the official discussion prog for BB12 devotes around 90per cent of its airtime to social interaction. Moreover, the tasks represent only a small proportion of the events in the house. Therefore, some record of the alliances, beddings, fallings out, "gates" and incidents warrants inclusion as these are as much "content" as the set tasks. For intance, the row between Anton and Harry was pivotal and Jay's "love nest" warranted inclusion, as much an "event" as a set task. However, to avoid my good work being undone, I will it to others to use their discretion as to which social events to include and which format. On the ratings, people are commennting on DS about the need for a central source for the overnight ratings, exactly what I had been creating until deleted by one of the above. Table formats are poor as they are too rigid and those starting them often forget to update. A prose / diary format is much better, but I shall leave this to others with an informed knowledge of the show. Events are moving fast in the house and the present article is not keeping up with them nor offering a reliable reflection of the whole picture.86.176.153.183 (talk) 14:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

What has Big Brother's bit of the Side got to do with what content belongs on wikipedia? WP:PLOT, WP:NOTE and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER all apply to this article, regardless of whether you and Deterence believe. You cannot just change guidelines to suit because what you are interested in. Just because something happens, does not mean it warrants an encyclopedic mention. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 15:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

BBBOTS is part of the BB12 franchise which includes social media, side shows, OKTV and Facebook as all have input from BBUL. You have to get used to idea of a broader, integrated picture, BB is a multi-media franchise with the live feed gone, it is series 1 of a new format, not a continuation of the Channel 4 format.86.176.153.183 (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

You haven't answered the question. Big Brother, BBBOTS, OK Magazine and the official Facebook pages are all owned by the same franchise, of course they're going to have excessive coverage. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 14:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how it is possible for someone to watch BB and BBBOTS and fail to realise that BOTS is a reliable source for developments on BB. *facepalm* Deterence ^Talk 19:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Bit on the side is WP:PRIMARY. Shall we ignore this as well? Carl Sixsmith (talk) 19:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• WP:PRIMARY is not a blanket ban on all primary sources. It merely cautions against undue interpretation of the content found in primary sources. Primary sources are perfectly acceptable for sourcing basic data, such as BOTS's early announcement of who is up for eviction. Deterence ^Talk 20:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

That was exactly my point, IP86 is trying to establish notability by means of primary sources - a big no no. What exactly are you arguing? Carl Sixsmith (talk) 05:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Need to upgrade ratings table

I propose to add an overnight figures column to the ratings table which is way out of date and needs to reflect the estimated figures published on DS which were taken down by a previous poster. I will be doing this shortly and will expect the data to not be deleted as it will take a lot of work to recover these data with refs from the material wiped by that poster.86.176.153.183 (talk) 14:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

You do not own this page, it is not for you to tell other users to retain information. Please see WP:OWN. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 14:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Where did I claim to "own" a free access public wiki site? LOL I would tread carefully before making any further unsubstantiated accusations of this nature. One only suggested adding a column to a table. How does that amount to claiming to one claiming "ownership"?86.176.153.183 (talk) 17:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Anything that is by nature temporary, estimated, or infringes any other policy relating to notability or relevance as encyclopaedic content will obviously be removed. The time it takes to assemble is of no concern, I'm afraid. I urge you to bring your suggestion to the talk page for discussion before adding it to the article. That cooperative approach would be appropriate per WP:CIVIL. Leaky Caldron 16:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Isn't that exactly what I did above? I won't bother if the data are going to be wiped, NB overnight data are a valid source, wouldn't be published otherwise.86.176.153.183 (talk) 17:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

It is not clear exactly what you are proposing by adding a column. By placing it here you can agree acceptable changes, achieve consensus and resolve any issues relating to notability, sourcing and content policies. Regarding ownership, it is impossible for you to deny that your various warnings on this page and in many edit summaries are covered by many of the examples contained in this policy WP:OWN#Examples_of_ownership_behavior. Leaky Caldron 17:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Telling other user that you expect the data to not be deleted is a clear attempt at claiming ownership of the article. If you read the link I provided you will see this sort of behavior is not acceptable. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 17:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• Just watching you two jump down 86.176.153.183's throat every time he breaths near a Big Brother article is better than a soap opera. You would be funny if it wasn't for your constant breaches of WP:BULLY. Deterence ^Talk 19:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

They had better not 'jump down my throat' as I could be a secret monkfish angling for prey.86.176.153.183 (talk) 21:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

So not only do you think WP:RS is not worth following, and you think we should ignore WP:OWN now. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 19:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)IP86 has issued more than a dozen WP:NOEDIT instructions. IIRC, that is included in WP:BULLY to which you refer. Go ahead, report it. I would be delighted to have the interactions between IP86 and consensus editors properly scrutinised by the community. 19:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• Do you really need to kick up a stink just because another editor has politely asked people not to delete incomplete material while he works on upgrading it to the standard required of Wikipedia? Deterence ^Talk 22:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• For my part, I simply encouraged him to gain consensus on the talk page before posting. That would prevent getting into further accusations of vandalism, ownership, censorship, reporting to ANI etc., which IP86 has frequently done. Discussing changes on the TP is widely recommended as part of WP:DR and other consensus building policies and guidelines. I'm attempting to break the established cycle, that's all. Leaky Caldron 22:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

User has not asked politely, nor have they asked for incomplete edits to not be removed, they have for the umpteenth time TOLD us not to delete information that they wish to see in the article. This have nothing to do with it being a work in progress. You really do need to start reading the conversations properly before jumping in with some valiant attempt to stop bullying. If you'd care to look at edit summarys, comments etc. you would see that IP86 has a habit of doing this and if someone disagrees threatening to 'report' people. This is a clear cut case of WP:OWN Carl Sixsmith (talk) 05:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

No one is claiming ownership of the article and no one has "TOLD" you what to do. 86.176.153.183 asked for some patience while he improved a flawed section of the article. Get over it. As for 86.176.153.183 threatening to report you, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised. God knows you need to be reported after your endless petty harassment and WP:BULLYing. It's painful just reading the way you overreact to everything he/she says and does. Deterence ^Talk 19:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Legend

What colour would the legend be if a housemate was ejected? --92.7.25.92 (talk) 21:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Gold. See [7]. Leaky Caldron 22:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok thankyou for the link. --92.7.25.92 (talk) 02:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Halloween twists

• Details of the Crypt have been added to update section on house.
• NB Anton and Jay return to the main house on Day 41, confirmed on Big Bro Bit on Side 18.10.11.109.150.251.100 (talk) 22:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
• I don't think it should be mentioned that Jay and Anton "exited" the House on Day 39, as they didn't technically leave, but moved to a secret room. The lead table from BB5 didn't mention that Michelle and Emma left the house to go to the Bedsit on Day 15 and returned to the main house on Day 20. Neither did the lead table on BB7 mention that Aisleyne entered the House Next Door on Day 45 and returned on Day 50. I think it would be better if a special colour code was created that mentions they are in the Big Brother Crypt; keep in mind, they may or may not be nominated. Jandal3c (talk) 02:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Big Brother plainly told Jay and Anton that they were 'leaving the Big Brother house', the crypt is apart from the house. It is a mistake to conflate this task with the BB7 bedsit, different series, different twist. The outcome of the crypt twist should be known later on Day 41. They are both nominated and exited, their lightbox changed to red, indicating 'exit'.109.150.251.100 (talk) 10:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Day 45 task

The edits to the day 45 task ignore what the 'distraction' was. This makes the entry make no sense. The whole point of the challenge was for each HM to ignore an act tailored to their likes or sensitivities, as was plainly supported by the reference, e.g. Aaron a little boy, Tom a male stripper, Jay a saucy French maid. The details were carefully edited from the official Facebook feed. Would you kindly place the task back in context by putting back the nature of each HM's 'distraction'? It makes no sense otherwise!.109.151.62.74 (talk) 19:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Have now clarified this task and trimmed other detail.109.151.62.74 (talk) 21:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

It's enough to say that the distractions were tailored to each participant. The details of what the distractions were are trivial. LadyofShalott 16:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

No, the distractions were not trivia as they made up the task. Therefore removing this detail put the task out of context.109.151.62.74 (talk) 23:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they are trivia. The important infomation is that they had to complete the task despite distractions that were tailored to them. The exact nature of each distraction is not important. It is not needed to give context. LadyofShalott 23:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Noms twist Day 46

Please note the twist to nominations on Day 46, Aaron and Jem up, full refs to follow. Source: Twitter #BBUKLive — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.62.74 (talk) 15:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Material requiring references should not be included until the reference is available or should be followed by . There is WP:NORUSH to be the first to add fresh content - WP is not a blog and does not need to pander to an avid fan base. As IP86, you already know all of this. Leaky Caldron 16:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Swipes about IP address off-topic. Stick to discussion of content. Don't start another pattern of edit-niggling. The ref was fine and has since been updated, as you knew perfectly well already.109.151.62.74 (talk) 12:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Inserting up-to-the-minute unreferenced material straight from a blog into article space with a talk page comment of "full refs to follow" is not acceptable. Leaky Caldron 13:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The online source is not a 'blog', it is the official feed, this is turning into another edit spat after a period when it was going so well.109.151.62.74 (talk) 23:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Inserting up-to-the-minute unreferenced material straight from any source with a talk page comment of "full refs to follow" is not acceptable. As you already know this - and have broadly followed WP:RS for a couple of weeks - why revert to not doing it? Leaky Caldron 07:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

You are engaging in a new edit war by reverting reliable sources and updates to this article and related ones. Stop now!109.151.62.74 (talk) 18:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Use of Twitter

It appears that we have accepted the use of #Twitter as a source and this may be allowed under the circumstances per WP:TWITTER. It and Facebook appear to have replaced the more substantive website presence previously used by Channel4. Such is life, things move on.

However, there is no citation to draw on. Worse, we are now seeing frequent edit summaries indicating that Twitter has been used and that "full refs will follow", presumably relating to some as yet unpublished material on Digital Spy. I think we should agree some guidelines. I would rather discuss it here than on the BB Project Pages which do not appear to have active contributors at this time. Leaky Caldron 08:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Usual contributors invited via their talk page. Leaky Caldron 11:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I think because of the lack of live feed many people are using Twitter as an alternative (provided they actually provide a source instead of saying "full refs to follow"). I think it would be ok to use it until a more reliable source is available like Digital Spy or C5 website. That is just my opinion though. --MSalmon (talk) 12:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

If there isn't a source, it shouldn't be included. Twitter may be a source, but it's also WP:PRIMARY. I'm also a little concerned with the fact that the only sources we seem to have are from Digital Spy, we're in danger of giving it WP:UNDUE. This entire article is just plain awful though, exactly what wikipedia should not be, a transient gossip column and free blog for fans of the show. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 13:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that using Big Brother's official twitter page would be acceptable, but not BB fans' twitter pages. Jim Michael (talk) 13:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The official BBUK twitter is, I think, acceptable as a primary source. It should be possible to reference each individual tweet though, and that should be done where Twitter is used as a reference. Fan tweets are absolutely not allowed as sources. LadyofShalott 15:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Jem's wk 7 noms - strikethrough

These should be reinstated. Jem's mother made the nominations, not Jem. The noms for Harry and Aaron still counted towards the revised list of evictee's, i.e. anyone who had received a nomination on Monday. If Harry had received only 1 nomination, from Jem's mother, he would have been still been up along with the others. There is no evidence for Jem's proxy nomination being rescinded by BB. I cannot see how we can strike a nomination that clearly still counted towards (a) the first eviction which was cancelled and (b) continued to count towards the refactored eviction quartet. Leaky Caldron 10:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

It was Jem's boyfriend not mother who made the nominations --MSalmon (talk) 10:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I see that you have reversed the strikethrough of Jem's noms by the other HM's family members. Do you not also agree that Russell's nominations of Harry and Aaron must also still stand, mainly because no revised nomination process took place and that, therefore, Harry was put up based partly on Russell's nomination? Leaky Caldron 11:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Not sure about that one, what did Channel 5 say about it? --MSalmon (talk) 11:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

BB decided "all housemates who received any nominations on Monday would face the public vote" - see [8]. I conclude that "any" nomination must include Russell's (Jem's). My case for saying that Jem's votes still count is that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, if Russell's nom. for Harry had been the only one Harry received, he would still have been up based on the quoted article above. Leaky Caldron 11:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Leaky on this one, to say that the nominations are void requires the proof, as far as I can see there is no evidence to the contrary. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 12:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I understand that Emma Wills said something on OK!TV about this weeks nominations, any idea what it was as I didn't see it? --MSalmon (talk) 12:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

This edit summary suggests that she said that Jem's noms. were null & void [9]. The programme is not available to watch. She might have been talking about public votes being null and void, that would make sense since they needed to limit the damage caused by Jem walking out. I have checked the highlights show broadcast last night [10]. At 23:00 minutes BB announced "that as a result of Jem's decision, all other housemates who received a nomination this week would join Aaron and face the public vote this week". There is NO mention of Jem's vote being rescinded but clearly implying that all original nominations on Monday would count towards the 3 other HM now being up for eviction. This is consistent with the Digital Spy source above - de facto this includes Jem's. noms Leaky Caldron 12:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, just wanted to check. I will unstrike Russell's noms then. --MSalmon (talk) 13:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Thnx, Ms Leaky Caldron 13:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

No problem and if anyone reverts I will ask them to discuss here --MSalmon (talk) 13:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

But Emma Willis did say on OK!TV that Jem's nominations were null and void so why should we not use this as a reason to strike Jem's nominations. Also it would not add up correctly for Jay and Faye to be nominated if Jem's nominations were counted. I think Emma Willis announcing that the nominations were null and void should be enough evidence for them to be null and void. Flamingjoe (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I have just re-watched the OK!TV episode (as I had it still recorded), Emma Willis says this exactly: "Jem's votes become void because she has walked, so ugh, she voted for Aaron and Harry so they get two votes knocked off. So Aaron still has the most votes, so he will still be up, but Harry has two votes along with Faye and Jay, so all four of them will face the public vote." Flamingjoe (talk) 19:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't know what you mean by "would not add up correctly". Once Jem walked all those who had received 1 or more nominations were put up as detailed in both the published source and the highlights show. I have provided the precise quotes. "as a result of Jem's decision, all other housemates who received a nomination this week would join Aaron and face the public vote this week". doesn't get much clearer than that. Leaky Caldron 18:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

But what about what Emma Willis said on OK!TV, are you just going to ignoe that? Flamingjoe (talk) 19:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Why would Harry & Aaron get 2 votes knocked off? Leaky Caldron 18:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I think she meant that they get 1 vote each off but that is exactly what she said. Flamingjoe (talk) 19:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The phone votes cast where null and void, not nominations. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 18:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm not disputing what she said but I don't think we should re-interpret what she said either. If she said 2 she said 2. Problem is that the Primary source (the highlight show) and the secondary source (Digital Spy) don't mention votes being rescinded. They just say all HMs that received a nomination are up. So it's a case of what is verifiable per WP:V not necessarily truth. Leaky Caldron 18:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe they changed their mind after Emma had been told what to say on OK!TV, so we can leave it as her nominations being counted. Flamingjoe (talk) 20:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Just been on without mention of her Noms being voided. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The table is fine the way it is (it was the phone votes NOT the noms were voided) --MSalmon (talk) 08:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Press reaction

The press reaction section says that the Daily Express and Star have columns about the program, isn't this a bit disingenuous though, as they're both owned by the same company that are showing the program? It's more advertising really than genuine press reaction. Comments? Carl Sixsmith (talk) 19:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the section should mention media coverage by various sources and state which of them are owned by the same company as that which owns C5. Jim Michael (talk) 00:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Ratings section

A user has deleted the ratings section without justification. This was being updated on a daily basis until the contents were constantly deleted by similar users. Suggest the one who took it over updates it, it was fine before. The one for Celeberity big brother worked perfectly well, so no excuse to start on this deleting at whim all over again!86.182.98.106 (talk) 20:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

If you believe the information is worth keeping, then it is up to you to update it. It shouldn't be there on the off chance someone can be bothered to update it, at the moment it's a table full of 'tba'. There really is no need for a massive table containing each day's ratings anyway, that minutia data is unwarranted. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I have now filled in the table which is now up-to-date with rating, rank and share % --MSalmon (talk) 21:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Good work MSalmon. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 08:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Does every share % need sources? --MSalmon (talk) 09:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

I'm not sure that the five finalists highlighted in blue should be labeled "Up for eviction." Since we are voting for a winner, I think it more appropriate that "Finalist" be used instead of the current legend in the info box. Jandal3c (talk) 00:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, I have changed it and in the results table not all of the remaining five will be there on Friday so no need to put the colour yellow in yet until after Thursday. --MSalmon (talk) 09:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

They are not all finalists; one of them is being evicted tomorrow. After that, the remaining four become finalists. Jim Michael (talk) 20:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

What does Present mean? They are all finalists as the public are voting for their winner. --MSalmon (talk) 22:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Public vote

Does anybody know the percentages of the public vote on the show? DylanWhittaker (talk) 15:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)