Talk:Big Brother (British TV series) series 7/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

George's departure

Should the spoiler go at the top? People who are watching the channel 4 shows won't know that George has left. Ellisjm 21:45 UTC 30 May 06

Channel 4 have shown adverts saying he's left - Personally I dunno. What do people think? -- cds^(talk) 23:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it should. There is also information in the Housemates section that has not been broadcast yet so I think the spoiler should go right at the top. Budgiekiller 06:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't hurt to put a spoiler warning, but I wouldn't say its needed really. The newspapers, internet, BBLB, and the live show all run a day earlier than the 'proper' shows on C4 in the evening. Celardore 06:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it is needed though. BBLB is on E4 and most people in this country don't have a digital service to watch E4. Also, only the Red-Top Tabloids report about BB, and not many people look at the internet BB page all the time. Ellisjm 08:20 UTC 31 May 06

But we're an internet bb page too :) You can expect spoilers on wikipedia, I don't think it's much of an issue. -- cds^(talk) 08:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

If someone doesn't want to know about what's happened on Big Brother they won't visit the page. People know the risks of reading the article, and know that it might contain information that they haven't seen on TV yet. — FireFox ^user_talk 10:10, 31 May '06

While we're on the topic of E4, why is it that Big Brother Live's audio cuts out randomly? There doesn't seem to be any explanation of it on the C4 website or on the channel at all. Is the full audio only available on subscription or something or is there another reason? And while I'm asking, does anyone know what Pete is saying when his Tourettes kicks in and they bleep him out? They don't seem to bleep out the word 'w@nker' so I'm assuming that it must be a different word. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I remember an advert on last years BB which said something about, them blanking it out either because they are swearing, or because they are talking about things in the housemates private life, which BB thinks is not suitable for day-time programing.

I'm pretty sure that the swear-word Pete says that gets blanked out would be 'C*nt', because C4 don't bleep out 'F*ck' after 9:00pm Jake 09:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Although, interestingly enough, while they don't bleep out 'f*ck' after 9:00pm, they DO bleep it out when used in the context of 'motherf*cker'. Odd, no?

Well, 'Motherf*cker' is a derogatry term, whereas 'f*ck' is mostly used, as an exclamation. I'm not sure if they would blank it out in 'F*ck off' though.. Jake 12:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Length

We really have to be careful about how extensive this article becomes. It's already over 30kb, and it's already giving the "...This may be longer than is preferable..." message when editing. What do people think? Should we split the articles into further subpages or leave it as it is? We're only half way through the second week (of 13), and the chronology is just about as long as the whole of the chronology for BB6. — FireFox ^user_talk 13:02, 31 May '06

I think it's time to chop the chronology a bit :) -- cds^(talk) 13:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, the housemate bios could probrably do with a trim down as well - they're getting a bit out of hand. RedHillian 15:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

True. The housemate info and the chronology are overlapping - we're saying what the housemates do in the house in the housemates section, where we should only be talking about who the housemates are. The chronology covers what the housemates do in the house. — FireFox ^user_talk 15:19, 31 May '06

Ooh, I have an idea. Hows about we put the Chronology on its own page..? I know, its a wild idea, and it'll never work, but heck, hows about we give it a go, ey? JD 19:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds far too kinky to me, but it would definitely help me to not read about things that I don't know about in advance. Not that I'm that bothered. Really. I'm not. Honest. In all seriousness, we could do this, but it would fragment the article, possibly too much. Hmm. What does everyone else think? Budgiekiller 19:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The page was already there, but His Highness decided it wasn't necessary. The previous debate's all in the archive - Talk:Big Brother (British series 7)/Archive 1#Chronology. JD 20:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Stay civil please. — FireFox ^user_talk 20:08, 31 May '06

I think it'll needlessly fragment the article, and we don't actually need all that chronology. We should cut it down to size. -- cds^(talk) 20:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's keep it brief, ensure chronolgies don't pervade the housemates' bios, and maybe consider moving the spoiler up to the top of the page (for my sake more than anyones!) to stop the 'X walking' being read. If there's info in that table which is new in the chronology and we're 'spoilering' the chronology, we should 'spoiler' the whole article. Oh, and come on everyone, love and respect each other. We're not all like Nikki, are we? Budgiekiller 20:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I've cut back much information - I'd appreciate rather than start an edit war if people say if they think certain bits should be returned. ;) -- cds^(talk) 23:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Ooh, ooh, ALL OF IT. JD 23:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we need all of it somewhere as well. so hows about we start a new article which goes into detail and keep the main page a real summary. The new article could be called Big Brother 7 Chronology... Ellisjm 23:14 UTC 31 May 06

The page already existed. It was called Chronology of Big Brother UK series 7. But yours sounds better. JD 23:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Shall I make the page then?? Ellisjm 23:21 UTC 31 May 06

Just do it, if 9cds doesn't like it he can't do anything. More people want it this time. Can you try reusing some of the information from the original page and redirect it to the new page though? The info on the page was all good. JD 23:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Leave it a day or so, for others to give their opinions. We don't really need to give every detail of what happened in the house, as we didn't with every other series. -- cds^(talk) 23:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

We don't have to make each series article a clone of the last you know. The whole point of letting everyone edit is that things are improved, not reused. Plus, as I said before, the article is going to become very long if it isn't split into multiple pages. JD 23:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

If it becomes long, it means we need to look at what isn't needed - we don't need to say twice why George left, for example, and who's up for nomination and when they were evicted (it says so elsewhere). We're using past years as examples because they're reasonably done, and we want to keep the articles all at the same quality. -- cds^(talk) 23:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, will do... Ellisjm 23:24 UTC 31 May 06

I have started a full, detailed version of the chronology at Big Brother 7 chronology. This will provide detailed accounts of each day, but the main article should be short and to the point... Ellisjm 23:41 UTC 31 May 06

Article naming

Now, usually, I'd just Be Bold and do it, but seeing as this article seems to be quite contentious, lets discuss it here first.

Recently, I've noticed that the article naming is wrong. The name of the series is "Big Brother series 7", so that should be the title of the article. However, there are many different Big Brother series, many with articles on WP. So, the naming conventions call for a unique identifier in parenthesis. As such, I think that each series should be renamed to Big Brother series 7 (United Kingdom), Big Brother series 6 (United Kingdom) ...etc.

What does everyone else think? Regards, --Celestianpower ^háblame 09:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Aree you sure that the official title is "Big Brother series 7"? It was suggested last week that the article should be "Big Brother (UK series 7)". The JPS^{talk to me} 09:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) Good point. I also see that this has been discussed before - Talk:Big Brother (British series 7)/Archive 1#Article_title. I'm willing to do the move now if nobody is in disagreement? --Celestianpower ^háblame 09:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The region should be in parenthesis at the end of the title. That seems to be consistent with other article titles. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you willing to do the same for the other series, for example, Big Brother (US TV series), which will, as it seems, include double redirect cleanups? Or am I missing the point...? — FireFox ^user_talk 09:15, 02 June '06

Well, I've done UK (including all double redirects). I might just let someone else do USA. --Celestianpower ^háblame 09:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Done USA too. It seems that USA have indicidual pages for house"guests" (housemates in real language). --Celestianpower ^háblame 09:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was going to be renamed Big Brother Series x (<country>)? Not Big Brother (Series x <country>)... The location of the parentheses is important... Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the good point was made that the official name is just Big Brother. Therefore, anything else is a disambig and should be in parenthesis. --Celestianpower ^háblame 10:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

See WP:TV-NC -- cds^(talk) 10:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought the official name was Big Brother 7.[1] Sweetie Petie 10:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

IMDB says "Big Brother". [2] The official website also just says "Big Brother". [3] - LeonWhite 14:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

In the U.S. it's clearly "Big Brother #", not "Big Brother". Only the first season is called simply "Big Brother". For instance Big Brother 6. The DVDs are like this. But, regardless, I'm not sure its worth moving all these articles around. Essentially we know all the moving of the U.S. shows was a waste, that merely caused a bunch of redirects. I really think, that articles shouldn't be moved unless there's actually a signficant reason, and you plan on fixing the redirects. Also, I note, this article, and the official web site suggest "Big Brother UK" is an official name (see info box, and Big Brother - the official Big Brother UK website from Channel 4. See if you want to be "official", you'ld have to go with Big Brother UK (seasons 7). --Rob 14:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Added: Also note, if we want to be really consistant, Big Brother (US TV series) uses "US" while the season articles use "USA". Originally both used "USA", but somebody moved the main article to "US". I spun-off all the seasons to use "USA" to be consistant with the original title. I didn't use parenthesis, so I could be consistant with the UK ones. My effort to be consistant, has now proven to be a waste. This is why article titles should be left alone, if all links go to the article directly, unless you think the new title is much superior and will be permanent. --Rob 15:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I was looking at the bit on IMDB that says "Big Brother 2 (UK) (second season title), Big Brother 3 (UK) (third season title), Big Brother 4 (UK) (fourth season title), Big Brother 5 (UK) (fifth season title), Big Brother 6 (UK) (sixth season title)" because it has a different name each series. Sweetie Petie 18:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

{{Big Brother UK}}

This template labels the series' as Series: 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006, whereas the articles are named 1–7. I think this would potentially be highly confusing for somebody who hadn't read the BB articles before. — FireFox ^user_talk 10:13, 02 June '06

It comfused me at first - suggest they get changed? -- cds^(talk) 10:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, maybe something like Series: 1 (2000) | 2 (2001) etc? — FireFox ^user_talk 10:16, 02 June '06

Looks good to me :) -- cds^(talk) 10:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I hate edit conflicts (that's two now so I give up!) Sweetie Petie 10:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Like this: 1 (2000) or like this: 1 (2000)? — FireFox ^user_talk 10:23, 02 June '06

Looks good to me (the latter that is). --Celestianpower ^háblame 10:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the latter looks better. -- cds^(talk) 10:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. — FireFox ^user_talk 10:30, 02 June '06

By the way, not that it matters now but my suggestion was going to be the same as what FireFox said at exactly the same time as I was trying to say it :( Sweetie Petie 10:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Q102 Golden Ticket

I know theres a drive to have sources cited here, but Q102 are notoriously slow at updating their website (the morning show section barely mentions Sue Carter, who is the current holder of the ticket they found, as even presenting the show she has both worked on and produced for at least two years), but they -did- find one of the golden tickets among the >10,000 tickets they purchased on a trip to the UK which was funded by Stena Line and a Dublin Peugeot dealers called Mongey Plunkett. As a regular listener to Q102, and on the basis that they will eventually mention it somewhere on their site, I'm willing to stake what little reputation I have on the Wikipedia that its true. There should be an Australian girl called Sue Carter amongst the hopefuls for the golden ticket place(s) in the house, and indeed, a Susan Carter who "purchased over 10,000 tickets" has appeared on the list released of known ticket holders. --Kiand 03:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but sources need to be cited (particularly since another user mentioned that they never saw it) -- cds^(talk) 09:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Does the radio stations actual broadcast itself not count for anything? Occasionally there -are- no internet sources for something, such as this. Well, beyond forums, which don't really count for much, reliability-wise. --Kiand 12:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, radio broadcast is fine as a source. In defamation proceedings, radio ,tv and written are all considered "permanent form". - Kittybrewster 09:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The article refer's to Celador's Golden Ticket list - I think you meant Endemol. Digifiend 09:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Digifiend

• Hehe I got confused there, with the Celador link! Celardore 10:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, yes I did. They're both big and make a lot of gameshows ;). Anyway, the radio broadcasts on the mornings of the 2nd and 3rd of June, 2006 on Q102, which is a licenced ILR station for Dublin on 102.2Mhz between 6 and 9am are the source, then. --Kiand 22:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• I've corrected it. Digifiend 11:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[4] confirms they've got the ticket, provides figures of €10,000 and 15,000 bars and the involvement of Ray Shah. Unfortunately theres no way to permalink to artcles on radiowaves so I'm going to try and find what newspaper its from. --Kiand 16:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Horse's mouth I reckon. Somebody actually heard the programme and put the info online. The website only has today's and yesterday's news on, so no luck there. Sorry. Digifiend 10:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• this confirms that there was a Su Carter who was a potential housemate... Trampikey 10:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

NEW PAGE-Big Brother 7 Gallery

The more the series goes on, the more good screen grabs we'll have e.c.t. I think we should start a "Big Brother 7 Gallery" page, or something to that effect. Comments???Dalejenkins 07:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. I'll add my 2 cents worth. It's cool to have interesting screenshots to liven up the article. I noticed that the image u added yesterday was from a Lea fansite, and u cut out Lea!! IMO the whole pic is coolness :) and is ok to use for Shahbaz. Maybe u culd re-submit it uncut, but don't forget to add an appropriate tag. See here Wikipedia:Image legality questions, and also see how the other pics are tagged. See also Wikipedia:Image copyright tags--luke 08:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Nope, we can't have a gallery. Fair use images need to be used in context: to provide "critical commentary". A gallery would not be fair use. The JPS^{talk to me} 09:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm with The JPS - it's not fair use if it's a gallery, as good as it'd look. Please post here if you have any further ideas for "spinoff" articles, so we can discuss how legal (and useful) they are :) -- 9cds^(talk) 11:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Image Copyright

I am developing a series of Big Bro wallpapers, to post on the net. Can I use the “promotional shots” that they use on the show (the housemates faces with a white background), or would I need to seek C4’s permission?Dalejenkins

This is their view:

The name Big Brother®, the distinctive eye logo and the content on the Big Brother programme series and the official Big Brother website, URL: www.channel4.com/bigbrother "Official Site" are protected rights or marks owned by or exclusively licensed to 4 Ventures Limited "Channel 4" and any use is subject to Channel 4's permission. This permission can be revoked or changed by us at any time. Channel 4's usual terms and conditions included on its website also apply.

As you say, these images are promotions for the programme - so if you use them with discetion I guess they would be unlikely to complain. But legally I think you need their permission if your service is UK based. I understand that fair use is mainly a US idea :)--luke 08:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

List of housemates

Would it be possible to have the list in alphabetical order rather than in the order they entered the house? It's been bugging me for ages, and also I just noticed the BB6 page has the housemates listed in alphabetical order, so having them the same would be kind of good. Sweetie Petie 23:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure - be bold and change the order :) (Remember to keep those who's evicted at the bottom of the infobox, though) -- 9cds^(talk) 08:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone else did it, probably when I was sleeping. Sweetie Petie 14:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

We know what this teaches you? Don't sleep :p -- 9cds^(talk) 14:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't the housemates be put alphabetically by surnames?? Ellisjm 17:32 UTC 5 June 06

No, because the surnames aren't well known. -- 9cds^(talk) 17:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the article, having the housemates listed alphabetically looked strange at first but having got used to it I think it was the right thing to do. I do think that the info box should be listed in house-entry order though. Celardore 18:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks good as it is now (entry order in infobox, alphabetical in the article) - anyone have any problems with how it is? I don't mind either way :) -- 9cds^(talk) 22:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Lea's age

I can't remember what her age is supposed to be but in yesterday's highlights show she said she was 36, then later when Richard said she was 38, she said she was 35. On last night's E4 live coverage, she said to Nikki, "I'm 15, er, 11 years older than you". Just wanted to point that out. Sweetie Petie 15:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

She's 35, according to the channel 4 website. -- 9cds^(talk) 15:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe she doesn't even know. Or maybe she's like way older, but lies and forgets what she's telling people these days. --JD^talk_email 15:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

C4 says she is 35, she said she is 35, so that's what the article should say. — FireFox • 15:26, 06 June '06

I think everyone is confused about leas age, on the show the narrator says shes 36, her channel4 profile says 35 most (if not all) or the channel4 big bro news articles say shes 36- shall we just take a guess?

I think she'd know her own age. — FireFox • 15:28, 06 June '06

I wasn't suggesting we change her age in the article. I was just saying. Sweetie Petie 15:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah I know, don't take me the wrong way :) I just said about it because (no idea if it was a coincidence or not), but an IP changed her age to 36 a minute or two before you brought it up. — FireFox • 15:32, 06 June '06

Oh yeah, so they did. Sweetie Petie 15:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Nikki's E

What's happened to Nikki's E? In several newspapers and other media, she's called Nikki GRAHAME[5], and the C4 website doesn't list her second name. She does appear as GRAHAME on several other websites.--Escaper7 16:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

At the time, the 'e' was removed due to lack of sources. Feel free to put it back in now we have a source. — FireFox • 17:09, 07 June '06

I'm going to be pushed for time to go through this lengthy article today or Friday - we need to make sure that every reference to her name is corrected - I don't want to do it and miss some. On the other hand, it doesn't really help Wikkipedia's credibility if her name is wrong and left that way.--Escaper7 11:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Her last name is only mentioned three or four times. Sweetie Petie 11:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Three times. I changed it for you. Sweetie Petie 11:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Sezer shock Pic!

I added a new picture of sezer after the vote was revealed. Classic! Dalejenkins 15:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• I like the idea of changing the images of the housemates every so often, makes it seem less stagnant. Celardore 16:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • That was just the picture I was hoping to see in this article! Thank you! Sweetie Petie 17:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Housemates template

I've rewritten the template almost entirely using wikisyntax rather than a mixture. This makes it futureproof, and less likely to break the page. Let me know if anyone sees any bugs. -- 9cds^(talk) 16:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Admins etc

I believe it will help progress this article if a more understanding approach is adopted. At least 2 contributors to my knowledge have been alienated, and perhaps due to some heavy-handedness the chronology is now somewhat patchy and out-of-date. Should it be removed as not adding much?--luke 05:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• I agree, there's nothing about Week 3. Digifiend 11:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You can't just remove a whole section from an article. If you want a section to be expanded, which I am sure it will be updated very soon, just put {{expandsection}} at the top, but never remove a whole section just because 'it's not being updated in real-time'. — FireFox • 11:22, 09 June '06

DO NOT CHANGE SEZER'S PIC!!!

User's who don't like sezer's pic, please don't change it as we agreed a few pointers up that it was better than the previous on! Dalejenkins 07:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi m8 - Don't forget to tag the images u upload, as mentioned a few pointers up. This is important for the Wikipedia project to succeed. Best from luke 17:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I changed Sezers pic from the 'eviction face' to the previously used picture for a couple of reasons.

• This is an encyclopedia, and as such any graphical representation of the subject should not be biased, as I believe the 'eviction face' image portrays Sezer Yurtseven negatively. The 'shock' picture is not complimentary. We are not looking to show housemates in the worst possible light.
• The image does not 'fit' with the other images in the article. Yes, I was the one that uploaded nearly every other image in the article but my opinion is that consistancy should be paramount. The 'shock' pic is of a particular event in the house, whereas all the other images are of the housemates in a neutral pose.

I won't revert the image yet, but I would also like to repeat an earlier comment of mine that housemate images should be rotated semi-reguarly to 'freshen up' or avoid stagnation in the article.

I also feel that the objection to any change of the image to be against WP:OWN. Kind regards, Celardore 17:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Also, the opinions expressed previously regarding the image were made by a banned user, SweetiePetie a sockpuppet of JamieAdams if that counts for anything. Celardore 17:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • It shouldn't change anything, Sweetie Petie was a blooming good contributor, whether he was a sock puppet or not! Trampikey 18:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Celadore, I see you have had a change of mind on your uploads. Care to share your thoughts?--luke 18:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • It's spelled CelaRdore by the way. My thoughts are: My intention was to contribute to the article in a positive manner, ie the screenshots of the housemates. I don't want to get into any fights right now, so I absolved myself from the issue. My main intention was to avoid conflict. I removed the images I uploaded to the article in lieu of any further disputes.

Please feel free to contact me on my talk page if it is felt further discussion regarding this issue is required. Celardore 19:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for my mistake, Celardore. Just to offer my 2 braincellsworth, in general terms conflict is the bane of this project. And hubris is the root cause.--luke 20:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou for your comment, though I am unsure whether it's barbed or not. I didn't know what hubris was until I looked it up. You're right though, conflict is never productive. I will never deliberately engage in conflict. Celardore 20:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

my 2c: Sezer's photo should be of him in a neutral pose. aLii 21:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Tea, anyone? -- 9cds^(talk) 21:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Title sequence link

How is the link provided in the title sequence illegal? Please explain. Dalejenkins 07:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Rationale regarding differing treatment (in terms of copyright in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Big_Brother) of the distictive eye logo? Comments?--luke 17:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to Big Brother (UK series 7)

It comes to my attention that if I search (well hit "Go" rather) and I have "Big Brother 7" typed in, that it takes me here via redirect. I'm not sure, and I should probably be bold, but with the U.S. having its Big Brother 7, should I just make "Big Brother 7" redirect to Big Brother (TV series)? FireSpike 17:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

A disbambiguation page with all the Big Brother 7s might be a good idea. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

That's the general practice on Wikipedia, so yes. Either that or have a disambig line at the top of this article ({{otheruses}}). Regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 19:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

All the other ones however redirect to Big Brother (TV series). Should I redirect to there just to keep things uniform? FireSpike 19:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

That seems the less insane plan. -- 9cds^(talk) 19:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I broke the page

When I was updating the article with images added, it must have only uploaded part of the article (I blame my internet). Sections like criticism are gone now. If someone could fix this, without a revert [images took me ages to add] that would be great thanks. I'd have a go but I really must go out now, sorry for the trouble. Celardore 18:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I already sorted it. I did wonder what had happened when I went to the bottom of the page and it had disappeared. There were like 5-10 edits with nobody noticing it :p. --Lorian^T_C 19:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It was annoying to find that after I fixed up the article with images, that in the process I made some of the page disappear. It was never intentional, technical issues on my end caused it I think. Thanks for fixing it though. Celardore 23:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you on the new Firefox (Bon Echo) by interest? Because if you are, I'm experiencing the same problems with some of my edits. Thanks, AntzUK 00:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am using the latest FireFox version. I just put the problem down to poor internet connectivity though. I might be wrong. Celardore 00:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)