Talk:Big Brother (British TV series) series 7/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Images

Read this before adding pictures to the article.

Please make sure that any pictures of housemates added to the article are not copyrighted, and are fair use. This means all housemate pictures off the Channel 4 website cannot be used in this article. Any copyrighted images, or those with no copyright or source information will be removed from the page immediately. — FireFox (U T C) 20:01, 18 May '06

That said, you should be able to do an image capture if you have a PC TV card and use it under GDFL as a TV-screenshot. Essexmutant 18:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Screenshots are fine, yes. — FireFox (U T C) 18:57, 19 May '06

They aren't used under the GFDL as fair use. The are unlicensed images which are being used under the fair use doctrine of copyright. --pgk^(talk) 22:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

This question has already been discussed here and here.

People will have seen the images in the newspapers last Friday, and will no doubt form their own views as to whether they are fair use. But interesting screenshots are to be preferred.

Comments?--luke 09:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I found out last night that I get the live feeds free with my internet connection. I took a few screenshots last night, I'll upload some soon. Celardore 09:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Uploaded a few... I can't get any for the housemates that are already gone as far as I can see. Also, I'm not sure I'll get a decent picture of Lea - they're all getting ready for the eviction and she *may* be gone by the time I get back in later. The live feeds seem to focus less on some members of the household, that's why I haven't got one for all of them so far. They're not always that flattering either. Celardore 16:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Surely the Channel 4 pics qualify as promotional - to promote work or a product in the media? Surely?? And aiui screenshots are limited to 1 per article. I think we've got this the wrong way round. Deizio talk 01:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Cite your sources!

Please remember to cite your sources if entering any rumours or controversies in the article. Anything entered without these will be removed on sight. -- 9cds^(talk) 11:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, i just wrote that it's rumoured Lea starred in porn films, i see it was rightly removed because no sources were cited, which is down to me not knowing how to, anyways - http://forum.digitalspy.co.uk/board/showthread.php?t=378769

Forum posts are not very reliable sources. RexNL 12:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

What about videos showing said movies? Mr_Pope

This is not the right place for spreading rumours. RexNL 12:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Those pictures look very convincing. I remember a conversation in the house about her saying she had "done maybe 1 movie".

No source has been given for this statement referring to Lea: "She has a younger son who was aparently taken to hospital in the early hours of Thursday morning (May 25th 2006) after 2 young teenagers between 14-16 started to attack him. He was released the next day with a cut lip.", so I have removed it. 82.27.19.190 11:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and where's the "outside source" for the claim that she's 60-odd? 82.27.19.190 11:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The one about Aisleyne and Susie although I do not look on BB through the web, but I do have the newspaper article, so how do I source that, I would love to scan it and make it available but isn't that breaching copyright? Willirennen 15:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

If it's in the newspaper, it's probably on their website. Find it and link to it. --Lorian^T_C 14:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Logo war

To make things clear, the 'black' logo should be used, for these reasons:

• It is better quality image, for technical reasons.
• Both logos are correct. Saying "It's not black" is incorrect.
• No need to fix what isn't broken.
• The black one is more widely used on wikipedia.
• The white one has been uploaded by a known troublemaker trying to get his way.
• The black and gold colours are more widely used - look at the screenshot on this page and the diary room colour scheme for examples.
• The white background is used on the C4 website for purely design reasons, and they have always used white backgrounds.

-- 9cds^(talk) 02:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Freeview streaming

Freeview streaming exists - See channel 305. It has in fact replaced the bandwidth that was freed from removing More4+1, so if you do a channel rescan you'll find More4+1 has disapeared, and channel 305 has appeared :) -- 9cds^(talk) 19:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Sam - He or She???

Should we put he or she for Sam's personal pronoun? Is he/she a transsexual or a transgender? Ellisjm

She's a he, er.. he. Samual, not Samantha. But Davina will be caling him her. But she's really a he, you see. ;) -- cds^(talk) 21:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

he prefers to be called she so I suppose she. As long as we make a statement about it to avoid confusion at the beginning, we're ok. I was under the impression he was a transvestite, not a transsexual. Else there would be no question about referring to him as a she. Triangle e 21:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that if he/she is a transsexual, then "she" would be more appropriate. If he/she is a transvestite, then "he" should be used. Ellisjm

He is a transvestitie, so is technically a 'he'. (He still has, um...). The C4 website says 'he' as well. -- cds^(talk) 22:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it says he, but refers to the he as "her" Ellisjm [1]

How about we put (s)he?? Ellisjm 11:55 UTC 30 May 06

He is not a transexual, he is just a cross-dresser which was made perfectly clear last night. He is a he. — FireFox 12:06, 30 May '06

Are you sure he isn't a transsexual by any meaning of the word [2] [3]? -- Smjg 13:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

True, however on this site, do you prefer to be referred to as FireFox or your name on your birth certificate? Sam would prefer to be referred to as she, as the majority of cross-dressers do. I agree with Triangle e that a statement to explain the situation (with the inclusion that Sam prefers to be referred to as "she") would be more than appropriate.

Sam has specifically asked to be reffered to as a She, why is is so hard to do that? RedHillian 15:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC) (a He).

Sam consistently presents as female and wishes to be referred to as such, therefore there is no debate. It's just basic respect to refer to any person, particularly transgender persons, in the way they prefer (whether that be male, female, or neutral pronouns). To do anything else is either disrepectful or plain hatred. --Myfanwy 18:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It would in no circumstances be correct to refer to Sam as a "she" in this article - because it is not true. If Daniel Brandt, for example, wanted us to call him "Danny B", are you saying we would refer to him as Danny B in articles? Because we would not. We must to stick to what is correct, and that is the simple fact that Sam is male and so cannot be referred to as "she". — FireFox ^user_talk 18:11, 31 May '06

Exactly, he's a male, and Channel 4's website are saying he. To avoid confusion, we should also say 'he'. -- cds^(talk) 18:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

To "avoid confusion", why don't you EXPLAIN the situation, and not just put down what YOU think is right? Can I point you to the wikipedia page about Dame Edna please? And if you believe in putting everything that Channel 4's (highly edited) page says, why don't we just scrap the whole BB7 page and just put one big link to there?

What about Dame Edna? Dame Edna is a character, not a real person. Therefore we are going to refer to Dame Edna as whatever gender (she) is portrayed as, as her character, regardless of who "plays her". Sam is a real person, he isn't played by anybody, he isn't a character, so your referral to the page "Dame Edna" is highly irrelevant. — FireFox ^user_talk 10:23, 01 June '06

I think a better example is Christer Lindarw. -- cds^(talk) 10:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "highly irrelevant". "Highly irrelevant" would be me referring you to a page about giraffes or something. Possibly "close, but no cigar" may have suited the situation better, but I get the idea. Sinisterx 21:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

One solution would be to avoid using pronouns altogether, and just refer to Sam as Sam. - LeonWhite 14:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice idea, but would be bad grammar. -- cds^(talk) 14:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

There should no be discussion in my opinion. Its only polite and kind to call her a she, as that is what she wants. Its not her fault she was a girl born into a guys body?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterwill (talk • contribs)

There's no point in trying. Some people here live their lives in black & white. For them, here's the full range & list_of_colours that I live mine in! Oh, and while I'm recommending pages, here's one on hypocrisy. Strange how in this article, "Sam" can be referred to as "Sam" (what she CHOOSES to be called), rather than "SAMUEL" (what she was born with). Yeah, that page again was hypocrisy. Happy reading! Sinisterx 04:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

IMO it's proper manners to refer to someone (in matters of sexuality) in their preferred way. This need not conflict with the ideals of an encyclopedia if the situation is fully expained, as is already the case in the article--luke 08:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I edited it to read 'she' but someone moved it back, the way its written now its extremely narrow minded and selfish of the idiot that put it there sort yourself out - Samantha Thompson

Hi Samantha and everyone. I put down my opinion yesterday morning as there seemed to be differing and strongly held views about this topic, and there is a good arguable case for either gender providing a proper explanation is given in the article. Might we have a quick (say 24hr) vote on if we should use he or she or s(he). I believe Sam is entitled to 'she', but if no-one else feels strongly enough to give their opinion then just leave as is--luke 04:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Polls are evil. — FireFox ^user_talk 08:23, 05 June '06

I've contacted the Mediation Cabal -MightyTev 14:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Rather than wait, perhaps we can try and build a speedy consensus. Should biological gender take precendence, should we take most account of Sam's own feelings - or perhaps we should recognise that both viewpoints are equally valid and use s(he). Anyone?--luke 18:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Somebody's already suggested this, but I think it's a good idea - state the facts near the beginning of the Sam section, then refer to her as a female throughout the rest of the article. --JD^talk_email 18:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think JD's suggestion is the best way.--Johnbull 19:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

First and foremost, we are here to present facts. The fact is that Sam is male. It is a point of view that Sam is a female trapped in a man's body. It is totally unverifiable. Therefore, they should be presented as a male (using the appropriate personal pronouns) and that's the end of it. Regards, — Celestianpower ^háblame 19:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not just anybody's point of view; it's the subject's point of view. Doesn't that have any relevance? --JD^talk_email 20:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Find me one Wikipedia article about a male-to-female cross-dresser, which refers to the subject as "she". — FireFox ^user_talk 20:09, 05 June '06

Is she a cross-dresser or a man that identifies as a woman? --JD^talk_email 20:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

She identifies as a woman, but said she doesn't want surgery to change her physical gender. Sweetie Petie 21:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that enough for the pronoun 'her' to be used in the article then? --JD^talk_email 21:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

As long as the person has a willy, we will put 'he'. As FireFox says, it will remain 'he' until one article that refers to the subject as 'she' is found. -- 9cds^(talk) 22:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The fact is that Sam is male. End of. Sweetie Petie 22:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, if we're going to do it in the true wikipedia way, this debate would be closed as "no consensus". So I'm closing it. Now. At no consensus. It stays as 'he' merely because every other transvestite on wikipedia is referred to as their actual sex (Note I said _sex_, and not _gender_). We can argue about this until the cows come home, and quite frankly, they ain't gonna be home any time soon. -- 9cds^(talk) 23:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

But she isn't a transvestite. --JD^talk_email 09:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

comment Little attempt was made to find common ground (consensus) on anyone's part. eg - Are Sam's wishes not to be characterized in terms of sexuality apart from as Sam (as she told Lea during the temping task early this morning) unreasonable/reasonable/silly etc. eg - what about the fact that Sam likes to meet gay men rather than str8 men when clubbing. Is Sam just trying to make a point? And surely each case is special, and while Wiki precedent is informative it should not be a straightjacket in reaching a consensus--luke 06:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28identity%29 --JD^talk_email 23:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi JD and thanks for that. I note the following:-

Transgender people should be referred to using pronouns consistent with their current gender identification or gender presentation - for example, if a person lives as female and appears female, use female pronouns.

Sam wishes to present as female, so it seems we should use the appropriate pronoun in the absence of any consensus here to the contrary. This guideline seems fair to me, but are there any other "official" Wiki documents that deal with this issue. Or perhaps people feel that this guideline should be ignored in Sam's case. Comments?--luke 04:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll edit it. -- 9cds^(talk) 08:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

That is hardly fair - every time someone tried to edit it, it was reverted and called vandalism! --JD^talk_email 09:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

God (9)cds, you really are full of it eh? So because you've been proved wrong and have to back down, all this was now "complaining" and not "discussing". JD is right, how is it possible to edit anything with you lurking around to change it back? Sinisterx 12:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You will all have to put up with the version I've just edited, which is a non gender-specific version. Nobody can really complain seeing as consensus has far from been reached. Also, no more personal attacks from anyone, this is your final warning before being blocked. This includes in edit summaries. — FireFox • 12:23, 09 June '06

Does this case still require mediation? Ideogram 04:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC) I'm closing the case. Ideogram 11:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I expect a DNA test would provide evidence of male XY sex chromosomes, suggesting that 'it' is probably a 'he'. Tomid 11:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

I think it would be a good idea to get more pictures of the housemates onto the article ( I realise there is a big copyright problem). Could somebody with a TV tuner in the computer screen print part of the program (just likes Petes picture), Does anybody have a screen print of Shabaz, Dawn or Bonnie?

Cheers Joss 10:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• As above, I'll upload some pics I grab later. Celardore 09:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

They look nice - good job! Can anybody tidy up the page so the layout works better? -- cds^(talk) 17:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Very good but could we have some more interesting ones like Richard crying or Nikki going crazy in the diary room? ;) Sweetie Petie 17:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Or Aisleyne waking up just now???! Sweetie Petie 19:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Or Sezer, half a second after Davina said his name??? Sweetie Petie 20:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Too bad I had to go out, so I couldn't capture any screenshots of the eviction. I can't be at the PC all the time, so if anyone can upload a better picture then go for it. I also wonder, can we get screenshots or other fair-use images of the other housemates that already left? (Dawn, Shibaz, George) If anyone else can help with that please do! Celardore 00:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the images I added to the page as fair use rationale was insufficient. I've also removed this page from my watchlist as I don't have the energy at this stage in my life. Thanks and regards, Celardore 18:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

This article is not as good without pictures. We have to get some from somewhere. Triangle e 21:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Why, exactly, were they removed in the first place? -- 9cds^(talk) 19:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Why did you remove these? -- 9cds(talk) 19:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

A moment of wikifury. Not to boo-hoo or anything, but I've had a stressful time IRL recently - but that cloud lifted today (I kept my job). I'm more than happy to add new and improved images to the article, I've still been keeping tabs on things.

I let my opinion [that my neutral image of Sezer was best] get the better of me, and I apologise for that. Entirely unprofessional I know. I stayed away from the article the past few days because of that, never really understood how annoying differing opinions can cause such grief until that little incident.

This time tommorow, the article will be all pretty again. Sorry again to all concerned. Celardore 19:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed!!

I've added the pictures back, will grab images of Bonnie and Suzie later. That was a real bother, took about an hour. My internet is going rather slowly today. Celardore 17:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Some of the screengrabs could be more flattering, especially George, Pete, and Lea. They're caught with not-so-great expressions. Can new shots be added? Bswee 22:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

George is difficult, as he left the house before I got the live feed on my PC. I'll have to trawl through the archived video on the BB site. Pete and Lea, give me a little time - I've got an action packed weekend (Happy Birthday me!) so I will update those as soon as I have the time. Remember that it involves sitting around watching the live feed waiting for them to focus on a particular housemate. Celardore 23:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

New Idea For info box

I have just had a look at Big Brother Australia series 6 and like there info box at the top right. I think the colours need to be more clearly labeled as they are further down the page but I think it looks good?—Preceding unsigned comment added by JossDude (talk • contribs)

Other peoples opinions? Joss 22:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you move it so it's directly under the infobox? I couldn't quite get it right. --JD^talk_email 22:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean? -- 9cds^(talk) 23:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I meant the colours for who was currently nominated and who has been evicted. P.S. looks like the colour key has disapeared! Joss 07:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by JossDude (talk • contribs)

Ah, the legend? Yeah, I'm working on putting it so that it looks better. -- 9cds^(talk) 09:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thats better, cheers Joss 10:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't like that, it looks as if the different shades of red mean different things. I suggest a darker red for ejected/walked (or two different shades if you want), and the lighter shade for evicted. Same goes with the blue, I think just one shade is better. EDIT: Actually just had a second look, I don't understand why Lea, Richard and Susie are shaded a light blue. What's the significance of that?

The different shades are merely to be able to read across the table. -- 9cds^(talk) 11:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how one block of colour makes it harder to read though. I think the different colours just confuse matters. Especially when they don't match with the legend.

Either the legend needs to be changed so as it doesn't say pink means 'evicted', when Dawn, George and Shahbaz left/were kicked out OR we need a colour for nominated, evicted, walked and ejected. (I suggest the latter with blue, pink, yellow and green respectively... Any thoughts??? Ellisjm 12:42 UTC 21 June 06

Yeah I think pink for evicted, darker for ejected/walked (much like in the nominations table), blue for nominated, and white for everyone else. This way the status of the housemates is clear, at the moment it's not. Like you've got Lisa Nikki and Richard all different shades of blue, yet Lisa and Nikki are nominated and Richard's not.

Whatever's decided, can something be done to keep the Big Brother 2006 Australia's infobox as it is now? --JD^talk_email 12:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The colours are a guidance as to who's out, and who's nominated, for during the show. It's not meant to be a code of how people were removed from the house. It was born from JD's idea, which was originally in another table. -- 9cds^(talk) 12:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I just have a problem with the fact that the legend says blue is for nominated. but Lea's shaded blue so does that mean she's nominated as well? Because as we know she isn't. And you can't say it's clear she's not nominated because it's a different shade because Imogen and Mikey are also different shades. You say it's a guidance, but surely a guidance should be more clear?

No she's not. She's grey. --JD^talk_email 13:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...I see. I do see that as more of a blue though. I still think she should be white. (Richard and Susie as well).

Yeah, it does look a bit blue. When the person who I asked to put the colour code on the table, put the colour code on the table, the table was fine. It was as good as perfect. My next suggestion was going to be to ask for the colour key to be put in at the top and bottom of it, but certain people (no names) decided to totally ignore me when I tried to ask them about it. So because of that, other people have made, from my original idea, a bunch of pretty and confusing colours that now mean nothing to me. --JD^talk_email 13:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

That will make reading it harder when the colours are removed. -- 9cds^(talk) 13:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow they're giving out credit for these things now? --JD^talk_email 12:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Look, can we just use the same colours as on the nominations table with those nominated in light blue (all the same colour) otherwise it's confusing. Can someone please do this as I am unsure how to do so... Ellisjm 13:11 UTC 21 June 06

If the colours are changed, what will happen to the one on the BB06 AU article? I'd like if those colours could not change, if possible. --JD^talk_email 13:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Changes will be propagated to all articles that use the template, so I am reluctant to make changes without a clear consensus, which we don't yet have. -- 9cds^(talk) 13:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Make a separate one for the BB06 AU article then. --JD^talk_email 13:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The way I see it, is that people are trying to make the info box nice and stripey and pretty. It's not there to be nice and stripey and pretty, it's there to provide info! Same goes with the Australian box.

I didn't make it stripey, or did I ask for it to be. I wanted plain, right-there information for it as well. --JD^talk_email 13:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The alternating colours are there to make the template easy to read data off. If you can't tell the difference between grey and blue, that's not my problem. Changes will not be made without clear consensus. -- 9cds^(talk) 13:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't somebody at least make a separate one for the AU ones? A consensus would be easier to acheive if I weren't involved in it. Plus, you would be able to change the template on the UK article so it better suits the programme, and the nominations table you have. --JD^talk_email 13:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Nah, it's pointless. The template should suit Big Brother worldwide, with a consensus built across all users of the template. Your feedback is appreciated in the matter, since you use the template. -- 9cds^(talk) 13:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

All Big Brother shows are hardly the same. Changing the colours of the table would only beneficial for the BB7 UK article, as it has the nominations table. Other additions, such as who walked, and who was ejected, are not relevant to the BB AU article. I'm sure there's other things as well. But the point I'm trying to make is, if each country had its own template thing, it could be adjusted to better suit the article it's going to be used on. --JD^talk_email 13:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Those details aren't relevant to the UK article, either. -- 9cds^(talk) 13:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The stripey colours, or even the changing of colours, certainly isn't. Couldn't the colours on the Nominations table be changed to adopt the colours on the template? --JD^talk_email 13:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

No. It's simple: blue = nominated, red=gone. The others aren't coloured, and uses a standard technique used by designers to make tables easy to read. I will consider making the blue one shade only, but the white/grey and red colours will not be changed without consensus. -- 9cds^(talk) 13:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I just want to offer my opinion on the matter. When I looked at the table just now, I had to think for a few seconds to realise why three of the housemates were grey. Once the housemates who have been nominated are shaded blue, the "white, grey" pattern is eliminated, and just makes it confusing to understand what grey means unless you think about it. I haven't read any of this debate above, but that's just my 2¢ — FireFox 13:37, 21 June '06

That's something I can't easily fix without destroying the readability once the series is over (which imo is more important). I've eliminated the alternating blue colours, does that improve things? -- 9cds^(talk) 13:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah it does :) — FireFox 14:22, 21 June '06

Jamie looks like he's actually up for eviction now, so yep I think it looks better. Camilla looks darker than Jamie and Rob though. On the BB06 article. --JD^talk_email 13:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Optical illusion. -- 9cds^(talk) 13:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Centre the text on the legend. --JD^talk_email 13:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Centre the text on the legend, please..? --JD^talk_email 14:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Which one? -- 9cds^(talk) 14:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

How many are there --JD^talk_email 14:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

There are currently 3 bits of text that could be seen as "legend" ;) -- 9cds^(talk) 14:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the legend that the people can see on the article then. --JD^talk_email 14:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

What text is that? You need to be clear otherwise I can't carry it out. -- 9cds^(talk) 14:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Nominated and Evicted..? --JD^talk_email 14:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. -- 9cds^(talk) 16:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Fixing things that aren't broken, to be honest. Mark272 19:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is still bugging me. Either the red needs to be changed to another colour for Dawn, Shahbaz and George, as they were not evicted as the legend makes out. OR the legend needs to be changed to say something like "no longer in house" Ellisjm 07:06 UTC 22 June 06

Nikki

...Is a rubbish actress. Seriously though, whatever happened to this rumour? Someone came up with it on day 2 I think, and I find it easier to agree with that than the fact that she is genuine. Mark272 18:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I think they were talking rubbish ;) -- 9cds^(talk) 19:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

She was an extra in Eastenders, so it's possible she tried to get into acting. No one needed that much acting though. Celardore 19:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Reason for exit in infobox

In the infobox, on some of the housemates there is a reason of why they left (walked, ejected). This makes it wider than necessary, and cane be included in the section about each housemate. I think we should get rid of that bit from after the day number, and changed the legend from "Evicted" to "Left" or something. Something to think about, if it says why they left other than the normal way, shouldn't it say why someone entered other than the normal way? (Golden housemate, replacement for someone who walked.) Thoughts? --Lorian^T_C 19:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Most housemates are evicted. It is an eviction column, and if they left any other way, we'll say so. This has been standard since an infobox has been used. -- 9cds^(talk) 20:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It says "Exit" at the top of the column. It's an exit column. --Lorian^T_C 20:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Chronology cutbacks

Was it really necessary to make such big cutbacks on chronology for weeks 3 & 4? There's a lot of information now missing. King rich 22:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, article size. What did you think was important? -- 9cds^(talk) 22:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I reckon the failing of the task and the water-throwing should be included in the chronology. King rich 02:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Which task? Sure, I don't disagree with the water throwing. -- 9cds^(talk) 09:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The State of Susie task, where they got loads of fails. So you think the water-throwing incident could be re-instated? King rich 14:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I'll reinstate both. -- 9cds^(talk) 15:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

That's much better, cheers. King rich 21:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

So put the chronology back on a seperate page then! This page would then only need "See main article: BB7 Chronology" Digifiend 08:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It's been done, and was deleted. See here 165.72.200.11 13:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that might be why he said "back"... It would be better on a separate page. And what makes the nominations table so special that it can be on it's own page, but not a chronology? --JD^talk_email 13:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Red Button availability

The intro says "...is available by pressing the red button on E4" but it doesn't work on Telewest cable. Can you clarify what providers have this (Sky/NTL/others)?--RNFR 18:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Done and Dusted --Jboyle4eva 19:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Series length in lead

In the lead it says "Shown on Channel 4 from 18 May 2006 to 18 August 2006". But this appears to be only counting the original 14 people. George has walked and not been replaced, making 13 weeks, Susie has been added making 14 again, and 5 more are coming in on Friday making it 19 weeks. I think we should change it to just say it hasn't finished, because the final date could potentially change again. --Lorian^T_C 17:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the number of housemates affects the length of the series. There's often a double eviction or two during the series. I don't think all 5 housemates of the secret house are going into the main house. And there's always more than two people in the house on the last day anyway. They're probably trying to pad out the numbers so that there's a good number of people left on the last day. --JD^talk_email 18:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The 5 housemates entering the secret house will (quite certainly) not all enter the main house at all. My guess would be a couple or three of them will enter the main house, along with the 'transferee' returning. If the housemate numbers end up to night anyway then I am sure they will plan a midweek or double eviction. — FireFox 18:07, 27 June '06