Template talk:Big Brother UK

Rearrangement

Does anybody know how the box can be rearranged so that things don't look so odd? Or was it okay as it was? --_{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 22:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Presenters

Shouldn't we put in all the geust presenters in 2007?--Hiltonhampton 15:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

No, only main presenters, not guest presenters. The table is too big the way it is now. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 20:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Former Presenter

I think we really need to get rid of the former presenter part of the template as there are just to many of them and it now looks messy. In23065 (talk) 13:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Needs to stay, if you argue that then on Template:Big Brother AU people could argue to get rid of the "Presenters" completely since they have a lot of main presenters this year as it makes theirs look messy. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 17:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Princess Nikki

Anybody who added Big Brother Related Articles the Princess Nikki should remove it, it has nothing to do with BB, mostly beacuse many ex-housemate were or did shows that wouldn't make senes, as only REAL important events (like the racism contoversy) and other MAIN articles about Big Brother. --BigOz22 (talk) 23:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Sophie Reade 2009

She went in as Sophie Reade and came out as Sophie Reade. She was Sophie "Dogface" Reade in order to become a housemate and was able to give up that name after a couple of months. Recording her as the winner with that name may not be accurate based on her name on exit.

It should be discussed.

leaky_caldron (talk) 09:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

This template now looks a mess

The net result of the edits today has been to make this template look very messy and to over-emphasise the channels of transmission. The channels of transmission are also of very limited relevance to the winners section and the channel information is now duplicative, with the same information given yet again in the Related articles section.

A more elegant solution would in my view be to give the years of each winner as follows:

Rangoon11 (talk) 15:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't like the table being divided between the two networks that aired it. Keep it as it once was, and just leave the network references at the bottom. We don't really need to know what network aired what series (tables for other Big Brother versions that aired on separate networks don't have tables like this); just keep it simple. Jandal3c (talk) 00:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The approach above doesn't divide the template according to networks, it merely inserts a small network reference prior to the relevant series (which are in chronological order anyhow).

There are other editors who favour a very strong emphasis on channels - they don't seem keen on coming to this page to discuss, but their edits can be seen in the recent history - something which I am against, but I do think that the above is a fair middle way. I have looked at some of the templates for BB in other countries and none are particularly good, I don't see much there to emulate. Rangoon11 (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Even though the template edits were made by a sockpuppet, in this case I would say the edits were okay. Channel 5 is currently splitting their seasons of Big Brother into a new continuity. If you look at their website for example Big Brother 2011 is not being referred to as the twelfth season but as the first season. The table looks too jumbled up with 2010 · Channel 5/5*: 2011 as an example. If noting the channel is important then for the editions the table should look like this [1]. Or the links to the broadcasters should be at the bottom with no mention of the broadcaster in the "editions" section. A NaviBox should be useful not a mess. Remember details are not of utmost importance in a NaviBox the transition of broadcasters is clearly noted in the main series article plus the season articles. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 07:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I prefer the split row/channel nomenclature referred to by Alucard [2]. Leaky Caldron 11:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

How about this as a way forward:

Rangoon11 (talk) 12:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Runners-up

Do they need to be included in this template? Most of them aren't notable (outside of BB) anyway. I don't know when they were added, but I don't think they need to be. The X Factor, for example, only lists winners in its main template. –anemoneprojectors– 10:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Housemates

Do we really need to list all the notable housemates? We already have a list of winners, surely that's enough. There's a link to list of other housemates for those who want to know more. And as stated in the discussion above, other pages like X Factor only list the winners in the main template. ThisIsDanny (talk) 11:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I merged the two templates as it is better to have all information in one template than to let this abomination of a navbox continue to exist. There was some discussion about reality show contestants in navboxes a while back, and I think consensus was to allow non-celebrity contestants to remain in navboxes. I'll see if I can find the discussion. --woodensuperman 09:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 11#Template:Celebrity Big Brother covers some of the discussion. If I recall correctly, other discussions were had around the same time. --woodensuperman 09:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Template talk:Big Brother Africa which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 06:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)