Talk:Big Brother (British TV series) series 8/Archive 1

message: This  clearly is for the 2007 series. The article, dated February 17, 2007 and says that the building will be used for, and I quote, "this summer's reality show". Anyone still disagree? Dalejenkins 08:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I too heard that this is for next season, and not this season. Can't remember where I heard this though. Paul Norfolk Dumpling 18:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dig Brother link

message: Has it been confirmed when the show will start? It says "Beginning of May 2007", but it's that now, and I still haven't seen any adverts for the show, which is unusual Paul Norfolk Dumpling 18:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No date as of yet, as soon as its announced I'm sure the date will be posted on here within minutes. -- Chris as I am Chris 20:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It actually says beginning in May. I think I read somewhere it was going to start on the 30th. (A rumour of course.) --LorianTC 21:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I heard it was the 25th.-h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 17:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the response. I'm just preparing myself for months of being in front of the TV in a vegetated state. Paul Norfolk Dumpling 18:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just so you know, it starts on 31 May, I read this on the report about Davina's sick baby, on sky news interactive. Paul Norfolk Dumpling 22:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again that could just be speculation, until we have a press release from Channel 4 or Endemol, then we shouldn't put the start date in the article.  Thanks. -- Chris as I am Chris 07:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Nice. Added it to the article. --LorianTC 19:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Start Date?

message: Pleasantview: Where are you getting all these names from? You have provided no source, except for "the source is within," whatever that is supposed to mean. This just looks like vandalism at the moment. --LorianTC 10:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please refer to WP:NOR. Facts in articles must be verifiable. --LorianTC 10:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, wow, 15 housemates. All 11 of them.--Michaelritchie200 07:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: What is your point? "Later today or tomorrow" isn't now, therefore it is unverifiable. --LorianTC 10:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, thanks to Drunkenmonkey on IRC: "It stats in 417 hours,25mins according to the sun, but theres deffo no names on the page". I am reverting it back. If you do find a reliable source, post it here first. --LorianTC 10:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: If you check Pleasantview's user talk page, you'll see that he (she?) has been acting in violation of Wikipedia policy a lot, although of course to some extent we are supposed to expect newcomers to make mistakes...-h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 12:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps. We should all remember WP:BITE. Majorly (talk | meet) 12:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Housemates 

message: I'm not sure the colours of the logo are meant to be a reference to the rainbow flag, i.e. a confirmation of the gay rumour. It looks more like the TV tuning screen of old days, so it is perhaps a sign of a self-referential media-related theme. The rainbow flag has no grey in it.
have another look
it has grey in it
212.139.19.43 22:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it's just a play on the TV test card pattern! 90.200.187.72 13:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logo 

message: The article states that Dermot O'Leary will be back to present BBLB, but I read elsewhere that he can't do BBLB because of his new commitment as presenter of The X Factor - is that right? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.108.145.10 (talk) 10:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is right, he will be doing both X Factor by day, and BBLB by night. -- Chris as I am Chris 10:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Dermot confirmed on Soccer AM (12th May) that the X-Factor auditions had already started and won't clash with BBLB, which he is still doing Artynmay 01:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dermot 

message: I've removed this link as it breaks Wikipedia policy. May I suggest we use the  template for the Paul O'Grady Show? Dalejenkins 10:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: YouTube source removed

message: Chris Moyles confirmed he was a Big Mouth host for the first three episodes on the 29th May - I didn't listen to this mornings (30th) show so I can't say that he didn't say it again today (he probably did) - but he first confirmed it first on the 29th. Hamdev Guru 10:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Almost confirmed - Big Brother website. Annoyingly vague. Source 86.31.119.178 17:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely confirmed - he just did an ad for Big Mouth. Sidasta 21:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chris Moyles 

message: Can I ask, that since this page is changing by the minute, that everyone checks their grammer BEFORE they click submit. Some of it is AWFUL! And as for the sentence "A dead ringer for Beth Ditto"... come off it! Paul Norfolk Dumpling 21:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is inevitable, just go watch the show instead of hanging around Wikipedia updating the article every 2 seconds. Clean up later. --LorianTC 21:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are we all aware that it's spelt "Grammar"?--Michaelritchie200 07:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Grammar

message: http://www.channel4.com/bigbrother/housemates/  
Information has been made available on the BB site regarding each of the housemates now.  Can we use this to build into the article? GullibleKit 21:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever happens, they are not notable for their own articles - yet. Majorly (talk | meet) 21:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Still, reference for the bios within this article? GullibleKit 22:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, it can definitely be used - must be reworded of course, though. Seaserpent85 22:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I think actually Charley and Carole may be notable, as Charley has previously appeared in the tabloids after a fight with Saskia from a previous Big Brother, and Carole was a Respect Party candidate, so is likely to have articles about her, but either way I'm not going to find sources, so I won't be starting any articles on them John Hayes 10:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately not. Per WP:EL, which states that links to social networking sites should be avoided. Seaserpent85 22:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I believe it could still be used to provide citations for any informations at a later date. GullibleKit 22:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll not put that link in the article, but I still don't understand why it's not good to link to them - after all it's surely a reliable source since they created it themselves ?!? Sam & Amanda's MySpace's have been set to private very recently but are still cached in Google. Profiles 146147044 and 154180223 respectively. Davidjamesgill 22:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia IS strict about what it considers reliable sources, and social networking websites, internet forums and blogs do not constitute reliable sources on Wikipedia, period.-h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 22:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Effectively, though I am rather simplifiying, a website being sourced has to have an editorial process, this would be something like a news site, such as the BBC, or the Channel 4 site, but not anything where any user can just add whatever they want without it being checked for correctness, such as MySpace or even Wikipedia John Hayes 07:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with you on that. The sections on the housemates are still very much a work in progress. Is it possible to cite a television episode? Just hard to verify...--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 13:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Too true.  IMHO, it is reasonable for an article to contain some original research of this nature, for this kind of television programme article, especially when so many of us concur on the quotes (in any case, I can verify these, as I still have the launch night on my PVR).  I therefore request that we all try and reach a consensus that citations are not necessary for these quotes in this article.  Discuss.  Guinness 13:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no need for original research - all of the info that comes from the show can be cited using the Cite episode template. :) Seaserpent85 13:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could put  to get  Tra (Talk) 13:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Precisely. It is possible to cite an program. Original Research is never ever acceptable. And anyway it's hardly difficult to get sources for these John Hayes 15:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me (I have seen people suggest that citing television constitutes original reasearch ... or was that on wikinews??). Guinness 15:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, Tracey's birthdate is correct as she mentioned last night that she would be turning 37 on Tuesday next week, and a simple deduction gives June 5, 1970. Also, did anyone think that Tracey was a man/transgendered at first? It's always possible given her comparatively deep voice. (Please do not accuse me of WP:NOT#FORUM violations here)-h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 16:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to use the cite TV template to source some of the citation needed tags now.-h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 17:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with you, I thought the same thing when I saw/heard her. And in this case I think this is a valid discussion, as Big Brother has a notable history of transgender housemates, so this information, if sourced, would add to the article ;-) John Hayes 17:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I too had the initial reaction of "that's a bloke", however, I saw somebody mention this on BBLM, and Chris Moyles immediately confirmed that all housemates are female. Guinness 17:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did he say anything about their gender at birth though? Probably not.--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 18:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: What do you mean? please explain. It may help to format your reply using colons to show which conversation you are replying to John Hayes 09:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Housemates bios

message: I can see that people have tagged a lot of things in the biographies that were clearly stated in the launch programme, either by Davina or the contestants themselves in the recorded introductions. This seems to be being picky to a ridiculous degree. Nick Cooper 11:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you on that. The sections on the housemates are still very much a work in progress. Is it possible to cite a television episode? Just hard to verify...--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 13:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Too true.  IMHO, it is reasonable for an article to contain some original research of this nature, for this kind of television programme article, especially when so many of us concur on the quotes (in any case, I can verify these, as I still have the launch night on my PVR).  I therefore request that we all try and reach a consensus that citations are not necessary for these quotes in this article.  Discuss.  Guinness 13:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no need for original research - all of the info that comes from the show can be cited using the Cite episode template. :) Seaserpent85 13:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could put  to get  Tra (Talk) 13:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Precisely. It is possible to cite an program. Original Research is never ever acceptable. And anyway it's hardly difficult to get sources for these John Hayes 15:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me (I have seen people suggest that citing television constitutes original reasearch ... or was that on wikinews??). Guinness 15:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, Tracey's birthdate is correct as she mentioned last night that she would be turning 37 on Tuesday next week, and a simple deduction gives June 5, 1970. Also, did anyone think that Tracey was a man/transgendered at first? It's always possible given her comparatively deep voice. (Please do not accuse me of WP:NOT#FORUM violations here)-h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 16:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to use the cite TV template to source some of the citation needed tags now.-h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 17:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with you, I thought the same thing when I saw/heard her. And in this case I think this is a valid discussion, as Big Brother has a notable history of transgender housemates, so this information, if sourced, would add to the article ;-) John Hayes 17:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I too had the initial reaction of "that's a bloke", however, I saw somebody mention this on BBLM, and Chris Moyles immediately confirmed that all housemates are female. Guinness 17:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did he say anything about their gender at birth though? Probably not.--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 18:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: What do you mean? please explain. It may help to format your reply using colons to show which conversation you are replying to John Hayes 09:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation request overload

message: Big Brother Australia 2005 had David and Greg Mathew, who (according to info here) were initially in the house only one at a time and had a mission to convince the rest that they are one person.  They were known as Logan (their common middle name).
I'm rephrasing the statement on Sam and Amanda to the effect that they're the first twins on the UK version.  But I'm not sure if it's worth mentioning this precedent here while at it. -- Smjg 22:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Twins precedent 

message: Heya, I couldn't find this on the page but has it been released how long BB 2007 will take place for? E.g. how many days/weeks before winner is announced.
:I keep hearing 3 months, I don't know the exact length though. --LorianTC 10:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It ends on the 31st of August - a friend of mine has tickets to see the live final. Pittising 18:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duration 

message: Right, I'm not going to get into an edit war over this one, However, I personally think that the housemates section should be a separate article now, not just for length, but because it makes it easier to keep tidy, and ultimately, judging by past versions of this article it will get big.  On the other hand, if we are just going to have one article, then we should delete the other article, otherwise we will have two versions of the information which are out of sync.  Which one should it be? (P.S. If nobody comments, I am going to be bold and revert it back to two articles). Guinness 09:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The seventh series had a separate article about the housemates , therefore I agree with you and it should be separated out.Scubafish 09:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's only necessary to split the article when it gets too long, which it currently isn't. There certainly isn't enough information in the housemates section to warrant its own article. --LorianTC 10:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: What is the cut-off criteria?? Scubafish 10:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:SIZE --LorianTC 10:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I've always been an advocate of; if you know something is going to break, fix it before it breaks, don't wait for it to happen. Guinness 10:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lets not be hasty. The article is only 20kB, there is plenty of room for expansion before the article should be split. Without the housemates section it would only be 11kB, making the housemates article only 7kB. Splitting at this stage is completely unnecessary. --LorianTC 10:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very well, in that case, do you agree that we should delete (or perhaps redirect) the second article entirely, to prevent them from diverging into a messy situation? Guinness 11:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's best to just redirect it to this page for now, as it may well be needed in future. --LorianTC 12:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another advantage of redirecting is that content edits have been made since the split, which need to be kept for GFDL purposes. Tra (Talk) 12:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate article ([[List of Big Brother 2007 housemates (UK)]])

message: This was discussed in part above, but according to the article the logos meaning was to become clear on launch night. I am still none the wiser to it's meaning, does anyone have any idea and does that section required editing? Andrewjd 19:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Series Logo 

message: Could someone try and find a reference to material saying that Tracey is from Norfolk? I followed the source, but it didnt say anything about Norfolk. I've looked on the BB site, and it doesn't say anything there either. Am I being blind? Paul Norfolk Dumpling 20:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tracey from Norfolk?

message: I think Lesley is fibbing about her age. When asked "We you alive during the war?" she replied "Of course I was", but she was born in 1947, and the war ended in 1945. Didn't it? Paul Norfolk Dumpling 20:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think she was just fibbing to the housemates, and her age as displayed is correct. Andrewjd 20:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They give the age in the audition video, don't they? I'm positive that it said that she was 60. Geoking66talk 05:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes she did, which would make her at least 62, but she also says her husband fought in the war (I can't remember if it was Dunkirk or D-Day), sorry I don't remember which episode, so can't source. She could of course have been much younger than him and married later, but it's another clue. Either way she has lied about something. John Hayes 09:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The audition video said she was 60. She was only pulling the other housemates' legs. That's the kind of person she is, surely you've noticed this. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 11:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't audition footage - it was part of her specially-shot introduction, and one would expect that even if they had a birthday between shooting these and the start of the show, the producers would get them to say they're as old as they would be on their entry into the house. Lesley is obviously just winding them up, thoguh. Nick Cooper 12:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know it wasn't audition footage, you knew what I meant though. I just said the wrong word. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 13:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: My brother said the same thing Spugmeister, so he could well have been in the war and she might not be completely lying. Andrewjd 21:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fibbing about her age!

message: I've removed the ages of those with a DOB, because there is no need for both a DOB and age. Plus this way, it doesn't need updating as they age. Paul Norfolk Dumpling 22:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mean to sound lazy, but it sometimes is annoying to figure out age given the birth date. I think that there's a template that automatically does it that's in celebrity pages on Wikipedia, but I don't know how it works.Geoking6666talk 05:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is such a template, but it's not necessary here. I find it very easy to work out ages from dates of birth.--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 17:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I can say that not all of us do. Especially me, and those of us with dyscalculia. I would like to see both in the article. Max Naylor 18:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no reason to add BOTH DOB & Age. Age will require updating (Unless the template is used). Most articles only post DOB. I think it's best to remain consistant with the rest of Wiki. Paul Norfolk Dumpling 20:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed Ages

message: The weasel templates have been removed, although no changes to the article has been made. I'll be re-adding the templates. Paul Norfolk Dumpling 20:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article DID have weasel words in it. Things like "She has referred to "indie" music as a new genre that was "taking over the country"[14], even though the word and genre "indie" was coined long before she was born" are statements that are written in a sneering way that is designed to make the contestant look stupid. Triangle e 18:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article did have weasel words in it. Yes I could have re-written the article, but I prefer to let the original author to do this, as I think it's only fair.  Paul Norfolk Dumpling 21:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Weasel Template

message: Are we SURE that she stood for the 2005 election? I haven't been able to find any evidence for that in the official election pages. I have seen, however, that she stood for the LOCAL 2006 council elections: 
:It's unlikely she stood for both that an the general election (though possible). As there is no source for the general election it should be changed to the local election John Hayes 08:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Carole standing for election

message: Is Ziggy's name spelt Zac or Zak? In the Northern Line article it's spelt Zak, but here it's spelt Zac... -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 21:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The papers are spelling it Zac, looked on the BB site, and it doesn't say. Paul Norfolk Dumpling 21:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zac/Zak 

message: Why have the pictures been removed? I was watching the progress done by Rizstar, and thought it looked good. I'm quite angry it's been removed, but if there is a reason, could someone explain what it is? Paul Norfolk Dumpling 21:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They don't have fair use rationales and are all going to be speedily deleted anyway, so there's no point keeping them - and the user putting them on was also creating a lot of unneeded whitespace in the article, so that has been removed too. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 21:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If thats the case, it may be better to WAIT for them to be deleted, or at least nominated for speedy deletion, and not just delete at your own descretion. Paul Norfolk Dumpling 21:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I'm aware they've all been nominated for speedy, also, I deleted them as 1. I felt that they looked badly placed within the article and 2. the user was creating unneeded whitespace. Put them back in if you want, but I'd advise you to not hit return nine times after every section, it doesn't look nice. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 21:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not hit return nine times? Well what do you propose? We ignore the needed 'Whitespace' and just have all the biogs crammed together, with no consideration as to what picture they go with? Paul Norfolk Dumpling 21:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Forgive me, I don't completely understand the procedures which go with this. But I see the images have been nominated because they are for "Non-commercial use only". Does that then mean, the pictures are not to be used in order to gain some kind of a profit? Paul Norfolk Dumpling 22:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. It looks ridiculous when editing to have miles of blank
space. Also, please be more careful when reverting, you reverted some other stuff I did as well as removing the pictures. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 22:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Also,  can be used instead of using the return key. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 22:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well this is what i'm talking about! We cant just ignore the whitespace if the pictures are going to be there. Now that would look stupid. Paul Norfolk Dumpling 22:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact remains that the pictures won't be there much longer anyway, so it doesn't really matter - however, large chunks of white while editing a page look ugly. But anyway, they'll be gone soon and so will the whitespace. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 22:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok I apologise for removing some text, didnt realise you added more stuff, but there was no need for you sarcasm in your edit summery. Paul Norfolk Dumpling 22:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what the "diff" link is for. And I didn't use any sarcasm. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 22:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Whatever, i'm not going to get into an arguement or edit war with you. Paul Norfolk Dumpling 22:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictures

message: Does anybody know of a source, which confirms that the house was demolished and re-built for this series, so that I can add it to the article? Guinness 21:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, from here, it appears to be demolished wasteground.  It is certainly not the "house" as it appeared, last time I looked.  For example, previously the walkway and stairs to the door could be seen to the north of the house.  Not any more. Guinness 22:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh i see what you mean. Maybe it is worth adding an "original research" template to it, since you did discover this yourself. Up to you! Paul Norfolk Dumpling 22:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Dunno where i got the name "Original research" template (think i made that up) but you know what i mean, right? Paul Norfolk Dumpling 22:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes it is "original research", forgive me, i'm being dense now. Paul Norfolk Dumpling 22:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I know what you mean, hence adding the citation required template, and confessing to  ignoring the rules.  It does need a proper source, though, if somebody can find one.  Guinness 22:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Are editors happy for me to use the above link as a source, and remove the original research tags? Guinness 23:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are getting confused as they are building a new house for next years Big Brother, This is the building before Big Brother, and this is the house during Big Brother. AxG @ ►talk 00:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think I'm confused, I was aware that a new house is being built elsewhere.  Your second link is what the house looked like last year (including the previous appearance on Google Earth).  The layout of the house, as currently occupied has changed since then.  The 'current' appearance on Google Earth (which has been updated in the last few months - previously it looked like the picture in your second link) is now an empty construction site.  Putting the two together strongly suggests that it has been re-built - unless Google have reverted to an older photograph for the location and stuck a 2007 copyright date on it anyway. Guinness 00:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  House re-built 

message: Not sure if, on top of the "indie" thing, this is developing trend for her - and therefor may be worth documenting in future - but in today's (Sunday) programme she claimed she got her first skinny jeans "3½ years ago" when she was in the "sixth form" (either Year 12 or 13). The former would date it as December 2003, when (by her DOB) she would have been aged 15 years and 8 months. Unless she was moved up a year, she would actually have been in what used to be termed fifth form (i.e. Year 11) at that age. Either that of it was actually 2½ years ago. Quite apart from the fact that this article date the current trend to late-2005. Nick Cooper 22:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, difficult to say really. I think she is probably just full of crap! Paul Norfolk Dumpling 22:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They were all just clamouring to be the best, it would not be difficult to assume that her claim was exaggerated. It's probably not worth mentioning just now but waiting to see if this possible lying develops into bigger claims. Right now it could be considered not NPOV. Andrewjd 22:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. If it's a one off it's disposable, but if it develops into a trend it's a useful early example. Nick Cooper 23:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, that as well. Her blithe claim of, "if you're in London, you know not to go out on a Friday or Saturday," demonstrates nothing except youthful arrogance.... Nick Cooper 22:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emily's latest faux pas 

message: Do people know when we can reasonably say there will not be any more entrants? PatGallacher 23:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no real way to tell. The latest we've ever seen someone enter is 44 days into the series. FireSpike 23:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: When it's over ;-) John Hayes 10:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Sun says this - http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2003230001-2007250876,00.html steve 23:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More entrants

message: Surely we are not going to have a table of ratings for every single day? I don't think this should be part of the article. A section on important ratings, as text would be fine, but not from every single show. John Hayes 09:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact I have been WP:BOLD, and done it myself, the text just needs looking over again. John Hayes 09:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I did, and I gave the reason for it. Firstly tables should be used as a minimum, it's much better to write in prose where possible. Secondly this was turning into a list of every episode, which wouldn't have been useful to this article, rather whoever is adding this info should write about important ratings, such as launch, final, and episodes with higher ratings. Thirdly none of it was sourced. John Hayes 14:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh right, didn't see it turn into a listing for every episode. When I last saw it, it was just a few episodes. In my opinion, the table should remain, but obviously, people shouldnt get silly with it. Maybe only ratings for certain episodes, like launch night, and the first episode of BBLB, or BBBM. When the series is done, maybe there should be an "average" episode ratings? Just a suggestion. I much prefer a table to the text. Looks tidier, and easier to read. Paul Norfolk Dumpling 14:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, a table with a few select ratings might be acceptable. If written well though, it should still be as easy to read in text. John Hayes 15:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ratings Table 

message: I have removed the hidden nominations tables, as according to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Big_Brother these should be on seperate pages. John Hayes 10:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nominations table 

message: One of the sources for the logo is broken. I will remove it, but we need to find a replacement. I'll leave a cite for the moment. John Hayes 15:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logo source missing