Talk:Big Brother (British TV series) series 8/Archive 3

message: "After the criticism they received for not handling the Celebrity Big Brother 2007 racism allegations properly back in January, they were quick to intervene after Emily used the word in conversation with Charley. On the other hand, Charley and Nicky subsequently used the same contentious word several times. No action was seen to be taken against them."
This paragraph is very biased. I can't be completely sure but the rule break was reffering to a fellow housemate as *the offensive word* not just saying the offensive word on television. For example i'll use a less contensious word. If I was at junior school and I called my teacher an idiot I'd be punished, but if I reffered to someone else calling a teacher an idiot I would not be. This paragraph implies double standards by only removing Emily but Emily was the only one who called somebody that word directly, tyhe others were just talking about its use. Please comment on what people think and I'll remove it if no objections. Hyperfeedback 13:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree with you, I have removed this quite a few times already, but it keeps on coming back. John Hayes 13:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's factually accurate, and of course the disparity in treatment has been remarked upon elsewhere, e.g. "Parr, who is white, was thrown out of the house while little was made of the fact that housemate Charley Uchea, who is black, also used the word..." . Nick Cooper 13:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is factually accurate, but it is also biased. It doesn't explain, as mentioned above, that they were saying it in reference to her saying it. John Hayes 14:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nick cooper I would see your point if Charley called another person that word, maybe a another black contestant , but she didn't. She used the word to discuss whether it should be used by Emily. If Emily didn't say it it would not even have been said! There is a difference between discussing the word and calling someone it. There is no evidence to suggest it is an just  evictable offence to say the word. I can't be sure but surely the offence is directly calling someone it which the two other contestants did not do. The link you provided has nothing to do with this story!Hyperfeedback 14:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The explanation given by the producers was that it constituted "unacceptable behaviour," which includes, "behaving in a way that could cause serious offence to either their fellow housemates or members of the viewing public including serious offence based on the grounds of race." It has been widely accepted that Emily's comment was not meant maliciously, and certainly Charley's initial reaction was that she had used the word per se, not that it had been directed at her. The logical inference of this is that context is immaterial, and that it is the word itelf that is inherently offensive, as is speculated in general terms in the above-referenced BBC article, and certainly that is a view that has been widely expresssed since the incident. That being the case, any use of it by anyone must therefore constitute "unacceptable behaviour." Nick Cooper 16:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Biased

message: The complete ratings table was added again to the article (after the seperate page was deleted), I removed it again. As was previously agreed, and recommended on that articles deletion page, important ratings should be included in the prose, anything else is not part of Wikipedia. John Hayes 16:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ratings Table 

message: The podcast is weekly, and was done both on the first and second friday, they are available to download at iTunes Store, Lesley did the second one, I would at it to the weekly summary table but when I go to edit I can't find where to put it. Darrenhusted 23:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been putting the weekly podcast information in the "Tasks" section as the first one was classed as a task.Babygurl1853 16:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Podcast 

message: Considering the huge amount of sources this page has, and which is likely to increase, would it be a good idea to set them up in a scroll box in a manner similar to the Madeline McCann article? Spugmeister 10:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My personal preference is no, as it's the bottom of the article anyway, and doesn't look half as good in a scroll box, but let's see what the consensus is. John Hayes 10:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just think it makes the page look much longer then necessary without a scroll box, but I'm not overly bothered either way. Spugmeister 11:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the scroll box is a good idea, there is no real reason for dedicating so much space to sources and I agree that it looks unsightly. I must admit that I didn't expect something so trivial to be discussed, so apologies for my recent reverted change. RaseaC 17:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to say that in my opinion the scroll box loos good, and somewhat tidies up an article. Bearing in mind that this article now has roughly as many references as the last Big Brother series, something needs to be done. I would support the scrollbox idea. Andrewjd 20:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the scroll box looks terrible, and it makes it so much harder to get an overview of all the sources. You have to remember it's at the bottom of the article, so it's not like anyone has to scroll past it, but it makes it so much easier for someone who is working on the references (as I do). John Hayes 23:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree (which I think is the consensus of the other replies too). The scroll box does improve the aesthetics of the page and doesn't really affect overall readability.RaseaC 23:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a question of what's more important to someone I guess. I work on, and read, the sources far more than I do the article itself. If the consensus is for the scroll box then so be it, but it's going to make daily tasks I do (for example scanning all sources for duplicates), that much harder, for almost no gain. John Hayes 07:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the use of the scroll box leaky_caldron 11:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh well, 3 to 1 with 1 not bothered, I guess is a consensus, I don't like it but I accept the decision. John Hayes 11:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Made the change, but used reflist rather than references, so that it still uses the small format. John Hayes 11:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: Could someone with AWB please go through the page and make sure it's spelt "Seány", not "Seany", all the way through, and that "Big Brother" (when referring to the show, not the fictional character who they talk to in the diary room) is italicised (also, "Celebrity Big Brother"). -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 14:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I notice this has also been applied to the titles of the references. Should it really? John Hayes 16:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't need AWB to do that, you can just copy to notepad, use edit>replace and paste back to Wikipedia. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 18:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request 

message: Someone should colour the 'Not in House' red.81.159.59.153 21:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But then it might get confused with the colour for evicted. Tra (Talk) 21:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry about that, I thought it was a mistake as it was (nearly?) the same colour as "Ejected"! I like it though. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 23:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colour? 

message: What happened to these two guys the Sun predicted were going to join?  No sign of them yet. PatGallacher 00:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gerry an Seány? Billi, Jonathan, Liam and Brian? Oh, and Wikipedia is not a forum. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 08:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe they are refering to the two rumoured housemates, listed in the article. We should probably remove that bit as it's only a rumour (even if it is sourced). If they do turn up after all we can mention it. John Hayes 09:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

text: As I already said on this talk page (think the discussion is archived now), I interpret WP:NOT#FORUM liberally in that while a discussion about who the most attractive female in the house is would obviously be inappropriate, if there are press releases about upcoming possible developments then there's the possibility of improving the article.--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 09:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2 Male Housemates 

message: I noticed someone removed the whole Chanelle adopted comment, but was quickly reverted by Darrenhusted. I actually agree with removing it, yes she has mentioned it, and yes it has been mentioned in the press, but is it really important to an article on Big Brother? John Hayes 13:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is just as important as any other comment in the articles, its a part of her life, there is so much else in the other housemates comments that is way more useless info. -- Chris as I am Chris 15:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I would say we should get rid of that too. This was just an example which noticed due to the events above. John Hayes 16:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, this is not one of the pieces of information that should be included according to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Big_Brother#Housemates. Therefore this, and other similar unimportant infomation, should be removed. John Hayes 16:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't see too much of a problem with gradually trimming down each section. I suppose the main issue is that it might make the article temporarily appear biased towards particular housemates but as long as they all eventually get trimmed down, this shouldn't be too bad. Tra 
(Talk) 17:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm going to get on with that then. John Hayes 22:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I put it back because I feel that either all the information is kept or all of the housemates information is trimmed, but selective trimming doesn't help. If you remove a large amount of the stuff to meet the guidelins I won't revert it. Darrenhusted 16:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the revert, just wondering about the general principle. John Hayes 18:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chanelle Adopted 

message: It would appear that these subsections blend into one.
I believe "(Tracey)is a cleaner... should be part of a new subsection re Tracey
Unfortunately don't exactly know how to best alter section. Can anyone help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davinashetty (talk • contribs) 17:09, 18 June, 2007 (UTC)
:I fixed it. The problem was that the ref you added was missing a </ref> tag to close it, so it made the section heading and everything else up to the next ref become 'part' of the reference (consequently making them not appear in the main body of the article). Tra (Talk) 17:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shabnam and Tracey 

message: I was wondering if someone would be kind enough to create a plan of the house like the excellent one we got last year. Is this at all possible? — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 18:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was supplied by BB, particularly as they wanted to reveal the House Next Door, no doubt if such a twist occurs again then we will get a plan. I suppose someone could try to sketch something. Darrenhusted 18:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some newspapers and websites have already made their own House plans, but the problem is that theirs could just be estimations of the room sizes based on photos. Tra (Talk) 18:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yes, they showed us a plan of the house and someone made their own plan based on that. Well I hope we get the opportunity again this year. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 23:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  House plan 

message: I much preferred the one it was before. Someone change it please. :) 139.184.30.17 16:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I presume you're referring to the lighter shade of orange. Tra (Talk) 18:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the one. The darker orange didn't fit as well as the "walked" yellow and "evicted" red. Very pastel-y. If that's the right word. :S 139.184.30.18 23:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colour for Ejected 

message: Wouldn't the table be better if the housemates were listed in order of eviction rather than alphabetically? It makes more sense that way because the longer a person stays, the more nominations they can receive. - LeonWhite 01:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. I agree. I still don't think it should be there at all though, as total number of nominations a) is not part of big brother b) doesn't really mean much as the longer you are in the more you will get, even if you are popular. John Hayestalk 07:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although this is not always true, Stu in BB5 was evicted without getting a single nomination. Darrenhusted 13:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My point exactly, number of nominations has little relevance to anything. John Hayestalk 13:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally find the table interesting, but I would agree that the table should be changed to order of eviction, as it is in the housemates list, and the nominations list. I'll go and do that now, but if anyone disagrees, feel free to revert the edit.Babygurl1853 16:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: What about the suggestions given in the section with the same title above? — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 21:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Total number of nominations

message: Just to note, I reorganised the names to ordering by last name (names are not to be sorted by first name unless that is the only name they are commonly known by, per policies) so I just thought I'd note that here. - EstoyAquí(t • c • e) 22:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They're only really known by their first name while in the house, though. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 21:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not a very compelling reason - anyone in that situation would only be known by their first name while in the house. I don't think they're sufficiently notable just from the show, to make their names exempt to Wikipedia, and standard English sorting rules. The housemates are hardly going to be going around saying things like "Shabnam Paryani, stole my banannas" ;). - EstoyAquí(t • c • e) 22:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I undid it for the reasons outlined on Estoy Aqui's talk page. Triangle e 22:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's clearly reasonable for them to refer to each other by first name only (and therefore shouldn't affect sorting). I'm guessing what Channel 4 refers to the housemates as is the main factor here (like I said, no matter what, to refer to each other by full name is unreasonable to expect). But what Channel 4 refers to them as can easily be equated to how, for example fictional TV show characters are usually referred to by first name within the show, or by channel presenters (e.g. Peter Griffin), but remain sorted by last name in categories on Wikipedia. Maybe you won't agree its parallel, but I really see it as such. - EstoyAquí(t • c • e) 22:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I have to say that I agree with what Estoy says, it is policy and there is no important reason not to stick to it. I do think another choice would be to rename the headings to only include the name they are known as in the house, with content under the heading using their full name, that way they can stay in alphabetical order, by their first name. John Hayestalk 22:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be better to keep the surnames in the headings, since people are normally generally referred to by their full names in page names etc. I presume the page Estoy is referring to is Wikipedia:Categorization of people#Ordering names in a category. If the order does get changed, then the order in the infobox and for other series should probably be changed as well. Tra (Talk) 22:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, well while I'm writing this, I don't have much time (just popped in to check about the discussion) so if someone wants to do it there's always my previous edit which can be used as a guide (since the individual sections have been edited since). - EstoyAquí(t • c • e) 13:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes you are right, I had forgotten the impact on the page names (when and if they are created). Well I think we have a consensus and the backing of policy, so lets change it. For all the other articles we should discuss on the project talk page. John Hayestalk 14:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done the main list of housemates, but haven't got time at the moment to do the rest. can someone do this? John Hayestalk 14:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done the infoboxes for BB8 UK and BB UK. I left the nominations table since that only uses first names and I'll probably do the other articles later as long as no-one objects at WT:BIGBRO. Tra (Talk) 15:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am very against sorting by surname. When are housemates EVER organised by last name? Big Brother doesn't even release their last names! And no other BB Wikipedia page has followed this format (For example The 2006 BB UK). This is also the order all other websites sort them by (including official big brother websites, and their affiliates, such as Virgin Media). But fine, if the general consensus wants this changed, they can change every other Big Brother. Babygurl1853 17:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Yea, they should be sorted the same way Big Brother and Channel 4 sort them, and thats by first name, because thats the way we know, i.e. Ammanda first, Ziggy last. -- Chris as I am Chris 20:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Their surnames are irrelevant to the show. I don't even think surnames should be in the section headers (they could be mentioned in the housemate descriptions though). - LeonWhite 03:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I think we should remove the last names from the infobox and just have the name they are known by in the house. Having surnames complicates things and sorting by surnames makes the infobox very hard to use. Seaserpent85 10:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is REALLY annoying. I'm finding the page CONSIDERABLY harder to refer to now the names have been "organised" in this way. You have to be able to remember each housemate's surname in order to refer to the one you want to. These articles are supposed to be written for people to refer to - makes it considerably harder to do this if the names are organised in a way incompatable with how they are referred to on Big Brother. Triangle e 13:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When you say "refer to" a housemate, do you mean scrolling down the page to find the one you want or being able to make links like Big Brother 2007 (UK)#Ziggy without knowing the surname? If the latter then this can be solved by putting  before each heading. As for the order of sections, I'll put it back to ordering by first name for now as there seems to now be a consensus that this order would be better. Tra (Talk) 13:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The former - for when you're using the article as a punter rather than an author. Triangle e 14:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: That's much better! Does anyone think we should just have first names in the infobox and seperate headings and then their full names in their info section? Like in the BBAustralia articles? godgoddingham 333 14:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, if we are going to order by first name, on the basis that big brother doesn't use surnames, which is valid enough, then we should only list the first names, in the infobox, and section headings. The surname should only be in the info. John Hayestalk 08:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Correction, given name rather than first name, as in Ziggy rather than Zac or Zachary John Hayestalk 08:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: You can see their surnames in their individual sections, but as they aren't used in the show it makes no sense to use them in the section headings and infoboxes. Also it doesn't matter what we did for previous series, that can be changed, go to the Big Brother Wikiproject talk page for that. John Hayestalk 07:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Well I disagree, it doesn't seem any more "dull and lonely" to me, but that's just my opinion. There isn't any less info, their full name is still the first line of their info section, but they are only ever refered to by the first name, in fact in all the copy that is written, we never refer to their first names, so is there really any need for it in the infobox? John Hayestalk 16:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names reorganised 

message: Should we keep the information and sources on them breaking up in, now that they've got back together? I get the feeling by the end of the series we'll have something like "they got together, then ended it, then got back together, then ended it"...etc.Babygurl1853 20:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep 'em all. The reflist for this series will be five hundred long, may as well keep every one, says lots of cite tags. Darrenhusted 01:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What often happened with the previous series is that once the article started to get too long, material would get trimmed down, but leaving the references in place. For example in BB7 UK week 10, there is the sentence "Throughout the week, housemates completed the "Prison" task where "The House Next Door" had become a prison.[63][64][65][66]" If you click through to each of the references, it can tell the whole story without using up too much space on the page. Perhaps something like this could be used to allow the relationship to be very briefly covered, e.g. "Ziggy's relationship with Chanelle varied throughout the series" followed by the relevant references or even better, an article showing what happened over a long period of time rather than just individual events. Tra (Talk) 01:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chanelle/Ziggy 

message: Currently has been severely vandalised. Pronto fix needed (but I can't edit it myself)  (Drawntowardsthewater 21:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chanelle Cleanup