Talk:Big Brother (TV series)/Archive 2

message: In Big Brother 3 Bulgaria are competing triplets! During their first week in the House they had a secret task - to change each other pretending to be one and the same person. It is similiar to the twins from BB Australia
:Yeah it's a state of fact and it's also singled out in the trivia 2006-section. Shameless 11:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First triplets competing 

message: Why isnt the Big Brother article a reference to George Orwells famous book and the ongoing common useage of the phrase in common English? This article should have a link to the TV series, preferably from a disambig page. 203.57.241.95 23:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article Big Brother is a disambiguation page, which links to all of the things you mentioned. Big Brother (TV series) focusses on its use as a television show. Tra (Talk) 23:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is the Reality TV show the main article? 

message: '..the show has been a commercial success.', according to the text of this article.
Hmmm. So how is this a rejoinder to 'intellectual criticism'? So, if it's a commercial success, then the end justifies the means? 'Commercial success' is all that matters?
:That is just your personal appreciation. The text is not saying that. Pabs.
::The article is conspicuously missing a section on criticism. It's not like there's any shortage. For example, cheap telly like BB puts actors and writers out of work, let alone the effect on the audience.124.176.176.157 10:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Despite criticism from many intellectuals'

message: since there are a few special seasons which didn't followed the original BB rules of nominations and evictions of course no eviction took place on them. however the bulgarian vip season had (due to the high number of voluntary exits) only two evictions with nominations before. I think that is a fact which should mentioned on the trivia section. Shameless 17:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict) I didn't realise this is what what I removed meant. I have no problem with its re-inclusion, but only if it is reworded so that it is clearer, to something like "Least number of evictions in a season". JDtalk 17:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Including 'Least housemates to be evicted?' 

message: does anyone of you have a list of nominations and evictions from the first flamish BB VIP season since it's likely that we miss a few 'first' facts on the trivia section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shameless (talk • contribs) 17:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big Brother Belgium VIPs 1 

message: There is now an online version of Big Brother taking place, within the Second Life virtual reality world. Would someoen interested in it write up a page about it? I would myself, but I'm far too close to those events to reasonably write it up objectively. Rhialto 02:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big Brother Online Version 

message: I added this fact as 18 in BB5 Germany, but it's been changed to 15. Which 3 on my list didn't exit the house voluntarily? Achim, Franco, Frank, Ilkay, Jupp, Karim, Kay, Lydija, Nicole B, Paco, Petra, Ramona, Sandra R, Serhat, Silvana, Solveigh, Susanne & Volkmar  Grahamuk 13:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: sorry I made a mistake so I am going to change that to 17. Sandra R was taken out by BB after the press wrote some bad things about her (because she gave her babies away) and saw that as the only way to protect her. Jupp was forced to leave since someone in his family needed his help (which wasn't explained further in the TV Show) and BB thought it would be better if he's not staying in the house however due to these circumstanges he was allowed to return a few weeks later. That would make 16 but your list does not include Lisa (Elisabeth) who left the house voluntary after the majority of household gone mad with her. However she was just talking with enemy Franco (who left the house at the same time but had all the HMs on his side) and the BB-Psychologist, when they were outside in a special room and they decided to end this fight and both were allowed to return to the house a few hours after they left, of course it's actually against the rules but it remains as the only time it happened on german bb so far. Shameless 16:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most voluntary exits 

message: Does anybody know which season was the first to let viewers vote to save and vote to evict housemates?  J Di 23:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Australia did it for the first time. Shameless 17:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Spain did it before Australia in October 2005 Grahamuk 19:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Australia did it the first time in April 2005 Shameless 22:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure about that? I'm fairly sure that the host Gretal said in April 2006 that it was the first time they had used the save/evict voting. And looking at the percentages for the 2005 Australia edition they look to be evict only percentages. If that is not correct and they also did save/evict in 2005 then this page needs amending http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Brother_Australia as it says "Big Brother 2006 added the save vote, allowing viewers to vote to save a housemate as well as evict; in the final tally housemates' save votes and evict votes are merged." Also this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Brother_Australia_2006 would be wrong as well as it says "Big Brother 2006 featured several innovations to the formula. In previous series of Big Brother Australia, viewers could only vote to evict the nominated housemates they wanted to leave the house. Big Brother 2006 added the save vote." Grahamuk 00:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well then I am mistaken problaby, I thought Glenn received some -% in his eviction result. Anway, never trust when Austrlian BB says they are doing a world's first since they have been wrong about this a few times. Shameless 20:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why I asked. :P  J Di 20:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Save and evict 

message: I think that the whole racism controversy deserves its own separate article due to its international political ramifications. Although the section on this article is good, I don't think it is anywhere near describing everything that happened as a news event in itself. I would strongly support the creation of a separate article (for example, Big Brother racism controversy (2007) where the whole story can  be described in full. As far as I am aware there is precedence for this in Wikipedia and it shouldn't be too hard for editors who are willing to put the work in.
I've been inserting, organising and maintaining the information at Shilpa_Shetty#Racism_controversy which is understandably far too large and will be significantly pruned once the controversy is over, but it's a shame to see all of that go to waste. There are plenty of references there for use and other developments haven't been discussed, for example, Cameron's and Livingstone's comments as well as comments from the Indian politicians.
So there it is: A separate article? Ekantik talk 06:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Paps and GrahamUK are working on it. Shameless 20:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Separate Article

message: I notice that this article has the words Big Brother in italics within each header of the article. I'd like to propose that these be changed to normal text within these headers, for the following reasons:
* It breaks the subheader links automatically generated on the "recent changes" and "my watchlist" pages.
* It is inconsistent with other articles  which mention the main article's name as a part of a sub-header.
* The extra emphasis provided by italics is un-necessary within the context of a header, as the header intrinsically provides emphasis.
Unless someone can provide a convincing reason not to, I will shortly remove the italics from all the sub-headers. Rhialto 03:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles).  J Di 18:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And there's nothing at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings) to say it shouldn't be done. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'll leave it then. I do think though that teh MoS needs to set a policy to have no italics (similar to no bold type) there, as it does break those automatically generated links. Rhialto 09:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Put it on Bugzilla or something?  J Di 09:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article sub-headers

message: I'm from Germany and watched almost every episode of german Big Brother, so I know many things about it.
"Big Brother - Das Dorf" started dircetly after the 5th Season, so please let me edit this! 80.132.166.227
:Feel free to write an article about it! If you speak German, you could use de:Big Brother (Fernsehshow) to help you get information. By the way the English Wikipedia has restricted the creation of new articles to registered users so you'll either need to create an account or submit the article at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Tra (Talk) 18:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big Brother Dorf 

message: Currently, in the house lives the third child in the history of Big Brother Bulgaria. First, Miss Bulgaria' 99 entered and lived in the VIP Brother 1 House with her 3-years old daughter Danaya (the first child to live in the House ever - marked as a fact). Then, in Big Brother 3 Svetlana gave birth to her daughter during the show and now Zdravko and Hristina (who married yesterday) live with their daughter Yanica in the VIP Brother 2 House. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.11.172.36 (talk) 12:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the it has to be the 4th child since Tanja from BB Netherlands Season 5 also gave birth to a child an lived with it in the house before she left voluntary Shameless 13:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  3rd child in BB Bulgaria 

message: Since the Facts section of this article only has one reference in it, could we please consider removing it?  It seems unlikely that many of the things in the section will ever be sourced, and it has been there long enough for references to be added.  J Di 12:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that. All these debates over "world firsts" are kinda senseless since it became more of a contest of who is adding the most thing or correct and delete them in the way they imagine it (I look at you GrahamUK and Pabs). Shameless 12:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I should look at you as you are the one that have added a bunch of incorrect/irrelevant data since the beginning -just now you have added that Javier Estrada was part of the first swap (Mexico - Spain) when he didn't, it was Andrés Barreiro... etc, etc, etc-. If you don't like people to correct you when you add something wrong, my advice is not to take part in a community like Wikipedia. And you said "kinda senseless since it became more of a contest of who is adding the most thing"... and just added such an extremely important fact as 'First deaf contestant'... well, bravo for you, dude. By the way, my vote is also to delete it, as it has become a complete mess up where nobody cares about what is being added or not, where nobody contrasts the information. The same for the whole article. It's getting more and more irrelevant and disfiguring with the passing of time. Every month a new table with new irrelevant info. Great. Pabs 00:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL I mean there is a fact like "first HIV infected contestant" in here and nobody cared - the funny thing is that sometimes I just add wrong facts so that you can do you homework and correct them. for example Doreen isn't really deaf and hopefully never won't be, same with the swaps - some of the involved contestants are right, some are wrong and just I know which are these. seems like you have to do another research to keep it all correct and accurate just as it should be in Pab's little Wikipedia universe, LOL Shameless 22:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As you can see in 'history', it is a long time without correcting any of the giant bunch of mistakes this article has, so you can keep on adding whatever you want. I do not feed trolls :) Pabs 00:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: If you don't like it ignore it. And the facts are hardly controversial.  JenAW 16:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not about not liking it, it's about the fact that the section has been in need of references for a very long time.  Per Wikipedia's verifiability policy, anything that cannot be verified via a reliable source should not be in an article.  J Di 13:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Now on its own page Big Brother Facts where those who have spent hours and hours on it can still enjoy it. NIghtjar 23:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: No, sorry - it doesn't work that way. No only was it discussed above, it was also split out to it's own article and discussed during deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Brother Facts. I think that speaks for itself. This is an encyclopaedia, not an indiscriminate collection of unreferenced trivia. Thanks/wangi 17:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facts section 

message: It looks like VIP Brother 2 Bulgaria will last for 33 days. I think it will be the longest Big Brother VIP, won't it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.11.172.36 (talk) 09:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The two portugese VIP seasons have lasted for 60 days each. I am sure some of the mexican VIP seasons were way longer too. Shameless 18:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Longest Big Brother VIP 

message: Australia BB7.
It's gonna be confusing but here it is:
Hayley and Andrew are going out. Her ex-boyfriend then walks in as an intruder, Hayley knows Billy, as Billy knows Hayley. Andrew does not know that Hayley knows Billy. And Hayley does not know that Billy knows that Andrew and Hayley are in the secret relationship.
Confusing yes, And Billy is also Mr. X, he isn't a housemate, and is only in there to try and make the secret come out.
So should, 3-way Relationship and Mr. X be a fact for 2007? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.49.239.251 (talk) 06:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: nope. it's unrelevant and it's also not a world's first. (Spain has done the same in its sixth season) Shameless 22:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  3-way relationship 

message: Warwick Capper - Celebrity Big Brother Australia 2002.
For exposing himself to another female.
I notice we have other information on Celebs as BBVIP/CELEB facts, so should this be added? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.49.239.251 (talk) 06:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Celebrity Removed. 

message: '[...] while others broadcast what would be considered to be to be borderline pornography by American standards.'  
Why the sudden mention of American standards here?  It seems random - surely it would be better to say something like 'would be considered borderline pornography in more conservative broadcasting regimes' or something?
:Removed the statement entirely. This statement can be applied to television in general, particularly when expressed from a worldwide perspective. What this statement essentially says is 'different countries have different standards for what can be broadcast on television'. This amounts to common knowledge, is likely to be covered in a separate article elsewhere, and has no direct relevance to the topic of the article.  --Careless hx 13:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  borderline pornography 

message: In the Incidents section there appears to be a multitude of spelling and grammar issues, the section reads quite childish with an apparent aversion to soft 'c's.
:I've gone through this section and tidied it up a bit. Tra (Talk) 17:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The United Kingdom section