Talk:Big Brother (British TV series) series 7/Archive 4

message: Why has this been removed? It gives an insight as to how the producers were trying to portray each contestant at their entrance into the house. Triangle e 14:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you any proof for that? It's just meaningless information that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. -- 9cds(talk) 14:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to get terse. Academically, I found it interesting to know the entrance music used for each contestant. Triangle e 14:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with 9cds, it's useless information that provides no added value to the article. --LorianTC 15:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The chronology is useless, but it's still there.  The only necessary information is who entered, and who won.  It's still there though.  --JD[talk|email] 20:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The chronology provides information about the happenings in the house, and adds value to the article. It helps to cover all relevant information about the series. Music from the auditions does none of this. From Wikipedia:The perfect article: "is of an appropriate length; article size is long enough to provide sufficient information, depth, and analysis on its subject, without including unnecessary detail or information." --LorianTC 20:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Have a look at this page: Deal or No Deal, Series 2 (UK). Isn't including the entrance songs to each housemate not akin to the academic nature of the detail listed on this page? Of course, it would have been nice to have had this discussion before the song information was unilaterally deleted with no debate having taken place. Triangle e 20:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you ask me, the information on that page is relevant. --LorianTC 21:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then it is clear that we do not have parity across Wikipedia, when it comes to what should and what should not be included. I find the Deal or No Deal page that I just showed you to be one of the most useful pages on here. Triangle e 21:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really see why you are pointing to that page. It contains relevant information. Music played in the auditions is not relevant to Big Brother. --LorianTC 21:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I read your statement before last incorrectly. I thought you had said "irrelevant". That having been said, the purpose of my reply was to point out the academic nature of the DonD page. Triangle e 21:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Audition Music

message: As I don't quite know how to do this, I think it's needs to be changed for Friday's new housemates. Prehaps differtent colours for housemates in "Main House(Yellow)" and "Secret House(Green)". If someone would please inform me how to do this, I'd really appreciate it. --Jboyle4eva 00:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do we need to separate the housemates? -- 9cds(talk) 13:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the 'secret housemates' won't be 'real housemates' just yet, as they won't be in the main house.
What did we do last year? -- 9cds(talk) 17:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Last year, they were at least in the same house. This year, BB are going for a completely different house, separate, but joined to the main one. See also Talk:Big Brother (UK series 7) nominations table. —Celestianpower háblame 17:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, they're in the same table there, why not here? -- 9cds(talk) 17:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox update needed

message: Any suggestions on how to categorise the new housemates?  Especially in the infobox, are there going to be yet more colour schemings?  And in the housemate listings, should we seperate the houses?  IE:
Original/First House:  
 Housemate1
 Housemate2
New/Second House:
 HousemateX
 HousemateY
Any suggestions on how to layout the article are welcome.
Also, all the new housemates are in the 'new' house now.  Would someone with more energy than myself (I've had a hard day and a few beers) care to update the lists?  Celardore 21:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, they are housemates so will not be separated in any way. I have now added them to the table. -- 9cds(talk) 22:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Images are now on the Channel 4 site, so you can tell who's who :) -- 9cds(talk) 15:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still not 100% sure I've uploaded Spirals photo and not Michaels!  They look pretty similar I think, could someone confirm to me that I've uploaded a picture of Spiral?  Thanks!  Celardore 19:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have got the right image. --LorianTC 19:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Housemates 

message: Parts of this article have a negative tone to it: "Nikki also demonstrated a distinct lack of aptitude in cooking food"; "Despite the apparently relatively high regard with which Glyn seems to hold himself and his physical appearance, he has only achieved a little success with the opposite sex". This doesn't seem particular encyclopaedic and this sort of thing has been noted on other pages as "weasel words". Triangle e 22:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed... we especially shouldn't be including it if it's not sourced. -- 9cds(talk) 22:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Negative Tone

message: Are we allowed to use them?80.41.102.54
:Nope, for copyright reasons. -- 9cds(talk) 11:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A little while ago this question referred to the question of copyright in Big Brother, and a reasonable explanation for differing copyright treatment (in this article and other UK Big Brother articles) of the Big Brother distinctive eye logo compared to other Channel4/Endemol items for which copyright is claimed on the official website is still pertinent IMO--luke 23:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I should have made this more clear. Channel4 say: The name Big Brother®, the distinctive eye logo and the content on the Big Brother programme series and the official Big Brother website, URL: www.channel4.com/bigbrother "Official Site" are protected rights or marks owned by or exclusively licensed to 4 Ventures Limited "Channel 4" and any use is subject to Channel 4's permission. This permission can be revoked or changed by us at any time. Channel 4's usual terms and conditions included on its website also apply. Why is the Eye Logo OK to use under US Fair Use, and not the housemates images Is there US case law to justify this, perhaps because it is a logo?--luke 20:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Housemate Publicity Shots

message: C4 are calling it The House Next Door (it even says "Next door" on the front door), so it would be great if everyone called it that, rather than "The secret house" or "The 2nd house". -- 9cds(talk) 15:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The House Next Door 

message: The first paragraph states this is the seventh Season however channel 4 has never ever called it a season but a series, added to the fact that the article is called Big Brother (UK Series 7) I think it should be changed. What do you all think? Plus a "season" in television terms could be called an americanisum (or should i say americanizum?). TheEnlightened 12:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I think 'season' is an Americanism. -- 9cds(talk) 12:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Series usually means all of the seasons in US terms. Darrenhusted 14:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Season or Series? 

message: The list of rules imposed on Susie has been changed into the past tense.  Yet nobody's given any clue of when the Golden Rules were lifted.  Straight to the point please - when was it? -- Smjg 13:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After a week. -- 9cds(talk) 13:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty much as soon as Grace was evicted. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 13:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've now made this clearer in the article. -- 9cds(talk) 14:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I put it in the week by week after the sentence about Grace getting evicted and seem to have been reverted for no apparent reason. Deizio talk 15:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gold no longer rules? 

message: This was removed earlier:
She has also appeared in commercially available pornography.
As can be seen, the source was clearly indicated and referenced in my original edit comment. Given the obscene nature of the content it was not my intention to make the link to this commercial website clearly visible as I believe that would be inappropriate. Nevertheless, it is a valid source which supports the preceding statement and I have therefore reinstated it. If anyone wishes to modify the way in which the source is referenced, feel free. leaky_caldron 19:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The link doesn't work.  But, even if it did, it's not adequate.  For negative material, you need third-party coverage, from a reliable source, according to our WP:LIVING guideline.  --Rob 19:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought Lea had discussed her participation in these movies with the other HMs? leaky_caldron 19:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think she did. I have a link that works, with pictures of Lea in porn, but I guess I shouldn't post it here. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I put this on the article: .  All it really says is "porn star Lea", but I'm looking for better links right now.  --JD[don't talk|email] 20:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this one any better?    It says porn actor, or something like that.  But, as with the other one, it's only a mention of her past career.  --JD[don't talk|email] 20:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about Casting Cuties 4: Featuring Lea Walker HMV URL last accessed 2006-07-02 ? MGSpiller 20:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *gasp* HMV sell rootfest flicks!?  --JD[don't talk|email] 20:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Or an alternative would be Lea Walker's entry in British Girls Adult Film Database BGAFD URL last accessed 2006-07-02 MGSpiller 20:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think my last suggestion is preferable, I was hoping for IMDB but had to go for a more specialist alternative. the sacrifices I make for wikipedia :-)MGSpiller 20:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lea Walker pornography source 

message: somebody said on the channel 4 evening show (possibly richard) that the tiles on the black and gold exit door spell out "big brother". Has anyone been able to see this as I can't find a picture of the door anywhere. a piccy would be much appreciated. thanks
:It was Richard but I can't make it out at all. I look at it all the time. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 10:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see what could be some letters (like a g or e) but never see enough of the door for long enough a time to make anything clear out. Richard said you need to tilt your head to the right IIRC. Lee Stanley 14:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The exit door 

message: I notice this series, more conspiracies have been reported in the tabloids. Like accusing contestants of being plants. I also noticed for the first time I can recall, Davina mentioned them by saying that the housemates may have met the 5 new housemates at auditions.--Darrelljon 11:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone think it's worthy of including it in the 'criticisms' section? -- 9cds(talk) 16:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is about the programme Big Brother UK, seventh series.  It should therefore have as much relevant information included, as possible.  Anything that relates to the aforementioned programme, and is of interest to readers, should be included.  The housemates and chronology are not the only parts of the programme.  --JD[don't talk|email] 19:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Conspiracies

message: At what point do you think it's OK to give a housemate an article to themselves? For example, Derek Laud, Anna Nolan and Ray Shah have one where as Makosi Musambasi does not. There are several people on here, for example Aisleyne, who have a tremendous amount written about them. At what point should this be given its own page? (If at all) Triangle e 10:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think when they do something notable, while not in the house, they should get their own page, but not a page that only has all the information off the Big Brother pages.  --JD[don't talk|email] 10:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, only if they're notable outside the house should they have their own article. There's a few old housemates that I think should have their pages deleted. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 10:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I've just reverted Sam Brodie and Dawn Blake. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 10:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Giving Housemates Their Own Page

message: I've started up a consensus building for chronology on the Wikiproject talk page. -- 9cds(talk) 07:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus building for chronology 

message: Does no-one have a screenshot of Michael? ellisjm 22:25 UTC 7 July 06
: Give me more time! (hopefully he'll do/say something that will get him on the live feed)....
:Someone uploaded a picture already =) CelardoreTalk 20:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image of Michael 

message: What is the correct way to spell Shahbaz's last name? I've seen Chaudry, Chaudhry and Chauhdry (as on here). Anyone know? --Alex9891 (talk) 19:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it's Chaudury like the nurse in EastEnders... -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling of Shahbaz's name 

message: A straw poll is taking place on this page about whether the current infobox should stay, or if the one previously in use should be used again.  Users are encouraged to vote, but are not obligated to.  If you have the time, please look at the straw poll.  --JD[don't talk|email] 21:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox straw poll 

message: The little eviction table needs to be edited - it says "Against Public Vote", when Spiral and Jonathan were never against the public's vote. I would edit it, but I don't know what to change it too - Nominated wouldn't work (week 8, week 1). "Up for eviction" wouldn't really work either due to week 6 (Aisleyne moving). Squidward2602 16:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, completely agree with ya --Alex9891 (talk) 18:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought Aisleyne was evicted to the house next door.  --JD[don't talk|email] 18:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: JD UK, you are right about Aisleyne, but what about Jonathan and Spiral? --Alex9891 (talk) 19:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought Spiral was evicted to the main house, and Jonathan was evicted from the game.  I haven't actually been watching it much though, so I'm not saying all of this with the assumption that I'm correct or anything.  --JD[don't talk|email] 19:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: How would Up for the Vote be?  It's not overly specific or anything, from what I can see.  --JD[don't talk|email] 19:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been changed now --Alex9891 (talk) 19:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh.  My next suggestion was going to be this:
              	Week 1Day 8 	Week 2Day 15       	Week 3Day 22	Week 4Day 29	Week 5                    	Week 6         	Week 7      	Week 8
Up forthe Vote	Bonnie, Glyn	Lea, Richard, Sezer	Nikki, Sam  	Grace, Nikki	Imogen, Lisa, Mikey, Nikki	Aisleyne, Susie	Lea, Richard	All butJayne
Evicted       	Bonnie      	Sezer              	Sam         	Grace       	Lisa                      	Aisleyne       	Lea         	
But done properly, and having all the correct Day numbers for the odd days.  --JD[don't talk|email] 19:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't know, it looks a bit cluttered --Alex9891 (talk) 19:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Meh, was only an idea.  If it's all sorted now, I don't think it would matter anyway.  --JD[don't talk|email] 19:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The little eviction table 

message: Why's the chronology in two-week sections?  --JD[don't talk|email] 23:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronology Weekly 

message: An anonymous user keeps changing the current nominations and evictions table to split the evictions row into evictions, walkers and ejectees. I would like to see who thinks the current one is better or should be split it. I think we should keep it as it is because it is less clutterred and has unnecessary detail.
Current:
                  	Week 1      	Week 2             	Week 3    	Week 4      	Week 5                    	Week 6                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        	Week 7      	Week 8
AgainstPublic Vote	Bonnie, Glyn	Lea, Richard, Sezer	Nikki, Sam	Grace, Nikki	Imogen, Lisa, Mikey, Nikki	Aisleyne, Susie                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               	Lea, Richard	All butJayne
Evicted           	Bonnie      	Sezer              	Sam       	Grace       	Lisa                      	Aisleyne The public, but not the housemates, were told that they would be voting one of this week's nominees to be moved to the house next door. On the Friday night show the housemates were given the impression that Aisleyne was being evicted; in fact, she was moved to the house next door and returned to the main house 5 days later.	Lea         	
Split:
         	Week 1      	Week 2             	Week 3    	Week 4      	Week 5                    	Week 6         	Day 49                            	Week 7      	Week 8
Nominated	Bonnie, Glyn	Lea, Richard, Sezer	Nikki, Sam	Grace, Nikki	Imogen, Lisa, Mikey, Nikki	Aisleyne, Susie	Aisleyne'schoice:Sprial orJonathan	Lea, Richard	Pete, Imogen, Mikey, Glyn, Richard, Nikki, Aisleyne, Susie, Spiral, Jennie, Michael
Evicted  	Bonnie      	Sezer              	Sam       	Grace       	Lisa                      	Aisleyne*      	Jonathan*                         	Lea         	
Walked   	Shabaz      	George             	          	            	                          	               	                                  	            	
Ejected  	Dawn        	                   	          	            	                          	               	                                  	            	
:I think the second one would be better, but don't have all the housemates' names in the Week 8 box.  --JD[don't talk|email] 14:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a table of nominations and evictions, not a table of nominations, evictions, walkers and ejectees. The other BB articles that have this table don't have the same data, why should this one? It just adds 2 mostly empty rows with information elsewhere in the article. --LorianTC 14:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the one on the BB06 article is even bigger, although with good reasons that don't apply to this article.  If it's nominations and evictions only, then the names of the people that weren't evicted would probably be better off not being on the table at all, but that might cause confusion for some people.  --JD[don't talk|email] 14:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, there isn't one in Big Brother (UK series 6)... But yeah, it should stay as it is. --LorianTC 14:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BB06, Australia..?  --JD[don't talk|email] 14:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see, why does BB06 redirect to the Australian version? No country is defined in the name... --LorianTC 15:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't start asking me to prove stuff and whatnot by saying this, but it's an official abbreviation...  It's even in the logo (the heart is a zero); and more than anything else, there's no other article on the English Wikipedia, that I know of, where BB0x can direct to.  --JD[don't talk|email] 15:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok fair enough if it's the official abbreviation, I don't watch it so I didn't know. Anyway, the anon edited seems o have disappeared, so unless he turns up again, this discussion is basically over... --LorianTC 15:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The second table offers a more in depth detail of how people left the house and under which circumstances. Saying that "All But Jayne" were nominated doesn't tell anything. Does that mean that Grace was nominated too? Of course not, because she wasn't in the house at that time. Having it say every Housemate's name lets the reader know EXACTLY who was nominated. And the table also shows as clear as crystal what happened to George, Shabaz and Dawn. I'm the creator of the BB06 Australia table and it is very efficient at showing the weekly events in the Big Brother house and nobody seems to have a problem with it. It's very informative and I feel it should be used on the Big Brother UK (Series 7) page. --24.224.246.18 18:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: All the added information is unnecessary, it fills up space with mostly empty rows with information elsewhere in the article. It is a table of nominations and evictions, not walkers and ejectees. This information is not included in the main nominations and evictions article article, so it definantly should not be included in this article. The table is only there to provide a summary of the main article, not go into detail, especially with info not in the main article. --LorianTC 18:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table of nominations and evictions 

message: How pregnant is she?  Is she going to be able to finish the series? I mean, she looks pretty far gone. CelardoreTalk 19:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: She's far enough gone to want to take an emergency birth pack with her to the final.  --JD[don't talk|email] 19:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: That was confirmed before the series started.  If it's not in the article though, and if there's a source, I think it should go in.  --JD don't talk email me 15:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Davina 

message: Is anybody able to take a couple of new screenshots of Glyn and Pete sporting their new hairstyles? ellisjm 10:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pete & Glyn 

message: Can somebody tell me why links to unofficial websites aren't allowed, please?  --JD[don't talk|email] 20:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Everyone else was when people added them, so I just did the same. Anyway, unless it provides information that the article doesn't already contain it shouldn't be linked to. --LorianTC 21:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia:Tip_of_the_day/September_22%2C_2006 luke 21:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the context of this article that's meaningless - there are 101 fansites and in the eyes of their creators/readers each is the best, each should be listed, and should be the top of the list. WP:EL: "fanlistings are generally not informative and should not ordinarily be included". Thanks/wangi 21:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For information, I am repeating my edit summary here: Unofficial is ok, with care and discretion. I don't happen to believe it's right to include every fansite, but neither do I believe it's right to simply exclude a fansite without first considering what is on the site and if it's a worthwhile and informative site. There will be some disagreements, but probably not many - and these can be discussed in talk.--luke 01:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Digital Spy should be included, even if only as the one and only unofficial site.  --JD[don't talk|email] 02:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official links only? 

message: The article states milk and bread will be replenished - I thought the housemates had to make their own bread? - Lee Stanley 07:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe the ingredients will be replenished? --Alex9891 (talk) 11:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do they still have to do make their own bread? I guessed they'd stopped doing that when they got rid of the chickens and allowed them to have hot water for more than 1 hour a day. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 11:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that they only have to for this "ration" week --Alex9891 (talk) 11:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Week 9 rations

message: Sorry, I thought it might be common sense to give the phonetic pronunciation of Aisleyne's name - after all someone who knows nothing about BB might want to look at the article some time. Or is the article simply being written by a single group of BB fans for BB fans?  I'm not going to bother changing it back, plenty of other articles to work on. Happy editing. --Escaper7 18:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't have to stop editing the article because I removed that; I removed it because pronunciations generally aren't included in articles.  Sorry.  --JD[don't talk|email] 18:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure that most people who look it up will know something about it. And about Aisleyne's name - that's the English language for you! --Alex9891 (talk) 18:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I know Irish (and she admitted her name is Irish) and Ais in Irish is pronounced Ash, so there is a little confusion. When I first saw her name I didn't know that it was pronounced Ashleen. From what I know, Aisleyne is not an English name. Geoking66 20:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: You lot are fast!

message: Okay, now the chronology's slightly mega-long now, what do people say to it being on a separate page now?  --JD[don't talk|email] 22:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the previous series' weren't. Not yet anyway. --Alex9891 (talk) 23:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't always have to not do something just because we haven't done it before.  Isn't the whole point of this thing improvement?  --JD[don't talk|email] 23:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well not yet I don't think. Maybe at week 10ish? I think a lot of what's written there can easily be edited out without a problem, so that would make it shorter. --Alex9891 (talk) 23:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should have tasks, nominations and evictions, strikes, punishments, and birthdays as bare minimum; unless somebody disagrees with any of that, and has good reason.  Even with just that, the rest of the article makes it kinda long.  --JD[don't talk|email] 23:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, do you mean a really comprehensive guide? Like with details of absolutely everything that went on? --Alex9891 (talk) 23:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: lol not an extensive guide or anything.  But the stuff I mentioned above, they seem the most basic stuff.  A really comprehensive guide would just be way over the top; what with all the petty arguments and whatnot.  And wouldn't that go againt one of those WP:NOT rules, anyway?  --JD[don't talk|email] 23:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like the nominations table? The tasks all written up and stuff, maybe --Alex9891 (talk) 23:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: My reply's on your email JD_UK... ellisjm 23:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I've de-druftified and sourced the Chronology section up to Weeks 5 and 6. This is as small as it'll get. Since we've split off the housemates, the article is under 31KB now, so needen't be split at all again, until this barrier is once again met. —Celestianpower háblame 21:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about making the sections one-week sections?  --JD[don't talk|email] 21:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me... ellisjm 21:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It just clogs up the TOC, in my opinion, for no veritable gain. Plus, it makes very small section, which isn't any good to anyone. —Celestianpower háblame 22:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronology section 

message: Can I just ask what is wrong with linking dates? --Alex9891 (talk) 11:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:MOSNUM for the answer. Linking full dates is right though. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 11:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why do Jayne and Michael have no links, and why have they been reverted when they are full dates? --Alex9891 (talk) 11:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No idea. It wasn't me. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 11:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date linking 

message: Um, the housemates are still on a separate page.  What's going to happen to the other page?  Where are the housemates going?  --JD[don't talk|email] 13:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed them again, it was put back by the same person spamming his stolen images. --LorianTC 13:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please contribute to the discussion here over this issue. —Celestianpower háblame 13:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion was relevant to the page it was posted on.  --JD[don't talk|email] 13:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Housemates 

message: Isn't the colour for BBLB green/teal, not blue like it says in the title sequence section? If you go on the C4 website, it's a teal colour, and if you watch the intro it's teal, so why does the article say blue? Geoking66 07:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. Well spotted! Changed... godgoddingham333 09:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BBLB colour? 

message: i'm told that the freeview big brother live feed has been taken off the air and replaced with film four. can anyone confirm this?Timdew 13:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. — FireFox 13:13, 23 July '06
should freeview be removed from the main entry ? Timdew 22:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  freeview 

message: Can someone tell me what cable channels  the live feed is on? as indicated by  paragraph 3 of the main entry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timdew (talk • contribs) 
:NTL gets it. --LorianTC 19:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  cable 

message: repeated lines about the "task" make these two paragraphs similar, could this be reworded? Timdew 19:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to ask permission, do it yourself. --LorianTC 19:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  day 63 and 64 

message: OK, I'm a little confused on how we should mark weeks. Do we mark them as the time that one person and the next person were evicted or based on 7's? Since the evictions are two days after the beginning of the next week, should they be counted as the week that just ended or a new one (like Bonnie being evicted week 2 not week 1)? If so, the chronological sections should be at Day 7, 14, 21, etc.? Geoking66 20:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BB7 started on a Thursday, so the weeks would be a day off, if evictions are what when weeks start are going by.  —JD[don't talk|email] 20:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The last piece of information each week should be an eviction. The last days will be Days 65,72,79,86 etc... godgoddingham333 20:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's what I meant to say.  —JD[don't talk|email] 20:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Week basings? 

message: How many fails were the housemates allowed in the prison task? In the highlights show, I think they said that up to four were allowed, but five fails would have given them a basic shopping budget. However, this says that "The group picked up four fails, two short of the six that would have seen them miss out on a luxury shopping budget". Which is right? Tra (Talk) 12:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's pretty screwed up, first they said 5, then they said 4, and now they're saying 6... --LorianTC 13:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The voiceover said 5 and they would pass, six and they fail. Although it was also stated that if the escape garden was revealed it was an automatice fail. Darrenhusted 15:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prison task 

message: Bonnie received Bonnie% of the votes on her eviction night.  Sam received Sam% on... Sam's eviction night.  Er, problem?  —JD[don't talk|email] 23:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On a similar note, it says "On Day 79 Mikey and Susie became the 11th and 12th housemates to be evicted with 48.5% and 59.4% of the public vote respectively." which doesn't make sense. Do the percentages look weird because people continued to vote after Mikey had left or are they just wrong? Icey 15:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The 48.5% is out of 4, the 59.4% is out of 3. --LorianTC 15:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eviction percentages 

message: "If housemates wish to leave a comment they must press one, if housemates wish to make a request they must press two and if housemates wish to leave the diary room they must press zero"
I removed the above text, because it's unneeded detail, and doesn't add anything to the article. "similar to a touch pad telephone" will suffice --YB 22:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Detail is good sometimes.  I didn't know housemates had to ask to leave the Diary Room.  I reckon it should go back.  —JD[don't talk|email] 22:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i  agree with Yellowbounder , it's spurious and doesn't add to the article. it's padding, reference to the "touch tone " interface should be sufficient.--Timdew 22:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then again, some detail is nice. The moment when Susie pressed "1" and was in the queue would be a little odd written without the "1" "2" "0" reference. Geoking66 21:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Excessive Detail 

message: Is there a reason why the houseplan keeps getting changed from the light one to the dark one?  —JD[don't talk|email] 20:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what happened is 80.43.11.242 changed the houseplan from light to dark, then in another edit they added a  tag to the bit about the returning housemate being eligible to win. JD then switched the houseplan back to light then, a minute later, Leaky caldron reverted the adding of the  tag. By doing this they also reverted JD's edit (therefore putting the dark houseplan back). Assuming this was unintentional, I (Tra) put the light houseplan back. Tra (Talk) 21:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol okay then, thanks for the info.  I thought people were fighting over it or something.  —JD[don't talk|email] 21:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Houseplan Wars

message: I've corrected the information about live action footage of Big Brother on Freeview. I've got a Freeview box and the red button icon vanished without notice several days prior to the launch of Film4 (also owned by Channel 4).
At the same time previews of forthcoming films started to be shown on Film4 and I believe that the bandwith that the live action was using was transfered over to Film4. Prior to the transmission of Big Brother, Freeview channel 31 carried More 4+1. This channel was shut down to make way for Film4 and, despite the fact that the live action was transmitted on Freeview channel 305, the two channels were never ever broadcasting pictures at the same time. I therefore think that Big Brother was 'borrowing' channel 31's bandwith until Film4 was turned on.
I didn't put any of this into the article as I don't think it is relevant, but if anyone contests my edit (for some strange reason) you can research what I have said here to see if you agree with me.
Big Mac 23:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Live Action on Freeview

message: Is House not a word that should be capitalised?  --JD don't talk email me 21:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it ever used as a proper noun? Tra (Talk) 21:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have thought so, as it's referring to the Big Brother House.  Is the word capitalised when it's used on the website?  I'll check that.  --JD don't talk email me 21:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do they use the word House on the website!?  I can't find it...  I'll keep looking though.  --JD don't talk email me 21:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I found one use...  It's here, and the word House is capitalised.  --JD don't talk email me 21:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Another here.  I think it's safe to say the word House should be capitalised, unless somebody can say otherwise.  Strangely, the word Day isn't capitalised.  Guess I'm not finished on the Channel 4 website yet...  --JD don't talk email me 21:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I found the word Day capitalised more than uncapitalised, 2 to 1.  --JD don't talk email me 21:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I'll change it to capitalised in the article Tra (Talk) 21:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Day is capitalised on the Big Brother UK website.  Day is capitalised on the Big Brother Australia website.  I can't comment on the Big Brother America website, but will do in a moment.  I think how they use capitalisation should take precedence over how we do it, if it isn't major.  --JD don't talk email me 21:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: House isn't capitalised on the Big Brother America website.  I can't see the word Day used anywhere, though.  --JD don't talk email me 21:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think they use day numbers.  I only see weeks used, and that's lower case.  --JD don't talk email me 21:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  House 

message: When there are two it is obvious how much the winner got, because the loser's % is stated, but in previous years when three or four people were up Channel4 used to give complete breakdowns, I was wondering if this information existed and if it did could someone add it? I only ask because the vote back in last night has all four voting % listed, and I was curious who had the larger % when Sezer left, Lea or Richard? Darrenhusted 13:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Losing Percentages in Multiple Evictions 

message: Should a discussion on the main page for Big Brother UK be added once this series finishes pointing out how in a Female vs Male eviction the odds are with the Male (the first and last eviction of Series 7 being examples, 78% for Bonnie vs 22% for Glyn shows how strongly the public is against the female contestants) and a discussion about how with the exceptions of Makosi, Nadia, Kate and Anna females don't usually place in the final three, and that even Sezer thought he could get away with murder and still not go out (his case is blurred by it being a three way with Richard and Lea). In some series the bias has been so strong that during BB4 6 females were evicted and only 3 males, leaving Steph to finish 4th with the top three being all male. And from Sam to Jayne there were nothing but female evictions this year, until the double eviction of Spiral and Michael (but even Mikey has gone back in after four days meaning Sezer, Spiral and Michael are the only males to have been evicted this year and still be out the house, and futhermore Michael and Spiral weren't even original housemates). I have some ideas I just wondered if anyone felt it was necessary? Darrenhusted 13:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In a lot of Big Brother seasons, of the Final Two or the top four, there's a single woman.  It must be something the women are doing wrong if they're getting evicted more often than the guys.  I wouldn't think it warrants insertion though.  --JD don't talk email me 14:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It could be coincidence, or it could just be that women are more sooky than the guys.  Statistics aren't always good things to go by, especially with things like that, as there are so many different variables to take into account.  --JD don't talk email me 14:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gender Bias from Voting Public 

message: Shouldn't the table, instead of having "All Housemates" have maybe the names of them as well, or just the names? Seeing as to figure out who all the housemates are at this point, one would have to look through the rest of the table and see who's been evicted?
:Yes, feel free to be bold and fix it. — FireFox (talk) 17:30, 14 August 2006
::I've done it now anyway. — FireFox (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2006
:::This is a problem - what about the week where it is All but Jayne - I have to look through the table to see who has been evicted. It is inconsistent. Any comments? --Alex talk here 23:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I've changed it now. --Alex talk here 11:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table Problem 

message: Why are exit days being added when nobody'll be leaving the House until tomorrow?  That they will be leaving tomorrow isn't the point.  Adding the exit days of housemates that are still in the House is like putting on the article that Nikki was going back into the House before it was confirmed.  Things that are obvious shouldn't be added to the article until they happen - for all we know, the housemates just might stay in the House for another week.  --talk to JD wants e-mail 12:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exit days 

message: How are the final eviction percentages worked out?  they seem to add up to more than 100% and what's the source reference?  --Timdew 22:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Voting continued after housemates were evicted, so they wouldn't work out perfectly.  Vote counts were taken before evictions, and voting continued afterwards, without the evicted housemate being voted for.  talk to JD wants e-mail 22:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  thanks, that explains it. It's a shame they don't publish the actual number of callers which would be accurate rather than the percentages which don't seem quite right--Timdew 22:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: For the record, if we assume that the relative shares didn't change after each Housemate was removed from the poll (as fair an assumption as anything else), the overall percentages were as follows:
*Pete 40.2%
*Glyn 25.5%
*Aisleyne 18.5%
*Richard 8.5%
*Nikki 6.4%
*Jennie 0.9%
Glyn did very well to take a quarter of the votes, and Aisleyne's showing was very impressive.  I too would like to know the raw figures, but expect Endemol to act shadily in this respect. --Ross UK 01:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Of course not, but it's as close as we're going to get. --Ross UK 01:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Percentages 

message: The table of contents is where it is so that there is less whitespace.  If there's a good reason for it not to be where it is, please say so here before you revert it again.  Thanks.  talk to JD wants e-mail 09:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The table of contents 

message: Should the runners up be given a blue tile on all the series? Glyn should be blue, not pink, and the same should be for all runner ups. Including Anna, Helen, Johnny, Ray, Jason and Eugene.--SimonPeter 17:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Glyn is blue.  Only put runner-up colours on other series' infoboxes if they were runner-ups.  talk to JD wants e-mail 17:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Runner up 

message: Was Richard's percentage out of five or four?  I didn't see anything on the television to suggest that a vote count was taken prior to his eviction.  talk to JD wants e-mail 18:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I expect his percentage to be out of four.  The count was probably taken quickly but mention of it was likely lost in the midst of the Nikki debacle. --Ross UK 01:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Vote count taken" appeared onscreen during Nikki's "interview". -- Lee Stanley 08:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha okay then.  I wasn't watching it properly, so meh.  talk to JD wants e-mail 10:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Richard's percentage 

message: Where is week 2?--195.93.21.6 23:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A vandal removed it and was unnoticed. I've added it back. --Alex (Talk) 23:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Week 2 

message: I have been thinking about the title sequence. Is it really worthy of its own section? I think it should either be merged or removed. Any comments? --Alex (Talk) 14:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Merged with what?  Though it is unique as far as I know, I don't think it needs to have a section dedicated to it as most of it is about 1984, and there's nothing new there in terms of subtle, and the less subtle, references in the series.  jd || talk || 14:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title sequence 

message: Does anybody know how many people auditioned for Big Brother 7, and are they able to back up any numbers with reputable sources?  jd || talk || 19:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm, at least 21. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find any exact figures but by 4 February, 'more than 1000 people turned up' (BBC) then on 6 February it was reported that 'extra auditions' were held (DS:BB) and by 5 March, 'well over 10,000 people managed to make it to the national auditions' (Big Brother Online). Tra (Talk) 20:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I found the Big Brother Online source before, but the way it's worded doesn't make it seem very accurate, ,and it makes me think that they may not actually know.  I'm not looking for a figure so accurate that it includes every single person, but if I'm going to be including this in the article, I'd like something that appears to have been written with more certainty.  If nothing else can be found, I'll just go with that though.  Thanks, Tra.  jd || talk || 20:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many people auditioned? 

message: Which areas do people think still need attention? My own concerns are the housemates section, the lead and criticism. --Alex (Talk) 20:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What now? 

message: Surely the "entered" and "exited" columns should be the other way round? Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 19:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Somebody brought this up on one of the infoboxes' talk pages.  I don't really know what to say, as although it probably make more sense to have it like that, I think it is better the way it is.  JDtalk 19:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox