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

message: ==POV or Proper??==
how the hell did shilpa win? it was a sympathy vote! poor jamain deserved to win! it was all a big stupid fix!!!!!!!! :@ luv alice 
During the current series of Big Brother , BBLB has been criticised by many fan's saying that it is biased. Dermot O' Leary normally shows his dislike for Aisleyne and Pete and his liking for Nikki, Jayne and Glyn.
I was about to delete this myself, but I thought I should just check here. Is this statement a POV or is it well known among fans? If it is to stay it needs a proper citation. Anon Dude 18:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bright Eyes -Mikay 14:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: From ''Talk:Big Brother's Little Brother''

message: how the hell did shilpa win? it was a sympathy vote! poor jamain deserved to win! it was all a big stupid fix!!!!!!!! :@ luv alice 
During the current series of Big Brother , BBLB has been criticised by many fan's saying that it is biased. Dermot O' Leary normally shows his dislike for Aisleyne and Pete and his liking for Nikki, Jayne and Glyn.
I was about to delete this myself, but I thought I should just check here. Is this statement a POV or is it well known among fans? If it is to stay it needs a proper citation. Anon Dude 18:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV or Proper??

message: Whats that song they play for the bunny-cam segment?212.158.244.124 20:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bright Eyes -Mikay 14:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Bunny-Cam Song 

message: == Title card ==
Could somebody perhaps get a screen cap of the actual screen cap?  --JD[don't talk|email] 10:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the word British just for you. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 10:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  From ''Talk:Big Brother's Big Brain'' 

message: Could somebody perhaps get a screen cap of the actual screen cap?  --JD[don't talk|email] 10:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title card 

message: I was not able to find that it was a TV show from England until I saw the English money symbol. José is Fluid 04:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the word British just for you. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 10:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can you please rewrite this? 

message: Why has it been changed to say that he is the host and that it's a rumour. He hasn't denied the 'rumours' that have been circulating for almost a week now. I think it's pretty safe to say he's gone.
"Memorable" quotes - aka. the quotes the person writing this article, liked! Should be removed Anon Dude 14:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Already. Mainly because noone has read WP:CITE nor WP:V. And it contained racist slurs. Iolakana|T 22:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude, some of those quotes were really funny and memorable, and they were added by multiple users.  And where were the racist slurs?  At any rate, don't throw the baby out with the bath water.-84.233.132.87 23:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The Big Brother eye is the Big Brother eye, not the Big Brother's Big Mouth eye.  Something like this would be much more suitable for the article.  Also, now the eye has been scaled down to comply with fair use, it looks blurry and fuzzy.  The other images look as though they've been taken from the same website that other images have been taken from.  The images were removed from the articles they were repeatedly inserted in because they are not of good quality, and they are distorted.  talk to JD wants e-mail 14:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, you have a point about the logo; I'll try to find a more specific image.  However, I'm afraid I can't make any sense of "The other images look as though they've been taken from the same website that other images have been taken from."  I just can't figure out what you're trying to say.  And yes, I know that "The images were removed from the articles they were repeatedly inserted in because they are not of good quality, and they are distorted."  You said that in your edit summary.  But I would like it if you would address what I said, namely "They're the best we have for now, and let's try to work on improving them instead of just destroying them."-PlasmaDragon 15:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These images are very similar to images that were uploaded for Big Brother (UK series 7) and List of Big Brother housemates (UK series 7), in that they are distorted and are of poor quality.  If improvement is what's wanted for this article, new images should probably be a priority at the moment, but in reality most articles don't need images at all.  talk to JD wants e-mail 15:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  From ''Talk:Big Brother's Big Mouth'' 

message: I think this should be changed it sounds like an insane rambling. XdiabolicalX 12:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format section 

message: An edit summary left by an editor that reverted my removal of the images from the article instructed me to see the talk page, but there's nothing here about the images.  talk to JD wants e-mail 13:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The images 

message: The Big Brother eye is meaningful to the article, as it is the logo of Big Brother, upon which the show is based.  Also, it is painted on the set.  You can see part of it in the background of some of the characters pictures.  As for the characters pictures, I know they aren't the best quality, but I don't see why we should just delete them entirely.  They're the best we have for now, and let's try to work on improving them instead of just destroying them.-PlasmaDragon 13:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Big Brother eye is the Big Brother eye, not the Big Brother's Big Mouth eye.  Something like this would be much more suitable for the article.  Also, now the eye has been scaled down to comply with fair use, it looks blurry and fuzzy.  The other images look as though they've been taken from the same website that other images have been taken from.  The images were removed from the articles they were repeatedly inserted in because they are not of good quality, and they are distorted.  talk to JD wants e-mail 14:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, you have a point about the logo; I'll try to find a more specific image.  However, I'm afraid I can't make any sense of "The other images look as though they've been taken from the same website that other images have been taken from."  I just can't figure out what you're trying to say.  And yes, I know that "The images were removed from the articles they were repeatedly inserted in because they are not of good quality, and they are distorted."  You said that in your edit summary.  But I would like it if you would address what I said, namely "They're the best we have for now, and let's try to work on improving them instead of just destroying them."-PlasmaDragon 15:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These images are very similar to images that were uploaded for Big Brother (UK series 7) and List of Big Brother housemates (UK series 7), in that they are distorted and are of poor quality.  If improvement is what's wanted for this article, new images should probably be a priority at the moment, but in reality most articles don't need images at all.  talk to JD wants e-mail 15:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: So yeah. I've heard a ton about some girl who supposedly got raped in BB. Since all this supposodly happened in a hotel in leeds, I'm assuming it happened in the UK version. So, anyone wanna take the time to fill me in? ````unsigned entry left by at 22:37, 31 August 2006 by user:Lettuceclock 
:I think it was Lesley in BB6... --Alex (talk here) 22:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: but this isn't a chat room or a newsgroup is it? leaky_caldron 07:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rape?

message: There ought to be at least a mention of the other BB spinoff, "Teen Big Brother: The Experiment", but I didn't watch it so I'll leave it to someone else. Bonalaw 19:44, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.  I think two of them "got it on" but can't think of any other details. violet/riga 21:09, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Kwekubo 20:41, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Teen Big Brother

message: Unlike all other Big Brother series, Teen Big Brother was pre-recorded and shown some months 
 after the contestants had left the house.
 While the show was being aired it was involved in a scandal over two of the housemates having 
 sex on live TV.
So which is it: was it prerecorded or was it live? garik 10:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradiction

message: I realise that Channel 4 and Big Brother's Little Brother are claiming that Jackie Stallone is 71, but our own Jackie Stallone article claimed until today that she was born in c.1922. If Jackie is 71, she was born in 1933/4. Since her son Sylvester was born in 1946, that makes her a particularly young mother. Not impossible, but unlikely. -- Avaragado 21:39, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jackie Stallone's age 

message: "It is unknown if the title of 'unlucky housemate' would be passed on to another random housemate should Makosi be evicted, although this seems likely."
Is there even any evidence of whether the existence of an 'unlucky housemate' will continue beyond the first week at all?  And "seems likely" to whom, exactly? -- Smjg 13:54, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Passing the unluck on 

message: Perhaps the cameras in the house don't video in widescreen? --Whouk (talk) 10:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, then one would then ask why the cameras are not widescreen. You can buy widescreen camcorders on the high street and nearly all broadcasters film everything in widescreen using professional television cameras. And even if you record something in 4:3, you can easily zoom in on the 4:3 picture to create a 16:9 image. Even the pictures shot outside the house (Davina, interview etc) are in 4:3. Channel 4 News is also in 4:3, although nearly all other programmes (including adverts) on Channel 4 are 16:9. NFH 13:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text: No idea then. That was just wild speculation. Although if there's something that annoys me on TV it's when they dig something up from the archives in 4:3 and slice off the top and bottom of the picture... --Whouk (talk) 14:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - that annoys me too. Even worse is when they horizontally stretch some old 4:3 footage to fit 16:9, which BBC News do occasionally. However, if Big Brother were to film in 4:3 in the knowledge that that the top 12½% and bottom 12½% of the picture will be discarded and never broadcast, then it would not be a problem, even if their cameras are too antiquated to film in 16:9. NFH 14:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  4:3 aspect ratio 

message: This is now almost entirely about the logo. Perhaps it would be better to drop this section, and move it's contents to a new section on design perhaps along with details of the general look of the show and the way the house itself has influenced interior design in the UK. The other bit of trivia about how many housemates there's been can be moved up to the introduction. Bluejam 10:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia section 

message: How about a list of facts for the UK version similar to the one found here called Big Brother factsWillirennen 13.00 8 June 2006
:It'd make a good section, not a good article though. -- 9cds(talk) 13:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  so why didn't you lazy bastards do one?! lol I've just added one. Feel free to expand at will. It's been a long time coming. Triangle e 13:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: somebody has stuck a "please explain the importance of this" on this section with no explanation on the talk page as to why he put it there - can we remove it? Triangle e 11:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone actually read these things because no one is responding. JD - why did you remove all the gay / lesbian firsts from the article? Triangle e 09:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't remove just them, I removed others as well.  They didn't seem all that relevant.  —JD[don't talk|email] 12:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This bit of the article has been completely buggered! Who removed the additional info regarding the eviction percentages for Alex and Alison? Triangle e 21:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not me (I don't think).  The article looks fine to me.  --JD don't talk email me 21:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was me, I didn't think it relavant --Alex9891 22:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You didn't think it was relevant? That's nice of you to discuss it first. That fact has been on the main BB page since godknowswhen and without it you don't get the scale of the of the 0.08% I despair! I wonder how much it would cost for me to set up my own version of wikipedia lol Probably too much. Triangle e 09:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added them back. Sorry about that! --Alex9891 11:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facts for UK version 

message: Is it accurate to say random member of public, as I imagine they were vetted and psychologically tested and perhaps even auditioned.--Darrelljon 13:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They were vetted, yes, but only for their own safety. Random, yes, because everyone had an equal chance to win a ticket. -- 9cds(talk) 16:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Golden Ticket 

message: Is BB UK the most financially successful national version?--Darrelljon 17:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Financially 

message: There's a parody site, Big Bubble that's been running for the last couple of months. That should probably get a mention, given the amount of flak the contestants usually get for being dimwitted. Replacing Jade Goody with a goldfish would have meant little difference to the show's execution.... --SteveGray 15:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it should be included, it's not very relevant or useful and provides nothing to the article. --LorianTC 15:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Parody site

message: Does anyone know anything about the "subliminal messages" in the title sequence to Big Brother? There's a load of jumbled up words, and occaisonally, a red screen with a white circle and some writing underneath which i think contains the word "sequence"... my friends have seen them aswell so it's not just me going mental, has anyone else seen them? only for for split seconds, you have to watch closely to catch them... What are they about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.215.242 (talk • contribs) 
:Big Brother (UK series 7)#Title sequence. --LorianTC 21:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Subliminal messages?

message: I saw on the history someone had made a catchphrase section, but it was deleted for being "not remotely interesting". I personally think it is a great idea - this show has loads of catchphrases which I believe would be relavant to the article. What do you all think? Alex 20:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How is "the votes have been counted and verifed" etc. interesting?It seems like useless information to me. --LorianTC 20:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ones like "You are live on Channel 4 - please do not swear" are associated with the show, so I don't think it is useless - do you think that every catchphrase section is useless? Alex 20:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And uninteresting, yes. --LorianTC 21:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well let's wait and see what others think because catchphrases become part of a show whether you like it or not Alex 22:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying they don't, what I'm saying is it's not interesting information to be included in the article. --LorianTC 22:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catchphrases 

message: I've already added since day 1 to each other the housemates who are still here who were there at the start, but do you think it should be added to those who have gone? Alex 22:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll just assume it's OK. Alex9891 20:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Housemates Since Day 1 

message: Am I the only one who thinks that having all those days written down for BB7 looks messy? It wasn't done last year (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Big_Brother_%28UK%29&oldid=20876606), and this information can be viewed anyway by looking at the template on the series 7 page. Compare (I also changed the order of evicted housemates, to have the newest evictee at the top, and merged the "evicted, walked and ejected" sections into one): Squidward2602 16:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree, the new one looks so mcuh better. But maybe instead of "Not in house" have "Exited"? --LorianTC 16:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it looks neater, but it will eventually be written off when the series ends and it is no longer the current series. Also imho it is better to be able to see more info at once. Alex9891 14:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Since Day ...' and 'Day ... to Day ...' 

message: When will the Big Brother UK series 8 eye will be released, and where is its article? They should not have deleted this in the first place!! James Forde 22:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shortly before it is on TV, and it was deleted from a majority vote. --LorianTC 21:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article for BB7 appeared when details of the auditions were released, which seems about right to me - there's not really anything to say before that. The new eye logo is only released within a week or two from the start of the series. Anyway, we've got Celeb BB before even thinking about series 8!Bluejam 12:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK series 8 

message: Its an interesting fact that ITV is trying to buy BB. Maybe it should be in this? jimmy93211--80.229.241.200 21:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was.  Has it been removed?  --JD don't talk email me 21:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ITV buy out mention?

message: Can we get rid of some of the Big Brother 7 facts?  Some of them are as remarkable as Big Brother 2006 Australia's World First, and that isn't very.  Specific ones are the youngest housemate, most times up for eviction, most housemates to enter post-launch, first contestant with GTS, and first mother.  --JD don't talk email me 18:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They aren't remarkable, but really none of them are! --Alex9891 18:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha!  --JD don't talk email me 18:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facts 

message: How significant is this?  Is it really that worthy of inclusion?  --JD don't talk email me 18:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If a female winner was an unusual thing, it would be significant (similar to Margaret Thatcher being the first female prime minister of the UK). However, there are several female Big Brother winners so I don't think it's that important. Tra (Talk) 18:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First female winner 

message: Should we put a Big Brother poll on this website?--SimonPeter 16:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an encyclopaedia.  Unless the poll would be to help improve the Big Brother UK article, this isn't the place for one.  talk to JD wants e-mail 17:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: what poll? leaky_caldron 20:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Help how?  --talk to JD wants e-mail 20:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: That wouldn't help the encyclopaedia article.  talk to JD wants e-mail 11:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: This isn't a place for "mights". --LorianTC 11:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's polls all over the internet. Go and vote on one of those. If you want to know who's going to win, watch the final tonight! -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 13:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll 

message: I have put the information of the nominations for series 1 of Celebrity Big Brother, on the discussion page of Celebrity Big Brother 1. Would anyone create the table for me.--SimonPeter 12:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Celebrity Big Brother 1 Nominations 

message: Are these things really necessary?  To put these facts here would suggest that females and transsexuals are inferior to men in the game of Big Brother; and there isn't even a First male Big Brother winner fact there.  And I thought this section was meant for milestones, not random trivia.  talk to JD wants e-mail 15:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article would be better off without any of the trivia... Anything encyclopedic can be written up into prose and the list ditched... Just my 2p - but yeah, we don;t need those... /wangi 15:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd go for that...  talk to JD wants e-mail 15:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Got my vote, if only for the fact that the IP guy used the word "owned" in the edit summary... Seriously though, it's pretty useless. --LorianTC 16:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which was a big improvement over their last edit summary ! Thanks/wangi 16:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree with Wangi - if a housemate or series is notable enough to be included on the list, then it should be written into the main article. I think the list should be removed altogether. --Alex talk here 17:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't see any reason not to.  The whole section, or just these facts?  talk to JD wants e-mail 10:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm all for it.  What about other articles though?  I think Big Brother Australia has a pretty decent Facts section, but the one on Big Brother US could do with being cut down majorly.  talk to JD wants e-mail 10:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, well that's gone then.  I'd expect one of those IPs would probably revert it back though, or anybody else if they disagree.  talk to JD wants e-mail 10:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Why's that then? --Alex talk here 12:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cause it's interesting information. You didn't have to delete the whole thing, just delete the transexual fact, that's all.--SimonPeter 12:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The interesting information can be added in elsewhere. --Alex talk here 13:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Naturally, and with proper references. Thanks/wangi 13:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First transsexual and female winner 

message: This article has no information about the criticisms of Big Brother UK.  Are there any?  talk to JD wants e-mail 14:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No criticisms 

message: Added a new section - it needs a lot of tidying up, so please help! --Alex talk here 21:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, maybe it's a tad too BB7-focused...  I'll try and shorten it a bit.  talk to JD wants e-mail 21:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Only if it a section containing general criticism about the overall show, or exceptionally notable one-off expressions of widespread public distaste or concern over a particular incident (such as the fight in BB5). The rest was far to closely related to BB7 and made it look as though there had never been anything to critise in the previous 6 years leaky_caldron 17:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And now it's been removed completely. --Alex (talk here) 18:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: This is a show that's on right now on Channel 4 (repeated later on E4). I think this should be included in the "shows" section. Is it on every year? -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a similar series last year, I don't remember what it was called though.  I hate to sound like a stuck record, but on Big Brother Australia articles *hears groan*, information on shows that are only shown for one series of Big Brother are in the article of that particular series.  If something like this was shown for any of the first five seasons, I think something should be included on this article to say that shows about after housemates' time in Big Brother is normally shown.  talk to JD wants e-mail 20:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Last year, it was called Big Brother 6: What The Housemates Did Next godgoddingham 333 20:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was it.  I knew it had the word housemates in there somewhere...  talk to JD wants e-mail 20:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big Brother Winner's Week 

message: Is it really necessary to have the Series 7 subsection in the Main Article? People wanting to read up on it will simple go to the Series 7 article. As it's not the current series, it makes sense to get rid. Permission to remove? Mikay 19:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why not.  talk to JD wants e-mail 19:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It may even be better to replace it with a Series 8 subsection instead, listing possible rumours, start dates, etc. to tide us over until the main page is created. Mikay 10:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah you can't. WP:NOT states Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. --Alex (talk here) 11:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stuff about series 8 can be included if it's all properly sourced, which would seem unlikely since the seventh series finished this year.  talk to JD wants e-mail 11:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I see that.. but we know that it will definately air, and that it will air on Channel 4. Maybe that's just the skin and bones, so possibly shouldn't be added until more information is released. But I think the Series 7 information should go. Mikay 14:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Series 7 information 

message: It's SO not Motorola.. I thought I'd open to discussion for the sponsor.. I'm pretty sure it's not Motorola at TCH that sponsor the show. I'm sure it's just the Carphone Warehouse. For example, on eviction night.. the narrator would say "Saying goodbye to the latest evictee from The Carphone Warehouse" or something like that. The Motorola ads were just advertising those phones. Maybe I'm wrong, and those ramblings made no sense. Still, discuss... Mikay 19:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CBB4 & BB7 sponsors 

message: There's several screenshots of the titles for Big Brother shows being added. Although there's not quite as many as there were on the List of Big Brother housemates (UK series 7), there's still quite a lot of fair use images being added. Isn't eight of them a bit too many? Tra (Talk) 20:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BBAU - If it's good enough for BBAU, it's good enough for us. (And I disagreed with the image removal anyway. Heh) - Mikay 20:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, they're violating fair use too. We can't justify one violation by pointing to another. Those images are only there for decorative purposes. They are not providing any extra encyclopaedic substance whatsoever: it's merely images for images sake. I appreciate your desire to make the articles the same... they really should come out of the BBAU article too. The JPStalk to me 20:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Meh, I was thinking about removing them all earlier today.  The ones on Big Brother (Australia) are mostly gone, with only one still there.  I've also removed a few others from another Big Brother Australia article.  The ones on this article should be removed as well; they're already on the individual programmes' articles anyway.  J Ditalk 21:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe keep the one for the main show. --Alex (talk here) 21:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That image is only of the Big Brother eye, which changes every year and is pretty meaningless there on its own.  I think it should be removed as well.  J Ditalk 21:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Heh, it absolutely sucks when you do something it's gone within 24 hours. Still, it's useful to have things uploaded, if ever there is a need for them in future. And, like you say, the BBBB, BBBM and BBLB ones will still be in use. They should probably be removed if the BBAU ones have been taken off too. Ah well, another idea down the pan. :P - Mikay 21:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many fair use images? 

message: Is there any information on any DVDs and videos about Big Brother UK that could be added to the article?  J Ditalk 19:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There were DVDs released for series 1-4, but I'm not sure about videos, or more recent series. --Alex (talk here) 19:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Series 5 didn't have a DVD release because of "Fight Night" - they couldn't include it, but they couldn't not include it, so they didn't release the DVD. I have series 1 and 2 on video and 3 on DVD. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that fact alone makes a DVD section worthy of creation.  Any information about Big Brother 6?  J Ditalk 20:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure anything official was released, but I could be wrong... :) --Alex (talk here) 20:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know anything about series 6. I assumed there was one. I also assumed the reason they showed very little nudity this year was because it was all going to be on a DVD... Amazon.co.uk only appear to have DVDs for series 1-4. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: What sort of stuff was on the DVDs?  J Ditalk 20:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Series 1-3 had "Big Brother Uncut" footage on. Series 4 was a DVD produced with just regular footage, giving there wasn't much explict footage. Series 5 DVD rights were bought by The Sun. You can still get a hold of rare copies on eBay, but not that many were made. The only DVD produced for Series 6 was the complete episode of Diary Room Uncut that came with the Official Series 6 book. I don't think there's any plans for a Series 7 book or DVD. Oh, and also there was the Interactive DVD Game... Mikay 21:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anybody else think a DVD section should be made then?  Or that just me...  J Ditalk 21:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Yup, I think one should be made. =] Mikay 23:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We could talk about the first 3 series, the reasons why they did not produce the next series, the DVDs for 5/6/7(they where gave away with the book) and the pirated copies of all series saold on the net?Jimmy93211 19:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Good, I've improved it... --Alex (talk) (review me) 22:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DVDs and videos 

message: Does anybody know of a source that says that the theme was written especially for Big Brother UK?  A good one would include the year that the theme was written, and another to say when it was first released.  jd || talk || 19:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okey doke, removing.  jd || talk || 13:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that the single was released under the name Element Four (not 4) and the track was named "Big Brother UK TV Theme". Nothing on the single refers to a song called "Tast-E". I have the single in front of me right now. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The track is on the Big Brother Australia album, and says on it: Tast-E (Vocal Mix - Radio Edit) // Paul Oakenfold & Andy Gray.  It's the same track, dunno why it has a different name on UK CDs though.  I'll do a bit of Internet searching for Element Four and Big Brother UK TV Theme.  jd || talk || 19:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Element 4 

message: I would have pointed this out before, but I couldn't think how to get into the archive section of the Big Brother website.  What we have named Celebrity Big Brother 3 is actually Celebrity Big Brother 5; Celebrity editions, going by the website, are numbered by the corresponding Big Brother season that they follow.  Support for more page moving and changing of all references to match, or reasons not to please.  jd || talk || 19:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Support the move. --Alex (Talk) 19:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the move too. In fact I always used to think it was Celebrity Big Brother 5, i.e. the celebrity version of Big Brother 5. But I guess I stopped thinking that at some point, for some unknown reason. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Support. They should probably be moved to Celebrity Big Brother n (UK) to follow the style of the other series's in the UK. Tra (Talk) 23:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, I did want to leave it more than four hours before moving all the pages...  jd || talk || 23:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, should have waited a bit longer. I think I might have made a mistake with series 1 and 2 - they actually were broadcast after the main series 1 and 2. Now to fix those double redirects... Tra (Talk) 23:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Meh no matter, this probably wouldn't have gotten any more comments anyway.  I just like to make sure.  I think all the pages are sorted now, the intros just need to be rewritten.  jd || talk || 23:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why have you cocked it all up, it's now a load of bull.--SimonPeter 14:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  They got it wrong on the big brother website, they cocked it up aswell, there's no need to change it on wikipedia?--SimonPeter 14:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why have u cocked it all up? Will somebody answer me!--SimonPeter 14:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is the Channel 4 website going to have gotten this wrong?  What proof do you have that it is incorrect?  jd || talk || 14:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There have only been 4 series, why have you gone up to 6, where is 2 and 4?--SimonPeter 14:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You've read the rest of the discussion, so you should already know.  I'm not trying to be rude, but it's a lot of effort to explain it again when it's up there.  Read the first comment (mine).  jd || talk || 14:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: SimonPeter, please don't move pages without prior discussion, it has caused a lot of unnecessary problems. Thank you. --Alex (Talk) 15:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is so annoying! The name of celeb bb depends on its number. why would they name the third series cbb5 :s thats stupid. Davina introduced last year's show as: "Welcome to celebrity big brother 4" not 6! I don't support the move, it looks a mess. Jezabelda 00:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Could you point out why that matters please?  jd || talk || 12:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It means that each series of Celebrity Big Brother does not corospond to the recent series of Big Brither.--195.93.21.10 14:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just looked at the NTA website, and the only "Big Brother is completely different to Celebrity Big Brother"s I see are a question that allows a person to pick from Chantelle of Celebrity Big Brother 2005, Pete from BB2007, and Nikki from BB2007; and another question that has Big Brother, Celebrity Big Brother, I'm a Celebrity... Get Me Out of Here, and The Apprentice as answers.  That doesn't really tell me much, and the fact that Big Brother and Celebrity Big Brother are both separate answers doesn't really mean much.  It's quite clear that Big Brother and Celebrity Big Brother are not the same, but what I have seen on that website isn't enough to convince me that the Channel 4 website has false or misleading information on it.  jd || talk || 14:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You haven't given me enough proof to say that each series of Celebrity Big Brother corosponds to the recent series of Big Brother.--195.93.21.10 14:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The information in a section of the Channel 4 website named BB5 Celebrity Archive has information that corresponds to the information that is in an article that used to be named Celebrity Big Brother (UK series 3).  Is that not enough?  jd || talk || 14:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That has to be a mistake on the Channel 4 site. If you look at press reports for the series (e.g. www.guardian.co.uk/Media/site/story/0,14173,1680567,00.html or www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2006000002-2006000661,00.html )and even Davina on air, the titles are referred to as they were originally numbered here, not related to each main series. Each series is officially just called "Celebrity Big Brother" though, so the choice of numbers is arbitrary anyway - I think it's better to go for the titles more familiar to the public and fans, look at any Big Brother forum and you'll see it's the way it was orignally numbered here. 14:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that both links are to newspaper websites, I don't really have an opinion on the accuracy of them, but the first one only refers to this year's Celebrity Big Brother as 2006 Celebrity Big Brother.  I really don't see how the Channel 4 website could be inaccurate, as surely somebody would have seen this by now, or before it was even put on the Internet.  I'm assuming the website is accurate, as Channel 4 is the network that airs the programme after all, and I think they'd know.  Tra has done a lot to help avoid any confusion, so unless you can give me something that seems a bit more accurate than a newspaper site, I see no reason to move all the pages so that the article names match the season number.  jd || talk || 15:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If anyone's going to be wrong about this, it's not going to be the Channel 4 website. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The channel 4 website can get it wrong, if u go on series 3 of Big Brother and click on nominations, it comes up with a list of housemates, not nominations, so the channel 4 website can get it wrong.--SimonPeter 19:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Celebrity Big Brother 

message: The season numbers in the infoboxes on the Celebrity Big Brother UK article has been changed to match the name of the articles.  I didn't change these earlier because I think this number should say what number season it is, rather than what the name of the season is.  jd || talk || 15:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It can be confusing. Taking Celebrity Big Brother 3 (UK) for example, you don't know if 'series 3' refers to the series named '3' or the third series. It might be better to put 'Second series (2002) (and do the same for the other series). Tra (Talk) 15:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should the same be done to the other Big Brother UK articles, for consistency?  jd || talk || 15:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why not. Perhaps even the rest of the world as well? Tra (Talk) 15:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not too keen on UK-world domination...  jd || talk || 15:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Celebrity Big Brother infoboxes 

message: Three points:
#1: Couldn't be bothered signing in - I'm feeling lazy and I blame it on Halloween.
#2: This talk page should be cleaned up. If I knew how to archive discussions, then I would do it myself.
#3: Should there be a mention somewhere of the Big Brother DVD Game (for Series 7)?
ETA: edits to my orginally appalling grammar.
59.167.122.40 12:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ??? 

message: I don't think the Big Brother's Little Brother section should be split because of how badly I wanted it merged in the first place.  All in this section.  JDtalk 18:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed split of [[{{PAGENAME}}#Big Brother's Little Brother|Big Brother's Little Brother]] 

message: There has been a long talk about the Numbering of Celebrity Big Brother. As a member of the press site I contacted, Channel 4's Press Desk last night and Cherelle Duggleby has sent me an email this morning.
"Hi mark,
 
Celebrity Big Brother 2007 is in its fifth year. CBB5.
 
best
cherelle"
:You do have a point. As for the previous series of Celebrity Big Brother, the following sites refer to it as 'Celebrity Big Brother 4':      Tra (Talk) 19:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does seem to be the case that the names are wrong.... --Majorly 19:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cherelle Duggleby could be wrong. What exactly did you ask her? — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 
Here's what I asked:
Good Evening,
There has been delibriation on the numbering of Celebrity Big Brother. Does the Celebrity Big Brother 'Number/Cycle' proceed the previous Main Series of Big Brother. If Big Brother 2006 is BB7 does that mean Celebrity Big Brother 2007 will be CBB7 or CBB5?
Best Regards,Coreix (talk) 20:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for that. To be honest, I still think the Channel 4 website is more reliable than someone at Channel 4's Press Desk. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Channel 4 do refer to the previous CBB series as 'CBB4' and the next series as 'Celebrity Big Brother 5' in this page. Tra (Talk) 21:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It's funny we've giving multiple evidence that suggests its CBB5. The Channel 4 Website, 2 People from the Channel 4 Press Desk. Yet their is 0% evidence that suggests its CBB1 3,5 and 7 except that 'They havn't said the number on Celebrity Big Brother Before' Coreix (talk) 13:32, 04 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The evidence that they are numbered 1, 3, 5, 7 is in this page, look in the sidebar and title bar. Tra (Talk) 17:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Celebrity Big Brother [Continued] 

message: Would it not make more sense just to call them Celebrity Big Brother (2000), Celebrity Big Brother (2002), etc?  This avoids making any kind of judgement with regards to what number they are.  Within each article, you can then start the article (for example):
:"The 2002 series of Celebrity Big Brother was the second series of the show.  It was often referred to by Channel 4 (link reference) as 'Celebrity Big Brother 3', as it followed the third season of Big Brother."'
Does that make sense to anyone except me? Proto::► 16:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is the best idea I've heard all day. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I like that idea as well, but what about the main series articles?  Rename them as well for consistency, or leave them?  JDtalk 16:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yep, It's a great idea. I suppose the main series articles could be named as well. Although, I think there needs to be 'UK' somewhere in the name, perhaps Celebrity Big Brother (UK 2000) etc? Tra (Talk) 17:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking about that as well, but didn't like (UK year) too much.  Is there anywhere else UK could go without making the title look/sound odd?  JDtalk 17:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps Celebrity Big Brother UK (year)? --Majorly 17:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Argh. Maybe... Celebrity Big Brother (UK, 2000 series) etc? I don't know! — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 18:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like the best one so far.  Or maybe Celebrity Big Brother (2000 UK)?  JDtalk 18:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's basically the same as Celebrity Big Brother (UK 2000). --Majorly 19:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not the same, otherwise I wouldn't have suggested it.  JDtalk 19:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say it was. Basically the same. And who is Alex9891? --Majorly 19:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop arguing already :) — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: (de-indenting) You only need the UK in if there's already an article called Celebrity Big Brother (2004), etc.  As there aren't, the "UK" is not needed.  If another country does have Celebrity BB, and one took place in the same year, then I imagine they already have sensible names, and you can put a "see also" at the top of the Celebrity Big Brother (200x) article.  If nobody has any objections in the next day or two, I will move all the articles appropriately. Proto::► 09:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: UK is needed because other countries have Celebrity Big Brother series.  It could confuse people if UK isn't in there, and the UK's Celebrity Big Brother series isn't important enough to not need disambiguation.  JDtalk 09:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then go with Celebrity Big Brother UK (2001) etc. Proto::► 12:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no proof that the UK series of Big Brother is called Big Brother UK.  JDtalk 12:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: UK and the year should both be in the disambiguation bit. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 12:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Then suggest something better than Celebrity Big Brother (UK) (200x), which is strictly what it should be. Proto::► 11:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks bizarre, is there a standard way to disambiguate something twice? I think my use of a comma looks better than using two sets of brackets. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 13:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: So that would give something like Celebrity Big Brother 2001 (UK). That seems to work well. Tra (Talk) 01:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't someone already reject that? No? Well then it seems like probably the best solution! — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 02:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: If nobody's bothered enough to comment, I'll just move them.  J Di talk 16:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it. If you haven't already... — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 13:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Celeb BB numbering 

message: The serieses of celebrity big brother are NOT numbered by the series of big brother that they follow at all. The upcoming series is Celebrity Big Brother 5 and it is named so because it is the 5th celebrity big brother series. I will edit this accordingly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.201.40.229 (talk) 17:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The entire redirection of 'Celebrity Big Brother # (UK)' (shortened to CBB # from now on) is in a mess. CBB 2 and CBB 3 both redirect to CBB 2002 - this is wrong, only CBB 2 should redirect to CBB 2002. Therefore, CBB 3 should redirect to CBB 2005 and CBB 4 to CBB 2006. CBB 5 should redirect to CBB 2007 and CBB 6 and 7 should be deleted. --TheTallOne 20:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you can fix it by tagging the appropriate pages for deletion, and fixing the redirects? --Majorly (Talk) 21:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CBB 5 NOT 7 

message: Isn't it about time to remove ==Series 7== from the main page? I mean the series now has it's own page anyway.
:I agree, plus I think a series 8 page should be started or a small section in place of the series 7 one on the Big Brother page, for the small details we know about the 8th Series. Chris as I am Chris 16:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What details would that be?  J Di talk 17:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The fact that it is the last series at the current location. Chris as I am Chris 17:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that's enough information to create a new section.  Could you provide an Internet source for that as well please?  J Di talk 17:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Its already stated in part of the wiki page, and there are some other little bits, just cant remember them, plus Im sure that others have some info. Chris as I am Chris 17:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see.  I still don't think there'd be enough information for it to have its own section.  J Di talk 17:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, maybe if we bring this back up after CBB5. Chris as I am Chris 17:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Series 7 on Big Brother (UK) 

message: Hi,
On the panel to the right of the article, the shows are all 200? - Present except for BBBB, of which just says 2006, I dont know how to edit the pannel myself, but should this be changed as BBBB is on presently? Chris as I am Chris 19:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, I think it was left over from the summer when no one was really sure of the future of the sister show. :) - Mikay 19:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big Brother's Big Brain 2006 - Present 

message: Can i/someone add quotes (with appropriate citation) so people can judge for themselves?????
 Sumit Desai 01:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alleged racist quotes 

message: why has this been removed?172.141.83.47 22:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're referring to the infobox, I moved its section to under 'Previous seasons' as it's no longer the current series. If you click on [show] next to 'Previous seasons', you'll see the section. Tra (Talk) 22:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I've had another look and I think you might actually be referring to some recent vandalism. That has now been fixed. Tra (Talk) 22:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  celebrity big brother section