Talk:Big Brother (British TV series) series 8/Archive 6

message: Looks an awful lot like the 'ejected' colour in the housemates table. Could be confusing to a non BB viewer... 81.159.81.203 16:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The nominations tables and housemate table use different colour schemes though. For example, walked is yellow on the housemate table and pink on the table. Ejected is orange/yellow on the housemate table and pink-ish on the nominations table. Squidward2602 18:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about if the nominations was changed to something like this? http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y35/binssey/?action=view¤t=table.jpg I know it's always been the pink colours, but seeing as everything else in the housemates table is the same colour (namely, the "nominated" and the "evicted"), I don't think the ejected and walked colours looks so bad (The "Fake Evicted" colour was just a random one I chose)  81.159.81.203 09:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: No colour would be fine. Darrenhusted 11:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charley's 'Fake Evicted' Colour 

message: This needs to be added somewhere, as confirmed on Tues 24/7 edition of BBLB. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 10:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's mentioned at Big Brother 2007 (UK)#Housemates. Tra (Talk) 11:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Confirmation of 6 newbies on Friday

message: Where shall we put this infomation, the weekly table? Source- Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 14:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it was part of the task. Darrenhusted 14:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, just a random treat. The task is over. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 14:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Part of the weekly summary should suffice. Darrenhusted 14:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added it to the weekly summary.Babygurl1853 04:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: BB Australia phone call

message: I'm not too sure of this personally...It could confuse people who will assume, before reading, that all these people are up for nomination.Babygurl1853 13:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Up For Nomination" colour being used for "Halfway House" 

message: Regarding choosing from the halfway housemates, I don't think it is necessary to list the 'nominations' in the table. The main reason for this is that they weren't actually nominations at all - they were unofficial, organised by Carole and Gerry (see this article). As a side-note, do we have any source that confirms that there will be no eviction this week, as the current table seems to suggest? — Xy7 10:39, 31 July 2007
:I understood that they were evicting the least popular Half-way House-mate. I guess Dermot will confirm tonight. Darrenhusted 10:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nominations table 

message: Has anyone got a ref? Darrenhusted 23:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found this. Tra (Talk) 23:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Week 9 Double Eviction? 

message: Why are they sharing a place on the housemates table? And why are they listed as up for eviction? Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 08:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ignore, just read the news. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 08:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Samanda

message: I wouldn't agree that those tables are OR, all the information in them is verifiable, the only issue is that it hasn't yet. Ideally we would put a fact tag on every nomination, and then find a source, but I just wonder if that will end up looking very messy. John Hayestalk 10:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nominations tables Orginal Research 

message: The video of the twins deciding on the official website, says that they will be put up for eviction in week 11, not week 10?? godgoddingham 333 14:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Channel 4 uses a different week system. To them, a week begins on a Wednesday and ends on the Tuesday, so according to Big Brother, Week 11 starts on Wednesday - so the upcoming eviction is on Week 11 to them, Week 10 to us. Squidward2602 15:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WTF? Suerly we should be the same as C4, being an encyclopedia and not a fan-site. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 17:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Precisely for that reason we shouldn't use Wednesdays just because C4 use it, but what is best for the encylopedia, and therefore the reader, our priority is to someone who knows nothing about the subject. There is a long discussion in the archives on what day the weeks start/end on, and the consensus was to end on Fridays, as it seems logical to end with the evictions. It also makes it simpler in terms of ongoing tasks etc. John Hayestalk 18:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The twins nominated 

message: Adele and Alex from BB3 have just entered the house-I don't believe its in the article. Sources- Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 17:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it just should be put into the appropriate weekly task table. -- Halo2 Talk 18:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should they be listed in the Infobox? When someone added them it sent the Infobox over its 24 housemate limit and I had to add a spot for a 25th housemate just to get Emily to reappear. I wanted to discuss removing them from the Infobox before actually doing it. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 04:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: In a way I can see Pauline being classified as a housemate but the box can hold only 25 housemates max so I don't think that Adele and Alex should be counted because it was part of the time travel task and most likely they left after that. Unlike with Pauline actually stayed in the house for I think 2-3 days. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 20:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alex and Adele should not be classed as housemates, they were visitors like Jimmy Savile and Jade's grandparents. There for a task, did not sleep in the house. — AnemoneProjectors (?) 21:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It would be quite possible to change the template to allow more, but I don't think we need to in this case. John Hayestalk 07:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Adele and Alex

message: Should she really be classed as ejected? It doesn't really seem right... 172.203.150.131 14:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you. She was never even a housemate, she was an employee. 12bigbrother12 14:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Assuming she should be classed as a housemate, I'd say she was evicted not ejected. - LeonWhite 14:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be good to have her listed in the housemates section but not on the Infobox. By listing her in the housemates section we can give good detail to why she was there and when she left. Or you guys can use a different color to identify her in the Infobox since she wasn't technically a housemate and was going to leave after the task was complete anyway. Maybe use a color and have in the legend "Fake Housemate". That way you can keep her in the infobox but it gives a more accurate reason why she was there. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 23:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I think she's fine as a housemate, and as being ejected, she certainly wasn't evicted. We are writing this article for someone who knows nothing about Big Brother, so it doesn't really matter, for the sake of the infobox, why they were ejected. That is all explained in her secion. John Hayestalk 07:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we can logically say she was a housemate, in that she was never eligible to win, and was not part of the nomination/eviction process. True, she "lived" in the house, but even the real HMs weren't sure of her status (i.e. whether she was staying or "going back to Australia"). There's no reason why she can't be listed for what she was - an employee of the production company. Nick Cooper 13:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think she should be listed. She was part of a task, not an actual housemate. 81.152.87.25 13:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We should do the same with Pauline as we've done with Gaetano in BB4, i.e. listed in the housemates list but not in any infobox or nominations table. — AnemoneProjectors (?) 15:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense. Nick Cooper 15:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thaila "Pauline" ejected?? 

message: There is no need to create a new archive after every 2 discussions. This is getting petty. The page is not too large or too cluttered because of this. By the time this series ends, we'll have about 10 archive pages when, realistically, we only need about three. Please stop this dreadful practice. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK Series Three)'s Peer Review-Review now please! 11:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Dreadful practice"? that seems a bit over the top. I really don't think it's that much of an issue how many archives we have, certainly not until the series is over, then we can review, and consolidate the archives. And they haven't been created every 2 discussions. John Hayes - On Vacationtalk 14:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at Archive si I can't see what the problem is, there was 16 sections, and a lot of dead discussions. Darrenhusted 14:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any point on having discussions, which are mostly over, on this page? Once a discussion is over, and a general consensus has been achieved, noone is going to add to it. And if they want to they can bring it back up. It just clutters space otherwise. The discussions I archived today had not been added to for 6 days. And also the table discussion needed archiving as it had masses of code (though I apologies as most of this was mine :P). It's thanks to John Hayes that the archive is there at all. -- Halo2 Talk 22:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. ;-) John Hayes - On Vacationtalk 15:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No need for so much archiving!