Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Big Brother/Archive 1

message: Having problems getting this to work, if anyone with some foo can figure out what's up, I'd be grateful :) -- 9cds(talk) 21:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Housemates infobox 

message: I think this will be a very useful project. There are a couple of issues that we get every year that can now be solved in one place:
*we should create redirects for all of the new housemates, in an effort to prevent the copyvios/AFDs, etc... 
*make use of genuine screenshots, using , rather than copyvios from the Ch4 and The Sun websites (which used a liberal interpretation of ). We have guidelines for promotional photos at Wikipedia:Publicity photos.
The JPS talk to me 22:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, the underlying idea is to keep copyvio out of pages, and to have them all looking good, and the same. Of course, personally I'm concentrating on BB7 UK at the moment, but there's lots to do. -- 9cds(talk) 09:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rules 

message: There seems to be some kind of disagreement with the season 7 nominations table - myself I don't care how it's done, as long as it looks good and is easy to understand. What's everyone's opinion on this? -- 9cds(talk) 16:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the Big Brother (UK series 7) article, saying 'All but Jayne' saves space but if you're looking back on the series in, say, a years time when everything's been forgotten, you won't know the names of the housemates up for eviction wihout reading the full nominations table or looking in detail at the rest of the article for who was in the house at the time. The table's there to provide a basic overview of the nominations and evictions without forcing you to go into more detail. Tra (Talk) 22:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nominations table 

message: Just wondering if it's worth putting the results of this poll up (assuming someone has them?) Essexmutant 18:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, that'd just make it a list of information. -- 9cds(talk) 18:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Most Popular Housemate poll

message: Time to make a precedent for what should be split in series articles? Should the nomination tables always be split, and the chronology? -- 9cds(talk) 18:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split articles 

message: Is Pinoy BB included, or is this just for the British one? --Howard the Duck 17:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, all Big Brothers around the world are included :) -- 9cds(talk) 17:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. Already posted the Big Brother project template at the talk pages. --Howard the Duck 05:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Pinoy Big Brother]] 

message: Wikipedia:Notability (people) is the guideline to use for determining inclusion.  Citing examples of poorly written, unrefenced articles, doesn't mean much.  Many BB articles, are written by bias fans, during the show, and contain attacks and/or trivial gossip.  Those hardly count towards precedent when deleted.  Numerous articles have been kept.  --Rob 22:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is regardless essential to reference those previous AFD discussions. These articles are always going to be targetted by fans wanting to add trivial gossip. The JPStalk to me 18:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a proper representation of what's happened in AFD.  Also, it ignores the fact that WP:BIO has been expanded to include "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person", which many BB contestants meet.  Your preferred version didn't mention that even the first eviction of BB6 in the US was kept.  And it is absurd to delete articles, as a means of dealing with gossipers.  WP:BIO is the standard, and we should not pretend there is any other consensus rule.  A huge portion of BB bios have in the past been utter garbage.  That doesn't set a precedent for new good ones.   --Rob 00:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You think The Sun is non-trivial? ;) -- 9cds(talk) 02:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The housemates are 99% of the time not the "primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works" – Big Brother is, as someone said on Grace's AfD. — FireFox 12:06, 16 June '06
Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. -- 9cds(talk) 11:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I think compiling a list of AFDs, artificially slanted, is making a point.  You ignore keeps of early evicted people, and a number of others, and then include a cluster of non-keeps for a season of just one BB.  This page is not a guideline page.  What you've done in the UK BBs, is make overly large "composite articles".  They are essentially full articles within over-sized articles.  Biographical information is mixed into with show information.  I find it pecular you wish to treat BB contestants worse than fictional characters.  Although BB is "real", we can look at WP:FICT.  It suggests, that if an article on a work (e.g. TV series) is too long, and there's sufficient material, a major character can be spun-off into a separate article.  BB contetants are simultaneously "characters" in addition to being real people.  It's good to have lists of who's in a show, with *concise* descriptions.  But when those descriptions become multiple paragraphs, they aught to be trimmed and/or spun-off.  --Rob 15:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Notability (people)]] 

message: It is true that most copyrighted images from the web, can never be used.  However, its false to say any image taken from a copyright holder's web site, is invalid.  In fact, fairuse exists to use material without the copyright holder's permission.  In fact, its better to have an official source, than an unofficial source.  Taking a screen cap from a show one's self, is not any "safer" legally, than taking the same image from the TV show's web site.  In fact, if the TV show releases a still from the TV show, for promotional purposes, there may be a better claim for fairuse, than if somebody takes a screen cap of the TV show from home.  --Rob 22:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have had this argument many times - may I derict you to Talk: Big Brother (UK series 6) -- 9cds(talk) 18:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rob makes a couple of good points: it is important to remember that fair use is not a get out of jail free card. There must be a fair use rationale on the image description page for each article it is used in. The JPStalk to me 18:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, he doesn't. Screenshots containing contestants are fair use. They shouldn't be removed. We've already almost lost editor because of this, lets not lose more. -- 9cds(talk) 23:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Screenshots can be fair use. It depends on the context in which they are being used. The JPStalk to me 16:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright of images 

message: The precedent is not verified by the AfD's that were quoted and it has been severely challenged at the latest round of AfD's by 9cds. Because of this it should not be there as it has been used as the basis for AfD's with people following without investigating the precedent evidence properly. Ansell 06:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What, exactly, is your problem with it? What dont' you like? Why do you not like the fact I put a few housemates up for AfD, and some are being voted as keep because they are notible? -- 9cds(talk) 12:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interestingly, almost none of the "delete examples" were actually delete.  They were merges.  When content is merged, the article can not be deleted.  It is a violation of GFDL to merge substantial content and not retain the article, for attribution purposes.  I also added clarity on the different experience with the U.S. show.  9cds, the four AFD nominations were based entirely on the old wording of this page.  Obviously, that blanket wording has been rejected.  People are clearing applying WP:BIO to each individual case. --Rob 16:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is exactly what we want. -- 9cds(talk) 16:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad we agree.  I hope this means we can keep the link to Wikipedia:Notability (people) this time, making clear that is the official guideline.  --Rob 16:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't see anything wrong with it now, it isn't based either way imo. -- 9cds(talk) 16:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of precedent for deletion on sight 

message: I would like to suggest we add something about sourcing.  Ideally we should reuqie that all information added be cited independently of the actual show, so that people can confirm it, without watching the show (the show's web site may be ok for certain things, but not the show itself).  This is particurlarly true, of negative information about contestants (which we should remind editors, to remove instantly if it's unsourced).  The various guidelines, like WP:LIVING should then be linked to.  We need to discourage people who just write about what they saw on a live feed, which non fans may not easily verify. Big Brother (UK series 7) seems to be doing this properly now (which is good).   --Rob 20:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea  -- 9cds(talk) 20:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I was wondering about this. I noticed that Jamie's profile contained the rumour that he was a speed dealer - even when that rumour was actually about another housemate, both of which have failed to be verified. Anyone else think this should be sourced properly, or removed? --French line 15:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not a rumour, and it wasn't about another housemate.  Jamie said it himself.  --JD[don't talk|email] 15:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, when did he say that? That's the first I've heard about it and I've been on all the forums for a while. This is what I mean by sourcing. Day? Time? Location?--French line 04:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  sourcing information 

message: We need to find a standard title for nomination table articles, such as Big Brother (UK series 7) nominations table to be used as a standard, that will be used for all serieses and countries. -- 9cds(talk) 13:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How does voting work? -- 9cds(talk) 17:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Ah, interesting. I'm assuming something similar to the UK tables can be used? I don't think we can easily standardise the tables, I just think we ought to standardise the name, if they're in different articles. -- 9cds(talk) 18:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Sounds good to me. -- 9cds(talk) 18:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I think we've decided on a naming scheme now - "Big Brother (USA Series 5) nominations table", or something similar :) Welcome to Wikipedia! -- 9cds(talk) 01:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I've constructed the nomination table I've created for Big Brother (USA season 3). The table is at Big Brother USA season 3 nominations table. I also found season 1's nominations, and constructed the kind that is used for the British version. The table is at Big Brother (USA season 1) nominations table. Will make other seasons later. Also, I'm no expert on charts, but if there's a person who can figure out why there's a little white box that goes vertically down the end of each chart I make, please tell me so I can correct it for the future. FireSpike 01:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good, good job :)  I think you have one extra column, hense the white box. -- 9cds(talk) 13:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It seems to me that a nominations table is being built right on Big Brother (USA season 7) shouldn't that get its own seperate page? FireSpike 16:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although it's not complete (almost there), Big Brother (USA season 6) voting history should give an idea of how this will work out. Geoking66 19:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I finished it, and I think this is close enough. Here's the Big Brother 6 version. Actually, we are currently making a short, simplified version on the main page, with a seperate article for a more detailed table. Geoking66 22:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomination table 

message: As much as I really dislike this thing, I think something needs to be said about the way Day numbers are written.  In a previous edit on the BB06, somebody changed every Day number and eviction percentage to words; even those in the infobox.  I'm assuming the standard is to write them in numbers, but if not, then it's just as important that it's included on the Project's page, I think.  --JDtalkemail 08:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Day Numbers and Eviction Percentages 

message: Okay, and where does it say that a shortened table of contents must be used?  --JD[talk|email] 16:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: here. -- 9cds(talk) 17:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That says housemates, not everything else.  And if you gave people half a chance, you would have seen that I was going to do something about the housemates being in the table anyway.  But now I shan't do it.  --JD[talk|email] 17:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What else has been cut off? -- 9cds(talk) 17:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing got cut off.  It was all intentionally left out when you designed the new table of contents.  --JD[talk|email] 17:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table of Contents 

message: The legend is currently being discussing on the Big Brother (USA season 7) talk page, but wanted to ask here as well since it may affect other countries articles:  is the legend at the top of the articles standardized, or can it be adjusted for each article to include Head of Household in the current US version?  (I'm having trouble reading the code for the table, so I was not sure.) --Fmmarianicolon 05:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing the Legend for BB US 7 

message: What's wrong with leaving the colour coding on an infobox after a Big Brother series ends?  --JD[don't talk|email] 16:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that it will be 99% red, and the fact that it doesn't follow past precidents. It adds nothing to the article at all. -- 9cds(talk) 16:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How can it follow past precedents when the colours were implemented last month?  --JD[don't talk|email] 16:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The infobox has actually been in use for a long time, it has only recently been turned into a template. -- 9cds(talk) 16:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have colours been used on the infobox in the past?  --JD[don't talk|email] 17:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. -- 9cds(talk) 17:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How could it have taken precedence in past articles then?  Colours shouldn't be removed from the template; it shows people how the housemates left the house.  --JD[don't talk|email] 17:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The colours could easily have been added :)  Check out other implementations of the infobox to see how that is shown. -- 9cds(talk) 17:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The colours may have been added easily, but the point is they weren't.  This isnt 5 years ago, this is now.  I am proposing that the colours remain on infoboxes when a series has ended.  --JD[don't talk|email] 17:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paint stripping 

message: Hello. I thought this would be the best place to ask this. What colour should the Bedsit be in series 5? Also, in series 4, Cameron made nominations from South Africa. I made it green but maybe a different colour should be used. ???. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's another thing. I don't think that on the U.S. voting history, non-voters should be slapped with "Exempt". It just seems informal. FireSpike 22:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK Nomination table colours 

message: There seems to be a bit of a disagreement with whether or not surnames should be included when the  infobox is being used on an article.  Do people think they should be used on the infobox?  --JD[don't talk|email] 17:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, yes... godgoddingham333 17:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...Any particular reason why?  --JD[don't talk|email] 17:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just 'cos... godgoddingham333 19:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, if this is going to work, people are going to need to have better reasons than that.  I removed last names from some of the tables because everybody was sooking over wanting a smaller, more discreet table.  Removing the last names did that.  If anybody's got a decent reasaon for having the last names stay on the infobox, here would be a good place to say it.  --JD[don't talk|email] 23:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surnames or not? 

message: Did 9cds walk or was she ejected?? godgoddingham333 20:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow talk about hardcore Big Bogan fans...  How about the truth, in plain Engrish?  --JD[don't talk|email] 20:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that a "She was ejected" or "She walked"??? godgoddingham333 20:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a "SHE WAS BLOCKED!!!" *evil hysterical uncontrollable laugh with the whole uncontrolled body movement and whatnot*...  --JD[don't talk|email] 20:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, now I'm back to normal sanityness, which isn't actually all that sane; I think 9cds's name should just be struck through.  She doesn't really need anything else, I don't think.  --JD[don't talk|email] 20:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: She walked because she requested to be blocked. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Walked?? 

message: I got us a tasteful userbox for the members of this project! I made it to mirror the current UK logo's colors. 
To put it on your page the code is . FireSpike 19:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Get Your Userbox! 

message: I had this discussion on BB7 (us) but was met with mixed results.  I believe that the spoiler warning message at the top of the article is insufficient when used on BB pages about currently running games.  For example, on the BB7 page, you can read the spoiler warning but directly next to it in bold colors is the latest state of the houseguests, which is in an almost constant spoiler state because of the zealous realtime updates that occur many days before the actual show airs.  I feel that this renders the spoiler warning worthless in that you cannot read the top of the page and not see the houseguest infobox.  I suggested changing the infobox to one that is hidden (much like the end of game one), however when someone did this, it was quickly reverted.  Cjosefy 14:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article in question (BB7 USA) is probably the better place to have this discussion, even if there hasn't been much of a repsonse so far; as that's the page that this has been brought up on, meaning the use of the infobox on that page is probably more of a biggie than the one other article that is using the same infobox (BB7 UK).  —JD[don't talk|email] 14:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spoiler warning/house guest infobox

message: Hi, folks.  I noticed that your project banner (:Template:Big Brother project) is placed in the upper right-hand side of the talk page, much like the star for featured articles.  I'm not sure, but I think this might be a problematic precedent: for example, if an article falls under the scope of more than one WikiProject, and both have this style of banner, it could interfere with the talk page's formatting.  I don't want to step on anyone's toes, but I think it would be a good idea to change it to standard placement.  Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, never thought of that.  How many other projects use such a project banner?  —JD[don't talk|email] 18:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed it first at WikiProject EastEnders, which had copied it from here.  (They've reverted to a standard placement today.)  I admit that having the notice in the corner has a certain flair, but my concern is that people in other projects will see it, think it looks cool, and copy it to their projects, and pretty soon we've got a pile-up in the upper right corner. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project notice placement 

message: For criticisms, could the info from Series 7 be incorporated? --Alex talk here 21:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It can't focus too much on one season, but yeah, would be good.  If you can trim it down a lot, I don't see a problem with that.  talk to JD wants e-mail 21:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big Brother (UK) 

message: What the heck is this section meant to be about?  Can we get rid of it?  talk to JD wants e-mail 18:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No it looks OK. --Alex (talk here) 18:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It asks for new Big Brother-related articles with interesting facts to be listed.  The only Big Brother-related articles that get created are hardly interesting - they're all similar to some other article that already exists.  And who's actually going to list them here anyway?  talk to JD wants e-mail 18:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol not me... --Alex (talk here) 18:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My point exactly.  Still think it should stay?  talk to JD wants e-mail 19:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No get rid... --Alex (talk here) 19:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:BIGBRO#New Wikipedia articles related to Big Brother|New Wikipedia articles related to Big Brother]] 

message: Is the way Three Point Twist is written in articles okay as it is?  The Big Brother Australia website used to write this as three-point twist and three point twist, but not Three Point Twist.  If it isn't, what should it be changed to?  J Ditalk 20:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References to the Three Point Twist 

message: I think the sidebars on the Big Brother (Australia), Big Brother (UK), and Big Brother (US TV series) articles should be removed.  They take up space on the articles and cram all the text to the left of them up into a narrow area.  They also repeat information that can be found later on in the article, and in some, in one of the first few paragraphs.  The winners are much more important than the other housemates, and their names can be moved to the sections that list each season of the series; perhaps make them into tables.  Information on the less important/unimportant people is already where it should be - on the article of each season.  jd || talk || 11:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No no no. The sidebars summarise the information fine. The winners are only important because the other housemates existed. --Alex (Talk) 12:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep 'em. No doubt on that one. FireSpike 21:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reason, please?  jd || talk || 21:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are certainly quite long but they're wrapped in a show/hide box so they only take up space if you actually want to read them Tra (Talk) 21:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't change the width of the table.  I was thinking earlier about reasons for keeping these things, and I'm not so sure about removing them now (not for any of the reasons here), but I would still like feedback from others, and am thinking of other ways to present the information without it being in the wide sidebars.  jd || talk || 22:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove the sidebar things 

message: I'm not trying to cause an argument or push anything here, but as I can't find any of the previous discussions I started regarding this, I'm creating a new one here.  I'd like to point out that the Big Brother section of the Channel 4 website says BigBrother UK in the title bar.  I'd also like to point out that the Big Brother Finland article was originally named Big Brother Suomi, and that the website for this season also says Big Brother Suomi at the bottom.  Big Brother Africa, although may not be looked at in the same way as it is named for a continent instead of a country, is named Big Brother Africa instead of simply Big Brother.  I previously uploaded an image of an e-mail I received from Endemol Southern Star that says that the name of Big Brother Australia is Big Brother Australia.  It was pointed out before that the country name is in brackets for the sake of disambiguation, but as I said somewhere before, disambiguation is not needed here as official names of the shows include the country name.  I would like to know what other people think about this, and if they would now support page moves and a change to this Project's "naming conventions" should other people agree with me.  jd || talk || 10:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, I think I've mentioned this before somewhere. Be prepared to relink all the redirect links though. --Alex (Talk) 14:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If pages were moved, I'd be fully prepared to fix all of the bad redirects.  jd || talk || 14:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that the title bar of the Big Brother section of the Channel 4 website is the best source for the official show title, because it contradicts itself, i.e. it doesn't specify if 'Big' and 'Brother' should have a space between them, because both are used. Having 'UK' in the title doesn't nececarily mean that's part of the official name — many sites inclue these kinds of keywords in the title bar for SEO purposes. Tra (Talk) 15:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about this?  Assuming you see what I see, what would you say about that?  jd || talk || 16:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking through the first page of results, some sites put Big Brother UK, others put UK Big Brother. When you search for it with the quotes, there are a lot less results. Basically, the main problem is that there is no one name that is consistantly used. Tra (Talk) 16:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Guess you didn't see what I see...  The first hit, Channel 4, says Big Brother UK in the website's description.  Would this also be search engine optimisation?  jd || talk || 16:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That description is specified in the site's meta tags (seen by going to View Source), so yes, it is search engine optimisation. This isn't the only term they used to name the show. Looking through the meta tags, they also use 'Big Brother' and 'bigbrother', probably to make the site appear to people who do not include a space between 'Big' and 'Brother'. Also, look at the keywords they have specified: bigbrother channel4 official UK website these tell you that 'Big' and 'Brother' should be written together, but do not say that 'UK' should be appended after it. Tra (Talk) 16:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand why they'd use Big Brother three times, and UK twice, once together; but I guess that gives me something to do tomorrow then....  What about articles where we know for definite what the name is?  jd || talk || 17:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, they should be changed :) — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: *I agree with JD on this one. FireSpike 17:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article names 

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.  These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages: 
*User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
*User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
*User:Badbilltucker/Science directory
and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory.
The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. 
It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 22:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now moved the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 13:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project Directory 

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards