Talk:Big Brother (Australian TV series) season 6/Archive 2

message: :Image:BB06-Elise.PNG
:Image:BB06-Elise-2.PNG
Which one's better?  --JDtalkemail 11:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Difficult. I like her face in the bedroom better, but prefer seeing more of her in the other pic. Do you have any others?Grey Shadow 11:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: She didn't really get much airtime while she was there, so they are the only decent ones I could get.  --JDtalkemail 11:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The second one is better lit and more exclusive...
Sfacets 12:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It feels as though there are too many photos from that task though, that's why I asked.  But if the people prefer that one and don't mind the fact that I have already used quite a few, then I guess that one will get used.  --JDtalkemail 12:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elise's Photo 

message: * The data in this page sources a site which speaks of third party individuals as hearsay. Please review WP:RS regarding the reliable sources of data. Thanks. Ste4k 12:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're referring to the link I added to The Daily Telegraph website, I thought it was pretty reliable.  It won't be needed after tomorrow anyway, if there's a problem with it being there.  If you were on about something else, then you can kinda read around this...  --JDtalkemail 12:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Personal websites as primary sources
A personal website (either operated by one individual or a group of individuals) or blog may be used only as a primary source, i.e., when we are writing about the owner of the website or the website itself. Ste4k 12:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personal websites haven't been used as sources for this article; nor have blogs, as far as I can tell.  I know you said you're referencing the whole article, but is there something specific you could point out, as an example?  It may help me better understand.  --JDtalkemail 12:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Wow.   They are things I haven't even thought about where a Big Brother article is concerned, or even when watching the programme.  I would have to do a bit of research on the subject, but if I found some information from reputable websites, I would definitely try to find a way to include it in the article.  Some of that information is already on the main BB AU article, but it focuses more on Big Brother in general, rather than individual series.  --JDtalkemail 13:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Some of the information comes from the housemates themselves, but as it's unlikely that many of these things have  been documented by reliable sources, I'm not quite sure how those sources would be classified.  A lot of the information also comes from broadcasted shows, and is published on the Big Brother Australia website.  It doesn't fit enough criteria to be classified as a published source, but it could, in some interpretations, be seen as a fact or coming from a primary source.  --JDtalkemail 13:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable Sources 

message: Tense - The sections should either all read in the future, the present, or the past. Past is preferred since this is a history. What hasn't actually occurred, you SHOULD state as "Bill was scheduled to . . ." however, that would be currently misleading. If it isn't yet a fact, then it shouldn't be printed. The content of the show is advertised in other places. This article needs to keep an encyclopedic attitude. I was worried about an edit conflict; since you are highly motivated to edit this page, please try to make these changes. Thanks! Ste4k 19:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand what you're saying, but some of the information refers to events that occur even now, like John's Tourette syndrome for instance.  If he "had" GTS, he would be cured of it now (I'd assume); but that isn't the case.  Also, for the photo captions, present tense is normally used.  --JDtalkemail 19:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  For all you know, he HAS been cured. He could even have died. Write the facts and you cannot wrong either way. Thanks! Ste4k 19:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I've been doing. :)  --JDtalkemail 19:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: I don't want to start an edit war by removing the tags again, so I'll bring up my points here.  There's no point in having the tags because a lot of the information on it is received from televised broadcasts.  There's no way to cite these.  Any information that comes from the BB06 website can't be cited either, because as soon as the series finishes, that site gets blanked; and as it's unlikely that there will be another series of Big Brother Australia, I wouldn't be surprised if the website didn't come back.  None of this is original research; if something was incorrect, or if somebody felt that a part of the article were inaccurate, and they know as a fact that it is, they will correct it.  The tags are unnecessary.  --JDtalkemail 22:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but it needs to be cited, wikipedia is based on evidence, not facts. By rights, the parts not cited could be removed. -- 9cds(talk) 23:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's unlikely they information pertaining to the weekly updates will ever be cited. The television series can be referenced in the References section to show where most of the info comes from. I have removed the Original Research tag as only one unreferenced tag needs to be there and while the article is largely uncited, it isn't original research as it's all secondary information derived from the television show, the website and other media. -- CHANLORD [T]/[C]  00:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Tags 

message: I'm trying to clear it - is there any reason for the 5 inches of whitespace? -- 9cds(talk) 23:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You said it was 5 inches before, and it's much smaller than that now.  Can you move the colour key box thingy so it's immediately under the infobox, if that's what it's called?  --JDtalkemail 23:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, once I find some tuits. Still 5 inches, I'm afraid. -- 9cds(talk) 23:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some tuits?  --JDtalkemail 23:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, round ones. -- 9cds(talk) 23:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Still don't follow.  --JDtalkemail 23:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whitespace above contents 

message: I'm a casual viewer of the show and a casual editor of the BB Aust wikipedia pages. In the last few days it has become apparent that several editors have various problems with Big Brother pages on wikipedia. There have been AfDs on the Ryan Fitzgerald, Simon Deering, Tim Brunero and David Mathew pages. Some have been AfDed to make a point, and others seem to be cut and paste AfDs applied to any page about a former Big Brother housemate. Gee I wonder if this page will also be targetted? Asa01 11:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I have a pretty good idea of what's been happening, and the cause of it; but I don't want to say anything in case it starts another conflict.  --JDtalkemail 20:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As it currently stands none of the AfDs on Ryan Fitzgerald, Simon Deering, Tim Brunero and David Mathew successfully led to the article being deleted, so it seems unlikely that an AfD to delete the main Big Brother page would succeed. Since many, many television shows, even ones far less popular, influential and long-running than Big Brother, have wikipedia pages, I don't see why BB shouldn't be here! Clearly lots of people don't like BB, but that is no reason to obliterate references to it on wikipedia. Twenty years ago it was soap operas that were derided and criticised in this way, but these day they all have individual entries on wikipedia too. Asa01 21:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is apparent then that this section of the discussion is moot regardless of what it hoped to allude. Thanks! Ste4k 03:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Although it's worth noting that the AfDs for Simon, Tim & David (among others) are still in progress; I'm not saying they won't be successful, but they haven't failed yet either. Jxan3000 06:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Attempts to Nominate and Evict Big Brother from Wikipedia

message: Question: Do tenses have to be uniform for an entire article like the difference between American/English spelling? Some of the recent changes have better reflected the activities in the house (Eg, Danielle was evicted on Day xxx) however I believe some tenses should be put into the present tense as they are on-going (eg, John has a mild case of tourette's and Michael is a political science student). These current and ex-housemates are still these things and unless John somehow gets rid of his tourettes or Michael drops out of uni they should be in the present tense to avoid confusion. -- CHANLORD [T]/[C]  03:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, YES!!  That's one of the things that started all the problems on this article - the fact that everything was changed to past tense.  I mentioned that in the vote thing, but looks like only one other person really cared about that.  --JDtalkemail 08:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, yes, even more of a reason to put this up for deletion, imho. Perhaps it belongs on another project and will get transwikified. Keep in mind that going in front of review is a GOOD HEALTHY thing for any article. The only thing that started any problems on this article was the refusal of certain people to cooperate with others. Ste4k 13:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Plenty of people wanted to co-operate, but when one person insists that everything is written in one way, and one way only, it's very likely that that person is going to encounter conflict.  --JDtalkemail 15:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tenses

message: Nominated for Eviction still seems too broad - it's like saying they're nominated; anybody can be nominated for eviction, doesn't mean they have enough points to get voted out.  Up for Eviction didn't seem too slang-y to me - it's used by everybody, including Big Brother.  --JD[talk|email] 13:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. -- 9cds(talk) 13:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually I agree with you, now that I think about it. Was going to make a counter-point but nominated for eviction can be misconstrued. -- CHANLORD [T]/[C]  15:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Planning on changing it back then?  Or do you have anything better that could go there?  --JD[talk|email] 15:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes "Up for Eviction", despite sounding almost slangy, is probably the most clear and consise way of saying it. It then can also include those up for eviction without actually being nominated, like if Jamie ever gets Strike Three. Asa01 20:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, somebody gonna change it back then?  --JD[talk|email] 20:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Why didn't anybody tell me it was already changed back?  I didn't even realise.  --JD[talk|email] 20:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nominated/Up for Eviction 

message: I'm not sure if we can claim fair use on the top four images... what use do they have, what do they tell the reader? -- 9cds(talk) 10:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The first one shows how the voting system works, the next two are promo caps showing Ten calling their world first a world first, and the fourth one is the logo.  What was it you said, "proof, not facts"?  --JD[talk|email] 10:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The first one doesn't show us anything at all, there is already a logo in the infobox. -- 9cds(talk) 10:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The first picture shows how the public can vote to save and evict.  And the picture in the infobox isn't the series logo; it's only the programme logo.  --JD[talk|email] 11:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to policy, "[A] reviewer may fairly cite largely from the original work, if his design be really and truly to use the passages for the purposes of fair and reasonable criticism. On the other hand, it is as clear, that if he thus cites the most important parts of the work, with a view, not to criticise, but to supersede the use of the original work, and substitute the review for it, such a use will be deemed in law a piracy... In short, we must often... look to the nature and objects of the selections made, the quantity and value of the materials used, and the degree in which the use may prejudice the sale, or diminish the profits, or supersede the objects, of the original work."  It appears to me then that since this entire article is filled with pictures that supersede the use of the original work, most if not all of them should be removed. Ste4k 09:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use images 

message: From the BB website
:Ashley and John escorted from House
:Big Brother Housemates Ashley and John were escorted from the House this afternoon following a breach of the rules. The producers Endemol Southern Star and Network Ten deemed their actions were grounds for their removal from the show. The producers will not be commenting any further on this serious matter.
:In a joint statement made shortly after they left the House, Ashley and John said: "We had a great time in the house. It is unfortunate it had to end this way, but Big Brother has rules and regulations and we broke them.
:“We are all very close in the house and we would never do anything to offend our fellow housemates."
Grey Shadow 08:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BigBrother has posted on the official BB forum that users are not to comment on John and Ashley's removal due to legal reasons. What posts are currently there, are being deleted by the mods. Grey Shadow 09:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

text: In my opinion, I don't think it needs to be changed.  Technically they were removed, but they were still evicted.  --JD[don't talk|email] 12:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

text: A bit too bright, mate.  --JD[don't talk|email] 22:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You're right - I think I have screwed this up - I am going to change it to something else but I am hoping someone who knows what they are doing will make it look a bit better.  I won't make any more changes after that as it is just messing things around.
--60.227.230.22 22:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have really messed this up - can we PLEASE have something to show that these two were removed as this is a major event and there is talk that the whole show might be stopped because of it.  Can someone who knows how to work this make something that looks OK?  Apologies to everyone for the inconvenience.
--60.227.230.22 22:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks good actually.  Nice colour.  It just needs to be added to the legend, preferably on a separate line.  I will have a go at that in a while if you don't manage to do it.  --JD[don't talk|email] 22:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ashley and John 

message: We should be careful what we say here. Innocent until proven guilty and all that. So please put alleged before any accusations of sexual assault. -- 9cds(talk) 00:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But it's not alleged, it's... guilty..?  --JD[don't talk|email] 00:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Has it been proven in a court of law? -- 9cds(talk) 00:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's on a bloody camera.  At least one, of 39, to be exact.  And picked up by as many as 84 microphones, is it?  --JD[don't talk|email] 00:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We'll leave that to the courts to decide. -- 9cds(talk) 00:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we'll leave it to the people that said it was sexual assault.  The people being Kris Noble, the voice of Big Brother, and his many minions.  --JD[don't talk|email] 00:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [["]][[Sexual assault]][["]] 

message: How about moving the Fines section to the main BB AU article, and linking to it from this one?  It would help for BB05 as well.  I was thinking about putting it in a table, with tick boxes to show which fines were applicable and in which season.  Unless the fines haven't changed since last year.  --JD[don't talk|email] 01:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fines 

message: What does "$2.00 odds" mean? Morwen - Talk 11:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Same as "Even money" or 1/1. See Fixed-odds_gambling#Decimal_odds. -- Barrylb 13:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Australian gambling odds

message: I've started up a consensus building for chronology on the Wikiproject talk page. -- 9cds(talk) 07:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Choronology 

message: May I suggest you make the intrudors yellow, and mark (removed) next to the removed housemates, per precidents? I was bold and did this, but JD_UK reverted. -- 9cds(talk) 18:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was incorrect.  Why bring this to the article when you could have asked me in the IRC channel?  And why make such a big deal out of it?  You were wrong about something, so I reverted it.  --JD[don't talk|email] 18:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is it incorrect? -- 9cds(talk) 19:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The housemates you marked as Intruders aren't even in the house.  --JD[don't talk|email] 19:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intruders 

message: Because of the many arguments that have occured because of the infobox, I have suggested many times that a separate one be used for the Big Brother Australia articles, so that it can be adapted for the Australia articles, and so that any major changes relevant to the series can be made without facing conflicts from editors of the other countries' Big Brother series.  I've been advised to ask about this here before going ahead and just doing it.  --JD[don't talk|email] 20:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The infobox 

message: This article needs cleaning up in two ways:
* It needs sourcing - Wikipedia is about sourced information, not facts.
* The chronology is far too long.
-- 9cds(talk) 10:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I find the intense attention, critiqueing and monitoring of the Australian Big Brother pages by just a couple of editors pretty irrational. Wikipedia is full of highly detailed articles about television programs which go into intricate detail describing the storylines and characters of the show, the setting, style, the locations, etc. Few of these articles feature any form of referencing: the descriptions are based on viewing episodes of the show. The article on Coronation Street contains just a handful of references: most of which are studio released videos and DVDs or fan books apparently released by the makers of the series. EastEnders article features just eight references, two of which are studio released fan material. The Emmerdale article, while going so far as to actually quote ratings figures, does not provide any references for this information; the entire article features just one external source. The article on Guiding Light-the world's longest-running soap opera ever, features just three references, of which two seem to be fan books released by the makers of the series. This Big Brother series 6 article features many, many, many more external referces (including 20+ mainstream newspaper reports, some of which quote the Prime Minister of Australia discussing the show). So why is Big Brother being singled out? This seems to be getting beyond genuine concern for quality and seems like a vendetta against the article. Asa01 12:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:BIGBRO#Sourcing. — 9cds(talk) 12:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That article is not as great and holy as you're making it out to be.  The Big Brother pages were doing fine before that WikiProject was made (by you), and if it weren't there now I'm sure the Big Brother Australia articles would be better, if anything.  Asa01 is right about sources, not everything needs a source.  You're treating this article exactly as I would be treating the Big Brother 7 UK article - a lot of stuff that I think should be sourced, isn't.  But the difference is, I'm not doing anything about the Big Brother 7 UK article, because not every single damn word needs to have a source.  But more to the point, not everything can be sourced.  We can't insert recordings of the actual show, so this is as good as it's going to get.  --JD[don't talk|email] 12:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia still seems to be enforcing stronger guidelines about referencing requirement when activities that occur on Big Brother are being described. Why aren't similar references required in the articles about other television programs? The referencing rule for BB doesn't seem too specific to BB. Why isn't this applied to all articles about tv programs. Maybe we should start looking into this guideline itself? Asa01 12:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But if everything really and truly required a source, television articles would no doubt probably end up being a lot shorter than they are now.  --JD[don't talk|email] 12:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please be civil. I didn't, in fact, write that section of the project page. About claims I don't do it to the UK article, I do. Check the history. Wikipedia is about verifibility, not truth. — 9cds(talk) 12:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything is verifiable, just not in a way that is acceptable to you.  --JD[don't talk|email] 12:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I accept that events on the show can't always be verified - hense why they weren't actually deleted. — 9cds(talk) 12:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Except for when you did exactly that?  --JD[don't talk|email] 13:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Problem with verification tag is it does not make clear which precise sentences need a reference. For example, if we keep this article (and all other series of BB have articles, so we probably will) then it is pretty useless to then intentionally exclude things like the innovations made this series, like the new save vote. But external references for this will be difficult to find; news reports only bother with the big events or the scandals. I also note that this page is still receiving intense attention: it has now had a new verification banner added, yet those other long descriptive tv show articles I mentioned (Coronation Street, EastEnders, Emmerdale, Guiding Light), all of which have far fewer references than this article, haven't had that banner added at all! What inconsistency, especially after I've pointed-out that fact, and I even link-to the pages making it easy for the verification-keen editors to go add that tag to those pages too. I wonder why it never happened? Even the Citizen Kane article features few references; certainly each sentence in that article is not cited. My understanding is that verification helps keep out original research and tempers bold claims; but if we are merely describing actual components of the program broadcast on TV then that is not original research, and though this article is probably a bit long, there's nothing too bold in it. And in any event, this BB06 article is still better referenced that many hundreds of other wikipedia articles. As a current series it is bound to get messy every few days; it will settle down after the series ends.  Asa01 22:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: If anyone has infobox expertise here, could you please fix the shading for the remaining housemates? Thanks. BrightLights 05:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: In the list of bios for each person, it states that Max is a Cafe manager from New South Wales. However, in the Week 12 summary, it says that he is from Victoria. Could somebody please fix this up so it says the right state (whatever that is)?
:The BB06 website says he's from NSW, so I've changed it to that.  --JD[don't talk|email] 09:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also listed in the The New Housemates show listing. Grey Shadow 20:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, didn't notice.  Changed that as well now.  --JD[don't talk|email] 21:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Max's Details 

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: I suggested this on the main Big Brother page, but as it's not getting many responses, I'll just go around to the Big Brother pages where I'm most likely to get a response, and propose this there.  I know I'm probably even less likely to receive a response here, but here goes anyway.  I think the Big Brother pages should be renamed, to either Big Brother Australia 6 or Big Brother 6 Australia, and the main Big Brother Australia page page should be named Big Brother Australia.  --JD[don't talk|email] 19:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming 

message: My belief is that a map or plan is one of the more useful things to have in an article such as this, and kudos to Ironchef90 for uploading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:House360.gif and adding useful info to the article on the various areas of the house.
A problem has arisen because Wikipedia policy on fair use requires that we should use this image only if: "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information. If unfree material can be transformed into free material, it should be done instead of using a "fair use" defense. For example, the information in a newspaper article can easily be used as a basis of an original article and then cited as a reference. Maps and diagrams can often be redrawn from original sources, though simply "tracing" copyrighted material does not make it free. ..."
Therefore this is an appeal to regulars and everyone who values this article to help create a free equivalent to House360.gif. This is also an opportunity to help make a much cleaner image, as the original of House360 is used to link to 3d views of the house in java or quicktime - hence the strange markings on the image, about which some may have been curious.
An example to show how it could be done is on the UK Big Brother series 7 article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bb_uk_7_houseplan.svg
best--luke 00:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has now been dealt with.  —JD[don't talk|email] 21:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  House Plan - BB06 needs your help 

message: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ste4k includes mention of activity on this article. Interested users are invited to comment. -Will Beback 21:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related RfC 

message: Where did all the info on the housemates come from, like they're birth dates and locations and real names, where on earth did that come from???? Jackp 11:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Housemates have birthdays in the House, and their locations are revealed from the start.  Other housemates will reveal that information while they're in the House.  As for last names, I don't know; maybe somebody else can answer that one.  --JD[don't talk|email] 11:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Usually press and magazine references to the housemates give the full/real names. There's close to forty references on the page so its easy to check for most of the housemates (ones evicted early on wouldn't have generates many press references though.) Asa01 11:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth date and location info? 

message: Does anyone know the name of the song that played on last night's (23/7/06) eviction show, during Krystal's highlights of her time in the house video? --Neoballmon, The Superior Master of Vandalism! 13:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eviction Show Song 

message: The table should have all the information that it has in it, in it.  The removal and replacing of housemates is not common at all; replacements have only ever been added to the hosue once before, and that was after two housemates that cheated to get in the house got evicted.  If they left voluntarily, then I would be able to see why that section isn't needed, but they hardly left under normal circumstances.  —JD[don't talk|email] 12:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but if we have it here, we need it for Dawn in BB7UK (which we had, but was removed after a similar discussion), and anyway, it looks stupid with just one cell  being filled and the rest with a - in them. It's a waste of space, just for one week. godgoddingham333 12:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How did Dawn leave?  Was she replaced?  —JD[don't talk|email] 12:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: She was ejected for communicating with the outside world. She and Shahbaz (who walked), were replaced by Sam and Aisleyne... godgoddingham333 12:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that should be on the BB7 UK table, and the section should be renamed then.  —JD[don't talk|email] 12:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was, but many of us agreed that it looked too cluttered and stupid to have just one week with something filled in, and then - - - in every other week... godgoddingham333 12:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole point of Wikipedia is information; not trying to not make it look stupid at the expense of losing information.  The information should stay, as it's relevant to the article, and that section of the article.  —JD[don't talk|email] 13:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but the information is in about 500 other places. We want info and looks. The info is there, just not in that stupid table.... godgoddingham333 13:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's absolutely nothing wrong with that information where it is; it doesn't need to be removed, and it's only a small section in comparison to the rest of the article.  The information is there, and unless somebody has a way to put it in the article and have it look better, it should stay there.  --JD[don't talk|email] 13:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well we (not me and you) had this discussion on the BB7UK article. We decided to leave it out because it looks ridiculous and the info is in other places anyway... Wikiproject BB is about uniformity. The info should be taken out because it  is in other places and it makes the article look cluttered anyway... P.S. You're startin to do that thing... godgoddingham333 13:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I know I'm doing that thing, and I'm not liking doing that thing.  But that thing is happening because this thing is happening.  Where's the discussion, can you give me a link please?  —JD[don't talk|email] 13:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's sumwhere on the talk page. G2G anyways. Out to lunch... godgoddingham333 13:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The housemate summary table