Talk:Big Brother (British TV series) series 11

Speculation
This article is almost entirely speculation. I've added the template. If you actually delete the speculation you end up with the following: "Big Brother 2010 is the upcoming eleventh series of the UK reality television series, of Big Brother (UK) and the last to be broadcast on Channel 4." because there might well be a twelfth series on some other channel. That is hardly the basis for an encyclopaedic article. I recommend deletion. MegaPedant (talk) 02:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Big Brother 2010 is not necessarily the last
The series hasn't been "axed". That suggests cutting a series short, mid-contract. Channel 4 is simply choosing not to renew its contract when the current one expires. Big Brother 2010 will be the last to be broadcast by Channel 4 but that does not preclude some other broadcaster taking up the mantle next year or at some time in the future. Can we please stick to facts and avoid sensationalism and speculation. —MegaPedant 18:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The "70 housemates"
From the Radio Times summary of the launch program "...some of the prospective housemates won't even make it through the front door. While the chosen ones head into the house for their 15 minutes of fame, with breathless encouragement from Davina McCall, the rest will have to make do with 15 seconds, before being packed off home." Before Wednesday happens it may be worth noting that if the format is as rumoured then only those who are chosen and enter the house should be listed in this article as housemates. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Involvement with WP:BIGBRO and task forces
Hi editors last year there were several discussions that affected not only the British articles but overall Big Brother articles including the USA articles. If possible can we try to have these types of discussions on the main WP:BIGBRO project page and/or the task force pages? It would be nice if we could keep discussions regarding major changes on the task force discussion page and larger discussions to the overall project page. Some editors took offense at these types of discussions being regulated to the then-current season/series articles while some attacked other articles for bringing the project down. Last year with a consensus task forces for two of the largest versions of Big Brother were created (UK task force & USA task force) to handle the respective differences between the two and other versions. If we utilize the project talk page and the respective task force talk page we can collaborate more efficiently and really improve the overall project and avoid the bashing that happened last year.  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  10:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Copied to Big Brother 12 (U.S.), WP:BIGBRO, UK task force, USA task force

Past tense?
The "house" and "format" parts are written like the season has already finished. just sayin 118.208.140.69 (talk) 10:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * if it is put in present now it will need to be changed later....its easier this way —Preceding unsigned comment added by ElmoSlattery (talk • contribs) 17:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Ultimate Champion series
As confirmed by Phil Edgar Jones, Davina McCall etc. There will be an 'ultimate champion' series running for 2 weeks after the conclusion of Big Brother 11. It should definitely be noted somewhere, whether it goes on this page as a section or alongside Teen Big Brother and Celebrity Hijack as a special series. 88.107.77.65 (talk) 14:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Being that the final 2 weeks are not happening for 11 weeks, can we wait 77 days, and if it happens then it can be covered. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If it happens we could most likely make an article for it as long as it has enough information to stand by itself.  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  19:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Davina said on BBLB that the winner of BB11 will stay in the house and be joined by past housemates including celebrities, so it's definitely happening, but is it a separate series or part of BB11? Anemone  Projectors  19:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not sure, we could just do a separate series since it ain't part of bb11! 81.98.98.6 (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think there should be a note on this when it happens but also it should have its own page. there is no point doing it now as we don't know much about it(what it will be called, who is going in etc.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ElmoSlattery (talk • contribs) 17:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Full protection?
Do we really need full protection? And for an entire week? Sure there will no doubt be a bit of messing around on this article tonight, but this seems really quite excessive. I remember this happened when Michael Jackson died and I'm sure the consensus was that it wasn't the right thing to do. I would have thought just leaving it to the community to undo anything silly would be more than sufficient. Coolug (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, but we could do with semi-pp until the series ends, and the housemates can be listed once they are all in, and not with descriptors like "Beyonce lookalike". Darrenhusted (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * semi-protection seems fair enough. Interestingly Rachel is listed as a hairdresser/professional beyonce lookalike on the channel 4 website - http://www.channel4.com/bigbrother/housemate/rachael/profile/display.c4 Coolug (talk) 21:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's stick with "hairdresser". Darrenhusted (talk) 21:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * well, it seems that having assumed a good faith mishtake on HJ's part another admin has lifted the full protection. So we can do that now. I'm still keen to go with the description taken from the c4 website :) Coolug (talk) 21:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Redirects
I've created redirects for all the housemates. Feel free to use them - may save typing out the whole "List of..." etc :) Anemone  Projectors  10:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Fan websites and blogs
Hello. It appears that some fan websites and gossip blogs are being used to cite information here, such as, , and. These are not reliable, I'm afraid, and will have to be removed and/or replaced. I should be able to being helping out on this page in about a week. Big Brother 2009 (UK) was of such a terrific standard (I just put it forward for good article level and it passed, the first BBUK piece to do so) and it would be a shame to let that quality slip. KingOfTheMedia (talk) 14:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Page for "spoilers"?
I was thinking it might be better to have a page for details of things to be put that have happened in the current day (which haven't had a chance to be shown in an evening episode yet) because in the summary, there's details of day 4 (today), which some people might now want to see before the episode tommorrow, or maybe have a rule that nothing is put into the summary section until the relevant days episode (the episode the day after). Any thoughts on it? Tomdresser27 (talk) 21:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If it is unsourced it is speculation and can be removed. Leaky  Caldron  22:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking we will need some sort of rule, or a page for spoilers, since there are some sources of spoilers, the day 4 spolier has re-appeared now with a source before the episode has aired. Tomdresser27 (talk) 15:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, this normally happens on the BB USA pages, regarding spoilers the consensus is usually as long as a valid source that can back up the information it is allowed. So if it happens on the feeds or BB Live and an article on Digital Spy is there backing up the info then it can be added.  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  22:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh right, I just think it would be good to have a section away from the main page for spoilers, and then add them to the main page once the relevant episode has aired. No doubt it's going to stop the people who want to wait until the episode from reading the article because of the chance of them seeing spoilers. Tomdresser27 (talk) 20:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As per WP:SPOILER spoilers shouldn't be treated differently than any other information. This discussion comes up every year namely for Big Brother (U.S.) articles because in the USA only three episodes air a week. The USA nominations usually happen on a Friday but isn't transmitted on the broadcast until Sunday. The Veto task usually happens on a Saturday while the Veto ceremony happens on a Monday but these events don't air until Tuesday (Wednesdays for the upcoming season). So if the USA articles don't have a separate article/section for spoilers the UK articles won't either especially since the UK airs daily highlight episodes. During BB8 USA someone tried to create a page that just had the information that was aired during the CBS broadcasts but this was quickly deleted.  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  21:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The nightly BB programme now features a teaser for the following day and the live feed is available for £1.99 a month, plus they have regular new items on the BB site and twitter and youtube pages, anything that could be said to be a spoiler will no longer be a spoiler in less than 24hrs, and BBLB also gives teasers, and by ten on a Friday the house catches up to real time, and the Saturday programme is actually out of date. On top of that SPOILER is clear; don't leave out information because of a fear of "spoiling" something. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Running commentary
I don't really know enough about the current series to do any good editing to this page, but the "Summary" section appears to be turning into a bit of a running commentary of the series. This obviously should be avoided: WP:COMMENTARY. WillDow (Talk) 08:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I have a question: Every year during big brother there is a full report of the tasks, entrances and exits, and happenings in the house. In the summary, it seems to have been halted after day four. Why is no one writing about what tasks have been done that week etc.? I keep coming back to check and there is no news. Mindycl (talk) 02:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)MindyCLMindycl (talk) 02:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I also have a point, in previous series there has been a table where things that have happened in the day and tasks and everything was neatly set out in a table, could we present this one like that? As I have a feeling most people will not read the massive long text and it would be much easier, however it would be time consuming for the person who has to convert the summary. Could someone do this (possibly?) Jonni_Boi (Talk) 16:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think this would be a good idea. I've just had a play about, and what does everyone think about this? I'm struggling to think of the header for the third column, anyone have any ideas? If people like this idea, I'd be more than happy to transfer the summary into this table. Obviously it will need more work, this is just to give everyone an idea of what I am thinking. If we were to have a table like this, I think it would be good to have a page attached to the main article for people to add details of what is happening in the house for it to then be transferred into the table, since the summary currently stops at day 4. Tomd2712 &#124;  Tell me something?  16:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a great idea. I think you should make the table like every year: Week, Tasks, maybe "participants" as the third column? The entire long mario-as-a-mole situation can be summarized in 2 parragraphs. no need to divide it upu into days. check the table in BB9, that was pretty good. Mindycl (talk) 19:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a good idea, I'd prefer it as a table as it is easier to find the information needed! Jonni_Boi (Talk) 14:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Last year during Big Brother 2009 (UK) and Big Brother 11 (U.S.) a consensus was reached to eliminate some tables that the content would be better in prose. The Summary section was turned into prose as part of the discussion. With these changes made last year to both articles and everyone pitching in Big Brother 2009 (UK) is now a Good Article with Big Brother 11 (U.S.) being a Good Article nominee. Any article prior to last year needs to be re-vamped to bring it in line with the standard that the consensus achieved last year.  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  21:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out that at this point Big Brother 2009 (UK) is the only Big Brother Good Article.  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  21:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking at the "Summary" section again, and I know that people like things to be exactly the same as previous versions, but it's just a mass of information. Lower level headings for the separate weeks may make this more readable. If you read through the Big_Brother_2009_(UK), it's an unattractive mass of writing that very few people will actually ever read, and this summary is turning into exactly the same thing. Its just a thought, and I know it is very mildly deviating from the other big brother pages, be it the UK or US version, but does anyone else not think the article would benefit from breaking up the summary section into sub-sections as below? ==Summary== ====Week One==== [--content--] ====Week Two==== [--content--] ====Week Three==== [--content--] WillDow (Talk) 08:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no need. The paragraph breaks are enough, and the article for last year is GA, better to emulate a GA so this article can become one. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I like this particular summary too. I am using this to establish and improve the big brother africa pages. While the chart is ok for some articles, a short paragraph per week is fine.--Cooly123 02:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 (talk • contribs)

Veto
With the new change being confirmed on the Official Big Brother UK website, i added in a pre-veto, post-veto and veto winner into the nominations table. They might not use the term 'veto' but as it is the term used in the USA edition i just went with that, when there is official word on what the 'veto' will be called, it can be changed. Alexdb91 (talk) 14:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought this was only a one time thing? Has it been officialy confirmed that it is going to be used throught the season? --BigOz22 (talk) 16:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If it is a one time thing we can easily delete the two added rows and just add a note at the bottom explaining what happened.  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  19:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, it's pretty important to remember that although those people aren't yet facing the public vote, they are nominated as of now, and their thing in the infobox should be blue. T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 21:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Version control - anti-vandalism measure
Not sure the best way to do this, but this version:- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Big_Brother_2010_(UK)&oldid=368232508, contains a correct image of the noms. table and totals. This section could be updated each week and referred to in the event of sneaky vandalism. Leaky Caldron  21:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, how about we say it in the summary. Note when the table is correct and let other editors know. If the vandalism kicks in (which it has done each year since 2006) then ask for semi-pp until the series finishes (as has been customary), there is nothing wrong with using the edit summaries to note a good rollback point. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Should work well. Leaky  Caldron  22:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a great idea and should be done on any current on going series/season of Big Brother, I will note this discussion on the USA article also. Why is Big Brother (namely UK/USA) articles prone to vandalism.  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  22:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would guess that the daily nature of the programme leads editors to add information every day (or want to add it) and errors slip in when it is trimmed or rewritten and vandals take that opportunity to add known errors. Darrenhusted (talk) 07:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Tree of Temptation - list of tasks
Would it be a good idea to insert a table that list all of Tree of Temptation task's throught the season, in the style of the table used in Pinoy Big Brother and Big Brohter Germany 10? I think it would be a good idea? What do you guys think? --BigOz22 (talk) 23:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * We need to be selective as to what information should be in a table or not. Big Brother season articles (like Big Brother 2009 (UK) and Big Brother 11 (U.S.)) can get big pretty quick due to the amount of information and the amount of sources needed. We need to avoid duplicate information also, so if the Tree of Temptation tasks are properly stated in the Summary section we don't need the tasks themselves summarized in a table. I am not opposed to the idea, I am just worried that having the table would create a lot of duplicate information.  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  23:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yea I completely understand that, but let's say I am going to take Corin's task from today (shown tommorow) I think it would look something like this :

We could give a very basic details about the task, such for Mario's task would be "To throw housemate's vegetables and bread in the pool" "To cut someone's (Rachael's) cigarettes". --BigOz22 (talk) 00:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no problem as long as it doesn't hurt the chances for this article to get GA status after the series ends like Big Brother 2009 (UK).  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  03:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The summary doesn't really give that much information about the Impossible Task so for now I've put the table up, better check for grammar errors. --BigOz22 (talk) 13:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Although there has not been one to date, should we add a "punishment" column for when the HMs fail the task? Maybe it would be best to add it when this happens, though... 81.98.98.6 (talk) 22:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd say it would be better to wait, we don't actually know whether the tree ever gives out a punishment, so the column could end up being unused for the whole series. Tomdresser27 (talk) 22:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The only punishment was when it occured in CBB after Jonas refused to sprinkle sand, then he was sent to the punishement along with Lady Sov. --BigOz22 (talk) 00:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It may be worth adding a column for a source. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think if we leave adding the tasks to the table until after it is shown in the episode, then there shouldn't be need for a source because everyone who's likely to read the article will have seen the task in the episode. Doing it this way will stop incorrect things being added to it aswell. Tomdresser27 (talk) 11:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's going to need a source, just like the nominations need a source and the summary will need a source. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't be hard to find sources for the trees tasks...they're all written about at http://www.channel4.com/bigbrother/   (official website)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.131.152 (talk) 16:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If the article is to reach GA status like Big Brother 2009 (UK) then other sources than the Channel 4 website are needed. Plus there is no guarantee that the C4 website will remain online after this series ends.  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  23:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it needs to be added somewhere that shabby told caoimhe about her secret tree task and caoimhe got punished.ElmoSlattery (talk) 18:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The first eviction...
...got 2.8m viewers. Though DS may not be a trusted source. the BBC have the opening program as getting 5.1m, though The Guardian has it at 4.5m. Darrenhusted (talk) 18:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Protection
Why's the protection been removed from the page? I thought it was a good idea for the article to be semi protected indefinitely. Tomd2712 (talk) 15:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * We're probably not at the stage where indefinite is warranted. It was most recently semi-protected for two weeks by me. I've changed that to two weeks of PC1-protection, which means that edits from IPs and non-autoconfirmed editors will need to be reviewed and accepted before "going live". I'm more than happy to change that back to semi-protection for the duration of the protection period if it doesn't work out. However, I'd like to try PC1-protection, as it gives IPs and non-autoconfirmed editors the ability to add to the article - without risking that vandalism, BLP-vios, etc get through to the article. TFOWR 15:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * can anyone review changes or is it an admin job? Tomd2712 (talk) 16:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Users that have the "Reviewer" right can accept or decline the edits, I know that User:T and myself both have the right plus various editors outside the WP:BIGBRO project. Admins automatically have the right as well. ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  16:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Good day/bad day
I think it needs to be mentioned somwhere about how whoever is evicted is able to choose one person inside the house to have either a good or bad day. Mabye there should also be a table tos ay who each person chose... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.131.152 (talk) 20:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. When being interviewed by Davina after her eviction on the evening of 18 June, Rachael chose Corin to have a good day on 19 June. That was announced to the housemates minutes after Rachael's choice, by 'Bob Righter'. He produced a token which said: 'Bob Righter's eyes are shining bright, tomorrow for Corin is looking bright.' The following Friday, Govan chose Josie to have a good day, which was announced by BR as 'Bob Righter's eyes are full of fire, tomorrow for Josie her heart's desire'. Some of the housemates have correctly guessed that each evictee chooses a housemate to be rewarded with a good day tomorrow, but are unaware of the bad day option, as it has not yet been selected. Jim Michael (talk) 13:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think something along the lines ofthe following could be added.(obviously needs some editing)


 * After an eviction, when being interviewed by Davina, the evicted housemate can choose a remaining housemate to have either a good or bad day.Minutes later 'Bob Righter' gives the housemates a token which says which housemate was chosen and whether they will recieve a good or bad day.
 * {| class="wikitable"

! style="width: 5%;" | Eviction ! style="width: 5%;" | Evictee ! style="width: 5%;" | Good/Bad ! style="width: 5%;" | Recipient ! style="width: 20%;" | Token

86.42.138.239 (talk) 15:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 1
 * Rachael
 * Good
 * Corin
 * 'Bob Righter's eyes are shining bright, tomorrow for Corin is looking bright.'
 * 2
 * Govan
 * Good
 * Josie
 * 'Bob Righter's eyes are full of fire, tomorrow for Josie her heart's desire'
 * }
 * 'Bob Righter's eyes are full of fire, tomorrow for Josie her heart's desire'
 * }
 * }

My thought on this is it isn't needed; it can be placed in the Summary. Before adding various tables the summary needs to be updated with sources because it is still reading as if nothing happened after launch night. Plus the Tree of Temptation table needs sources.  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  09:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * sorry, only saw your message here after i added it (feel free to remove). I can add sources for this if needed. In my opinion this table is needed as it is something specific about this series that distinguishes it from the rest and therefore it is quite significant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ElmoSlattery (talk • contribs) 10:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this is a better way of displaying the information, having tables will help to stop the summary section becoming a running commentary of the series as it progresses. Tomd2712  &#124;  Tell me something?  12:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If we are going to keep it I think whtas there needs editing.
 * 1) hhe "tokens" bob righter gives them aren't reallytokens their more like cards or something but i'm not sure what to say
 * 2)the introduction part doesn't really explain it well but i can't think of a better way to explain it. ElmoSlattery (talk) 16:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Added a "note" section to the table to tell what happened this week. Don't know where to find exactly what it says on the card so if anyone knows what it is please add it!ElmoSlattery (talk) 22:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think the actual words on the token are that important to be mentioned in the article. Also there's no explanation as to who Bob Righter is. Anemone  Projectors  00:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * BR is some kind of circus / carnival attraction - does anyone know the name of such a device? If such a thing has a Wikipedia article, we should link to it; if not, can someone think of a better way of explaining it than: a model of a man, inside a booth? Jim Michael (talk) 18:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Section needs to be completely reedited as bob righter doesn't only deliver notices about good/bd days anymore, The following is what I suggest

Bob Righter

Bob righter is a fortune telling carnival attraction who, from time to time, delivers messages in the form of riddles to the house.

I will edit this into the main article on monday if their are no objections before then. Feel free to edit the above table as I understand its not perfect!!! I think a proper description of what bob righter is is needed. I don't know what those things are called so if anyone does will you please add it. Otherwise mabye a picture of him could be added? ElmoSlattery (talk) 13:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No objection and I really agree with you, I guess you should just edit it Mr tim111 (talk) 23:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Save and Replace
This new "twist" should have a section within the series 11 page.--Cooly123 19:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 (talk • contribs)
 * This page is still under construction as the series goes on. I am sure it will be noted in the Format section soon. If you would like be WP:BOLD and add it to the article, there are plenty of sources available. Anything you notice that is missing that can help the article please feel free to add it.  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  20:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Keeley's departure date
People keep changing Keeley's departure date as Day 45, when she actually left the house on Day 42. Keeley left the house on Day 42 and has not returned. She didn't leave on Day 45, Day 45 was simply the day Big Brother told the housemates she was not returning to the house. 87.115.93.243 (talk) 23:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * She was still officially a housemate until Day 45, so that is the day we should use. Anemone  Projectors  00:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah I agree with that, but the column actually says "exit" and she "exited" on Day 42, so I thought it would be more appropriate to use that...87.115.93.243 (talk) 00:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah. Well, I suppose it depends on how we define "exit". Her physical exit from the house was Day 42 but her exit from the game was Day 45. Anemone  Projectors  00:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough! 87.112.123.96 (talk) 11:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Hometown
In the Housemates section, the hometown for JJ and Shabby is stated as London. However, JJ was born and raised in Peterborough; Shabby in Buckinghamshire. If this column is meant to give the place of residence, then the name of that column should be changed accordingly. Jim Michael (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This is how it is written in the channel 4 website, as "home", so which is why it is written as Hometown. Mr tim111 (talk) 22:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Capital letters
Should 'house', 'housemates', 'diary room' etc. begin with capital letters? The article should be consistent throughout in this regard. Jim Michael (talk) 23:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Nomination notes section
I recently made the text normal size and it stayed that way for some time but it's been made small again. Can we keep it normal size? It's easier to read, and there's no reason it. See also Manual of Style (text formatting): "Editors should avoid manually inserting large and small fonts into prose." Anemone Projectors  01:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * (Thanks to whoever unsmalled it Anemone  Projectors  21:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC))

Editing
Please DO NOT save the page you are editing unless you are sure it is correct. If you want to see how your edit affects the page, click the Show Preview button. I say this because I have just correctly edited the nominations table, only to find someone else has edited it (incorrectly) at the same time, causing my CORRECT edit to be reverted. Thanks. db1987db (talk) 08:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Tree of Temptation and Bob Righter table/section - pointless?
Apart from Mario's ToT task in week one, all of the tasks have been fairly irrelevant to the progress of the series. The same can be said for most of Bob Righter's tasks. I think that these sections should be removed. Mario's ToT task can be mentioned in the summary and both entities (Bob Righter and the ToT) can be touched upon in the format section. As with the "secret missions" of BB6, they are trivial and have no major effect on the general storyline of the series. Anybody agree? KingOfTheMedia (talk) 12:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do agree with you. The tables look rather messy anyway, but you're right, apart from Mario's task, they have no major effect on the general storyline of the series. Anemone  Projectors  19:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree; some of them are significant to events in the house. For example, Shabby showering Ben (whom she then hated) with compliments in order to win a dinner for two, choosing Caoimhe, then telling her that about the task she did that she had been told to keep secret. Despite Shabby being evicted early in the series, she had a lot of airtime due to her being entertaining (despite also being unpopular). Her unrequited love for Caoimhe was a major storyline while they were in the house, and relevant enough to include in this article. Another example that is relevant enough to include is Ben quitting the exercises he had to do on his 'bad day' and Dave doing them instead. Ben not being a 'team player' has been the source of a lot of disharmony between him and some other housemates. I think the current article should be expanded upon rather than reduced. There is very little in the article about allegiances and disagreements between housemates or personalities and psychology of the housemates. Ben has talked a lot about his political beliefs and Dave has talked a lot about his religious beliefs. They are relevant aspects of them that some of the other housemates have strongly expressed their disagreement with them over. Nathan and Josie have both nominated Dave, giving the reason that he is opposed to same-sex marriage. The article as it is doesn't give much of an idea of the personalities or behaviour of the housemates, or why things have happened the way they have. Shabby's volatility is the most noticeable thig about her, yet is not mentioned. Govan's stirring and bitching aren't mentioned, leaving a reader of this article who hasn't seen the series no idea of why he was evicted with well over twice as many nominations as Ben, Dave and Mario combined. Jim Michael (talk) 23:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That was an extremely subjective passage. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and should mention the facts of what has happened in the programme, not personality traits that can't be sourced. KingOfTheMedia (talk) 11:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please can we do this. The Bob Righter section is now looking really bad, and the words on the token is really unimportant. Anemone  Projectors  21:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the Bob Righter events/tree of temptation tasks should be part of the summary and possibly trimmed down. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Bob Righter and the Tree of Temptation are unique to this series (well, in the case of the Tree of Temptation, it's unique from all the main series) and so they should have their own sections so that they are remembered and so that their tasks are detailed. In series 2 we gave the new housemates their own section (even though 2 didn't make it onto the show), we also gave the Secret Garden, the Golden Ticket, the House Next Door, Head of House and House Splits their own sections (or tables). It's important to record Bob Righter and ToT as these are unique things that made this series differnt from others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.54.154 (talk) 23:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Forgot to say that I think a separate "Source" column for each table (like the noms table) would be good though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.54.154 (talk) 23:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes they should be mentioned, but not in separate sections. The fact they exist can be included under "format" and any notable tasks under "summary". The tables are horrible, and this article will never achieve GA status if they stay as they are. Anemone  Projectors  00:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagree - The tables look a lot better now that they've been sorted out. They should stay. Someone should fill in the sources though. Woods31 (talk) 19:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The might look better but I still feel they're unnecessary and should be merged to the summary. Anemone  Projectors  19:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm still of the opinion that they aren't needed, no matter how nice they look. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Original 70+ houseguests for opening night
Is there anywhere with a photo of all the housguests who may of been selected, also we could a section of small bios at least of these potential hm's. With the newest housguests who just entered the house being from the live lauch this would be appropriate.--Cooly123 23:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 (talk • contribs)

30/07/2010 eviction
Has been 'updated' on here before it's even been announced on Channel 4! Even if there is someone in the know (ie BB production team), can we not keep updates off of here until they've actually been announced to prevent spoiling it for people who may be viewing the page? Ciao! db1987db (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Or is the 'live' show also 'delayed'? If so, it could've been from a text from a crowd member, to someone using a computer? Is that it? db1987db (talk) 21:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It was right, but still! db1987db (talk) 21:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not live because they don't wait 30 minutes for The IT Crowd like the viewers do. The result was all over Twitter, but I don't know its origin. If it hasn't been announced yet, people should cite a reliable source, or it should be reverted. Anemone  Projectors  00:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am sure even the first show is delayed?. Well I guess its delayed so that they can get rid of inappropriate things.


 * Now, I have to agree with what you are saying about people doing this to prevent spoilers and I think we should wait until its been announced on Channel 4 to post the evictee.Mr tim111 (talk) 10:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It is important that the information is correct. This article incorrectly initally stated Ben's percentage of votes as 62%. Jim Michael (talk) 13:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Sam banned in Week 10
Is it worth adding this to the nominations table before Week 9's eviction result is announced? If Sam is evicted, he won't be banned next week. Anemone Projectors  00:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We did this last week when Rachel, John James, Dave and Josie were banned from nominating Sam. Once Rachel was evicted, we took her name off the notes. We could do the same with Sam if he is evicted, just take the whole note out. However, for now I think it should remain as it is. Mr tim111 (talk) 10:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fair enough. I didn't realise it had happened last week. Anemone  Projectors  11:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This is the MOST RIDICULOUS and STUPID punishment of Big Brother. You punished a nominated housemate for eviction of not able to nominate "next week". AND then Big Brother decided to put EVERYONE up for eviction in that week. So what's the punishment for? Sorry, just want to air out my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.37.54.122 (talk) 12:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Last week, Sam talked about nominations. As a punishment for this, he was banned from nominating this week, meaning that noms were planned for this week. BB then decided to give one housemate immunity from eviction this week and put the other 8 up on Friday 13 Aug. The numbers for each of the 8 were displayed at the end of that day's show and phone lines opened immediately, with no indication that it would be anything other than a regular single eviction. About twenty hours later it was announced that on Fri 20 Aug there will be a quadruple eviction. This has never been done before on BB UK and has caused a lot of voters to be angry, as they have voted on the basis of it being a single, when they wouldn't have voted if they had known that their favourite will be evicted on Friday anyway, no matter who they vote for. C4 / BB changing things after they had been announced should be mentioned in the article, as should the viewers' / voters' justified objections to the goalposts being moved. Contoversies have been mentioned in articles about some previous series of BB, such the alleged racism / bullying in Celebrity Big Brother 2007 and the use of nigga / nigger by housemates in Big Brother 2007. Jim Michael (talk) 20:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Dave
Should the public not be clearly informed that BB had 'Invited' certain HMs in to the house and the reasons why? Should they have 'Invited' someone in on the basis of his USA cult membership and allow his subliminal messages to be broadcast daily and picked up by the media, without understanding the 'buzz words' - Is this responsible broadcasting? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JACKINABOX 10 (talk • contribs) 13:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If you can find a reliable source that says he was approached by BB rather than having auditioned, then add it to the article. Jim Michael (talk) 00:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately the ‘evidence’ I saw was conveniently removed (Video removed by user)from Dave Vaughan’s own web site and YouTube shortly before the final week (definitely before 17 08 10) and so is probably only clasified as ‘hearsay’. = www.youtube.com - WelshShabba - door into the media –( Why Dave is in there! Fast Forward  to 7.16-7.33 on). In his own video Dave announced that “Big Brother” had invited him on to the show after seeing an article in The Sun newspaper (THE SUN 21 JAN 10-http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/2817306/The-ravers-who-get-high-on-God.html#ixzz0w2EU3avQ )about Dave and the New Ecstatics. Due to my own lack of skills with computers, I was too late in working out how to ‘download’ the particular video – I hope that someone has. I only have the ‘screen capture’ to illustrate the ‘evidence’. I hope someone is able to provide more. His own profile page on the BB11 Forum page states/d that "He says 'I didn't want to go on Big Brother and I feel weird about the whole thing'". This certainly indicates that it was not his idea to 'audition'. Ben (and probably Josie) admitted and discussed on the programme that they were there by invite. Perhaps if anybody else is interested, they may have more detail on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JACKINABOX 10 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Viewers have been told that all prospective contestants for BB (apart from Celeb series) have to go through the same audition process. There have been several reports during this series that some of the contestants were approached by BB staff and asked to become contestants, rather than applying and going through the usual process. If anyone can find reliable sources to back up these claims, especially if they name the housemates concerned, that would benefit the article. I have heard this to be the case with Dave, Ben and Steve. Jim Michael (talk) 23:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for Week 10
Should the nominations for Week 10 go into the post-save and replace section because the housemates haven't actually nominated anyone. Discuss? MSalmon (talk) 20:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We normally say "against public vote", which would be the "post save and replace" row, so I agree. We need to change the row title because they weren't nominated. Anemone  Projectors  00:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We could move them to the post-save and replace row and change change that to Against Public Vote MSalmon (talk) 08:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have now fixed it so it makes sense now because they were in the wrong section and I have changed post-save and replace to Against Public Vote MSalmon (talk) 08:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks much better to me, I think it's still clear that the people against the public vote are the "post save and replace" nominations. Anemone  Projectors  10:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Guests in the nominations table
I don't think this should be included as they entered purely as part of a task, didn't stay over night and weren't housemates at the time. Anemone Projectors  21:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The American BB has Rachel there as a guest as she 'visited' the house (yeah, I know 24hrs is slightly longer but still!) db1987db (talk) 02:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if we're going to put Rachael, Nathan and Ben as guests when it was purely for a task, we should add Andrew Stone and others as well. Anemone  Projectors  22:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * From my understanding with other articles if an ex-Housemate of that series returns to the House as a Guest then it is acceptable to have a cell in the week they were in the House with the day(s) noted. But if a random person or an ex-Housemate of a previous series re-enters it isn't noted in the table.  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  22:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Msalmon clearly agrees with me. I notice it's only just been added for BB7 as well with the house next door. But that I can understand because there was a public vote. Even Jon Tickle in BB4 I can understand because he was there for two weeks, even though he wasn't eligible to win. But in this case, they were in the house a VERY short time, like less than an hour, it was purely a task, nothing to do with a public vote, and nothing to do with nominations. It is, after all, a nominations table. Anemone  Projectors  22:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have removed it because they were NOT official houseguests and only stayed in the house for a short amount of time as part of a task --MSalmon (talk) 22:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this needs to be fully discussed! And the discussed way used on all articles! --BigOz22 (talk) 18:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Quadruple eviction - article appearance
I'd like to discuss this, as much as the eviction wasn't in order of % but random, i do believe it should reflect the Random way, and the "Finish Place" shuld be removed as it's unneccesary, I'd like to discuss this as i think, because of the way they were evicted, Steve, Corin, Sam and John James should be in the order they left rather than the order of %. --BigOz22 (talk) 00:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed - departure order db1987db (talk) 02:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. John James came 9th and Steve came 6th and this should be refelected in the order --Eddy_Rich 17:46, 23 August 2010 (GMT)
 * They should be listed in chronological order, and the infobox to state 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th place due to the unique circumstances of last week. I believe this is the only time Big Brother has had a quadruple eviction, and the only time housemates have been evicted not in order. There have been double evictions in some previous series, in which the evictee with the higher number of votes left first. I don't think the order was random. I think someone decided which order to evict them in, although I don't think there has been an explanation to this, only theories by disgruntled viewers. 178.101.89.111 (talk) 22:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We would have to do their departure order as agreed. Davina did say "in no particular order" meaning just that. I am sure in double eviction, we did it that order, despite it being in a certain percentage order. Also, I don't think we should put 6th, 7th, 8th 9th etc since we did not do that in previous series, we should only do up to 5th. Mr tim111 (talk) 22:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Both the eviction order and finishing place should be recorded in the nominations table for ease of understanding what happened. Perhaps the "Finishing Place" column isn't the best idea, but that information does need recording there. The frequency of which people keep changing the order from eviction order to finishing place order clearly shows everyone is highly divided on this. So to satisfy everyone, both should be recorded. In double evictions in the past it was listed by percentage order as that was the eviction order also. This is new territory and when new things happen we have to adapt the articles accordingly so that information is correctly recorded. For lack of a better idea at the moment, the "Finishing Place" column should probably just be put back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.54.154 (talk) 23:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Infobox
How do I change Up for eviction to Vote to win because the public are voting for their winner not who to evict? MSalmon (talk) 08:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Keeley
Keeley didn't walk, she was technically ejected as she was taken out of the house because of her foot, is this correct?  Látches  Lets talk! 18:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not exactly, Keeley would've been allowed back into the house, but decided she would prefer to recover at her house, therefore, she CHOSE to leave the show, thererore, she walked. --BigOz22 (talk) 18:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I would think it would be better to mention that she left because of medical reasons. If she hadn't damaged her foot, she would not of left the house, so the injury should be mentioned. Tomd2712  &#124;  Tell me something?  19:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Tomd2712 is right. Walked is not the correct term. The Big Brother website doesn't state her as "walked". If we say that, then it's incorrect information —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.54.154 (talk) 19:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Would a note stating what happened be better instead of what is there up now (that long text?) I mean something along those lines


 * On Day 42, Keeley injured her ankle, and was taken to hospital for recovery, on Day 45, she decided she wishes to recover at her home instead of returning to the house and therefore left the show.

--BigOz22 (talk) 21:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We have already put this in the notes. Mr tim111 (talk) 22:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Earlier this was there:

Although this is quite a bit of information, it solves all the queries about Keeley that people have been having. It makes it clear when she left the house (as is normally recorded in the nominations table) and also makes it clear when she left the show. It also makes it clear that she didn't walk for "normal" reasons by pointing out her injury. Giving her status as "walked" is INCORRECT anyway as the Channel 4 website has her status as "recuperating", surely it is our job to make sure the article is correct? This way gives the correct information (recuperating) and also fits in with the other articles by using the colour scheme of walked. We can't get more correct than that so until a better solution can be found, I'm reverting back to this.

If people are adament about not having the correct information in Keeley's "walked" box, then perhaps we need to create a new colour and name (perhaps "recuperating") for housemates who have left the show for medical reasons out of their control to distinguish this from traditional walking and match the status of the housemate with that of the official site.

Sorry if any of that has come across as a rant, but we should be making sure the article is correct and matches the official source. Thanks! Rhys :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.54.154 (talk) 22:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There should be a new name and colour for leaving the house due to injury, illness etc., as it is significantly different to quitting the show. Walkers choose to leave the house permanently. Keeley was taken to hospital; she had no choice. It would not have been practical for her to return to the house before having recovered fully, nor to wait until having recovered fully before returning. Jim Michael (talk) 22:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * How about this?


 * I think the old way with just Walked with Day 45 is enough for the table because in Note 2 clearly explains that Keely was removed from the house due to injury and on Day 45 decided to recuperate at home. We don't need to go any further than that because the Summary section should go into the extra details.  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  01:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem with the old way though is that "Walked" is not the correct term. The proposed way does give the correct term and that's what wikipedia is about - creating a correct encyclopedia. This might be the first time "Recuperating" has been used as a status description, but as series around the world progress and new things come up we have to adapt the articles to reflect this. The general consensus here does seem that people are not happy with describing her condition as "walked" anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.54.154 (talk) 23:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * When the housemates from this series were briefly introduced to the crowd outside the house this evening, her leg was in plaster. She could not have returned and played a full role in the house. She had to leave and was unable to return as a housemate. Hence we shouldn't say she walked. Jim Michael (talk) 21:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I also think that "Recuperating" should be a new category. It is clearly different from traditional walkingWoods31 (talk) 19:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We need some kind of new label of 'forced to leave house due to injury or illness'. The problem with using the term recuperating is that it sounds as though the housemate will likely return to the house at a later date. I believe that Keeley is the only housemate to have left the house permanently under this kind of circumstance in the UK. Has such a situation occurred on BB anywhere else in the world? If so, how was it categorised? Jim Michael (talk) 18:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Reassessment
This article has been upgraded to C-Class because it fails one or more of the B-Class criteria

The House, Format and Nominations table are key areas lacking cations. The Format section could be expanded, see Big Brother 2009 (UK) along with the Summary section. ✅ Similar to Big Brother 2009 (UK), sections could be added to improve the article. Article has weasel words, article should be written similar to Big Brother 2009 (UK). Avoid using "In Week X" or "Week X..." for every week. Some images or other forms of supporting materials could be added. Unless the reader has viewed Big Brother or has read previous articles like Big Brother 2009 (UK) some information may not be understood.
 * The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary.
 * The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies.
 * The article has a defined structure.
 * The article is reasonably well-written.
 * The article contains supporting materials where appropriate.
 * The article presents its content in an appropriately accessible way.

Because the article is more developed but is still lacking key aspects of being B-Class, it has been upgraded to C-Class.  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  01:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Housemate 'Rules'.
Sorry if I have missed an entry for the 'Housemate Rules' on any of the Big Brother Pages, but if I have not - should they not be included in these articles?JACKINABOX 10 (talk) 16:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're referring to. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for not being clear! 'Rules' for Housemates were included on the Ch4 BB Forum Web site. I.E. :- "The Rules Inside the Big Brother House

There are twelve basic rules regarding life inside the Big Brother House. They are set out in their simplest terms below. Details regarding the rules are set out in more detail later in the document. In agreeing to take part in Big Brother you agree to abide by the rules. 1.	There is no contact with the outside world. This includes the internet, newspapers, phone calls and conversations with anyone outside the House except for Big Brother. 2.	You are filmed 24 hours a day and must wear your personal microphones at all times. 3.	The Diary Room is the only place in the House where Big Brother will engage in a conversation with you. Visits to the Diary Room are compulsory." Ect. Thank You. JACKINABOX 10 (talk) 17:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I would say they belong on the main Big Brother page rather than a specific year's article. Unless they are changeable between years? Thanks Carl Sixsmith (talk) 17:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree, since they are much more of the same rules each series, we should put them in the main article, if we need it that is. If the rules change in any of the series, we should mention it on the relevant series' article. But those are just every series' rule, so we should put it in the main article. Mr tim111 (talk) 15:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Big Brother 11 (UK). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100614013249/http://www.insidebigbrother.net/news/big-brother-reveals-the-mole-hole.ibb to http://www.insidebigbrother.net/news/big-brother-reveals-the-mole-hole.ibb

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Big Brother 11 (UK). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100605174647/http://www.channel4.com/bigbrother/ to http://channel4.com/bigbrother

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Celebrity Big Brother 1 (U.S.) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:22, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Big Brother 1 (UK) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 12:31, 22 December 2018 (UTC)