Talk:Big Brother (British TV series) series 17

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because... The series is due to start in a few months, so it would make sense to make it in advance--XxLuckyCxX (talk) 19:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This article was deleted previously following a discussion in late January/early February in part because it hasn't started yet. Judging by past articles on previous series, it is a hot topic, but I think that this article will be more relevant once there is more information available. You could start a draft article in the mean time on your own page. --Erick Shepherd (talk) 19:29, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

How long is this rubbish going to be on for this time? How many weeks of tat? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.26.171 (talk) 22:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The Others
I think the others should be included in the infobox list at the top of the page, but in a different colour to show they're the others. They're listed in the housemates section on the official website. ThisIsDanny (talk) 19:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with this – on a similar note, how are we supposed to treat the "Housemates" and "The Others" sections, when we know that the housemates will be swapping between the two houses? This also goes for the Nominations Table as well. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 21:06, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree. Leaky  Caldron  21:27, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If you want to change it that is fine by me --MSalmon (talk) 21:47, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Other house/Main house is misleading
I think it is misleading to simply list who is in the main house and who is in the 'other house'. Andrew and Ryan are still 'others', but they are on an undercover mission as evidenced by their profiles on Channel 5 (Link). The article makes no reference to that, but rather misleads into the presumption that they are actual housemates.12bigbrother12 (talk) 12:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Corrected the section added a small note explaining why they were in the main house more details are below in the summary section.  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  04:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Nomination Table
Made a couple of changes to the nomination table where there was a legit public vote (phone numbers and all) to move two of the Others to the Main House for the secret mission. Also since the Others were unaware that the two people they chose to evict were moving into the Other house I changed the colour to match Big Brother 8 (UK)'s nomination table where Charley was fake evicted. As for the public vote I changed the colour for Andrew and Ryan so they match Big Brother 7 (UK)'s nomination table where Aisleyne moved from the main house to the House Next Door. This is more reflective of what happened on the show.  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  04:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * But the others weren't voting to fake evict. They were voting to evict. ThisIsDanny (talk) 16:23, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Would it work to have "to evict" rather than "to fake evict" but keep the pink (or blue) colour? — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 17:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it should be "to evict" because that's how they voted, and in blue because they moved. ThisIsDanny (talk) 19:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Main and Other House
Should these be in italics? To match the Nominations table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:8AA4:5600:F9C0:7BB:AF46:F134 (talk) 17:58, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * No, it's not a nominations table. Plus all other international series with two houses or a divide they haven't been italic. ThisIsDanny (talk) 19:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * That sections table is so confusing the way it is now, the current version makes it look like BOTH Victoria and Andrew left on Day 8 which is incorrect. Wouldn't it be better to split it to the days they left and have it look correct. Superdry19 (talk) 15:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The table is there to show the house switches, not when housemates were evicted so extra columns would be pointless if the only change would be a housemate leaving, there would have to be swaps. If the walked/ejected was moved to the second column instead of third it wouldn't show where Victoria was from the Day 4 switch until she left, or where Andrew was from Day 4 to 7. The table would suggest they both departed on Day 4. That is not the case. ThisIsDanny (talk) 17:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Example, look at Big Brother 10 (Australia), Sharon was evicted on Day 15 but the next house swap didn't occur until Day 16. Same with Rohan and Xavier on Day 22 and 23. Another example from another country is Big Brother VIP 3 (Portugal). ThisIsDanny (talk) 17:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Andrew was not Ejected
He was removed. Ejected clearly and historically is where someone is ejected for behaviour IN the house. Even the cited reference has REMOVED in capital letters. Needs are new colour code. Leaky Caldron  20:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Official website says Ejected. ThisIsDanny (talk) 21:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * http://bigbrother.channel5.com/housemate/andrew ThisIsDanny (talk) 21:19, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Official website says removed - not for actions in the house. http://bigbrother.channel5.com/andrew-has-been-removed-big-brother-house  Leaky  Caldron  21:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Then why say ejected as his current housemate status? ThisIsDanny (talk) 21:39, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Why say removed in the article that explains he wasn't ejected for inappropriate behaviour in the house? C5 doesn't write WP articles, we do and there is a WP:RS clearly stating the facts of his removal. Leaky  Caldron  17:39, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

The situation is similar to Tila from Celebrity Big Brother 16 last year. Looking back, the website says removed: http://bigbrother.channel5.com/day-2-tila-has-been-removed-celebrity-big-brother which means we'd have to change her too. Although is it necessary that we have to change it? Keeley from Big Brother 11 (UK), Kimberley from Big Brother 15 (UK) and Clare from Celebrity Big Brother 14 all left due to illness or injury yet they're down as walked. ThisIsDanny (talk) 19:21, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * We should stick to what the official website says on his profile which is Ejected MSalmon (talk) 16:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Why? Because you say so? There is official statement saying he was removed as well as other WP:RS elsewhere. Time you all started using policy instead of your gut feel. You are not seriously suggesting, in EN-WP policy terms, that an official website statement explaining his "removal" is less of a WP:RS that a little picture with a little one word banner across the corner? How do even begin to justify that in policy? Do you understand how to weigh evidence per policy? Leaky  Caldron  17:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not just the little banner, on his profile page on the official website it says his housemate status is ejected. Not sure what we should go off :S ThisIsDanny (talk) 17:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Could not be simpler. Follow WP policy on WP:RS - . Ignore those who see things through the wrong end of the telescope because they think the own the BB articles here on WP. I've been around longer than any of them and I understand policy is more important than a sticker on an image. Simple solution is to make the Ejected key "Ejected / Removed". Covers all bases. Obviously the usual bunch of clueless & mindless, knee jerk reverters will turn up. Leaky  Caldron  19:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Like I said earlier it's similar to Tila, and should it even be changed? Comparing it to walking and leaving due to illness. ThisIsDanny (talk) 19:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree 100% about Tila. Open to persuasion on the other issue. In those cases I would change legend to "Walked / Left" or something better. Leaky  Caldron  20:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Implementing those saved in vote freezes
Is there any way that we can implement who was saved during vote freezes? I'm not sure how we could do this other than just a note, but I thought it would be helpful and would explain to casual readers the (out of n) addition? — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 23:10, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Runner Up or Runner-up
Edited Big Brother 16 to change Runner Up to Runner-up, is this correct ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.230.4 (talk) 02:15, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Annihilation and its impact on the nominations table
Considering the evictees will leave separately on different days and as the result of different decisions (perhaps by different methods, too), shouldn't Week 6 of the nominations table be split into a different column for each eviction as opposed to lumping them all together in one? -StigOfTheKrump (talk) 20:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah I was thinking that after I changed it earlier today. But then again this is a nominations table, not an eviction table. There are multiple evictions from different circumstances but no nominations so the table would literally be a row of 4 maybe 5 columns of "no nominations" in just one week. ThisIsDanny (talk) 21:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * True, but I think it'd be most accurate if there were individual columns for each decision even though it might not be entirely necessary for a nominations table. Plus, the column has Andy as immune for the entire week (I know it's explained in the notes below), even though he wasn't immune for Chelsea's eviction. It's a tricky one. -StigOfTheKrump (talk) 13:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Is it worth having a separate section for Annihilation Week? Like maybe underneath the nominations table. I can't think of another way. ThisIsDanny (talk) 14:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * For day 39 you cannot have a bunch of "no nominations" then show 3 HMs being nominated. The table needs to show who the remaining HMs voted to evict out of the 3 (the 3 were NOT nominated by the way, they were bottom of the public vote - which is not a nomination process.) Leaky  Caldron  14:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Given it was me that changed the table this morning I have to agree with RachelRice's new version of the table, I have edited hers to emphasise Jason's choice to evict Lateysha. In other countries such as Australia when they have evictions like this they are always included in the "VOTING HISTORY TABLE", IIRC we had that title once until someone changed it. Superdry19 (talk) 14:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * @ Leaky Caldron  ok how about for Day 39 we have "Bottom 3" for Laura, Ryan and Sam. Also rather than "no nominations" for the others include who they chose to evict from the "Bottom 3". That would be ideal and consistent with the table contents. Superdry19 (talk) 14:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * SEE NEW TABLE ABOVE Superdry19 (talk) 14:29, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. Just tried to edit same and got an . That is better. Leaky  Caldron  14:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with the changes. It's a nominations table, so eviction voting aren't really necessary. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 14:35, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Living in the past. The days of 10 weeks of simple nominations are a thing of the past. The table needs to reflect the changing nature of selection, by whatever method. Leaky  Caldron  14:39, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * While the changes are correct the table should be renamed to a Voting History table like it used to be, Big Brother doesn't just have regular nominations anymore so these should be included in the table. Exactly what Leaky Cauldron says stop living in the past. Superdry19 (talk) 14:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Votes to evict are NOT nominations so stop adding them in the table. A note at the bottom is fine. --MSalmon (talk) 15:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you going to change all the other series to include the votes to evict then to keep it consistent? --MSalmon (talk) 15:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to the inclusion of votes to evict, but if that's going to be the general consensus, then we should change other series' to match. Also, I'd request "Nominated" rather than "Bottom 3", for consistency also. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 15:39, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I have changed it back to nominations table, included to evict in Day 39 column and changed Bottom three to Nominated. --MSalmon (talk) 15:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * They were not nominated. They were bottom three of a public vote. I'm changing it back. Leaky  Caldron  15:43, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Would you mind changing the other series to include the votes to evict. Thanks. --MSalmon (talk) 15:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, actually I would mind. I don't care about previous series. As I have told you in the past, circumstances change. The way in which eviction has moved on. Why on earth don't you stop living in the past and stop concerning yourself with everything "looking the same". The simple facts are that nominations represent only about 50% the methods used to select evictions and the old style table of nominations is barely suitable. At least with the amendments made by it can last one more season.  Leaky  Caldron  16:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * So... what makes the votes to evict in this series so different to those in past series, that it should only be the case that we include them in this series? Blimey, I'm starting to regret bringing the issue up in the first place... — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 16:14, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Because someone has finally had the balls to stand up to your prehistoric viewpoint. Stop living in the past and stop introducing false and misleading info. because you want to stick by a 2004 table style no longer fit for purpose. Leaky  Caldron  16:19, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Just because some people disagree with it doesn't mean you can talk to people like that. --MSalmon (talk) 16:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Day 36, Jason did not nominate Lateysha, he evicted her. It looks like there there "no nominations" but somehow Jason did, so if we're considering it as a nomination when it so blatantly isn't, shouldn't everyone else be "not eligible"? Again Day 39 are not nominations, there's nothing wrong with it being included in the notes who evicted who, or even in the Weekly Summary above, or even a separate section underneath about Annihilation Week. And "Bottom 3"? I'm getting X Factor vibes we're going down the wrong route. ThisIsDanny (talk) 20:39, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with splitting the table into 3 for Week 6, it's a lot easier to understand. I just don't see how votes to evict should be listed as nominations. ThisIsDanny (talk) 20:44, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If it is a nominations only table NOTHING else should be included, including any notes relating to twists, evictions, fake evictions and any or non-nomination material. This includes similar material in all previous articles. Make you choice, either make the sensible amendment proposed by or remove all non-nomination content from the table.  Leaky  Caldron  20:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * To the gang of three here - BE WARNED - I have tracked and noted your behaviour for several series. Further reversal of WP:BOLD changes without discussion will be referred for Admin attention. You are working together to effectively own this series of articles and that is not on, I'm afraid. Leaky  Caldron  20:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No that's why the notes are there. They're there to explain complicated weeks like last week. It's not a case of if the votes to evicts aren't included neither are the notes, two wrongs don't make a right. ThisIsDanny (talk) 20:56, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Have to agree with you there Leaky  Caldron  some people (ThisIsDanny, RachelRice included) do think that EVERY Big Brother and Celebrity Big Brother page are ONLY theirs to edit and if anyone else dares to challenge their edits or views they undo all edits. Superdry19 (talk) 20:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "Gang of three" is a bit strong, you're getting personal. We're simply discussing, we're all individuals. Three people having the same opinion is not a gang. You are the ones getting personal when you disagree with us. ThisIsDanny (talk) 21:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If you look at this section I have always been up for discussing Annihilation Week and the noms table. I am not saying I disagree with you, calm down. I am trying to come up with a compromise. I haven't just disregarded completely. I reverted an edit about half an hour ago before I seen that this had been discussed on here. It's unfair that you're considering me, RachelRice and MSalmon a gang. The BB and CBB articles usually go straight forward except the odd disagreement over nominations table when these complicated twists come in - to which we discuss it on the talk page then get abuse for all 3 of us agreeing with one another. ThisIsDanny (talk) 21:08, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You and Salmon do it all the time. You just steam in and revert with puerile edit summaries ("It's not difficult to understand.") dismissing valid ideas as if others were simpletons. It is unacceptable - I have the evidence - and AN/I is a click away. You absolutely do not discuss - you revert, revert and revert again until you realise you cannot get away with it. For example, where was your discussion before revert. The discussion was here - you did not discuss it before reverting. Leaky  Caldron  21:14, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I admit today I just seen the message on my talk page about people changing the table so I reverted without looking on here first. I'm not getting into an argument because it's silly. The threats are a bit strange though - almost as if you're saying it's your way or we all suffer. But never mind, we're all showing we're open to discussion now but instead we're getting shot down. I also don't think we're living in the past, we're just trying to be consistent. ThisIsDanny (talk) 21:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 2 things. Who did the message come from? That is effectively team work to maintain your preferred version. Second, the AN/I will relate to your refusal to discuss and behaviour with Salmon in preserving your version without discussing other ideas put forward in good faith. Yes you are trying to be consistent - with an out of date table no longer fit for purpose. Leaky  Caldron  21:29, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I admit that I reverted without reading the talk page but I did voice my opinion which had no impact whatsoever. I don't really mind how the table look to be honest but it just seems weird having votes to evict in a nominations table. --MSalmon (talk) 21:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "Votes to evict are NOT nominations so stop adding them in the table. A note at the bottom is fine." Wow, some discussion that. Sounds more like a direction, like "I know best" Leaky  Caldron  21:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not getting involved any more, you can sort it out amongst yourselves. --MSalmon (talk) 21:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I will also be removing myself from this; I don't care what the consensus is, just as long as it's the same for all series. MSalmon and I at no point disagreed with you or tried to "preserve our version", and I personally was accepting of the changes. The consistency is purely for the benefit of the reader and on this site, it's the reader that matters. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 21:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I did not say YOU did. Your version is the one that was taken as the basis for the current informative one. But Salmon and TID did revert without discussion and communicated about it. It is admitted by both above. Relevant policy is WP:OWN, examples . From less than a year ago, same 2 people, same behaviour . Leaky  Caldron  21:49, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Nominations Table - purpose
Following on the above, it is an historic logically fallacy to ever have the Final Week results showing in a table who some people insist is a "Nominations only" table. The final week has never (AFAIK) involved any house nominations. It is both a nominations and voting table. Those responsible for insisting that it is a Nomination Table yet are happy to enter final week public VOTING should take a look at themselves. Leaky Caldron  16:37, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm no expert
but this is the first series that the sponsor has not been mentioned. I would add it myself but one of the regulars would get upset and revert it. Leaky Caldron  11:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Sam or Alex first
On the Template and Table who is first out and who is second, when first edited it read Alex and then Sam underneath but now it is opposite. Think someone changed the table then whoever changed it back didn't change Sam and Alex — Preceding unsigned comment added by MidnightSilver (talk • contribs) 14:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sure I read at the time that it was Sam 8th and Alex 7th, which is the order that Zoltar called them up. I'll have to try and find it later though ThisIsDanny (talk) 15:23, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Alex had his interview first followed by Sam, just like Jayne had hers before Evelyn. But if they're not revealing it, we might as well just assume them as joint 8th/joint 7th until we know otherwise. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 16:56, 22 August 2016 (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)