Talk:Celebrity Big Brother (British TV series) series 20

Sandi's killer nomination
where is the evidence for this? Who did she nominate? Leaky Caldron  11:59, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Just caught up and nothing has been mentioned in the show or by Channel 5, not even that Sandi has immunity. In fact we haven't received any news at all regarding nominations as of yet. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 13:25, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

On Launch Night BOTS, Rylan said : 'Shaun chose Sandi as his rock, giving her immunity and a killer nomination...' so I went off this, but I can't find any source for this. I guess it was a slip of tongue or something then, but I guess we'll see at the first noms Kyliechambers99 (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * He meant she was immune from Shaun's killer nomination ThisIsDanny (talk) 00:35, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Week 1 nominations
Since this twist is similar to the Exile/Citizen housemates from BB18, is it worth including in the noms table that they're Private Members' Club housemates, and the others are Riff Raff. Only thing is with this I'm not sure where we'd include Shaun's killer nomination in. Unless it's just in the notes - or a separate column just for Day 1?

Day 17 nominations suggestion
I doubt this change will be implemented (and I can see why: from a consistency point of view, previous series charts in which people gave 4+ nominations per week haven't been changed, and it isn't a particularly big problem in the first place), but I thought I'd suggest an alternative solution anyway as to make the cells look more even height-wise. I wouldn't suggest this if it weren't for the fact that Sam and Sarah gave their killer nominations in two separate sets of two, which I feel could be enough to split the cells in half vertically, but I understand if this isn't seen as a necessary change. After all, it's probably more of a personal preference and that isn't the purpose of Wikipedia.

StigOfTheKrump (talk) 23:01, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Looks good, Sam & Sarah's row looks better that way Reli source (talk) 23:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree that it makes the rows the same height and is therefore better for the table. However, like you say, I'm not convinced it's worth changing only because past series have them all listed together in the same cell. If were to have two separate columns this series we'd have to consider changing past series. ThisIsDanny (talk) 23:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I've just looked back through previous tables where something similar is the case (people giving four or more nominations in one week) and as far as I'm aware, this is the only case in which four nominations have been given as two distinct sets of two, rather than as individual nominations one after another. That might be a justification for changing this one without having to change any others, although ultimately it's not up to me to decide. StigOfTheKrump (talk) 00:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * But what about when they nominate up to 4 or more housemate and it's spread across a number of days/occasions, regardless whether it's in sets of 2 or not? I'm not against this btw, just comparing to past series. Celebrity Big Brother 14 Week 1 for example or Celebrity Big Brother 16 Jenna and Farrah? ThisIsDanny (talk) 00:53, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If I recall correctly, those nominations were all done either in one go (in which case, no need to split them up at all) or one-by-one, in which case you'd have to split the cells into four or five separate sections which would look silly. It's tricky either way because since these types of tables were originally constructed for two people per cell, either we make the cells uneven in height and therefore make the table longer, or we make things a little more complicated by dividing the cells - at least, when it seems appropriate/when the show gives us enough contextual evidence to divide the cells at all. Like I said, I've only suggested this as a potential solution in this case because I feel like it's fairly clear cut that Sam and Sarah made two sets of two nominations, but I wouldn't be opposed to sticking to the current plan if that's the general consensus. StigOfTheKrump (talk) 01:18, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, it's a very minor point, but it was specified that the two sets of nominations were to be carried out via different methods (Paul and Brandi were nominated by someone marking their housemate pictures; Derek and Helen were nominated by someone putting a horse's head in their bed), which leads me to thinking that the show purposely made the distinction between those two sets clear rather than just simply linking them as one. I think it's best to wait until later to decide, and then if we implement the changes and anyone has any objections, we can reconsider or revert back. StigOfTheKrump (talk) 01:39, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll implement this now if that's okay (I probably should have done it before there was another round of nominations, but I thought I'd wait to see if anyone else had anything to add). If anyone has any objections afterwards then we can come back to this page. StigOfTheKrump (talk) 02:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Housemates list
Why has the way the housemates have been listed changed? It now looks... basic - and uninformative. ThisIsDanny (talk) 23:25, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. It's just really complicating things. The section is there to summarize the housemate's time in the house. Including formal warnings, eviction, and very brief outline of who they are and their occupation. MyNameIsASDF (talk) 02:45, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm all for removing crap but I do have to agree the list looks very basic and well ... pointless really ... if kept as is then there's really no point in keeping it at all.... – Davey 2010 Talk 01:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Sounds fine to me. There is far too much pointless detail in the longer version and we certainly can't use tabloid sources like the Mirror on a BLP per WP:BLPSOURCES. --John (talk) 13:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * So if better sources were used it could be kept? Because at the minute it just looks like the list has been thrown together in a rush. "Amelia Lily, singer" is too basic. She's not just a singer, she's appeared on X Factor which is why she's well known, and it needs to say when she entered and left the house. ThisIsDanny (talk) 16:05, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * A list of competitors doesn't need all this excessive content. If you want to add when someone entered or left, that's one thing--but that's already on the page, in that ridiculously bloated, colorful and unclear table. If you wish to add it in the list of competitors, that is, if you want the list of competitors to also include the results of the competition, there is clearly something wrong with the rest of the article. "She's not just a singer, she's appeared on X Factor which is why she's well known" is original research until you prove that she's on there because of X Factor, which seems to me to be a. difficult to prove and b. just absolutely unnecessary. They're on there because they're famous; the rest is redundant. There really is no place on Wikipedia, at least no good place, where we stick in 10k of detail when a mere list of wikilinked entries will do. Drmies (talk) 21:11, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't say she was on there because of X Factor, I said that's how she's well known - or one of the reasons. And surely that's a matter of opinion whether you believe a small list will do. FTR, I agree sometimes there is a lot of information that's probably irrelevant, but I don't agree with this way of listing them. Again, that's a matter of opinion - which is why I took it to the talk page, which might have been a better way of going about it first rather than causing edit wars. Can I also add why, when changing CBB19, you only changed half of the housemates and left the others as they are? ThisIsDanny (talk) 21:31, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Once this page gets unlocked can the housemates section pleae go back to what it is for the CBB2-CBB19 pages please. This basic, and boring, list looks awful and should be reverted. Also no idea why whoever started editing the CBB19 housemates has left the housemates part looking a complete mess, I'd change it back but it will only be reverted. Superdry19 (talk) 03:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Unless as a compromise the housemates section could be like those for CBB1 and all the BBUK pages where there is a simple table to list the housemates but for ALL 20 series a "List of Celebrity Big Brother # housemates" page is created with all the information in the housemates section moved onto those pages instead. Either way the information is needed, this version just looks so wrong. Superdry19 (talk) 01:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought about that the other day. So perhaps, but it seems like a lot of effort when IMO it would still look better the way it was. The only issue with the original way was excessive information and sources. The information could easily be cut down and the sources could easily be changed. But it's up to them, I don't think our input is even considered. ThisIsDanny (talk) 09:08, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Ratings
Now that we can't edit the page, is there anyway somebody who can (not sure who), can update the ratings table?

ThisIsDanny (talk) 20:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Celebrity Big Brother 2 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:46, 19 September 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 05:23, 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 12:32, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Trisha Paytas's Pronouns
Hi, can I have clarification as to why my update to Trisha Payta's section was reverted please? I thought that pronouns are to be changed retro-actively when an individual announces any pronoun change. They announced today on multiple platforms that they are non-binary and their pronouns are they/them and we should respect their wishes. I stated that in my reasons for editing.


 * Not the reverter but I assume because she identified as her back in 2017, We shouldn't change pronouns where at the time they only identified as her, Also my own personal opinion but Paytas always without fail jumps on every bandwagon there is so IMHO her "wishes" should be ignored anyway. – Davey 2010 Talk 21:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Davey, that's not what Wikipedia's policy on retroactive pronouns is though. Pronouns are to be changed retroactively. Your personal opinions on them don't dictate anything - why do other trans people's pronouns get changed on this site and not Paytas's, especially when you personally don't need to change them, I took the time to do that. Pronouns are not peoples 'wishes' they are paramount to someone's gender identity and should be respected, regardless of who it is. I don't think it's appropriate as editors of Wikipedia to let our personal judgments cloud whether or not we give the basic decency of referring to someone by the pronouns they wish to be referred to by. The fact that you purposefully use the wrong pronouns in your response speaks volumes. Catrosenight (talk) 15:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As I said I'm not the reverter - You're more than welcome to ask the reverter on their talkpage. I'm not actually on what should be done as there was a lot of hoo-har with Eliot Page and her articles although I've since looked at Juno (film) and that's ben updated to his name.
 * In regards to your last point - No I didn't purposefully use the wrong pronouns I just didn't think. (I've nearly stumbled on Elliots pronouns too it's just what I've ben used to saying so sort of weird adjusting if that makes sense). Anyway as I said you're more than welcome to ask the reverter, start an RFC or maybe ask elsewhere. Thanks. – Davey 2010 Talk 19:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)