Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Big Brother/Archive 2

Separate Article
I think that the whole racism controversy deserves its own separate article due to its international political ramifications. Although the section on this article is good, I don't think it is anywhere near describing everything that happened as a news event in itself. I would strongly support the creation of a separate article (for example, Big Brother racism controversy (2007) where the whole story can be described in full. As far as I am aware there is precedence for this in Wikipedia and it shouldn't be too hard for editors who are willing to put the work in.

I've been inserting, organising and maintaining the information at Shilpa_Shetty which is understandably far too large and will be significantly pruned once the controversy is over, but it's a shame to see all of that go to waste. There are plenty of references there for use and other developments haven't been discussed, for example, Cameron's and Livingstone's comments as well as comments from the Indian politicians.

So there it is: A separate article? Ekantik talk 06:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Voting history
Comparing the housemates table and the [Big Brother (USA season X) voting history] table, I feel that there is no clear need for a separate article where there is only a table of voting history. The housemates table is a summarised form, but the space taken up in the article is not dramatically shortened, I have therefor reintegrated these into the respective cycle, in place of the Housemates' table. Ohconfucius 04:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I Have an Idea
I think that we should start to doing article asessments and such to mark the improvement of articles in the scope? Does anybody have any thoughts on this? FireSpike 22:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, seems like a good idea. What I've seen a lot of WikiProjects do is on the WikiProject template, have spaces for the quality and the importance of each article, e.g. the WikiProject for airports has this page.
 * Regarding the importance, the Big Brother articles seem to be set out in a rough hierarchy, with Big Brother (TV series) at the top then the articles for each country, then each series, then some of the housemates. In addition to that, there are a few other articles such as List of Big Brother 2006 housemates (UK) that have mostly been split off from articles in the main hierarchy. I think for rating the importance, every article on each 'rank' of the hierarchy would need to be given the same rating, with higher ratings for articles at the top of the hierarchy, and with articles that have been split off from another article having perhaps a slightly lower rating than the article they were split from.
 * As for the quality rating for each article, I've noticed there's a definite trend for articles for series in later years and in the English language being of a higher quality than articles in the early 2000s or in foreign languages. This would probably be because there would have been less editors writing about them when the series were being broadcast, or less English speakers watching the programmes so they received less attention. I think giving quality ratings would help to highlight this. Tra (Talk) 23:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Awesome! I'll likely get started on that soon. FireSpike 00:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've created WikiProject Big Brother/Assesment. It has zillions of red links at the moment but hopefully it can form the basis for the ratings. Tra (Talk) 01:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * So, let's see, how I can I start out? What would be the first thing to do? FireSpike 02:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The articles will need to have individual tags on their talk pages depending on their importance and quality. Importance should be pretty easy since it's reasonably clear-cut (however, you might want to check what I put down for the criteria and maybe change it) but quality will require looking through the article in detail. It might be easier to start with labelling the importance for everything then moving on to quality. Tra (Talk) 03:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've done all the importance ratings, now we need to move on to quality. Tra (Talk) 17:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll take the USA version stuff and do quality ratings for that first since I know about that more than the other countries. FireSpike 20:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's unnecessary and an article isn't going to get more attention because somebody's put a tag on the talk page that says it's not good enough. J Di 01:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Not from people like you at least. -- Majorly  (o rly?) 01:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Work via Wikiprojects explains what the whole system's all about, if that's any use. Tra (Talk) 01:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I still think it's unnecessary, for now at least. J Di 01:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * J Di, quit being such a misery guts and lighten up a bit. Working to improve articles is only a good thing and all you're doing by saying "it's unnecessary" is making the atmosphere sour, and helping no one. Please stop. -- Majorly  (o rly?) 01:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't need to lighten up, I need you to stop trying to put me down every time the opportunity presents itself. If you have a problem with my comments, read around them.  J Di 02:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not just for evaluating Big Brother-related articles; the whole thing's part of a wider project to see which of the most important articles are of a high quality and suitable for inclusion for WP:1.0. Tra (Talk) 02:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I know what it's for, but how article importance and quality should be rated was decided pretty quickly and with hardly any discussion (two days and two people). What I don't like about it is how importance is decided solely on what the subject of the article is or does, rather than whether or not they actually mean anything.  Tim Ferguson, for example, I would say is not highly important as he presented only one show of one season of Big Brother Australia.  Bree Amer, on the other hand, is much more important than, say, Blair McDonough, as she has hosted a show that has lasted two seasons of Big Brother Australia and its spin-off.  If we're keeping this horrible ratings scale thing, we should use it more effectively and with more input from the people.  J Di 15:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I see your point. As for the Bree Amer case, I didn't notice that she was also a presenter and as soon as I read that she was a housemate, I gave her Mid. Now that you've mentioned that she was also a presenter, I've upgraded her and Ryan Fitzgerald's importance to High. I don't really know about Ryan Fitzgerald Tim Ferguson. The article says He hosted a talkback radio show in 2003 on 3AK, in addition to being a host of Big Brother. This seems to imply that he hosted several episodes, and not just one. Perhaps that should be changed? One idea might be to expand the Mid class to include presenters that had a very minor role, but then you have the problem of deciding what a minor role is. As for having more input from the people, the assessment page currently points towards this talk page for any queries or confusion regarding assessments, in order to keep discussion centralised. Maybe it could have its own page? Tra (Talk) 18:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this'll take more than just expanding classes, as there would still be the problem of other articles being forced into incorrect/unsuitable categories. I think time, media attention, and possibly popularity, as well as general importance, should be taken into account when deciding how important an article is.  From what I can tell, an article for the Celebrity Big Brother UK 2007 controversy would be rated mid- or low-class but because it was commented on a lot by the media, it should probably be rated top-class.  I would also rate John de Mol mid- or low-class because although he created the show, he's done his job and he's no longer involved in many series.


 * I'm not sure how useful a separate talk page for the assessments stuff would be because it's not as though this page gets much attention, but this discussion is getting quite long.


 * As for the Ryan Fitzgerald thing, what article is that italicised text from? I can't find it in Big Brother Australia or Ryan Fitzgerald.  J Di 18:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Whoops, wrong link, I was talking about Tim Ferguson, not Ryan Fitzgerald. As for media attention etc, maybe the assessment page should say that if the subject of an article receives a lot of media attention or becomes very well known then it should be put up one or a few classes, and if its role in Big Brother was very small then it should be put down a class. Tra (Talk) 19:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Making that change to the importance scale would make things a bit easier, but there would probably still be problems. I think we should use Importance Scheme as the criteria on it now are relevant to Big Brother and are similar to what you use to decide how articles should be rated.  J Di 20:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that template's got the right sort of idea but on its own, it seems a bit too vague. Maybe the comments in it should be added as an extra column to the current importance table, and the instructions should say something like as a general rule, the notability criteria should be used, but if that is unclear then the criteria in the existing table should be used. Tra (Talk) 20:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That sounds good. J Di 20:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Big Brother 8 UK
The first report of when BB8 will begin were in yesterday's Daily Star stating the eighth series will begin on the 30th May 2007 and finish on 31st August 2007, 94 days later, the day the lease expires. I would expect Channel 4 to start advertising it next Friday. Darrenhusted 18:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this should be added to the article.  Majorly   (hot!)  18:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It was just a heads up in case a creation is attempted before the ads begin, but I think next Friday is the most likely date for the ads to start. Darrenhusted 19:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, we know it starts the 30th! I can't wait until we get to the official Big Brother editing season!!! FireSpike 02:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Article Collaboration
Taking the idea from a number of other WikiProjects, I think that we should have an Article for Improvement every month. What does everyone else think of this? Geoking 66 talk 20:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Possibly... my main concern is that the WikiProject itself doesn't receive much activity, and most effort tends to go towards the articles about series that are currently airing. Tra (Talk) 21:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if this is off topic in this section, but how can I join this WikiProject? Can I just add my name to the list on the project page? I'd like to help keep the US BB page up-to date :) --CamsWatchin 05:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Big Brother UK terminology
On the BB8 UK page there is a number of changes that editors are trying to make, and are making them to the one page (the current series) unilaterally, not taking in to account that these changes will then affect all 10 previous BB and CBB series. The debate hinges on whether Walked is clear enough for people to understand and whether Ejected conveys someone being removed from the house accurately enough. The language of BBUK is clear enough but these changes could lead to edit wars if the consensus is not established early on (there are eleven more weeks to go). As this affects so many project pages I felt the discussion should be brought to the project page rather than taking place on one series talk page. Darrenhusted 14:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Walked / Withdrawn / Left voluntarily
Maybe the name should be changed to DOR or Dismissal on Request, as it is the official term for BBUSA--Rjd0060 23:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

No nominations / Not eligible / Ineligible / Can't nominate / Couldn't nominate / Could not nominate
It seems from the consensus reached on Talk:Big Brother 2007 (UK) this should be "Ineligable". John Hayes 14:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I prefer "no nominations" because it looks nice on the table but also it's because that's what's been used for previous series. "Not eligible" is OK but it's not as accurate and "Ineligible" looks stupid. If we can't agree on terminology, then it should just be a grey square. Geoking 66 talk 20:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "no nominations" implies that there were no nominations at all, which is not the case. Also the previous series have been changed as well.John Hayes 23:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It only technically implies no nominations if it is a rowspan of all the housemates combined. By simply putting it in one of the boxes, then it says that there were no nominations from that particular housemate that week. Geoking 66 talk 04:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * On a personal level I agree with you, but it seems that's not so clear cut for everyone, so if it could potentially confuse, then it shouldn't be used for that. Also there is some value in keeping "no nominations" for when there are no nominations at all (as Xy says below). John Hayes 07:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I prefer either "not eligible" or "ineligible" – both are grammatically correct, the first being the dictionary definition of the latter. So, I think it's safe to use either of them in the article. However, I think "not eligible" does look better when in the table. Also agree with John; "no nominations" makes it sound as if there were no nominations for the entire week, so the terminology "no nominations" should be reserved for cases like those. Just my thoughts. —  Xy 7  05:31, 15 June 2007
 * We could use something like "can't nominate", couldn't we? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.66.2.250 (talk) 08:45, 15 June, 2007 (UTC)
 * If we used that it probably should be in past tense though, so "Couldn't nominate", or "Could not nominate". John Hayes 10:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I prefer "not eligible", and "no nominations" only for when nobody nominated. &mdash; AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 10:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think "Not eligable" is what should be used. Reason being, compared to "Ineligable" it shows that there were some housemates who were eligable, but they were not one of them. It's certainly clearer than "no nominations" (as they were nominations), and is much better than "can/could not nominate" which could indicate they were banned, and is pretty elementary english anyway139.184.30.16 11:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Could not nominate is clear enough, if someone is banned then the legend Banned is used, and the box is coloured red. Darrenhusted 11:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Against public vote / Nominated
Every week most housemates receive nominations from other housemates and most housemates get "nominated". Even though the though the two housemates with the most nominations are "Against public vote", Big Brother, Big Brother's Little Brother, other associated shows and the Big Brother website always refers solely to these two housemates as the "Nominated Housemates". Therefore I think "Against public vote" should be changed to "Nominated" as this is the way the terminology is used by Big Brother and all associated shows and its website. Also, the box with the list of housemates at the top of Big Brother articles says "Nominated" in the legend and not "Against public vote".
 * I'm happy with either, but what Big Brother uses is not important to this discussion, but rather what someone who has never seen Big Brother is most likely to understand. I would suggest that while most people would understand what Nominated means, they might not understand what the effects of Nominated are, whereas Against public vote clarifies this. John Hayestalk 12:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Nomination twist / Nomination note / Notes
I think this should be changed in the nomination tables to something different because anything that's different to the norm isn't always a twist set by Big Brother but sometimes a result of new housemates not being eligible or people being banned from nominating, etc. &mdash; AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 21:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * How would you suggest it should be changed? John Hayestalk 23:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I dunno. "Nomination note"? &mdash; AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 14:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds better to me. John Hayestalk 14:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have changed in Big Brother 2007 (UK). John Hayestalk 16:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And the other relevant UK Big Brother, Celebrity Big Brother and Teen Big Brother articles. John Hayestalk 16:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the recent changed someone did. The row header is now just Notes, which i think is more appropriate as the footnotes are not always about nominations. -- Halo2  Talk 16:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine. John Hayes - On Vacationtalk 16:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this should apply to all BB articles like the US and AU articles. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 06:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons - and Big Brother articles
I think that older Big Brother series articles which are largely unreferenced are actually a liability as far as WP:BLP is concerned. Since they contain information on multiple living persons, some of which is controversial, they are one to watch for BLP violations already. For example, the Big Brother UK 2005 article states that Kinga Karokzak is "infamous for, at the peak of her drunken craziness, lying in the garden and masturbating with a wine bottle." This statement is not cited. Incredibly bad BLP violation, even if it is true.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 09:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I cited it, but these types of statements are worth looking out for and sourcing if necessary.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 09:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I totally agree, this year and last year are not perfect, but much better than the rest.John Hayes 10:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Last year's one is GA, so pretty much as good as a BB article is likely to get.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 11:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Unimportant Information
According to the guidelines at WikiProject_Big_Brother a lot of the information in the housemates section on the Big Brother 2007 (UK) shouldn't be included. Either the guideslines need to be updated, or the article stripped down. I feel there is a case for sexuality to be included, where known, as this can have a relevant impact on events in the house, but things like Seany attending the Michael Jackson trial are irrelevant. John Hayes 16:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Prune away, we're only three weeks in, with ten to go, this article can't expand fives times to what it is now. Darrenhusted 16:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I wonder if there would be any value in creating a housemate template, with variables for name, full name, dob, etc. John Hayes 22:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

On a related note, the list of housemates at Big Brother 2007 (UK) has recently been resorted by surname instead of first name (see discussion). For consistency, the lists for other series should probably be sorted that way too. Does anybody object to this? Tra (Talk) 14:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Go for it. John Hayestalk 08:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As consensus regarding this matter has since changed, I think I'll leave them for now. Tra (Talk) 01:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Organising Housemates By Last Name
I've brought this up on the Big Brother 8 UK Talk Page, but I would like to put it here. I do not agree with arranging the housemates by their last names. Big Brother does not release their last names, and orders them by their first names, which is why I see no need for us to do otherwise. Also, fansites, and dedicated Big Brother sections, such as those by Virgin Media and Digital Spy also organise them by their first name. Just my two cents.Babygurl1853 17:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes but it is wikipedia policy to order by last name. John Hayestalk 08:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with arranging them by last name either. I agree with Babygurl1853. Also I can't find who I'm looking for because I only know them but their first names. &mdash; AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 22:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say it's that clear-cut. The page I think is being referred to is a guideline about how to sort categories. Since this is a set of sections and not a category, it would have slightly different characteristics etc so the guideline is useful but it's not binding in same way as e.g. WP:3RR. Tra (Talk) 01:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's true, I didn't actually check it in any detail. I think though, as the arguement is that Big Brother only uses the first names, we should only refer to them by their firstnames, with the exception of the first line of the info in the housemates section, but all infoboxes and headings should be first name only. That way a good compromise is reached (and probably makes most sense). John Hayestalk 09:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Total number of nominations
I would like to remove the total number of nominations table from the Big Brother articles. I suggest this as I think it adds nothing to the article, total nominations is not a concept which is used in UK Big Brother, or in other Big Brothers as far as I am aware, and isn't even that useful, as by it's nature it will tend to be biased (at least at the lower end) towards housemates who have been in the house longer. If anyone really wants this info they are able to quite easily find it out from the nominations table. If there is a Big Brother series which does use this concept then it should remain, but otherwise I do not see its benefit to the article. John Hayestalk 16:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, and think it should either be removed, or changed to show how many nominations each person got each week, like the second table suggested here. &mdash; AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 21:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I wonder if we could simply add a column for each week to the nominations table, to list how many nominations they got. John Hayestalk 22:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What would that look like? &mdash; AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 21:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Big Brother 8 (US/CBS)
Someone has set up a copy of Big Brother 8 (US), known as Big Brother 8 (US/CBS). A speedy deletion tag has been placed and we need to work together to make sure that the original article remains intact and that this new one be deleted ASAP. I thought that I'd inform everyone (and thanks to Jeeny for delivering the news to me. Geoking 66 talk 03:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to say that as it's creator, I take personal resposibility for creating it. Reading the talk pages it seemed as if a second artical be the only solution for those that wanted a referance to the show but not unaired information material on the regular show. As the show wraps up the two could be merged and this one deleted. This is done as a proposal to release tension in the community.

The other proposal if using after hours for this would create the same reasoning for the deleation of this artical. This is just my rebuttal, and reasoning.Thee17 03:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Eviction at the finales?
Are housemates "evicted" at the Finale? They all get to leave anyway. -- Howard  the   Duck  16:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In the UK version, Channel 4 classes all the housemates in the finale as 'evicted' apart from the winner, with the housemate in second place referred to either as the runner up or as evicted. On Wikipedia, this classification is also used in the infoboxes, but in the nominations table they're listed as first,second, third place etc. I don't know about other countries. Tra (Talk) 16:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In the US version, a jury of seven evicted houseguests chose between the last two people left in the house to receive the grand prize. Alucard 16 02:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

End game info box
Could someone who knows how, fix this template so that the text does not butt up against the infobox. For example See here and here. I guess they're the same template so changing it will fix all the articles that have it. I really think it looks bad, and makes the text hard to read when it butts up against it. Thanks in advance for any help on this. - Jeeny Talk 17:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Responded at Template talk:Big Brother endgame. Tra (Talk) 23:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Big Brother 2006 (UK) reomved as a GA
See comments on that article's talk page. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 14:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Colors (or Colours)
We are having a discussion over at Big Brother 8 (US) about what color would we use if someone walked out of the house. Currently with the infobox the color that other Big Brother shows use for Walked/Voluntary Left houseguests (or housemates) is the color we use to identify the current HoH. In Big Brother 2 (US) and Big Brother 4 (US) there have been contestants that have been expelled (or ejected) from the game. So I have two ideas and I am bringing this over here to the BB Project page so we all can make a solid decision on what to do. If a houseguest (or housemate) decided to leave the BB 8 US house what color should we use? My thoughts were to see if the infobox could be modified to include another color or use the color that we would normally use for expelled houseguests if someone walked off the show this season. But my worry is if we use the color that is normally used for expelled houseguests that newcomers would get confused when looking back at BB2 and BB4. So what do you all think we should do? Alucard 16 18:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * See this section, Voting history table, where the color is pink for "walked". #FFCCFF. I also don't understand why the colors differ in the info box from the voting history table. Why is that? - Jeeny Talk 18:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Secret Story
I've just translated the whole article of Secret Story (TV series) from the French wiki. What needs to be done to it now, WPBB wise, and can someone please do it? Cheers...  godgoddingham  333  00:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It looks great! I'm not sure how to add it to templates etc, though, since there is also Loft Story that broadcast in France. It seems that this series is meant to follow on from that one. If so, what should be the article that covers Big Brother in France in general? Tra (Talk) 01:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * How about a Big Brother (France) page, and a link to the two, with short paras explaining the differences, the reason for the change etc? Also, do you know how to get the picture of the logo from the french page onto the english page?  godgoddingham  333  01:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That might work, the only problem is that the series isn't called Big Brother at all in France; they only seem to use "... Story" style names. As for the logo, the only way to use the same image across multiple projects is to upload it to Commons. Since Commons doesn't accept fair use images, it would need to be uploaded separately onto the English Wikipedia. Tra (Talk) 01:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, yeh. Anyone else got any ideas? btw, can someone get the ineligible colour on to week 6 on the noms table. i can't get it to work with the line seperator in week 5... thanks  godgoddingham  333  13:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Nomination/Voting History Table & Infobox Colors
I am proposing a change to the colors in the Nomination/Voting Tables and the Infoboxes used with Big Brother articles. I think it would be better for all articles if the Infoboxes and the Tables use the same colors to identify who is Nominated, Evicted, Walked, and/or Ejected/Expelled. If the Infoboxes and Tables use the same colors there will be less confusion plus there will be a better continuity sense between all articles no matter if it is the UK version or the US version. Here is what I have in mind:

Colors for both the Infobox and Tables All colors are meant for all series unless noted. - Nominated - Exempt (Other Articles) / Head of Household (US Articles) (This color would only be in the Big Brother housemates infobox since it is only needed during an active US season.) - Evicted/Re-Evicted - Walked - Ejected/Expelled

Colors for Tables only - Banned - Exempt (US Articles)

Mainly, the tables would have the same colors that they have right now except for Ejected/Expelled would be the orange color instead of a lighter shade of the eviction color; Nominated in the US Articles would use the color in the Infobox instead using the color for Banned; I propose a green color for Exempt in the US articles since Head of Household is using this color as in US articles. Since three houseguests were Exempt from being nominated for eviction in Season 8 of the US version. This would cause the least confusion in the US articles.

This would cause the least change in the tables and editing the Infobox templates is easy (for me), and if this is good for everyone, the only thing in the tables that would need to be changed is the Ejected/Expelled color and the Nominated color in the US articles. Since I suggested the color change, if everyone is ok I don't mind going through all the articles to make the appropriate changes. Alucard 16 05:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, but please use the same hues for different colors, because if the color is dark, and text is black, it's hard to read. - Jeeny Talk 05:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I was bored and couldn't sleep so I was playing in my sandbox (heh... sandbox) and here are some examples of what the infoboxes would look like if I made the colors similar to the Nominations/Voting History Tables. I had to change the colors of legend3 and legend5 when I made them due to the Australian Big Brother. See some examples in my sandbox. If anyone has anything to say please let me know. Alucard 16 09:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I would say that the best way to do this would be this:

- Nominated - Walked - Evicted/Re-Evicted - Get rid, too close to the Evicted color - Ejected/Expelled - Head of Household (Big Brother US Only) - Extra Color

Of course, I only mean that these should apply to the Infobox. Not the nomination tables. Nominations Tables ought to stay the way they are as of now. T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 05:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I see your point but if we want to leave the tables the way they are right now then it would be easier to make the colors of the Infoboxes match the colors of the Tables. If we have a more uniform look between the two it can cut down on confusion. I know when I first found out about Wikipedia I was afraid of editing any Big Brother articles at first because I was confused by the different colors used between the Infobox and the Tables. So my goal with the whole color change of the Infoboxes is so they will be in sync with the Tables. That way only one color means one thing instead of two colors meaning one thing. The colors the Tables use seem to work regardless if it is a US, UK or AU Big Brother article, so I think the Infoboxes should try to match the Tables when possible. So by making Walked   in the Infobox it now matches the table. Since    is used to identify the HoH in Voting History Tables it is only right that the color for the HoH match the tables. The only color on the table I have a problem with is the "Ejected" color. I think the color on the table for an ejected housemate should be    since the lighter shade of the eviction color is used with the Infoboxes. Here is an example of a voting history table with the Ejected color being orange . But we can talk more about changing the color on the table later. But here is what I propose the color scheme should be for the Infoboxes so they will match the Tables better:

- Nominated - Head of Household (Big Brother US Only) - Evicted/Re-Evicted - Walked - Ejected/Expelled - Extra Color 1 - Extra Color 2 Alucard 16 06:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * So is that okay that I change the Infoboxes to match the Nominations/Voting History tables with the colors above? Since I suggested it I will do all the work. And is it okay that we change the color for Ejected housemates from   to    ? If no one wants me to change the tables at this time I won't but I would at least like to have the Infoboxes colors match the Nominations/Voting History tables colors as best as they can. I will do all the work updating if everyone is ok. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 03:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess if no one else has anything to say then I guess it is ok if I make the changes to the infobox. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 05:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me, go for it. John Hayestalk 07:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Since you and Jeeny said ok I am going for it. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 09:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I just changed the templates so that "HoH" and "Walk" match the Nominations/Voting History table. I changed the "Eject" color on the Nominations/Voting History tables to the color used in the Infoboxes. That was part of the discussion. The colors for "HoH", "Walk", and "Eject" are now separate from "legend3" and "legend5". Basically to make "Walk" appear you need in the legend part "legendwalk" and in the status of the housemate you need "walk" in order to get the correct color up. To see an example of both the Big Brother housemates Infobox and Big Brother endgame Infobox with all the statuses please see my sandbox. This creates a uniform look between the Infoboxes and Tables no matter if it is the US, UK, AU, or any Big Brother series. I have made all the changes to the Infoboxes so they work and any Nominations/Voting History table I have changed the eviction color to the one used in the Infoboxes. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 09:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Good work. I think what we need to do, to keep the tables consistent, is to create a template for the Nominations Table, so that all the labels and colours are the same in all tables. Otherwise anyone can change them to whatever they want. John Hayestalk 15:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Very nice. :) Thank you. Now are the voting history tables going to match those colors too? Right?. - Jeeny Talk 16:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The only color that needed changing the Nominations/Voting History tables was the "Ejected" color and if you look at Big Brother 2 (US) and Big Brother 2007 (UK) I have changed that. The "Walked" color is the same for both tables. And the "Evicted" color used in the Infoboxes is just a lighter shade of that used in the tables because if we used the one in the tables it is hard to read in the infoboxes. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 22:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Big Brother: After Dark
I have proposed some changes to the structure of article for Big Brother: After Dark that calls for splitting it up and I would like the feedback of the project.

Please see the talk page at Talk:Big Brother: After Dark to discuss what I'm proposing. --William Graham talk 16:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Seeing Double
Okay why does Big Brother Australia 2006 have a separate page for their nomination table (Big Brother Australia 2006 nominations table) AND the main article has the same table (Big_Brother_%28Australia_series_6%29)? I recently discovered this when I was adjusting the links to link properly in the nominations and voting history section. And I noticed that the table of BB AU 2006 has the table on a separate page and in the article itself so what should we do? ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 08:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Since they're almost exactly the same, I redirected the table on the separate page to point to the series article. Tra (Talk) 11:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tra. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 20:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Chronology Table
Could we maybe change the Chronology/Recap/etc. tables to look something like in Big Brother 6 (US) with an Events column for anything that happens in the house, and then a competition table for all the competitions the HGs have to perform. I find that it makes it easier and faster to find information. - zachinthebox 20:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I like that actually easier to read. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 05:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Reality TV star noteability guidelines
Hello, I've just created a seperate page proposing guidlines for noteability of Reality TV contestants and if they should have their own articles. I did this due to the mass number of articles being created and deleted on these subjects in recent months, and confusion among editors if they are in fact noteable or not. You can read this here. All edits and comments on the talk page are welcome. Thanks, Dalejenkins | 18:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC).

I don't think it is time to create this yet...
I don't think it is time for Big Brother 2008 (UK) to be created yet. Someone created it should it be deleted? ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 17:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably yes. John Hayestalk 20:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Some consideration should be given to the fact that BB9 auditions start in November, rather than January as they have done since BB5. It is not worth starting an article for BB9 yet but when it is started a note about auditions should be added. Darrenhusted 13:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Big Brother naming
Why do the various Big Brother articles use different naming conventions? For example Big Brother 2007 (UK). I don't think I have heard it refered to as Big Brother 2007, if anything Big Brother 8 (UK) (like the US) would be better. Between US, Pinoy, UK and Australia we seem to have 4 different styles of naming, for as far as I can tell, no good reason. John Hayestalk 07:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the different naming conventions arise from people discussing article names only within the context of one country, and any resulting changes being implemented only in the articles for that country. As for the name of the most recent series of Big Brother UK, I've head Channel 4 refer to it as Big Brother 8, Big Brother 2007 and BB8 interchangeably.
 * The reason why this particular naming scheme is used is because this page was discovered, implying that the previous series of Celebrity Big Brother was called series 7. Later on, it was noted that referring to it as series 5 was more common, and that several other websites also referred to it as series 5. To resolve the ambiguity, it was decided to refer to the Celebrity Big Brother articles by year rather than by series number. For consistency, the normal Big Brother articles were renamed as well.
 * Personally, I agree that having more consistent article names would be good, although it may be difficult to find a naming system that suits multiple countries with different systems. Tra (Talk) 11:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well that goes some way to explaining it. If it was changed, we would keep the redirect anyway (as there is now), so really it is just an issue of semantics. I suggest we look through the various options that are being used now, and see if one of them can be used for all series, across all countries. John Hayestalk 12:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, just read that discussion on CBB 3/5 4/6 etc. That all sounded like one big mess, and not one that I would want to get into, so that would pretty much rule out naming by series number. So if anything it would probably have to be year, but I'm not too sure how much this would suit other Big Brothers. John Hayestalk 12:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And by looking at the US series, it is pretty clear that they are known by their series number. I think with that the renaming might have died a death. John Hayestalk 12:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) The problem with naming each series by year is that some countries may have multiple series in one year (e.g. Gran Hermano seasons 1 and 2), or a series that spans between two or more years (e.g. Big_Brother_Germany). There is also the issue of some countries giving official, unambiguous names to the series and it may be preferable to use those rather than 'assigning' them a name. Tra (Talk) 12:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree. John Hayestalk 13:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

My thought on the whole thing is we keep the American articles the same as they are now. With the United Kingdom articles we, again, keep the same naming scheme due to the whole CBB 3/5 4/6 etc. thing. With the Australian articles I guess they follow the same as the UK articles since they do anyway. The Pinoy Big Brother articles are fine since they follow their naming scheme. Now for the rest, they need a solid naming scheme is my view. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 13:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Power of Veto Page
Guys the PoV page is nominated for Deletion and currently there are four votes for Delete and one to Keep (me) and I am posting here since this is the project after all. So please voice your opinion on this matter. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 16:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm tending towards merge. Sorry. John Hayestalk 22:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Me too merge, so it's not lost. - Jeeny Talk 23:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That's OK I put the basic in the main article in case of Merge or Deletion. The Diamond Veto should get mention only in Big Brother 4 (US) since it was only used that season so it don't clutter up the main article. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 01:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Amanda & Sam
Assuming that Amanda & Sam Marchant's single charts this weekend (yes I know assumptions are dangerous), they would qualify for their own article under WP:MUSIC. I suggest if this is the case that the article be created from the content of List of Big Brother 2007 housemates (UK) with that section thinned out just to include Big Brother related information, and basic Big Brother information included in their own article. Redirects and disambiguation pages will have to be changed to match. John Hayestalk 13:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What should the article be called? I think either Sam and Amanda Marchant or Amanda and Sam Marchant would work. Going purely by Google searching, "Sam and Amanda" is used slightly more often, although throughout Big Brother they were referred to mostly as "Amanda and Sam". I think therefore, the latter might be better, although with redirects being used and with the two name orders being used interchangeably, it is unlikely to make much difference. Tra (Talk) 22:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The article name should reflect what ever name the single is released under, I think. &mdash; AnemoneProjectors (会話) 22:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Well it appears it didn't chart, so looks like no article then. John Hayestalk 15:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Because it's only out this week. D'oh. John Hayestalk 15:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well it charted at 26th. As the single seems to have been sold as Samanda we should probably use that. John Hayestalk 09:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't expect them to use "Samanda" to release the single. Perhaps we should write the article more like how The Cheeky Girls is written. &mdash; AnemoneProjectors (会話) 17:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Seperate color for Head of Household
Since there are at least two versions now with their own HoH (America; Head of Household) (Africa; Head of House) and the people editing Pinoy Big Brother: Celebrity Edition 2 have added in the article that there is supposed to be a Head of Household in that season shouldn't it have a seperate color seperate from Exempt? I think it does once there are two or more versions having a Head of Household. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 00:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've had a look, and articles currently use #FBF373 in the nominations tables for both exempt and Head of Household. In the infobox, however, the colour #F8FB9E is used for Head of Household. It would be nice to have separate colours but it's important not to have too many colous as this may make the table too complex. Tra (Talk) 19:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, the HOH color looks similar to the forced eviction one. As I've been notified, I should post here if I wanted to change the color. -- Howard  the   Duck  04:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Colors
From what I have read there are some issues with the Infobox colors (again). User:Howard the Duck says that the Head of Household and Ejected/Expelled colors look similar. (See discussion on Piony Big Brother: Celebrity Edition 2 and the one above.) The current colors are: - Winner (Endgame Only) - Nominated (Housemates)/Runner-Up (Endgame) - Head of Household* (Housemates Only) - Evicted/Re-Evicted - Walked - Ejected/Expelled - Extra Color 1 (three) - Extra Color 2 (five) If anyone has any suggestions on possible color changes since the template is made to be used with any version of Big Brother regardless of format please reply here. Note the color used for Evicted in the Infoboxes is a lighter shade of the color used in the Nominations/Voting Table because the darker color is hard to read when the links are linked. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 22:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Three editions have a HoH (American, African, Philippine)
 * Its fine the way it is. - Rjd0060 15:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh and the color for Head of Household in the Infobox is a lighter shade that is used lighter shade of the color used in the Nominations/Voting Table. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 23:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Switch extra-color 3 and HOH colors. -- Howard  the   Duck  14:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good but before I make the switch I will be waiting for more discussion on the matter as this also affects all Nominations/Voting History tables with an HoH. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 20:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If anyone doesn't want to fix the "collateral damages" I can do it myself. I fixed up NBA seasons (that's 60+ articles) without even going to the NBA WikiProject, dunno why I can't do that here. -- Howard  the   Duck  10:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I will make the changes, but Howard the Duck, be aware that this could be disputed by other members when the change is made.  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  23:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * How can this be disputed, it's a simple switch of colors, it's not I'm doing a mass-removal of content... really, this Wikiproject is weird. -- Howard  the   Duck  03:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's switched lets not worry about it unless someone does bring up a dispute.  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  19:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Since this hasn't brought any other comments here are the official Infobox colors.

- Winner (Endgame Only) - Nominated (Housemates)/Runner-Up (Endgame) - Head of Household* (Housemates Only) - Evicted/Re-Evicted - Walked - Ejected/Expelled - Extra Color 1 (three) - Extra Color 2 (five)  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  05:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm... idk, I'm cool with the mint green being the HoH, but I think it looks a little weird on the BB8 endgame box because the mint green symbolized Eric "winning" $40,000 a little better. Also, I have to say that the the yellow color looks way to close to the orange color for expelled. Any thoughts? T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 07:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * My original thought was to take and use the color that we use for the winner and use it for the HoH as well since that color is only used in the Endgame box and HoH is only used in the Housemates box. But then I thought that would cause confusion in American articles where we use that green and blue color for winners and runner-ups in the Voting Table. But we could always do what the UK articles do and use the exempt color for the last box of the finalists. ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  06:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Big Brother Sidbar Changes
I have a new, much cleaner way to organize the sidebars. Since the UK version has a pretty good number of both shows and presenters and with the way the sidebar is now we need a change. If everybody likes the changes then we can apply it to other versions that use the sidebar like Big Brother Australia and Big Brother (US) (even though the US doesn't need a change at the time.) The changes are seperate the presenters and shows. Have a seperate drop down for the presenters that lists the current and past presenters and their time associated with that Big Brother. Then have the Shows drop down and have a list of "Editions" that the edition has (like Celebrity, All-Stars, Panto, Main edition, etc.) Then have an "Current Companion Shows" section then a former shows section all under the "Shows" drop down thing. Then leave the previous series/seasons alone as they are fine. If you want to see what the UK sidebar would look like under this new setup then check out my sandbox]. This is a lot cleaner I think and new visitors can read it easier. If people want to know who presents what show let them click on the link to that show and read its article. ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  06:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree. Hold off on the US one, but the UK definitely needs a change and I like the one you've created!  Much, much better.  Good work.   Rjd0060 (talk) 06:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and applied the changes to the UK sidebar, if this style is good with everyone I will apply it to other sidebars as well (except for the US it is fine).  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  07:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Since I changed the UK sidebar to have the changes I changed the Sandbox examples to show what each editions sidebar would look like. Currently I have the Australian and American sidebars in my Sandbox with the changes. ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  10:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I like it. Good idea. T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 20:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Status for a Housemate who becomes a Houseguest...
I've updated Pinoy Big Brother: Celebrity Edition 2 to include Ethel Booba's re-entry tot the House, but not as a housemate, but as a houseguest. I've added "Houseguest" in the infobox beside her name but didn't change her status because she's still technically out-of-house. I've also added an asterisk beside her name in the nomination table because of the very same reason: she's now just a houseguest. But this can be touchy. How can we address this? - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 11:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have one quick question, what is the difference between housemates and houseguests in your Big Brother? Because in mine the contestants are automatically called houseguests.  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  21:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ignore my question, ok what I can think of is with Ethel you don't need (as Housemate) under her name. Just put a note in the table the week she returned as a houseguest like "Ethel returned to the House on Day 59 but as a houseguest." Then have in the Infobox take and use the color you use for "Automatically nominated by HoH" and use that for housemates turned houseguests. Because really you don't need that and housemates going houseguests is more predominate. ♪♫Al  ucard   16♫♪  21:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * But what will be do to her original status (voluntary exit)? To me,, despite her being in the house right now, her original position will stay (6th to leave the house, together with Mcoy), but with the new color. But I will modify the nomination table, though. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 10:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Have it say something like "Left House then returned as a Houseguest" or something similar that way if PBBCE2 brings back an evicted housemate as a houseguest your covered for both (in case that happens as you know with Big Brother expect the unexpected lol).  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  00:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)