Talk:Big Brother (British TV series) series 8/Archive 1

Dig Brother link

This [1] clearly is for the 2007 series. The article, dated February 17, 2007 and says that the building will be used for, and I quote, "this summer's reality show". Anyone still disagree? Dalejenkins 08:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't see how they would have it ready in time. However i would love for the new location to be used for this season. I think it should stay as it is for now as you are right about what the article says so there's no reason to delete it yet. However i highly suspect that they will use the same location as last year for this season.

I too heard that this is for next season, and not this season. Can't remember where I heard this though. Paul Norfolk Dumpling 18:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Swap with Australia rumour

Where did u hear of the Australian rumour?--SimonPeter 23:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't find any sources backing it up, so I removed it. Tra (Talk) 23:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

BBUKSite.net posted it I believe. and here too. Coreix

They say it's only a rumour. I think it's best to wait for something more reliable to show up. Tra (Talk) 14:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's OK to put this information in the article, as long as it is stated that it is only a rumour Paul Norfolk Dumpling 18:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Im from Australia and i haven't heard any UK swap rumours this year. I heard about them last year, but none this year. 3bay sam 06:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd say leave the rumour out for the moment unless it becomes more widely published. See WP:NOT.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Start Date?

Has it been confirmed when the show will start? It says "Beginning of May 2007", but it's that now, and I still haven't seen any adverts for the show, which is unusual Paul Norfolk Dumpling 18:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

No date as of yet, as soon as its announced I'm sure the date will be posted on here within minutes. -- Chris as I am Chris 20:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It actually says beginning in May. I think I read somewhere it was going to start on the 30th. (A rumour of course.) --Lorian^T_C 21:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I heard it was the 25th.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 17:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I'm just preparing myself for months of being in front of the TV in a vegetated state. Paul Norfolk Dumpling 18:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know, it starts on 31 May, I read this on the report about Davina's sick baby, on sky news interactive. Paul Norfolk Dumpling 22:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Again that could just be speculation, until we have a press release from Channel 4 or Endemol, then we shouldn't put the start date in the article. Thanks. -- Chris as I am Chris 07:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Start date is 1st june; 8:30 according to http://press.channel4.com/listings/live/C4/live/2007_22/01_06_2007.htm also shows BBBM and live feed throughout the night, no mention of BB on previous dates - 89.243.218.81 17:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice. Added it to the article. --Lorian^T_C 19:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

That article does not indicate the start date. All it indicates is that Big Brother will be on, on that day, not that its launching. Most of the tabloids and TV magazines are now saying it is May 30th. Source: Today's Heat Magazine.

The start date has been announced by C4 press as 9pm Wednesday 30 May 2007. It has been added to the article, and I have added the reference. -- Chris as I am Chris 13:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for posting the start date. Preparing myself for months of being unsocial-able. Paul Norfolk Dumpling 20:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Housemates

Pleasantview: Where are you getting all these names from? You have provided no source, except for "the source is within," whatever that is supposed to mean. This just looks like vandalism at the moment. --Lorian^T_C 10:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Lets just say I know more about this than you do.

There will be 15 housemates entering on the May 25, 2007 (Pleasantview 10:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC))

Please refer to WP:NOR. Facts in articles must be verifiable. --Lorian^T_C 10:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Official 15 housemates. Fine delete it. But save it in notepad and be sure to watch the premiere on the 25 and see the exact same names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pleasantview (talk • contribs)

Yes, wow, 15 housemates. All 11 of them.--Michaelritchie200 07:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The Sun should have an article about this later today or tomorrow. (Pleasantview 10:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC))

What is your point? "Later today or tomorrow" isn't now, therefore it is unverifiable. --Lorian^T_C 10:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks to Drunkenmonkey on IRC: "It stats in 417 hours,25mins according to the sun, but theres deffo no names on the page". I am reverting it back. If you do find a reliable source, post it here first. --Lorian^T_C 10:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The names are far too plain for bb, this is false.

I have updated the main page - the false names WERE false.

If you check Pleasantview's user talk page, you'll see that he (she?) has been acting in violation of Wikipedia policy a lot, although of course to some extent we are supposed to expect newcomers to make mistakes...-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps. We should all remember WP:BITE. Majorly (talk | meet) 12:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the section on where they are kept as there was no source, and I found a source from The Sun for who the housemates might be, and changed the text slightly John Hayes 09:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

We Need Sources John Hayes 07:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Logo

I'm not sure the colours of the logo are meant to be a reference to the rainbow flag, i.e. a confirmation of the gay rumour. It looks more like the TV tuning screen of old days, so it is perhaps a sign of a self-referential media-related theme. The rainbow flag has no grey in it. have another look it has grey in it 212.139.19.43 22:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it's just a play on the TV test card pattern! 90.200.187.72 13:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Look at the eyelashes, isn't it supposed to be a female's eye? Would make sense considering all the housemates are female. Big sister anyone? -- PG

It's a female's eye because it's Mel's from the first series. Always has been. 81.129.137.47 14:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Dermot

The article states that Dermot O'Leary will be back to present BBLB, but I read elsewhere that he can't do BBLB because of his new commitment as presenter of The X Factor - is that right? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.108.145.10 (talk) 10:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

The article is right, he will be doing both X Factor by day, and BBLB by night. -- Chris as I am Chris 10:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Dermot confirmed on Soccer AM (12th May) that the X-Factor auditions had already started and won't clash with BBLB, which he is still doing Artynmay 01:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Should the page be Semi-protected?

As we near the start of Big Brother 2007, many people are coming on and posting rumours and false statements, I think the page should be semi-protected, anyone agree? Thanks. -- Chris as I am Chris 15:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

 Done by Majorly GDonato (talk) 17:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I just thought it needed to be done, as people were just coming on and adding fake housemate info every few minutes. -- Chris as I am Chris 17:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree completely. GDonato (talk) 17:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I have unprotected the page now, it's been twelve days. Seeing as many anonymous/new users often contribute constructively during the Big Brother season, we should definitely give them a chance. — Xy7 11:43, 29 May 2007

Good idea.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Source for Davina not departing

Does anyone have a reliable source to show this? I'm not in denial, but I don't think YouTube is a very reliable source. Majorly (talk | meet) 22:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You could perhaps cite the interview itself as McCall, Davina (May 2007). (Interview). Interviewed by Paul O'Grady. {{cite interview}}: Missing or empty |title= (help); Unknown parameter |callsign= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |program= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |subjectlink= ignored (|subject-link= suggested) (help)

Tra (Talk) 22:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Meh I dunno. Majorly (talk | meet) 22:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

In fact, maybe it would be better to leave out the whole issue entirely, because in the interview, she only said that she wanted to continue presenting. There's no mention of her signing any contracts or anything so she could still change her mind later on. Tra (Talk) 23:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

If she said it herself on a TV show, it's more reliable than a tabloid/magazine rumour. I've cited it properly at the moment, if anyone wants to remove it in due course that's up to them.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Nah, we'd be sourcing the rumour, not the fact she said it. Majorly (talk | meet) 13:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Do we actually need to mention it? It's not exactly important to this series. Squidward2602 15:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact it could have been her last series is. Majorly (talk | meet) 15:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

YouTube source removed

I've removed this link as it breaks Wikipedia policy. May I suggest we use the {{Cite episode}} template for the Paul O'Grady Show? Dalejenkins 10:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Chris Moyles

Chris Moyles confirmed he was a Big Mouth host for the first three episodes on the 29th May - I didn't listen to this mornings (30th) show so I can't say that he didn't say it again today (he probably did) - but he first confirmed it first on the 29th. Hamdev Guru 10:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Almost confirmed - Big Brother website. Annoyingly vague. Source 86.31.119.178 17:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Definitely confirmed - he just did an ad for Big Mouth. Sidasta 21:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Grammar

Can I ask, that since this page is changing by the minute, that everyone checks their grammer BEFORE they click submit. Some of it is AWFUL! And as for the sentence "A dead ringer for Beth Ditto"... come off it! Paul Norfolk Dumpling 21:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This is getting stupid now! "She likes to swear a lot". Yes, she did swear a lot, but thats not exactly something which should be added to an encyclopedia article! Paul Norfolk Dumpling 21:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The grammar is shite. Where are the capital letters?!! Jimkemon

That's the problem with wiki articles on reality tv shows - all are plagued by the same style of editing. Best way forward is to wait a short while until things calm down, and THEN start to clear up. Seaserpent85 21:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not just the grammer any more. It's also the stupid vandalism and things like "(she does not have a favourite cheese)". I mean. Come off it! Paul Norfolk Dumpling 21:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This is inevitable, just go watch the show instead of hanging around Wikipedia updating the article every 2 seconds. Clean up later. --Lorian^T_C 21:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Are we all aware that it's spelt "Grammar"?--Michaelritchie200 07:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Sam and Amanda

They are put together under the housemates section. On the channel 4 website they are separate and have different profiles. Should we not split them up? Scubafish 21:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Difficult to say, if and when they get evicted, will they leave together? IS there much difference between the 2 to give them individual profiles? Paul Norfolk Dumpling 21:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I get the feeling that BB is going to keep them as a pair throughout the series, probably be evicted together. But as all we have to go on right now is them going in together, and the fact that they are very similar, it's probably best to keep them together for now. --Lorian^T_C 21:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I still think that one will go and not two. Even on the BB site they are seperate with Charley and Lesley inbetween them. Scubafish 21:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Only way to find out for sure is to watch BBLB. I'm sure they'll explain on that show. Paul Norfolk Dumpling 21:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

True, its BB!! Scubafish 21:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

"they are seperate with Charley and Lesley inbetween them." - now that sounds like a fanfiction in the making!

Sorry, I'll leave now. :) --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 21:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The infobox links to the #Sam and #Amanda sections, they have got to be separate. --Lorian^T_C 22:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we should assume they are separate not together, and should be split. I think the public will want to split them up anyway. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 08:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

As a twin, I'd rather be considered an individual. However, they are making no effort to distinguish themselves from one another, so who cares? — LiamUK (Talky) 14:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

As I suspected, in the task that is currently happening on the live stream, Sam and Amanda are together as "one crew member". --Lorian^T_C 15:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

As a parent of twins I feel it's really important to seperate them. They are individuals and we are not doing other twins any favours by listing them as one person. Grrrlatrix

Is it we aren't, or the BB bosses ? -- Simon Cursitor 10:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not up to us, I think it really comes down to how they are treated by Big Brother. If they are treated as one entity (for example in voting/eviction) so should the article, if they are seperate they should be in the article. it's too early to say at the moment John Hayes 11:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Whether they will be treated as two separate housemates by Big Brother is not the point, in my opinion – they are two different people, and for technical reasons (i.e. the infobox links), they should be listed separately. — Xy7 11:27, 01 June 2007

Ok, so we now seem to have two separate articles saying the same thing? — Xy7 11:30, 01 June 2007

See below --Lorian^T_C 11:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Sigh... well yes, I agree with Lorian on that one. — Xy7 11:44, 01 June 2007

I've fixed the problem with the infobox links; on the version at List of Big Brother 2007 housemates (UK), I've put <span id="Sam Merchant"/><span id="Amanda Merchant"/> above their section so that a link to e.g. List of Big Brother 2007 housemates (UK)#Sam Merchant would work correctly. As for whether the sections should be split, I think if they were evicted tomorrow, for example and did not become famous or anything, there would probably be no harm in having them share a section, since they were known only as the twins. If, however, they stayed a long time in the House and took on different roles to each other then they would probably need individual sections. Tra (Talk) 12:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Am I going to be trampling on any body's territory if I redirect this as discussed below? Personally, I prefer the the 2 articles, despite the rules, but I seem to be in a minority, and am sorely tempted to pile in now and redirect it, in order to prevent the articles diverging. Guinness 14:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Housemates bios

http://www.channel4.com/bigbrother/housemates/ Information has been made available on the BB site regarding each of the housemates now. Can we use this to build into the article? GullibleKit 21:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Whatever happens, they are not notable for their own articles - yet. Majorly (talk | meet) 21:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Still, reference for the bios within this article? GullibleKit 22:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep, it can definitely be used - must be reworded of course, though. Seaserpent85 22:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I think actually Charley and Carole may be notable, as Charley has previously appeared in the tabloids after a fight with Saskia from a previous Big Brother, and Carole was a Respect Party candidate, so is likely to have articles about her, but either way I'm not going to find sources, so I won't be starting any articles on them John Hayes 10:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Is is appropriate to link to housemates' MySpace profiles? Chanelle's MySpace is here: http://www.myspace.com/chantanyell

Unfortunately not. Per WP:EL, which states that links to social networking sites should be avoided. Seaserpent85 22:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, I believe it could still be used to provide citations for any informations at a later date. GullibleKit 22:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll not put that link in the article, but I still don't understand why it's not good to link to them - after all it's surely a reliable source since they created it themselves ?!? Sam & Amanda's MySpace's have been set to private very recently but are still cached in Google. Profiles 146147044 and 154180223 respectively. Davidjamesgill 22:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia IS strict about what it considers reliable sources, and social networking websites, internet forums and blogs do not constitute reliable sources on Wikipedia, period.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Effectively, though I am rather simplifiying, a website being sourced has to have an editorial process, this would be something like a news site, such as the BBC, or the Channel 4 site, but not anything where any user can just add whatever they want without it being checked for correctness, such as MySpace or even Wikipedia John Hayes 07:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Citation request overload

I can see that people have tagged a lot of things in the biographies that were clearly stated in the launch programme, either by Davina or the contestants themselves in the recorded introductions. This seems to be being picky to a ridiculous degree. Nick Cooper 11:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on that. The sections on the housemates are still very much a work in progress. Is it possible to cite a television episode? Just hard to verify...--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Too true. IMHO, it is reasonable for an article to contain some original research of this nature, for this kind of television programme article, especially when so many of us concur on the quotes (in any case, I can verify these, as I still have the launch night on my PVR). I therefore request that we all try and reach a consensus that citations are not necessary for these quotes in this article. Discuss. Guinness 13:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

There's no need for original research - all of the info that comes from the show can be cited using the Cite episode template. :) Seaserpent85 13:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You could put {{cite episode|title=Big Brother: The Live Launch | series = Big Brother| network = [[Channel 4]]| city = [[Hertfordshire]], [[England]]| airdate = 2007-05-30}} to get "Big Brother: The Live Launch". Big Brother. 2007-05-30. Channel 4. {{cite episode}}: Unknown parameter |city= ignored (|location= suggested) (help) Tra (Talk) 13:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. It is possible to cite an program. Original Research is never ever acceptable. And anyway it's hardly difficult to get sources for these John Hayes 15:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me (I have seen people suggest that citing television constitutes original reasearch ... or was that on wikinews??). Guinness 15:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW, Tracey's birthdate is correct as she mentioned last night that she would be turning 37 on Tuesday next week, and a simple deduction gives June 5, 1970. Also, did anyone think that Tracey was a man/transgendered at first? It's always possible given her comparatively deep voice. (Please do not accuse me of WP:NOT#FORUM violations here)-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to use the cite TV template to source some of the citation needed tags now.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, I thought the same thing when I saw/heard her. And in this case I think this is a valid discussion, as Big Brother has a notable history of transgender housemates, so this information, if sourced, would add to the article ;-) John Hayes 17:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I too had the initial reaction of "that's a bloke", however, I saw somebody mention this on BBLM, and Chris Moyles immediately confirmed that all housemates are female. Guinness 17:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Did he say anything about their gender at birth though? Probably not.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

...erm there not 14 like the artcile implies. There 18. This apears to be vadalism of the page due to the fact no person could make a more crazy mistake. - J, 3 June 2007 22:45 GMT

What do you mean? please explain. It may help to format your reply using colons to show which conversation you are replying to John Hayes 09:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Chronological Events

Hey guys started that section of the article as with previous Big Brother articles. Normally they are updated with events on week order (the first week starting with day 1 up to the first eviction and the following weeks the day after the eviction to the next eviction) Jezabelda

Anyone want to speculate what Shabnam's ethnic background is?

I'd say probably Indian or Middle Eastern. It's her name that gives that away more than anything else though. As with a lot of info about these new housemates, it'll be hard to verify.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

As there is currently no source I don't see the need to dicuss this. And from the length of time you have used wikipedia it suprises me that you would be speculating on a talk page. John Hayes 11:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I interpret WP:NOT#FORUM quite liberally; speculation could lead to eventual verification, couldn't it? In this case, it's quite possible. Talk pages are not discussion forums, but I believe that any discussion that has even a chance of improving the article is valid. The sort of thing that, in my view, WP:NOT#FORUM applies to is "who do you think is the hottest chick who moved in tonight?". Do you understand what I mean? I feel speculation is OK on a talk page if you have valid reason to believe it could be verified. Loosen up a bit.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with your interpretation, on the basis that "talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles; they are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article", but you have a valid point. On the other hand, even if someone has a source, what would be the value of mentioning it, if we did we would have to do this for all the housemates in every series of Big Brother. If there is any place for it, it would be on the individual page for the housemate, and until they are notable they will not be created. John Hayes 15:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with your interpretation either. If we can say for Nicky in the article that she was born in Bombay, adopted by an Irish mother, and Catholic as was put here in an unsigned comment, then surely we can do the same for Shabnam? And yes, there would be value in mentioning it as at this stage, any information we can add and source is helpful, as the biographies of the housemates are still in their infancy. It is also not true that we would have to do this for every housemate: see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Also, although the housemates are not notable individually, they are notable as part of the series: see Wikipedia:Mergism.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You are right about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but it is not true that any information we can add and source is helpful. See WP:TRIVIA. I would suggest that this information along with the information you mention about Nicky is "tangential or irrelevant, and may not warrant inclusion at all". John Hayes 16:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

That guideline is named "avoid trivia sections in articles". There's a difference between a so-called trivial fact integrated with a paragraph in an article and a mere collection of trivial facts in list form. See WP:HTRIVIA, which is merely an essay, not a policy or guideline.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but WP:TRIVIA also mentions what to do once it is no longer a list. Even if that doesn't apply in this case WP:HTRIVIA also mentions context. This information would be important to an article on Shabnam, might be important to list of famous {shabnam's ethnicity}s, but is it really important to an article about Big Brother? Either way this discussion has become rather more about wikipedia than the article, and we should probably continue this on our talk pages. John Hayes 17:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Born in Bombay. Adopted by an irish mother. Is Catholic. (Made clear on the show.)

You're thinking of Nicky John Hayes 13:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

At first I thought she was Turkish due to the lightness of her skin, but I did a google search for her surname and it's more common in countries like India. We can't really put down anything for her ethnic origin until we have some official source. Triangle e 14:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... my guess is that she is half Indian, half British. That's just a guess, but it seems the most likely.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Doing a search on the internet for her names, the examples I have come across suggest that she is probably from a Muslim background, either the Indian sub-continent or Iran, but I cannot be more specific. PatGallacher 23:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Twins precedent

Big Brother Australia 2005 had David and Greg Mathew, who (according to info here) were initially in the house only one at a time and had a mission to convince the rest that they are one person. They were known as Logan (their common middle name).

I'm rephrasing the statement on Sam and Amanda to the effect that they're the first twins on the UK version. But I'm not sure if it's worth mentioning this precedent here while at it. -- Smjg 22:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Duration

Heya, I couldn't find this on the page but has it been released how long BB 2007 will take place for? E.g. how many days/weeks before winner is announced.

I keep hearing 3 months, I don't know the exact length though. --Lorian^T_C 10:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It ends on the 31st of August - a friend of mine has tickets to see the live final. Pittising 18:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Separate article (List of Big Brother 2007 housemates (UK))

Right, I'm not going to get into an edit war over this one, However, I personally think that the housemates section should be a separate article now, not just for length, but because it makes it easier to keep tidy, and ultimately, judging by past versions of this article it will get big. On the other hand, if we are just going to have one article, then we should delete the other article, otherwise we will have two versions of the information which are out of sync. Which one should it be? (P.S. If nobody comments, I am going to be bold and revert it back to two articles). Guinness 09:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

PS, if you don't understand what this is about, see my edit, and Lorian's edit.

The seventh series had a separate article about the housemates [2], therefore I agree with you and it should be separated out.Scubafish 09:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It's only necessary to split the article when it gets too long, which it currently isn't. There certainly isn't enough information in the housemates section to warrant its own article. --Lorian^T_C 10:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

What is the cut-off criteria?? Scubafish 10:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:SIZE --Lorian^T_C 10:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I've always been an advocate of; if you know something is going to break, fix it before it breaks, don't wait for it to happen. Guinness 10:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Lets not be hasty. The article is only 20kB, there is plenty of room for expansion before the article should be split. Without the housemates section it would only be 11kB, making the housemates article only 7kB. Splitting at this stage is completely unnecessary. --Lorian^T_C 10:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Very well, in that case, do you agree that we should delete (or perhaps redirect) the second article entirely, to prevent them from diverging into a messy situation? Guinness 11:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's best to just redirect it to this page for now, as it may well be needed in future. --Lorian^T_C 12:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Another advantage of redirecting is that content edits have been made since the split, which need to be kept for GFDL purposes. Tra (Talk) 12:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Series Logo

This was discussed in part above, but according to the article the logos meaning was to become clear on launch night. I am still none the wiser to it's meaning, does anyone have any idea and does that section required editing? Andrewjd 19:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Tracey from Norfolk?

Could someone try and find a reference to material saying that Tracey is from Norfolk? I followed the source, but it didnt say anything about Norfolk. I've looked on the BB site, and it doesn't say anything there either. Am I being blind? Paul Norfolk Dumpling 20:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Fibbing about her age!

I think Lesley is fibbing about her age. When asked "We you alive during the war?" she replied "Of course I was", but she was born in 1947, and the war ended in 1945. Didn't it? Paul Norfolk Dumpling 20:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I think she was just fibbing to the housemates, and her age as displayed is correct. Andrewjd 20:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

They give the age in the audition video, don't they? I'm positive that it said that she was 60. Geoking66_talk 05:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes she did, which would make her at least 62, but she also says her husband fought in the war (I can't remember if it was Dunkirk or D-Day), sorry I don't remember which episode, so can't source. She could of course have been much younger than him and married later, but it's another clue. Either way she has lied about something. John Hayes 09:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

She's telling porkies! If we find out her maiden name, i'll look it up on the BMD index. Paul Norfolk Dumpling 11:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The audition video said she was 60. She was only pulling the other housemates' legs. That's the kind of person she is, surely you've noticed this. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 11:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't audition footage - it was part of her specially-shot introduction, and one would expect that even if they had a birthday between shooting these and the start of the show, the producers would get them to say they're as old as they would be on their entry into the house. Lesley is obviously just winding them up, thoguh. Nick Cooper 12:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I know it wasn't audition footage, you knew what I meant though. I just said the wrong word. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 13:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I vaguely remember from the launch show Davina mentioning that there was something like a 20 year age difference between Leslie and her husband. Spugmeister 10:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

My brother said the same thing Spugmeister, so he could well have been in the war and she might not be completely lying. Andrewjd 21:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed Ages

I've removed the ages of those with a DOB, because there is no need for both a DOB and age. Plus this way, it doesn't need updating as they age. Paul Norfolk Dumpling 22:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound lazy, but it sometimes is annoying to figure out age given the birth date. I think that there's a template that automatically does it that's in celebrity pages on Wikipedia, but I don't know how it works.Geoking6666_talk 05:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

There is such a template, but it's not necessary here. I find it very easy to work out ages from dates of birth.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I can say that not all of us do. Especially me, and those of us with dyscalculia. I would like to see both in the article. Max Naylor 18:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason to add BOTH DOB & Age. Age will require updating (Unless the template is used). Most articles only post DOB. I think it's best to remain consistant with the rest of Wiki. Paul Norfolk Dumpling 20:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Weasel Template

The weasel templates have been removed, although no changes to the article has been made. I'll be re-adding the templates. Paul Norfolk Dumpling 20:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't remove them but I'm curious as to what exactly in the current article constitutes a weasel word? I couldn't identify any. Plus wouldn't it just be easier to rewrite the piece in whichever way you see fit? It's such a short section I'd have thought this would take less time than adding and readding templates. Tilefish 16:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The article DID have weasel words in it. Things like "She has referred to "indie" music as a new genre that was "taking over the country"[14], even though the word and genre "indie" was coined long before she was born" are statements that are written in a sneering way that is designed to make the contestant look stupid. Triangle e 18:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The article did have weasel words in it. Yes I could have re-written the article, but I prefer to let the original author to do this, as I think it's only fair. Paul Norfolk Dumpling 21:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Carole standing for election

Are we SURE that she stood for the 2005 election? I haven't been able to find any evidence for that in the official election pages. I have seen, however, that she stood for the LOCAL 2006 council elections: [3]

It's unlikely she stood for both that an the general election (though possible). As there is no source for the general election it should be changed to the local election John Hayes 08:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Zac/Zak

Is Ziggy's name spelt Zac or Zak? In the Northern Line article it's spelt Zak, but here it's spelt Zac... -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The papers are spelling it Zac, looked on the BB site, and it doesn't say. Paul Norfolk Dumpling 21:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

Why have the pictures been removed? I was watching the progress done by Rizstar, and thought it looked good. I'm quite angry it's been removed, but if there is a reason, could someone explain what it is? Paul Norfolk Dumpling 21:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

They don't have fair use rationales and are all going to be speedily deleted anyway, so there's no point keeping them - and the user putting them on was also creating a lot of unneeded whitespace in the article, so that has been removed too. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

If thats the case, it may be better to WAIT for them to be deleted, or at least nominated for speedy deletion, and not just delete at your own descretion. Paul Norfolk Dumpling 21:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware they've all been nominated for speedy, also, I deleted them as 1. I felt that they looked badly placed within the article and 2. the user was creating unneeded whitespace. Put them back in if you want, but I'd advise you to not hit return nine times after every section, it doesn't look nice. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Not hit return nine times? Well what do you propose? We ignore the needed 'Whitespace' and just have all the biogs crammed together, with no consideration as to what picture they go with? Paul Norfolk Dumpling 21:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me, I don't completely understand the procedures which go with this. But I see the images have been nominated because they are for "Non-commercial use only". Does that then mean, the pictures are not to be used in order to gain some kind of a profit? Paul Norfolk Dumpling 22:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. It looks ridiculous when editing to have miles of blank

space. Also, please be more careful when reverting, you reverted some other stuff I did as well as removing the pictures. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, <br clear=all> can be used instead of using the return key. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Well this is what i'm talking about! We cant just ignore the whitespace if the pictures are going to be there. Now that would look stupid. Paul Norfolk Dumpling 22:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact remains that the pictures won't be there much longer anyway, so it doesn't really matter - however, large chunks of white while editing a page look ugly. But anyway, they'll be gone soon and so will the whitespace. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok I apologise for removing some text, didnt realise you added more stuff, but there was no need for you sarcasm in your edit summery. Paul Norfolk Dumpling 22:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

That's what the "diff" link is for. And I didn't use any sarcasm. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, i'm not going to get into an arguement or edit war with you. Paul Norfolk Dumpling 22:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

House re-built

Does anybody know of a source, which confirms that the house was demolished and re-built for this series, so that I can add it to the article? Guinness 21:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I've now added this to the article to prompt a source. This is currently my original research which can be verified as follows: Open Google Earth, and type "51 39' 23N, 0 16' 02W" in the search bar. Note the copyright date on the image. Guinness 21:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

PS. You can see the old picture of the house intact here (you may need to switch to satellite photo mode and/or zoom in). Guinness 00:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me for being dense, but how does this image prove the house was demolished? I looked at the picture, and the house is just sitting there! Paul Norfolk Dumpling 22:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, from here, it appears to be demolished wasteground. It is certainly not the "house" as it appeared, last time I looked. For example, previously the walkway and stairs to the door could be seen to the north of the house. Not any more. Guinness 22:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh i see what you mean. Maybe it is worth adding an "original research" template to it, since you did discover this yourself. Up to you! Paul Norfolk Dumpling 22:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Dunno where i got the name "Original research" template (think i made that up) but you know what i mean, right? Paul Norfolk Dumpling 22:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is "original research", forgive me, i'm being dense now. Paul Norfolk Dumpling 22:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know what you mean, hence adding the citation required template, and confessing to ignoring the rules. It does need a proper source, though, if somebody can find one. Guinness 22:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Right, this page from the official site says it's a "new look" house. It doesn't specifically say re-built, but it adds a little bit to the above. Guinness 23:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Are editors happy for me to use the above link as a source, and remove the original research tags? Guinness 23:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You are getting confused as they are building a new house for next years Big Brother, This is the building before Big Brother[4], and this is the house during Big Brother[5]. AxG ^{@ ►talk} 00:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I'm confused, I was aware that a new house is being built elsewhere. Your second link is what the house looked like last year (including the previous appearance on Google Earth). The layout of the house, as currently occupied has changed since then. The 'current' appearance on Google Earth (which has been updated in the last few months - previously it looked like the picture in your second link) is now an empty construction site. Putting the two together strongly suggests that it has been re-built - unless Google have reverted to an older photograph for the location and stuck a 2007 copyright date on it anyway. Guinness 00:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Emily's latest faux pas

Not sure if, on top of the "indie" thing, this is developing trend for her - and therefor may be worth documenting in future - but in today's (Sunday) programme she claimed she got her first skinny jeans "3½ years ago" when she was in the "sixth form" (either Year 12 or 13). The former would date it as December 2003, when (by her DOB) she would have been aged 15 years and 8 months. Unless she was moved up a year, she would actually have been in what used to be termed fifth form (i.e. Year 11) at that age. Either that of it was actually 2½ years ago. Quite apart from the fact that this article date the current trend to late-2005. Nick Cooper 22:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, difficult to say really. I think she is probably just full of crap! Paul Norfolk Dumpling 22:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

They were all just clamouring to be the best, it would not be difficult to assume that her claim was exaggerated. It's probably not worth mentioning just now but waiting to see if this possible lying develops into bigger claims. Right now it could be considered not NPOV. Andrewjd 22:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure. If it's a one off it's disposable, but if it develops into a trend it's a useful early example. Nick Cooper 23:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that as well. Her blithe claim of, "if you're in London, you know not to go out on a Friday or Saturday," demonstrates nothing except youthful arrogance.... Nick Cooper 22:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

More entrants

Do people know when we can reasonably say there will not be any more entrants? PatGallacher 23:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

There's no real way to tell. The latest we've ever seen someone enter is 44 days into the series. FireSpike 23:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

When it's over ;-) John Hayes 10:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The Sun says this - http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2003230001-2007250876,00.html steve 23:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Ratings Table

Surely we are not going to have a table of ratings for every single day? I don't think this should be part of the article. A section on important ratings, as text would be fine, but not from every single show. John Hayes 09:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

In fact I have been WP:BOLD, and done it myself, the text just needs looking over again. John Hayes 09:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Where's it gone? Sometimes I'm sure some people just delete things just for the hell of it. It looked much better than the text. Perhaps the deletee could give some reasons to why it was removed? Paul Norfolk Dumpling 14:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I did, and I gave the reason for it. Firstly tables should be used as a minimum, it's much better to write in prose where possible. Secondly this was turning into a list of every episode, which wouldn't have been useful to this article, rather whoever is adding this info should write about important ratings, such as launch, final, and episodes with higher ratings. Thirdly none of it was sourced. John Hayes 14:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh right, didn't see it turn into a listing for every episode. When I last saw it, it was just a few episodes. In my opinion, the table should remain, but obviously, people shouldnt get silly with it. Maybe only ratings for certain episodes, like launch night, and the first episode of BBLB, or BBBM. When the series is done, maybe there should be an "average" episode ratings? Just a suggestion. I much prefer a table to the text. Looks tidier, and easier to read. Paul Norfolk Dumpling 14:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, a table with a few select ratings might be acceptable. If written well though, it should still be as easy to read in text. John Hayes 15:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Nominations table

I have removed the hidden nominations tables, as according to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Big_Brother these should be on seperate pages. John Hayes 10:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Big Brother as Source

According to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Big_Brother#Sourcing we should be using independent sources, I assume this means not using the Big Brother show itself, especially where it mentions Each person's recollection of a show, may be slightly different, so we need to use sources that anybody can review. John Hayes 10:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

A good point though I removed a couple of 'citation needed' which were irrelevent (i.e. smoking ban effective July 1, there are billions of sources for this: it's common knowledge). However, I think you may have gone slightly overboard here, maybe a few of the statements don;t need citing?

It's common knowledge therefore it can't be hard to find a source. As it says in the guidelines, every single statement has to be sourced. In any case that sentance is about more than the smoking ban John Hayes 11:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Surely then we should have a source to back up the fact that the show airs on Channel 4?RaseaC 14:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes there is already. Pretty much every source listed mentions that. John Hayes 14:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I've now moved one of the refs to reference that as well. Thanks for noticing that. John Hayes 14:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Logo source missing

One of the sources for the logo is broken. I will remove it, but we need to find a replacement. I'll leave a cite for the moment. John Hayes 15:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)