Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:45, 20 June 2006

Big Brother Unassessed

The Big Brother WikiProject aims to improve articles relating to Big Brother, and Big Brother (Australian TV series) season 6 has been identified as one of these articles. Anybody can help the WikiProject by trying to improve existing articles. Please add your name to the list of participants, if you are committed to helping out.Big BrotherWikipedia:WikiProject Big BrotherTemplate:WikiProject Big BrotherBig Brother ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Merge Elise Chen

Yes, please do. Anything is better than a standalone Elise article. -- Barrylb 01:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree also. -- I@n ≡ talk 02:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I've changed Elise Chen to a redirect as she is clearly non-notable and it appears this may be being used as an attack page only. -- I@n ≡ talk 04:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Remove right housemate box?

I don't see the need for two lists of housemates. Anyone object to removing one? -- Barrylb 14:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Barry, I've done it (I did it before I saw your post - I hope you hadn't started on it!) It was annoying me too. -- I@n ≡ talk 00:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

No idea how to edit-

I have absolutely no idea how to edit, so ill just say that 'John' has a myspace www.myspace.com/micbric and if anyone could put that in for me that would be awsome

BB06 Taped?

Is BB06 taped (as in weeks into the future)? It's a rumour, but subtle suspicions have aroused my curiosity..

No. -- Barrylb 13:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems live a difficult scam to pull given live evictions with large audiences and subsequent appearances of evicted HMs in nightclubs, at Dreamworld, and on TV. Why would they bother faking it like that? What makes you suspect otherwise. Asa01 21:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Who owns copyright ownership?

Does anyone know if Ten (Fox) has exclusive rights on the housemates photos and related media? It stands to reason, but do they have the rights on images/recordings etc of housemates during the period they are in the house, or on all images in perpetuis? May be feasible to include some photos in the article... Sfacets 12:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of Ten's rights, probably the only housemate photos we can put up are ones you have taken yourself. -- Barrylb 22:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Or screenshots from the TV series. -- CHANLORD / 03:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Expand

I've begun to majorly expand the housemates section. The table needs to be broken down as Notes keep getting added. I've modelled it on BBUK pages and has included they're template table at the top (and expanded that too). Essentially all the info on the table, including the Note and where the housemates are from, can be incorporated into their own section and thus elimating the need for the table. Also, I suggest that days be referred to as the number Day (eg, Day 1) instead of the actual date as this can change depending on where you live and to make it simpler. -- CHANLORD / 06:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you planning to reformat all the other seasons as well? Can you point me to where there has been a discussion of the template table? -- Barrylb 08:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I say that's good work. New layout with housemate sections and without the homemade table will work better. -- I@n ≡ talk 02:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC) I do like our weekly highlights section though. -- I@n ≡ talk 02:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Rename

Is there anyone who's against renaming the article "Big Brother (Australia series 6)"? This would make it in line with the other Big Brother articles. -- 9cds 07:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Me. There was no need to rename the others in the first place. Unless you have a good reason. --JD_email 09:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It would be inline with the other pages. These were renamed because "Big Brother" is the name of the show, not "Big Brother Australia series 6". -- 9cds 09:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the name of the show Big Brother Australia? --JD_email 10:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

No. -- 9cds 10:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Well that's written on the BB06 website. It also says Big Brother UK on the UK website. --JD_email 10:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, it was on the UK site... --JD_email 10:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It does appear on the UK site, but only when you use the site's search. --JD_email 10:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Housemates template.

I've rewritten the template almost entirely using wikisyntax rather than a mixture. This makes it futureproof, and less likely to break the page. Let me know if anyone sees any bugs. -- 9cds 16:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Tables thing

The page may look better now without the tables, but what about when there's a picture of each housemate on there? --JD_email 21:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm trying to keep the thing looking good - a little like the UK article. Tables aren't really for layout, they're for content. -- 9cds 21:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be like the UK article, in case you hadn't noticed this isn't the UK article. --JD_email 21:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Having a picture of each housemate won't be a problem, as long as there's something written about them too. There's no reason why it can't look like the UK article. The UK article has a good layout and this article should have too. Sweetie Petie 22:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Something's going to have to be written about Elise and Tilli then, but that would be a bit difficult for me as I felt both of them being in the house was pretty pointless. --JD_email 22:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Gaelan's photo

Gaelan pre-electrocution: Gaelan pre-electrocution, or during electrocution? I don't know which one should go on the article, if any. I prefer the last one myself... --JD_email 22:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The last one shows more emotion - I say go for that one :) -- 9cds 22:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You call that emotion? Looks like it bloodly well hurts. --JD_email 22:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

How about I just put caps of all of them getting electrocuted? --JD_email 22:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Screen Caps

Okay, I am now all out of pics for people without pics. All I can do now, is replace the photos already there. Anybody want me to do that? --JD_email 23:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a thought

Just out of curiosity - the housemates aren't allowed to sing commercial songs - have they ever sung 'happy birthday'? The song is copyrighted as well... Sfacets 09:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Elise's Photo

Image:BB06-Elise.PNG Image:BB06-Elise-2.PNG Which one's better? --JD_email 11:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Difficult. I like her face in the bedroom better, but prefer seeing more of her in the other pic. Do you have any others?Grey Shadow 11:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

She didn't really get much airtime while she was there, so they are the only decent ones I could get. --JD_email 11:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The second one is better lit and more exclusive...

Sfacets 12:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It feels as though there are too many photos from that task though, that's why I asked. But if the people prefer that one and don't mind the fact that I have already used quite a few, then I guess that one will get used. --JD_email 12:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's a third one, from Launch night. I've put it on the article for now, but if anyone thinks it should be changed or can get a better pic, then please feel free to do that or comment. --JD_email 15:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

How can the Housemates have entered on Day 0?

Who's the idiot who changed everything to indicate the Housemates entered on Day 0? How could they, by definition the first day in the House is the FIRST DAY IN THE HOUSE and that is obviously Day 1! Can I remind you that, for instance, Christ wasn't born in Year 0, he was born in 1 AD - and that is because there is no Year 0! Obviously! Who did this and why? Can you explain your bizarre, strange and frankly WRONG reasoning? jkm 16:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It was me, and it is correct. Day 1 is counted as the day the Launch show was shown. Day 0 is the day they entered. It's also like that on the BB06 website. --JD_email 16:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, my apologies. You are correct, I should be venting my spleen at the producers of the show then because their decision is completely nonsensical, not the first strange decision these guys have made. Whatever happened to the Insider role and why on Earth wasn't the house informed of Jade's role as the Insider? Anyway, sorry about tht JD.jkm 12:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

No worries. --JD_email 19:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

"World first"

The term "world first" was intended to mean world first in the context of the BB series, not every single TV game show out there. Sfacets 14:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

And even in this context, it was not. -- Barrylb 14:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It was meant to be a Big Brother World First, nobody said the word World referred only to BB AU episodes. And that's the way it's being used in the article, isn't it? --JD_email 14:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Not really: "Despite publicity using the term "World First", this is clearly a lie given international versions of the series have previously used similar concepts. The fourth Greek season had a series called Big Mother where nine houseguests participated in the game with their mothers, with whom they had to coexist during the contest. The housemates' mothers were not able to win the prize, but had to stay with their sons and daughters until their eviction. Another Big Brother series had houseguests enter the house with their mothers, but the mothers did not stay".

--> this is referring to another TV show, not BB, australian, or other. Unless 'Big Mother' is part of the BB programme... in which case it would be good to get a reference to info on this.

Sfacets 15:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

There's no article about Big Mother, but there's no article about Big Brother Greece either. Big Mother is a Big Brother spin-off I guess, but it is a BB programme. It's on the main Big Brother article. --JD_email 15:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's the website: But unless you can read Greek, good luck. Apparently it either already has, or it will be broadcasted on a Foxtel channel. --JD_email 15:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It was just publicity hyperhole and do many viewers really take this sort of thing seriously? Really the term was used in such a vague loose way in adverts the BB producers could practically argue that it honestly was "the first time in the world a mother and daughter were secretly original housemates with a challenge to remain undetected". Asa01 20:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Katie's Eviction Percentage

While most believe Gretel Killeen said sixty-four percent, the number on-screen clearly said 54%.

Does anybody know which one is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.164.109.59 (talk • contribs)

The website says 64%. --JD_email 10:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thank you~ 203.164.109.59 10:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Summary of fines

I've removed it because it's fancrufty, and not encyclopedic. -- 9cds 13:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Housemates table

Is it _really_ needed? Everything there can be put elsewhere in the article, and it only makes the article look confusing. -- 9cds 13:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I've went and been bold and removed it, since it was massive, and messed up the layout. -- 9cds 14:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The layout was fine, and there's no consensus to remove the table, let alone any other comment at all. Why must it not be there? --JD_email 19:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Because the article is way over the size limit. -- 9cds 19:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It's far smaller than the BB7 UK article - why don't you do something about the size of that? The table is relevant, and having the article a bit over the limit isn't something to worry about, is it. --JD_email 19:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I plan to. If there is relevant information, then put it in the housemates' section. -- 9cds 19:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The information is only relevant in the table, and it is doing absolutely no harm being there. --JD_email 19:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is it only relevant in the table? -- 9cds 19:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It's information about current nominations and evictions, and it is easier to get information from the table than by searching through the article. Why must it be removed? --JD_email 19:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I then suggest what is done in BB UK. -- 9cds 19:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest leave it - it was fine where it was, and it better serves its purpouse on the main page. Can't you even at least leave it until more people are involved in the conversation and have had their opinions? --JD_email 19:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

More important than breaking the recommended article size? -- 9cds 19:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It's recommended, not set in stone. --JD_email 19:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

While I agree with JD that the article limit is just a guideline, the table seems to just repeat what the article says in outline form, and is thus redundant; it is maybe even confusing. -- Where 19:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It may repeat information, but information like who is currently nominated will take a long time to find if a person is searching through the whole article. The table was there first, and I don't see a major problem with it being there. --JD_email 19:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes; the eviction info can be helpful. Could that information go into the existing table to the right of the text though? -- Where 21:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm gonna have a sook and chuck a major tantie, I just want the table... *cries* --JD_email 21:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I reckon that the table is needed. This is an encyclopedia - a website full of information. This is information. Therefore - it should stay in... Ellisjm 10:11 UTC 20 June 06

My dog's name is information. Shall we include that too? -- 9cds 11:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Your dog isn't notable. --JD_email 11:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

This table is not pertinent to the Housmates, but rather a depiction of the current status of the contest. It should be given it's own section, and/or moved closer to the weekly summary and highlights with which it is more closely related. Perhaps "Current Status" would be correct here. Ste4k 14:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I myself think that while the series is in progress, it should be near the top; then when the series is finished I plan on having a different table on a separate page, and the current one can be deleted. If you feel it might look or function better further down the article, you should check it out, and if you think it's better, save it. If somebody doesn't like it, they can always undo it and discuss it on here.

Actually, is it possible to change the colours of the rows on the minitable at the top of the article? --JD_email 14:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

• The data in this page sources a site which speaks of third party individuals as hearsay. Please review WP:RS regarding the reliable sources of data. Thanks. Ste4k 12:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

If you're referring to the link I added to The Daily Telegraph website, I thought it was pretty reliable. It won't be needed after tomorrow anyway, if there's a problem with it being there. If you were on about something else, then you can kinda read around this... --JD_email 12:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you for a speedy reply. I am referencing the entire article here. Per WP:RS:

Personal websites as primary sources

A personal website (either operated by one individual or a group of individuals) or blog may be used only as a primary source, i.e., when we are writing about the owner of the website or the website itself. Ste4k 12:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Personal websites haven't been used as sources for this article; nor have blogs, as far as I can tell. I know you said you're referencing the whole article, but is there something specific you could point out, as an example? It may help me better understand. --JD_email 12:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Again, thank you for the speedy reply. How do you classify your sources if not "personal web sites"? Your second request cannot be logically answered until this point is agreed to. They appear to be sites which speak about the primary topic of the article, "the show", but the article does not address how much the show has earned, the companies involved in producing it, the viewing area or channels where it is available, the estimated viewing demographic, or other facts about the show itself. The article does appear to contain a replay of the content of the show, rather than discussing the show itself. The data presented as content specifically speaks of various third party individuals whom are neither authors of the source web sites, nor stock holders in the show. It is therefore pertinent how you define the classification of these sources in regards to their reliability. Thanks, and by the way, the graphic arrangement is very evenly balanced. Ste4k 13:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow. They are things I haven't even thought about where a Big Brother article is concerned, or even when watching the programme. I would have to do a bit of research on the subject, but if I found some information from reputable websites, I would definitely try to find a way to include it in the article. Some of that information is already on the main BB AU article, but it focuses more on Big Brother in general, rather than individual series. --JD_email 13:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with you that research on a subject is advisable before undertaking an article. I would like to ask you to further review WP:RS, please. I do not doubt the reliability of the sources themselves, however, if these sources are not considered to be personal web sites, then they appear to be self published sources. As discussed earlier, it is pertinent how you classify the sources in regard to their reliability. As self published sources they may not involve claims about third parties, which would be considered to be hearsay. Please let me know after review of WP:RS how you find the sources to be classified. Thanks! Ste4k 13:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Some of the information comes from the housemates themselves, but as it's unlikely that many of these things have been documented by reliable sources, I'm not quite sure how those sources would be classified. A lot of the information also comes from broadcasted shows, and is published on the Big Brother Australia website. It doesn't fit enough criteria to be classified as a published source, but it could, in some interpretations, be seen as a fact or coming from a primary source. --JD_email 13:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable by referring to reliable, published sources. The page should be written as historically accurate. How will this page be viewed as informational ten years from now? The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references. If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third party sources, Misplaced Pages should not have an article on that topic. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it WP:V. I think that my chief concern here is that there are statements made in the article which are about third party individuals and made by sources which have a financial interest in the show. The hearsay then looks to be factual to the general public. Rewording or removal in areas which are clearly only POV of the sources is warranted. I hope you can understand this perspective clearly. Regarding house mates themselves as reliable sources, quoting should be used, but their opinions are only hearsay and quite likely to be arguable among themselves on the program. To say "John said that Jane was pretty", does not mean that Jane is pretty. For a specific example, a statement such as "Anna seemed to form a tighter bond with the men in the house." might use some rewording or explanation. For another example, I checked the sources regarding "David Graham Goondiwindi, Qld 22 April Came out as gay on Day 4.", and there is no relevance to the show here. This may be relative to the plot of the show, to the sales of the show, or other factors, but that relationship is not stated in the article. The actual reference for day four quotes David rather than making any sort of opinion about his statement. These are only two examples picked at random. I hope this helps make my earlier points clearer. Ste4k 15:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Definitions

• Please add definitions of "intruder" and describe relevence to the show.

The word Intruder is used on the show itself, and refers to a housemate that enters the house after the series has started. --JD_email 13:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Please add that to the content of this page. Thanks! Ste4k 13:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I've added it to the Intruders - Incoming section that I just made, as I can't see any other well-suited place to put the information. I know it would be more ideal to place it nearer the top, but I couldn't find a good place. Sorry. --JD_email 14:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine to me! Please keep in mind that this article should strive to educate a person about the show whom may not have access to this program either now or in the future. Thanks! Ste4k 17:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Please add definition of "insider" and describe relevence to the show. Ste4k 13:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Unassessed Big Brother articles
• Unknown-importance Big Brother articles
• WikiProject Big Brother articles