Talk:Big Brother (British TV series) series 13

Infobox

I think the infobox can do with just first names, and the then the table on the main article can have their first and last names. It's always been that way, and let's not break with tradition. --Jandal3c (talk) 20:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Lead

We are describing it in bold as "also known as Big Brother 13". That appears to be a reference to our article title, not a published source. If it is not publicly known as BB13 we cannot say it is known as that in the lead based purely on our self-referential article title. Leaky Caldron 09:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Daily ratings

Do we (a) need them (b) why get them from DS and then replace them with BARB data later? What encyclopaedic justification is there for maintaining so much data? Leaky Caldron 09:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I think we should add it in after the series has finished when BARB has released the data --MSalmon (talk) 10:16, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I think ratings are just as important as any of the other daily information that are included. It was done on the celebrity series this year, and has been done on other series in the past. So long as it is not left without information, it should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.175.4 (talk) 07:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Can we please stop messing with the ratings? They change every day I visit the page. Thanks,--Firegazer101 (talk) 14:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

It's because someone wants to use two different sources, which is nonsense. Leaky Caldron 15:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Ratings should be taken from digital spy only. But I don't know where to find them? I've looked on the main ratings page but there is nothing about Big Brother there, so I don't know if I can trust the ratings on the wiki. --Firegazer101 (talk) 16:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Surely BARB is a more authoritative source? Leaky Caldron 16:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think they have them yet --Firegazer101 (talk) 16:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

We should wait for BARB. No point in introducing data known to be incorrect only to replace it later. There's no rush. Leaky Caldron 17:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Digital Spy's data is not incorrect, it's more correct, it's tape checked: http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/information/a190367/digital-spys-ratings-accuracy-faq.html 92.10.109.55 (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Has everyone just gave up on updating the ratings table? It hasn't been updated for a week now --Firegazer101 (talk) 14:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

We are waiting for the official ratings which are released on Mondays --MSalmon (talk) 15:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I have looked at BARB and I can't see how the launch got 3.02 million here when BARB says 2.93 million and the +1 figures for the launch didn't make the Top 10 and therefore not released? Also the table is current in the ratings which means that another source is being used besides BARB. What source is being used? ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 13:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Barb have yet to release week 4 and week 6 ratings officially, should this be noted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.138.198 (talk) 13:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Deana's live nominations

We need to discuss whether Deana's live nominations should be shown on two lines (with Victoria and Lydia on the same line) or three lines (with each housemate having their own line). I personally think that they should each have their own separate line, like in Big Brother 7 with Aisleyne's nominations when she was in the House Next Door each being on a separate line. --Flamingjoe (talk) 22:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

All housemates nominations should be on seperate lines regardless of how many. --MSalmon (talk) 22:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, all nominations should be shown on two lines no matter how many nominations, so it maintains the format of the rest of the table. That's just my opinion. --Firegazer101 (talk) 10:08, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Is this just an issue of consistency, aesthetics or is there a specific reason why one or the other format should be preferred? Leaky Caldron 11:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it looks right with three nominations on two lines. --MSalmon (talk) 12:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Well I think that the cell should maintain the same cell height as the rest of the housemates shown in the table. --Firegazer101 (talk) 14:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Why not reduce the font size for the 3 nominees so that they can be on a line each AND the row height remains the same? Leaky Caldron 21:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

What's wrong with the way it is now? --MSalmon (talk) 21:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

It looks really uneven on three lines --Firegazer101 (talk) 06:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it looks right having the font size different. All nominations should be given their own separate line. In the past we've always given each nomination its own separate line, why change it now? --Flamingjoe (talk) 17:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Becky or Rebecca?

Was just wondering if we should use her full name (Rebecca) as stated on the Channel 5 website or not?--MSalmon (talk) 22:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It should be "Becky" because Brian, Emma, Jamie, her VT and Big Brother in the diary room have all referred to her as "Becky". It should be what Big Brother refers to her as in the Diary Room, on Bit On The Side they showed Big Brother talking to her in the Diary Room and Big Brother called her "Becky". So she should be referred to as Becky. Flamingjoe (talk) 23:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, just checking. --MSalmon (talk) 22:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

White to represent a new housemate

When Becky entered, I added her into the nominations table and provided a white background (#FFFFFF) which is the color that represents a new housemate. However, someone keeps removing the white color. We need to discuss whether the "Not in House" marking needs a white background or not, so that it stands out more and isn't confused with the cells in which housemate nominations are shown. Thanks, --Firegazer101 (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

You don't need a white colour on a white background, use common sense. --MSalmon (talk) 14:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The code #FFFFFF is a very bright shade of white. The background is simply a dim light grey/white colour. The white background has been used for every single series so I don't see why we should stop now. If you don't want to use white then at least use a different shade to represent a new housemate. Thanks,--Firegazer101 (talk) 15:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

It all looks the same to me --MSalmon (talk) 16:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

If you look close, the table background is darker than the wiki background. Do we need a color for the Not in House cells then? --Firegazer101 (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Who is really going to be paying attention to the table background and wiki background? --MSalmon (talk) 16:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

You don't understand the point i'm making, I'm saying we need a colour for that particular cell. --Firegazer101 (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Firegazer101 is correct, we do need a white backround (#FFFFFF) for the cell where it says "Not in house". --Flamingjoe (talk) 20:12, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok fine, but I don't see what the point is. --MSalmon (talk) 19:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

New week

When nominations take place on Monday, does it still count as Week 1 or does it need to be moved into the Week 2 section? Thanks, --Firegazer101 (talk) 22:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

It still counts as Week 1 --MSalmon (talk) 09:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Font size

This is mostly directed at SecretStoryStyle, can we stop changing the font size please? There is no need for it. --Firegazer101 (talk) 19:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Second large ratings table

Per WP:BOLD I have removed this, it needs to be discussed before inserting masses of statistics. WP:IINFO applies. Leaky Caldron 13:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Nominations table - anti-vandalism

This version [1] is accurate as of this timestamp. If future changes are suspected that relate to the week 1 and week 2 nominations this version can be used as a baseline for verification purposes. Leaky Caldron 13:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Is this still counted as Wk 1 or is it Wk 2, i'm not entirely sure? --MSalmon (talk) 14:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

We will have to wait a week, or at least wait until anything is mentioned on the show :) --Firegazer101 (talk) 20:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to change it into Wk 1 and Wk 2 because Brian said at the Launch it was for 9 1⁄2 weeks --MSalmon (talk) 09:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I know, so thats why they are both Week 1 so when it gets to the ninth week (on a Tuesday), it goes on for another three days until the final - hence 9 1⁄2 weeks.. --Firegazer101 (talk) 14:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I have emailed them asking about it and I am waiting for a reply, so I will see what they say. --MSalmon (talk) 15:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

21 June [2]. Leaky Caldron 14:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC) Alice said on this weekend's BBBOTS that we are in Week 3. 20:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jandal3c (talk • contribs)

Forum?

Is there any forum on Wikipedia for this series or not? Thanks, --Firegazer101 (talk) 17:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

WP is not a fansite, social network or discussion forum. See WP:FORUM. This talk page is the place to discuss matters about the content of the article. Leaky Caldron 17:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Chris' eviction percentage

On Big Brother's Bit On The Side, Alice Levine "exclusively" revealed that Chris got 38% of the vote to save. Should we put this on the Nominations Table? --Flamingjoe (talk) 22:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Only if C5 release the percentages --MSalmon (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

It should go on the nominations table. They revealed Victoria's percentage last week as well. Looks like they will be revealed every Saturday show. --Firegazer101 (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

There is a source for this is there, I don't see anything on the website? --MSalmon (talk) 21:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Well if it was revealed on the show then it is an official vote. --Firegazer101 (talk) 21:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

As I said above, where is the source confirming this? --MSalmon (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

How about just watch the episode? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtlcchBwlXo&feature=channel&list=UL --Firegazer101 (talk) 22:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

How about you provide a source --MSalmon (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

They did clearly state on Big Brother's Bit On The Side that Chris received 38% of the vote to save, but when did they say that Victoria got 30%? --Flamingjoe (talk) 11:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but don't you need sources to back all this up? --MSalmon (talk) 11:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the fact that they revealed it on Channel 5's official spin-off, means that it must be correct. --Flamingjoe (talk) 13:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a source on the article --MSalmon (talk) 12:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

There was never a need to source the results when the programme was on Channel 4, anyway. Since Alice reveals the percentages on BBBOTS on Saturday, I don't see why it shouldn't be posted. Jandal3c (talk) 21:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

How do we know she didn't just make up the eviction percentages? --MSalmon (talk) 21:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you stupid? Why would she make it up? Bit on the Side is an official Channel 5 show so it doesn't need to be sourced. You're the only one who thinks we should have a source to "back it up", so majority rules. We don't need a source for every single thing we put on the page you know. --Firegazer101 (talk) 21:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think you understand what is meant by a source so until one can be found I will keep removing it. --MSalmon (talk) 08:22, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

@Firegazer101. You need to learn a bit more about the way WP works, rather than edit warring and insulting established editors. I have drawn attention to your flagrant breach of user page policy and you ignorantly chose to ignore it so don't expect people to automatically jump to your impetuous and immature tone because it ain't going to happen. As for the issue here, we have long passed the time when BB maintained a decent website that could be used to support material in our BB articles, even to the stage where there is no official voting history for the nominations table. I would prefer to stick to the non-quoting of percentages simply for consistency. Last night, IIRC, Bit on the Side did not disclose the eviction percentage. As well as being largely irrelevant such unsourced data content is frequently _targeted by vandals. I would certainly expect to see a template used for these entries. Leaky Caldron 10:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I have added back Chris' percentage and cited the episode of Bit on the Side that revealed this information. Under the guidelines Bit on the Side is a spin-off show of its parent, airs on Channel 5 or a sister channel and is produced by Endemol UK the same production company as its parent so any information revealed here such as eviction percentages are acceptable. When adding Chris' percentage the episode of Bit on the Side that revealed this information should be cited. I have added this percentage back while citing the June 23, 2012 episode that revealed this. I removed Victoria (30%) and Benedict (27%) percentages because none of the current sources in the article backs up this information. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 17:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Benedict

Is he Banned or Not eligible? Some sources, for example http://tellymix.co.uk/reality-tv/big-brother/93082-big-brother-2012-nominations-benedict-banned.html, says that he has been banned from nominating. Shall we note it as that in the table or keep it the same? --Firegazer101 (talk) 15:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it should be referred to as Not eligible. --Flamingjoe (talk) 19:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Nominations table

I have put in my Sandbox a copy of the Nominations Table that follows Wikipedia guidelines and established WikiProject guidelines. Big Brother's Bit on the Side is an official companion show to Big Brother so if the companion show gives out the eviction percentage first then it can be cited. I think there were a few occasions when Big Brother was on Channel 4 that one of the spin-offs revealed an eviction percentage once or twice when the main show failed to do. This is no different so Chris' percentage should be included and on the table in my sandbox I have cited the BOTS episode with this information.

I did not include Victoria's percentage because I have no clue where this one came from. The only official thing I have heard is that there was a 1% difference between her and Lydia. I removed Victoria's percentage from the Weekly Summary because it was not in the source provided.

The table that is in my Sandbox should be the table on the article based on the guidelines of Wikipedia and the WikiProject Big Brother.

Also the pages for Big Brother UK after Big Brother 11 (UK) have reverted back to the Weekly Summary table. In accordance with Wikipedia guidelines (not the project) the Weekly Summary section should be in prose and not in a table. This is necessary if the article is ever proposed to be a Good/Featured Article. After Big Brother 10 (UK) was promoted to Good Article status the format of this article should be a template for future seasons. Also the Ratings section should not have a table and that section should be in prose as well unless every episode's rating can be sourced. See Big Brother 11 (U.S.)#Ratings and reception as an example. In this case there needs to be a lead in in prose recapping the performance of the program.

It seems that the UK articles have reverted back to the format that is not in accordance to Wikipedia guidelines and WikiProject Big Brother guidelines established in 2009. While the quality of both the American and British articles have slipped in recent years it seems that the American articles are trying to maintain the new format despite several editors being against it.

I hope no one takes my comments the wrong way since I haven't been as active in recent years or think that they are WP:OWN but I just want the Big Brother articles to be the best they can be. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 07:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Added new table with Chris' percentage & source. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 13:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Conor controversy?

Ofcom received over 1,000 complaints regarding Conor's behavior towards Deana and the comment he made about punching her in a face. Surely this should be added to the Wikipedia page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.19.21 (talk) 00:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes that is true, that can be added to the page if you can find a source for the amount of complaints as this statement may not be true. Find a source, and you can add it in. Thanks :) --Firegazer101 (talk) 18:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

What certainly is true is that Conor was reprimanded in the diary room by Big Brother for making threats of violence. This is not mentioned in the weekly summary, yet Caroline's warning is. We need to be consistent - mention both or neither. Jim Michael (talk) 02:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I would like to correct the transcript of Conor's epilator rant. He said 'we're gonna split your face in two' rather than 'I'm gonna fuckin' smash your face in' He also said 'get up from that' rather than 'get up off the mat'

That's not what he said at all, it's fine how it is --RachelRice (talk) 19:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Becky voted in

As Nikki from BB7 and Jon from BB4 were voted back in and put in the evicted section, surely this should be the case for Becky as well, if you know what I mean. Thanks, --Firegazer101 (talk) 18:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know Becky had left the house? --MSalmon (talk) 18:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand the addition for Becky. She wasn't in at the start so I would expect her to be treated in the same way that numerous new HMs were treated in Big_Brother_9_(UK). Leaky Caldron 18:30, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

That's what I thought but it is still there --MSalmon (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

However, other new HMs weren't voted in. Becky was. Anything that involves the public voting someone either in OR out, then it should be noted. --Firegazer101 (talk) 18:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that the note could be improved. The comparison with Nikki & Jon doesn't stand up, they had already been in the house. Leaky Caldron 19:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

We need to compare it to when Josh entered the house in Big Brother 2. --Flamingjoe (talk) 20:50, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Week number

According to Channel 5, week 4 has just ended/we are now on week 5, which means that they must be including days 1 - 6 as their own week (i.e. Victoria and Chris were evicted in seperate weeks, not both in week 1 as the page states). Also, unlike Channel 4, they seem to have their weeks ending on Sunday/beginning on Monday. Should the article be amended to Channel 5's way of thinking or do we keep it this way? (source, by the way: https://www.facebook.com/BigBrotherUK/app_180572305343692?app_data=url_article%2Ftext%2FWeek-4-round-up%2F - it's also on the Channel 5 website under "Week 4 round-up but the website won't let me direct link to the article) 90.202.252.130 (talk) 11:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

A week ends on a Friday (Eviction night), and yes this is Week 5 and Week 1 shouldn't be seperated. --MSalmon (talk) 21:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

So basically your telling me Week 1 lasted 4 days? Don't be stupid, the final day of Week 1 is Day 7, which is nominations day. And as it's NOMINATIONS table rather than EVICTION table, the Week number should be when nominations take place, same in Celebrity series'. --Firegazer101 (talk) 14:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

No, the final day of Week 1 was Day 4 (as I said above) --MSalmon (talk) 16:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The official website weekly round-ups seem to run Monday to Sunday. The last one posted on 2 July is titled Week 4 round-up. This is as near to a WP:RS as we can get. Leaky Caldron 16:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think he/she listens to anything that has to be said and just reverts it anyway --MSalmon (talk) 16:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I learnt in school that there a 7 days in a week, not 4.--Firegazer101 (talk) 19:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I think we should stick with what Channel 5 are saying using their weekly round-up as a guide (i.e. this week being Week 5) --MSalmon (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Alright fair enough, I'm just not used to the way C5 are doing things --Firegazer101 (talk) 20:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and the same goes for the ratings table aswell --MSalmon (talk) 20:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

And weekly summary--Firegazer101 (talk) 06:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Ratings table

I'm trying to make a large box for the ratings of the Friday eviction shows to compensate for the fact that only one eviction show took place, but someone keeps dividing it into two. Can we come to a consensus that if there was (or is) only one eviction show on Friday, that we keep it as one big box, and if there were two eviction shows (like the one this past Friday), we split it into two? Jandal3c (talk) 06:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Nominations

Can someone add the nominations in as we saw them on BOTS. I would have added them in but it was too quick to catch all of them. --RachelRice (talk) 21:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Very confused

I am very confused as to whether there is going to be a final nominations, since Channel 5 had previously stated that the final nominations took place yesterday (30 July). And since it has been announced that the series will last 70 days, then should we merge Deana's nominations with the first full round of nominations, or merge the supposed final round of nominations and the final? It's very confusing. --RachelRice (talk) 21:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Conor evicted?

On the table, it says that Conor was evicted, but the word 'evict' was never used on the programme. They just said that whoever claimed the money had to leave the house. I think he should be put in a different category, as it wasn't a normal eviction. George.millman (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I know, but he didn't walk or was ejected so we have to use Evicted as there is nothing else we can use--MSalmon (talk) 22:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Big Brother said on BOTS last night that the person who takes the money would be automatically evicted. We could compare it to the first season of Big Brother (Netherlands), but we are better off keeping it as it is. --RachelRice (talk) 22:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

If he took the money he would be automaticly evicted so I guess he evicted himself...but still an eviction.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

On the, as stated above, first season of Big Brother (Netherlands) and the third season of Bigg Boss they have both had this situation where a housemate has left the house with a "bribe" and they are classed as "WALKED" so this should be the case for Big Brother 13 UK, Conor wasn't nominated and didn't face any public vote, it was his, and his alone, choice to walk out of the house with the £50,000. I strongly recommend that his status be changed to WALKED immediately. Sirocco758 (talk) 23:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it should be walked, as he left the house by choice rather than by public vote... or failing that, we should create a new category for him. George.millman (talk) 23:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

My personal opinon is also that it should be walked. By definition, an eviction is "an action by a landlord that compels a tenant to leave the premises." A tenant therefore cannot chose to evict themselves, as the landlord is in control of the action. In this scenario, the housemates would represent the tenants, while Big Brother would effectively be the landlord. The decision to take the money was completely in Conor's hands, so how can we call it an eviction? I think that "walked" is far more appropriate in this situation - he was aware of the circumstances of taking the money, and made the decision to take it and leave. He wasn't forced out of the door and thus I don't think you could say he was evicted. He made the decision to leave the house like any other walker in the past, the only difference being in this situation, he was effectively offered a bribe to go. :)

Oh, and also, whilst I don't have any strong feelings either way about the new collumn on the nominations table, I think it's highly misleading to have Luke S down as "declined offer". On the show, he quite clearly accepted the offer, but failed to do so before Conor did. I'm really not sure what a better phrase would be, but "declined offer" implies that he directly turned down the money, which obviously wasn't the case! :) (Kyleofark (talk) 01:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC))

I think we should leave Conor as Evicted for now unless C5 say otherwise --MSalmon (talk) 08:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Leave it as evicted, as it was clearly an eviction as he left to the crowd and was interviewed and when he took it the voice said "Conor, you have been evicted, please leave the Big Brother house". I agree with Msalmon, leave it as it is for now --RachelRice (talk) 11:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the voice didn't say that, it said 'Conor, you must leave the Big Brother House immediately.' I think that that clinches it... they never said on the programme that he had been evicted! As far as I'm concerned, if a housemate leaves the house because the public have voted them out, then they have been 'evicted'; if they make the conscious decision to leave, they have 'walked'; and if the producers decide to remove them from the house, they have been 'ejected'. In this occasion, it is surely the second one, because Conor made the informed and conscious decision to leave the house. Granted, it was not in the same circumstances as most people who walk, but he wasn't evicted, because evictions happen as a result of the public vote, and besides, the word 'evict' was never used on the programme, RachelRice is incorrect in thinking that it was. George.millman (talk) 16:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Official website states evicted over Conor's picture. Leaky Caldron 16:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not sure if the website has really thought about it that much. As Wikipedia editors, it is more important for us to be consistent than it is for them. Surely what is said on the programme is more reliable than what is on the website? Besides, as Sirocco758 has pointed out, there have been similar situations in other countries where the articles have said 'WALKED' - why change things? If we are keeping it as 'EVICTED', someone needs to sum up exactly what the criteria are for evicting, walking and ejecting, because at the moment, I don't understand them. When this is summed up, it needs to apply as a precedent to all other Big Brother articles, otherwise it is inconsistent, and Wikipedia is not a place for inconsistency. George.millman (talk) 18:51, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

An accepted WP:RS says evicted. I disagree with walked, which as we know from history is used for HMs who voluntarily remove themselves from the house for personal reasons. Why not just say "Left" and let the footnote explain the circumstances? Leaky Caldron 19:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with that suggestion, 'LEFT' would be far better, as he didn't technically walk, he was just closer to that than eviction. George.millman (talk) 19:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

We don't use Left, its either Evicted, Walked or Ejected (Keeley in BB11 left the house due to injury but we used Walked)--MSalmon (talk) 20:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Well I think that we should start using it, but if for whatever reason we can't do that, it should be 'WALKED', for reasons that I have explained above and for consistency. And if 'EVICTED' continues to be used, as I said, someone needs to explain exactly what the criteria are for 'EVICTED', 'WALKED' and 'EJECTED', and then apply them to every Big Brother-related article on Wikipedia, because at the moment they do not make sense and are inconsistent. George.millman (talk) 20:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

"because evictions happen as a result of the public vote"-George.millman - Evictions don't always happen from a public vote - Lynne was evicted by the housemates (BB3), Kinga was evicted by Makosi (BB6), Jonathan was evicted by Aisleyne and Grace, Lea and Mikey were also evicted after not being chosen to return (BB7), Gerry was evicted by housemates (BB8). So no, your statement doesn't stand up. And Conor didn't necessarily choose to exit the house, he chose to take the £50,000. And again it was announced on BOTS "the person who chooses to take the money would be automatically evicted" --RachelRice (talk) 22:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I have changed Conor's status to Left with £50,000 and used the legend5 on the infobox and the same colour on the nominations table, as George.millman states Wikipedia is all about consistency and saying Conor was Evicted is 100% wrong, as I stated above the housemates in the other versions of BB in the world with this situation are classed as WALKED, and have been for years now, so why is Conor different!!! Sirocco758 (talk) 23:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Also on this article on Digital Spy it clearly states "LEAVES" not "EVICTED" and on the housemate profile box Conor is stated as "WALKED" on the top of the page on there, aswell as on BBSpy Sirocco758 (talk) 23:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Conor walked because he chose to leave. He chose to take the option of taking the money and leaving immediately rather than staying. He was not voted out by anyone, nor was he ejected for wrongdoing. Therefore he cannot be said to have been evicted or ejected. Evictees and ejectees do not have a choice in the matter, they have to leave. Jim Michael (talk) 23:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who has agreed with me in this matter. However, RachelRice has changed it back to evicted, with the edit summary 'Conor was evicted - end of discussion.' I don't think that this is at all fair or reasonable. This discussion is still continuing, there are many people in this discussion including myself who feel that Conor should not be listed as having been evicted, and the way that RachelRice has explained this edit implies that this user feels that no matter who says what at the discussion, their vote is the only one that counts and that is the one that will affect the article. This is not a valid way of running Wikipedia. As has been discussed, there have been situations such as this in other series where people have not been listed as having been evicted, and the articles need to stay consistent. We could of course list Conor as having been evicted, and go back and change everything that is in the other articles to make them consistent with this one, but a) We'd be changing the format of articles that have been that way for years, which would be a really pointless waste of everyone's time and b) It still wouldn't be right, because there are many people who do not feel Conor was evicted! I'm quite annoyed by the way that this has been handled actually. RachelRice, you do not hold all final decisions over this article, this is an article that anyone can help to improve, and I would appreciate it if you do not insist on 'end of discussions' in the future, when the discussion is quite clearly still taking place. George.millman (talk) 00:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Totally agree with every word you have said George.millman, RachelRice really thinks she knows everything about Big Brother where infact she knows nothing, if its the same person that won Big Brother 9 then all the credit I gave her has gone now, the user is a bad editor and should either be banned or warned about her bad attitude and be made to read the basic rules of editing Wikipedia. If it was just us 2 that thinks it shouldn't state EVICTED then maybe she has a point but the basic fact of this discussion proves she is wrong ant that Conor wasn't evicted. Even on the highlights show broadcast on 4 August 2012, absolutely NO references to Conor being EVICTED were made, Big Brother and Marcus Bentley both said that Conor must LEAVE the house with the £50,000. I'd change it back to LEFT but probably RachelRice would get me banned or my editing priviledges revoked Sirocco758 (talk) 00:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying but we should go with what Channel 5 are saying which is Evicted and not anything else, which is as close to a reliable source we are going to get right now. Oh, and by the way Conor left by the front door not the diary room which is when people who normally walk out leave from. --MSalmon (talk) 08:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

MSalmon - at the time Keeley left the house in BB11, the website actually said 'Ejected due to injury' - so according to Channel 4, Keeley was ejected, but the article says walked, so that shows that the articles do not always say what the producers stick on their websites. I would say that they should say what is stated on the show, but at no time was Conor said to be evicted. If, like RachelRice said, Marcus's voice had said, 'Conor, please leave the Big Brother House. You have been evicted.', I would agree that it would be best to say evicted, but it did not say that, it said, 'Conor, you must leave the Big Brother house immediately.' As for the argument about leaving via the front door vs leaving via the diary room - by this logic, Victoria wasn't evicted, because she left via the diary room because of the rain. George.millman (talk) 09:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes but Victoria was evicted and Keeley walked due to injury, and I think it should be left as Evicted because that is what C5 are saying --MSalmon (talk) 09:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of both those things, I was merely using them as examples to pull apart your argument. Of course Victoria was evicted, and the article should say that; but if she was evicted, then the argument about which door the housemate left through doesn't stack up. Likewise, I agree that Keeley walked due to injury, but the website, run by Channel 4, said 'Ejected due to injury'; so your argument about the article mimicking what the official website says doesn't stack up either. As far as I'm concerned, Conor made the decision to leave the house! If you make the decision to leave the house, then you walk. I concede that walking isn't really the best way to describe it either, because people don't usually leave with half the prize money when they walk, which is why I thought it would be better to say 'LEFT' or 'LEFT WITH £50,000' and leave the footnote to do the talking - but according to you, there seems to be some rule about not adding new ways of leaving to the tables, in which case, 'WALKED' is the most accurate to what happened, and as you can see, there are many people in this discussion - at least half - who feel exactly the same way as me. If you need any more convincing, there are many people on this Digital Spy discussion thread (discussing the same thing as us) and a lot of them are on my side as well. http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?p=60141426 George.millman (talk) 09:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The personal attacks and criticism of other editors is unhelpful and unnecessary. I think we can safely assume that Rachelrice is not the actual BB former winner. Sources are clearly ambiguous - even between the C5 shows and the official website. 'LEFT WITH £50,000' is precisely what happened. "WALKED" & "EVICTED" are both true, but are ambiguous. There is no need to force an established leaving method when a new circumstance arises. The best explanation is one that describes accurately what happened, confirmed by sources. 'LEFT WITH £50,000' or 'WALKED WITH £50,000' are preferable to 'EVICTED WITH £50,000', 'WALKED' or 'EVICTED'. Leaky Caldron 09:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

That's exactly how I feel, thank you. And in my opinion, it doesn't matter whether RachelRice is the actual former BB winner, it makes no difference to the way the article should be. A great many people in this discussion feel this way (I believe it to be the majority, but I haven't counted officially, so it might not be - but I'm sure it's at least half) and also many of the people in the Digital Spy thread feel this way as well. I'm not entirely sure of what happens now if the other party doesn't back down - what do we need to be able to make it our way? George.millman (talk) 10:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I changed it to 'Walked' last night but someone changed it to evicted, I'm not changing it back to walked again so that's just tough --RachelRice (talk) 11:41, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Am I to take it that you have now conceded that Conor was not evicted? Thanks for that then. In that case, nearly all of the people here - except MSalmon) seem to feel this way. I am changing it to 'LEFT WITH 50,000" unless it is agreed to make it something else. The person who changed RachelRice's edit is someone without an account who hasn't even taken part in this discussion. Can someone fix the table at the top of the page, with the list of all the housemates and what happened to them, and also the bit at the bottom of the nominations table, that says who was evicted and who left? It's really complicated, and I can't work out how to do it. George.millman (talk) 12:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

We don't use the term 'left' on BB articles, we use 'walked', so I've put it as walked. Please do not change the text or color now --RachelRice (talk) 13:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - other people are still changing it, but I'll keep on reverting it to your edit. George.millman (talk) 13:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

It should be "Ejected." It said: "If you take the money, you must leave the Big Brother house immediately." Walked means when they leave because they want to, he didn't want to leave, he was forced to leave, but wasn't evicted because he didn't face the public vote and so he was ejected. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 13:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Puffin - do you not watch BB? Ejected is thrown out for rule-breaking, he knew he had to leave the house if he took the money so he chose to take the money and walk. We've sorted it now stop going on about it. --RachelRice (talk) 13:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The OFFICIAL Channel 5 website says he was evicted, so we are putting it as evicted. --RachelRice (talk) 14:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

RachelRice - you are contradicting yourself! Previously, you seemed to have conceded to our way of thinking. As a group, we had agreed to change it to 'WALKED'. George.millman (talk) 16:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

If Channel 5 says it, then it is official, sorry --RachelRice (talk) 16:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The official site is not always the best WP:RS, per WP:PRIMARY. Secondary sources are preferred. Leaky Caldron 16:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

By RachelRice's logic, Keeley should be written as ejected, not walked, in the BB11 article, because the website said ejected. There are similar situations to this in international editions of Big Brother that have said Walked on the articles. Wikipedia articles need to be consistent. Besides which, RachelRice does not have the right to make the final decision themselves. The whole point of Wikipedia is that we all share that responsibility, and nearly everyone apart from RachelRice and MSalmon agree with me. George.millman (talk) 16:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I have agreed to leave it as Walked although it does say evicted on C5 website as it does say he did Walk with £50,000 --MSalmon (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you think we should update the infobox as well to say he walked with £50k? --MSalmon (talk) 18:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Your overusing the statement. It doesn't need to be in the nominations table because it has nothing to do with the nominations process. --RachelRice (talk) 18:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the term 'evicted' is better for Conor, as he did not walk, and the website states he is 'evicted.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waterlooroadfan107 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

That's what I think, since it was on an official website, but obviously people wanna rebel and do what they wanna do and not go by the facts --RachelRice (talk) 19:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, and that is why it is evicted. Also, Conor left through the front door, housemates that walk always leave via the diary room, or the garden door. Never the front door, also Big Brother used the term 'evicted' and 'walking' was never mentioned, therefore we should change it back to 'Evicted'. -- waterlooroadfan107 (talk) 20:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

At no stage in any of the live or recorded coverage was the word "evicted" used by BB or by Marcus Bentley. Leaky Caldron 20:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

It says on the official Channel 5 website that Conor was evicted, we should use the terms that Channel 5 use. -- Flamingjoe (talk) 22:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Not really. That is a WP:PRIMARY source. We should use secondary WP:RS sources. The word eviction was never used during the live or recorded output. Leaky Caldron 21:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Channel 5 is a trusted source since it decides what in Big Brother is right and what is wrong, and on the official website it says he was evicted. Yes it wasn't used in the live show but it was used on BOTS when the twist was announced the night before. And Walked was mentioned either. --RachelRice (talk) 09:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The official website gives conflicting views which doesn't help. On the voting page it states other housemates as being the X evicted from the house, but says something different with Conor: http://www.channel5.com/shows/big-brother/articles/vote

"Conor decided to take the £50,000 offered to him in The White Room and left the Big Brother House on Friday 3rd August." For other housemates however, it specifically says: "Becky was the ninth housemate to be evicted from the Big Brother House on Friday 3rd August." "Caroline was the eighth housemate to be evicted from the Big Brother House on Friday 27th July." "Lauren was the seventh housemate to be evicted from the Big Brother House on Friday 20th July."

etc. (Kyleofark (talk) 17:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC))

£50,000

Going off subject so I've made a new section. It states that Conor walked with 50k TWICE on the nominations table. I suggest we only have it in the 'Walked' section, and also Becky's eviction doesn't need to be stretched over two columns since the White Room was a completely different part of the show --RachelRice (talk) 19:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you there, we need to change that and divide the two sections, and place Conor in the EVICTED section, and remove the 'Walked' as he did not walk. Shall we do that? --waterlooroadfan107 ([[User talk:waterlooroadfan107|talk]) 20:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Please discuss that matter in the section above --RachelRice (talk) 19:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Please reply to my post in the section above kindly. --waterlooroadfan107 (talk) 20:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Final week

Hi, just wondering if someone can do the nominations table for next weeks final when there will be 5 housemates after the double eviction this Friday. Thanks --MSalmon (talk) 15:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

It is best to wait until after this week's double eviction before we do that, because BB might change things at short notice yet again. Jim Michael (talk) 18:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Huh, how can they change things as there is only this Friday's eviction and then the final on Monday? --MSalmon (talk) 18:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Producers haven't decided whether it's going to be a single or a double so we don't know how many will remain after the eviction --RachelRice (talk) 01:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

It was confirmed on BOTS that it WILL be a double eviction. Therefore five in the final. --RachelRice (talk) 22:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't realise it was confirmed. I normally look on Twitter but I didn't then. --MSalmon (talk) 22:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

When doing the final five in the nominations table use nowrap (only on the 5th and 4th place though) because it will fit on then --MSalmon (talk) 20:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

You don't need to because when we fill up the 'evicted' row it will stretch out --RachelRice (talk) 22:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't fit on, I have tried it --MSalmon (talk) 08:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh I see what you mean now. Yes, nowrap is fine --RachelRice (talk) 19:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Can I asked why you changed the legend back to what it was before (what I have been saying all along)? --MSalmon (talk) 19:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought we agreed on the blueish color for the legend, then it was changed to legend6 which looked awful. --RachelRice (talk) 19:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who changed it to legend6 that is why I kept changing it back --MSalmon (talk) 19:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Legend

Msalmon - Finalists should be #FBF373 not #D1E8EF since they are not up for eviction. --RachelRice (talk) 22:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but it is still a public vote to win --MSalmon (talk) 08:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

They haven't been nominated and they aren't facing eviction. Finalists always have legend3 --RachelRice (talk) 11:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

IIRC, the 4 loosers will be told "you have been EVICTED, please leave the Big Brother House" so it is not correct to say they are not facing eviction. Leaky Caldron 12:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

As I said before they are still facing the public vote TO WIN, legend3 is only used for immune and exempt which they are not so stop changing it --MSalmon (talk) 15:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Makes sense to have a finalist legend. Leaky Caldron 15:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

It was used last year so why not this year? --MSalmon (talk) 16:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that the legend6 for FINALIST is better as it is more accurate, the blue is for nominated housemates, people that have been put up for an eviction, this is the final, and therefore it should be different. --waterlooroadfan107 18:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.180.111 (talk)

You have breeched WP:3RR. Do it again and you will face a block. They will be EVICTED but they are designated FINALISTS (official website). Makes sense to have a "Finalist" legend. I'm not too concerned about what has been done in previous series. Things change and there is no need to be stuck in the past. Leaky Caldron 17:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, I agree with you! They are not nominated. Msalmon keeps changing my finalist legend to nominated :S — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.180.111 (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't nominated mean that they are facing the public vote? --MSalmon (talk) 17:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Nominated means for eviction, they will not be evicted they will leave the house as 5th, 4th, and so on --RachelRice (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Which the public vote for --MSalmon (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with the #D1E8EF setting, but the color it is now looks awful. Anyway, the final is in 45 minutes so there is no point changing it now --RachelRice (talk) 19:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

If you don't like the colour then change it (anyway there isn't a sixth legend, and was ONLY created for BB14 in America). --MSalmon (talk) 19:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

As I said, finalists are still EVICTED. Leaky Caldron 20:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Survived

Can we please remove the percentages of who survived? Three reasons. One: Channel 5 didn't reveal all of the eviction percentages, especially the week where Caroline was evicted. It doesn't make sense to put that when we only know her and Luke S's eviction percentages. Two: we've never done this with previous series, and it looks out of place to do a survived section. Three: Deana and Adam did NOT survive the public vote because they didn't win. Jandal3c (talk) 07:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It's useful information therefore should be added in. I don't see a reason why we shouldn't. --RachelRice (talk) 08:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

And we've never been given the other percentages before, therefore we didn't add them in --RachelRice (talk) 08:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

We don't need to know who survived the eviction as we didn't add it in when it was on Channel 4 so why now? --MSalmon (talk) 08:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Because Channel 4 didn't tell us the other percentages. Why should we not put it in? It's useful information isn't it? --RachelRice (talk) 09:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Because Channel 5 haven't released all of the percentages as Week 8 and the Final (apart from the final 3) had vote freezes. Once C5 have put the details on their website it can be used as a source (can only find bbspy at the moment). --MSalmon (talk) 09:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Isn't BOTS a good enough source? They said they will put them on the website today but they haven't. --RachelRice (talk) 09:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Unless you can find a source from BOTS which lists them, then add it --MSalmon (talk) 09:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Well we have a source now. --RachelRice (talk) 12:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I know, I added it. --MSalmon (talk) 12:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

We need the survived column for casual readers, sources are to back up context, and the source at the moment is not backing up anything --RachelRice (talk) 12:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Provided that it is sourced the additional row of information is helpful and no less encyclopaedic than the rest of the table. Leaky Caldron 13:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I suppose we could include them but Caroline's result in Wk 8 was out of 2 not 8. Not too sure about the final as the vote % for the top three was I think for the overall period up until the lines had freeze/closed. --MSalmon (talk) 13:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think Caroline's was the eviction percentage overall, because Luke S had to have at least 50% of the votes to save. If Caroline had that amount out of 2, then Luke S should have had something like 95% of the vote. I personally don't like the survival section of the table, because the info is not quite accurate and is incomplete. We're missing the eviction percentages of everyone else in Week 8, and we're not given the exact percentages after the votes were suspended, but the overall eviction percentages. Jandal3c (talk) 15:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

If it's useful (for casual readers) then it deserves to be on the table. --RachelRice (talk) 16:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It makes the table look very unorganised with the "survived" row, I don't think we should have it. --Flamingjoe (talk) 17:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Other countries have it and it looks fine --RachelRice (talk) 16:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The voting breakdown for Week 8 and the Final have been revealed on Twitter (Week 8 and Final) --MSalmon (talk) 17:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I also edited the percentages so they made mathematical sense. Luke A won with approximately 53% of the vote between him and Adam, and the vote percentage you see on the source is actually overall (out of 5). Jandal3c (talk) 17:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Could you tell me how you worked this out because the figures are not out of 5 (the lines would have been closed before the 5th placed housemate left) --MSalmon (talk) 08:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The voting lines to win do NOT add up to 100%. The voting breakdown for the final week as stated above clearly backs that up. --RachelRice (talk) 09:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I know that, but how did you work out that Luke A won with 53%? --MSalmon (talk) 12:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't work that out, Jandal did, I was telling him he was wrong in saying Luke got 53% --RachelRice (talk) 13:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Luke did in fact get 53%. It's mathematically impossible for him to win with about 32% of the votes in a two-way race. If you want to preserve the numbers as seen on the source, I ask that you remove the "out of n" parentheses from the entire table, because it's mathematically impossible for that to happen. Same story with Caroline: because she lost to Luke S in a two way battle, there is no way that she could have received about 5% of the vote out of 2; she must have received a number between 40 and 49%. Jandal3c (talk) 21:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Controversy section

This article had a lengthy 'controversy' section, filled with several poorly sourced, fairly trivial 'controversies'. We really don't need to mention every single argument that happened on the show or event that someone complained about; and as the contestants are living people, WP:BLP applies and negative allegations must be properly sourced. I've cut this section down to what seemed to me the two most notable controversies: the open discussion of nominations and the instance of alleged bullying that brought over 1000 complaints. The rest seemed pretty minor stuff to me and not worth including. Robofish (talk) 11:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

There was a lot of controversy this series therefore every bit counts --RachelRice (talk) 19:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

"Survived Section"

Is there anyway the Nominations Table could be tidied up to match the other series as at the moment Big Brother 3 and Big Brother 13 both have the "Survived" section underneath the housemates as I currently do not know how to sort this correctly. I thought maybe someone would know. Thanks — Jackstarrzz14

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Big Brother 13 (UK). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140221215245/http://totalbigbrother.com/news/schwarzkopf-live-color-xxl-sponsor-big-brother.tbb to http://totalbigbrother.com/news/schwarzkopf-live-color-xxl-sponsor-big-brother.tbb

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:43, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Celebrity Big Brother 1 (U.S.) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:22, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Big Brother 1 (UK) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 12:31, 22 December 2018 (UTC)