Talk:Big Brother (British TV series) series 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Housemates table[edit]

I can't remember, but didn't someone replace Nick? -- 9cds(talk) 11:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No idea, I was only 10 at the time and my parents had put it in my head that the show sucked (I now know better of course). If he was replaced it probably says on the archive I put in the external links section. --LorianTC 11:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Claire replaced Nick. David | Talk 11:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I just saw that on the archive, it doesn't say when though... --LorianTC 11:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, should we leave her entry day blank for now? -- 9cds(talk) 11:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Guess that's all we can do for now. --LorianTC 11:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Damn, I'm surprised I found a source so fast. [1] She entered on day 37. --LorianTC 11:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good work :) -- 9cds(talk) 11:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with the info box[edit]

Why does the infobox (contestant list) link to non-existant sections, and there's no links to the contestants who have articles? It seems this edit added {{Big Brother housemates}} and ever sense then, all the links are defective. I got no problem with {{Big Brother housemates}}, but it should only be used, if somebody's interested in making sections for each and every contestant, or if the template is fixed to handled stand-alone articles. --Rob 00:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well this article is a stub, unfinished. There's information about the housemates in the link at the bottom of the page if anyone wants to do it. --LorianTC 07:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Being an unfinished stub is ok. However, broken syntax can't be left for days. I put back the old table *temporarily*. When housemate sections are added, you can put back {{Big Brother housemates}} from history here. --Rob 02:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I dunno where this logo's from, but it's not the one used in the TV show. The TV logo featured a close-up of a real eye, which Davina revealed to be housemate Melanie Hill's. Anyone got an image of it? BillyH 02:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations table[edit]

Does anyone have any information for who nominated who etc? I was only 9 so can't really remember the series that well. We need to create a nominations table... godgoddingham333 21:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Week 7[edit]

I'm missing some nominations from Week 7. What I know is this: Darren was the only person to change a nomination the second time (Melanie changed to Claire). Claire and Craig received 3 nominations, Darren received 2 and Anna and Melanie received 1 each. Maybe we can work out the missing nominations. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 10:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my thoughts: Claire probably nominated Mel and Darren. Craig probably nominated Anna. Anna, Darren and Mel probably nominated Craig. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 10:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know Darren nominated Melanie and Craig in week 7, first time round. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonPeter (talk • contribs)

Would be to get a map?[edit]

I will look around for one. 80.229.241.200 22:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC) jimmy93211[reply]

Week 9 percentages[edit]

The table says Darren got 13% of the votes out of 3, Anna got 41% out of 2 and Craig got 46% to win. Out of what is the 46%? Surely it should be 54% out of 2? It doesn't make sense to me. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[2] and [3] quote figures of 13%, 49% and 51%. I've updated the table to match this. Tra (Talk) 23:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yeah, I thought it was close. Thanks for that :) — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 18:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't re-open the voting after the 3rd place eviction so the C4 percentages @ [4] are correct. Someone has re-worked the "out of 2" percentages based on the actual votes cast for the three contestants. Ymlaenllanelli 12:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I had a different sort of tv as mine distinctly remembered the voting reopening after Darren's eviction.FanRed XN | talk 05:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Big Brother UK 1 logo.gif[edit]

Image:Big Brother UK 1 logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 01:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upgraded to C-Class[edit]

I have upgraded this article to C-Class as it meets the criteria, the article has a good amount of information but not enough yet for B-Class. More reliable sources would be good to improve the article. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 22:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First series?[edit]

How is this the first series when Big Bro is 10 years old this year? Would that not mean that it started in 1999? I think it did. Why is it also called BB10 this year? [5] Keithf2008 (talk) 17:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I was thinking that 00 + 09 = 2009 = Big Bro 9.. I was wrong. Blonde moment. Sorry. Keithf2008 (talk) 17:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Phillips in Bo Selecta[edit]

Craig phillips also played himself in channel 4's 'Bo Selecta' for 2 series from 2002 and the christmas special 'A bear's tail' in 2004 and contributed to the Bo Selecta christmas single 'Proper Crimbo' in 2003. Sourses - craigphillips.co.uk, craig phillips at imdb.com and proper crimbo page on wikipedia.79.64.189.131 (talk) 22:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)Lucy[reply]

Andy Davidson Rap single[edit]

Hi i noticed the reference here since the point was deleted. Is this Now Magazine being insufficiently researched? [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scopey123 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ {{cite news| url=http://www.nowmagazine.co.uk/gallery/gallery-specials/27791/2/4/big-brother-contestants-2000-2003-where-are-they-now/1/ | work=Now Magazine | location=London | title=Big Brother Contestants Where are they now

Makeover[edit]

Hello! As I'm sure you've noticed, I have cleaned up the Wiki article and added much information that was not previously included. Sections such as "Format", "House", "Broadcasts", "Prizes", and the Controversy section should be featured in all Big Brother Wiki articles. The BBUK pages are in terrible shape, and need cleaned up. I will be working on them all, but obviously it will take some time for me to fix them all. If you would like to contribute and fix the articles to match the suit of this one (or add more sections, if necessary), please do so! Also, each page should have a "Ratings & reception" section as well. As the show is now 12 years old, it is difficult to find the ratings for the series. If you find any reliable source with ratings information, PLEASE feel free to post the information! It would be greatly appreciated. Also, BB articles are now required to have a written weekly summary, not the chart that is still commonly used. Anyone who would like to fix this in other articles, please feel free to do so! Thank you. :) --Sethjohnson95; September 23, 2012

Week 1 nominations[edit]

Anybody know why the nominations start at Week 2, what happened to Week 1? MSalmon (talk) 18:07, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Big Brother 1 (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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 03:46, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Big Brother 1 (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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

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)[reply]

Requested move 22 December 2018[edit]

Moved all but Big Brother 7 (UK), required sysop move, please can someone with the necessary tools do this? SITH (talk) 15:04, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Dekimasuよ! 18:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 14:36, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]


– Note: This programme was aired by two different broadcasters in the UK. Channel 4 aired series 1-11 of Big Brother and series 1-7 of Celebrity Big Brother. Channel 5 aired series 12-19 of Big Brother and series 8-22 of Celebrity Big Brother. Channel 5 maintained continuity with the Channel 4 series when they acquired the show this is why all of the individual series are being proposed in a single move.

This edition is a bit unique due to the fact that the opening titles omits the name of the programme and just features the logo for that series. In order to figure out the proper naming convention for each individual series was harder than other editions. Both broadcasters had no consistent naming convention they used for naming individual series.

During the Channel 4 years the presenter would welcome the audience by saying Welcome to "Big Brother <year> during live episodes. The exception to this was the fifth series of Big Brother and the third series of Celebrity Big Brother that aired in 2005 where she used the number. At the end of live eviction episodes during the Celebrity series the host would inform viewers about auditions of the summer series by using the name Big Brother <number>". When Channel 4 aired their final series Ultimate Big Brother which brought past contestants back to compete again the show on screen used titles like Big Brother 2000 to refer to series 1, Big Brother 2001 for series 2, etc. However the host and the contestants called the individual series Big Brother 1, Big Brother 2, etc.

Channel 5 was similar to Channel 4 with their handing of the programme in that there was no consistent naming convention used. When Channel 5 decided to air two Celebrity series per year the host stopped saying the year during the summer Celebrity edition and referred to the individual series as Celebrity Big Brother except in cases when the series was given a subtitle (i.e. Celebrity series 16 is known as Celebrity Big Brother: UK vs USA). This also impacted the main series as well (i.e. series 16 is known as Big Brother: Timebomb).

Reliable sources also make it difficult to figure out a simple common name as in some cases they use generic naming conventions like this or use numbers like this. Some reliable sources may use years which can be problematic for the Celebrity series like these two sources that call the 21st and 22nd celebrity series Celebrity Big Brother 2018.

Since the broadcaster, production team and the reliable press have used various naming conventions over the years it would be best to move the British edition in accordance with the general naming convention outlined by WP:NCTV. The lead of each article can identify which common name (i.e. Big Brother 2001, Big Brother 5, etc.) goes with which article. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 12:25, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support – There's no reason for WP:BIGBRO to have a weird "carve out" from standard WP:NCTV naming conventions, and it doesn't look like this series' seasons were actually (consistently) called "Big Brother 2", etc. The original titles will also still exist as redirects for anyone that cares. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:04, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Far too much messing and tinkering going on here by someone who, as far as I can recall, does not even contribute to the individual articles other that altering existing 18 years of design and layout for the purposes of ultimate consistency while making the actual user experience worse. Leaky Caldron 17:48, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, how awful – somebody who's not a "fan boy", who actually went to the trouble to independently research the subject. You also utterly failed to remark on the part where these articles are not in compliance with the relevant naming guideline, or that the current titles will all still exist as redirects, or that most of the current titles are actually incorrect. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:04, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per nom's very detailed research and per WP:NCTV - since there is not consistent style of "Big Brother #" (and in fact, it was not even used that much), the style should be the one in the NCTV guideline. Leaky, you should comment on the proposal, not the editor. However, if you already do comment on the editor, try and not make a fool out of youtself, as Alucard 16 is a very active editor in the Big Brother scene, at least since I've been taking a deep dive into this. Also, pages get moved all the time, and 41 is not a really big number (regardless, that argument used is inane, as that basically means rewarding people for creating a mess even though others want to fix it). --Gonnym (talk) 19:38, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Find the last substantive edit they have made to a UK series while it has been in progress. Zero. Not very active where it matters - maintaining and vandal fighting. I didn't create the mess - it might have been Alucard. Leaky Caldron 19:59, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is my only reply to this but my edit history should not be up for discussion. This is not a Requests for adminship on me where every edit I've made is scrutinized by the community this is a move request and the discussion should be kept on topic. No where at WP:Requested moves does it say I have to edit x article for x amount of time. Any editor can propose a move request as long as there is a valid reason irregardless if they edited the article or not. You bringing up my edit history in relation to Big Brother (UK TV series) season articles is honestly low and blatantly you saying you don't like this request. To me it also implies some sort of (Personal attack removed) on your part. This discussion established that WP:BIGBRO can't override the guidelines established by WP:NCTV which impacts these articles. This discussion attempted to move all Big Brother articles to the basic WP:NCTV guidelines but ended in no consensus due to some editions legitimately being able to keep their current names. This was the catalyst which has started a year long research project trying to figure out the correct names for all Big Brother season articles. It is kinda funny you mention me for not editing Big Brother (UK TV series) season articles while they were in progress but you didn't participate in the last discussion about moving the British Big Brother articles. If your going to oppose this move I ask you to not to mention my edit history and instead keep the discussion on topic. Oh and btw I may not have made a substantial edit to any of the recent series articles I did recently re-write Teen Big Brother: The Experiment before proposing this request. It didn't need to be moved because its name is correct. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 07:12, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn't create the mess either. My comment about your lack of routine day to day involvement is a simple statement of fact. I have no thoughts of ownership - that is a clear personal attack as is the childish accusation by your pall IJBall about "fan boy". If you can afford to spend a year researching the name for a bunch or articles which are poorly sourced and vandalised to hell you might have more time than sense. Dish it out to me and it comes straight back at you. Leaky Caldron 08:46, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thing is I wasn't attacking you after reading your comments I did genuinely get a sense of (Personal attack removed) on your part. I'm sure I'm not the only one who may have thought that. I made a decision to expand outside of working on Big Brother articles and into other areas that interest me. I also help Wikipedia in other areas hence why my level of editing Big Brother articles is not as high as it was years ago. Thing is all article titles should be in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines and policies even the articles that are poorly sourced and often targets of vandalism should have correct titles at least. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 17:04, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • Alucard 16 I see you are persisting with this line. Before I escalate, please can I suggest that you review my BB contributions, examine WP:OWN and WP:OAS and confirm clearly the basis of your accusation of ownership. Options are to produce the evidence, in which case the community can decide at WP:ANI or you can strike the repeated remarks and move on. Leaky Caldron 18:41, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
              • Leaky caldron I'm not carrying on this discussion here nor am I striking out anything I've said if you want to carry on this conversation you can take it to one of our talk pages or feel free to escalate it to WP:ANI whichever you chose to do. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 19:13, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and IJBall. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:57, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Since the “lead of each article can identify which common name (i.e. Big Brother 2001, Big Brother 5, etc.) goes with which article”, we should use that same identified common name as the title of each respective article. Lest anyone forgets, WP:COMMONNAME trumps WP:CONSISTENCY. —В²C ☎ 13:20, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Born2cycle This argument works for the American counterpart Big Brother (U.S. TV series) where numbers are the common name but they are used consistently by the press even when the show uses subtitles. If there was a clear common name for this edition then it would be different but there isn't.
      • During the Channel 4 series the common name was Big Brother <year> and the articles were previously named as such. It wasn't until Channel 5 acquired the rights to the series and started to air two celebrity seasons per year were the articles moved to their current names. Both Big Brother <year> and Big Brother <number> was used by the host during the Channel 4 seasons when referring to individual seasons. If you go back and watch the live episodes you can see this. For example during the fifth Celebrity series live shows the host would promote auditions for the upcoming summer edition by saying Who wants to be a Housemate for Big Brother 8? Then when the eighth main series actually aired during the live launch she called it Big Brother 2007. This was a common occurrence during the Channel 4 run where the two naming styles would be used interchangeably on air and the press used both naming styles as well. Ultimate Big Brother really highlighted this problem when production used Big Brother <year>/Celebrity Big Brother <year> on screen when providing information about the returning Housemates however when the name of the season was spoken on air the host and housemates used Big Brother <number>.
      • When the show moved to Channel 5 the host began referring to the Celebrity seasons simply as Celebrity Big Brother on-air except if there was a subtitle. For the main series the host would still refer to the main series by year except when a subtitle was used.
      • The press uses Big Brother <year> and Big Brother <number> equally when searching you can find reliable sources supporting either common name for each season. The same goes for the Celebrity edition as well.
    • By moving these articles to the standard WP:NCTV guideline of Big Brother (UK series #) and Celebrity Big Brother (UK series #) then in the lead of each article it can use the common name used for that season. Like the Channel 4 seasons can have years, the Channel 5 seasons can have subtitles, etc. The naming convention has to be consistent as per WP:TVSEASON this is why The Amazing Race: All-Stars is named The Amazing Race 24 as the naming style has to be consistent. In the United States The Celebrity Apprentice is a continuation of The Apprentice (U.S. TV series) not a spin-off this is why all The Celebrity Apprentice seasons continue the naming The Apprentice (U.S. season #) (see The Apprentice (U.S. season 8) as an example). Big Brother (UK TV series) should not be an exemption to the guidelines of WP:NCTV when there are other popular reality shows that follow the guidelines. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 17:04, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I missed it but I don’t see a rebuttal to my argument in this wall of words. WP:COMMONNAME trumps WP:CONSISTENCY. As to the American counterpart and any other series which has gone astray of naming policy (which exists for good reason), see WP:OTHERSTUFF. The point is we should be doing our best to find the best title for each article independently, not even looking for a one-size-fits-all. —В²C ☎ 19:40, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I should add WP:NCTV perhaps elevates consistency to a higher status than is warranted per WP:CRITERIA, and that may be the root problem here. --В²C ☎ 23:01, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You indeed missed it, as Alucard 16 has stated multiple times in this discussion. The style of "Big Brother #" is not the commonname. If you think that is, provide the evidence to counter the evidence that he has which shows it isn't. Throwing "commonname" around isn't an end-all-win-all argument, if you can't back it up - also, a naming convention guideline shouldn't be ignored without a special reason. As it stands, your argument is currently advocating for WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. --Gonnym (talk) 14:05, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For those where “Big Brother #” is not the common name the title should be changed, to whatever the common name is, and that’s apparently not the same for each of these articles. The naming convention can be used on those articles where the common name needs disambiguation, but even then only to disambiguate the common name. That's not what this proposal does. It just blindly changes from one title that is not the common name to another that is not, bizarrely suggesting the common name be specified in the lead rather than in the title (“...then in the lead of each article it can use the common name used for that season.”). The entire proposal is based on the misguided notion that “the naming style has to be consistent”. No, it doesn’t. There doesn’t have to be a consistent naming style at all. That’s even per WP:TVSEASON: “if each season is referred to by a distinctive name, that should be used...” The common name for each article should be each article’s title, period. NCTV itself could not be any clearer about this in its opening sentence: the article title for any topic related to television should be simply the most common word or phrase used to describe that topic. Apply that guidance to each article. Period. There is no basis to ignore all that and title them all the same per some formula in the name of “consistency” that results in many not reflecting their respective common names in their titles. For the third time, CONSISTENCY does not trump COMMONNAME. Why is this so hard to understand? Many of these titles do need to change, but not wholesale per this proposals’s one-size-fits-all formula. –В²C ☎ 15:33, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Born2cycle: The British version of Big Brother doesn't have a singular common name there are two common names which are often used by the British press which are Big Brother <year> and Big Brother <number> and the same is true for Celebrity Big Brother. When reading WP:COMMONNAME it says When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly. This is when I turned to WP:NCTV for guidance.
The only seasons to have distinctive names are 14, 15, 16 and 18 of Big Brother which are Big Brother: Secrets and Lies, Big Brother: Power Trip, Big Brother: Timebomb and The United Kingdom of Big Brother respectively. The only celebrity seasons to have distinctive names are 16, 19, 21 and 22 which are Celebrity Big Brother: UK vs USA, Celebrity Big Brother: All-Stars vs. New Stars, Celebrity Big Brother: Year of the Woman and Celebrity Big Brother: Eye of the Storm respectively.
So the guideline if each season is referred to by a distinctive name, that should be used... from WP:TVSEASON wouldn't apply here as it gives a clear example in Survivor (U.S. TV series) that every single season needs a distinctive name for this guideline to apply. Instead this guideline would apply to the British version of Big Brother and its celebrity spin-off A consistent naming scheme should be used for all season articles of a TV show: if one season is named something special, this should be noted through redirects and in the article's WP:LEAD, but the article should be named in the same fashion as the other season pages. The example given here is The Amazing Race (U.S. TV series) where only four seasons have distinctive names but the established naming convention is applied to all 31 season articles. The distinctive names are redirected to the season articles in this case.
Since this edition has multiple, equal common names like Big Brother <year>, Big Brother <number>, Celebrity Big Brother <year> and Celebrity Big Brother <number> redirects would be in place for these as well. For the 2012-2018 Celebrity Big Brother seasons article titles like Celebrity Big Brother 2018 would become disambiguation page like Celebrity Big Brother 2017. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 10:01, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
“When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly. This is when I turned to WP:NCTV for guidance.” Why not turn to WP:CRITERIA as instructed rather than turning to NCTV? Regarding other seasons that are prioritizing CONSISTENCY over CRITERIA: see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Let’s not perpetuate that error here. Okay? —В²C ☎ 18:12, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, do you even read the links you post or do you just search for the specific word you want and hope no one else actually checks the link? Regarding other seasons that are prioritizing CONSISTENCY over CRITERIA - see bullet point number 5, which is... CONSISTENCY. There doesn’t have to be a consistent naming style at all. That’s even per WP:TVSEASON: “if each season is referred to by a distinctive name, that should be used...” - if you'd not pasted that sentence out of context and actually read literally the next sentence, you'd see it continues with A consistent naming scheme should be used for all season articles of a TV show: if one season is named something special, this should be noted through redirects and in the article's WP:LEAD, but the article should be named in the same fashion as the other season pages. --Gonnym (talk) 21:11, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Guidelines should supplement policy, not contradict it the way TVSEASON does so blatantly. It should fixed. In the mean time it needs to be IARed for the good reason of following policy. —В²C ☎ 07:48, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems like an exercise in pedantry. It simply swaps one set of consistent but non-compliant naming approach with another. This will, IIRC, be the 3rd wholesale change in 10 years. However, ThisIsDanny is the nearest we have to a UK expert and I will be happy to go along with him. I have no more to add. Leaky Caldron 11:10, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Incorrect – the proposal actually follows WP:NCTV, so the proposed titles are compliant. The current "naming scheme" is not. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:59, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I could've swore I commented on a BB RM a few months back .... Dunno but anyway support as per above. –Davey2010 Merry Christmas / Happy New Year 20:17, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:00, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Big_Brother_(British_TV_series)_series_1&oldid=1216347739"