Jump to content

Talk:Celebrity Big Brother (British TV series) series 10

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

Samantha Brick and MC Ultra possible cast members

[edit]

http://channelhopping.onthebox.com/2012/04/05/samantha-brick-for-celebrity-big-brother/--68.51.87.188 (talk) 22:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dates confusion

[edit]

Will this series last for 24 days then, since Marcus Bentley apparently stated it will end on the 7th? At the moment we have it as 23 days --RachelRice (talk) 09:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that's what I thought, but obviously as it comes from Marcus Bentley it will be official, 24 days is correct. --waterlooroadfan107 (talk) 23:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection

[edit]

Can we PLEASE protect the page? There are loads of non-users messing with the page (listing Samantha as walked, adding insufficient colour codes) thanks --RachelRice (talk) 23:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you need to report it at WP:RPP, or just report the offending IP at WP:AIV. 90.213.151.194 (talk) 23:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Housemates

[edit]

We have a separate article for the housemates, do not duplicate the information in this article. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 13:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't normally have a separate housemates article for CBB only the summer run that has a separate article. --MSalmon (talk) 14:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We do have a separate article though, it's there in situ. While it exists there is no need for the information to be in this article GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 14:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have redirected it to the Housemates section, and none of the other CBB articles have a separate list --MSalmon (talk) 14:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We only have separate articles for regular series. --RachelRice (talk) 17:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 17:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Day 8 nomination note

[edit]

Do we really need to have a note for Day 8's nominations as there was no twist to the nominations? --MSalmon (talk) 08:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would say not. It was only partially shown live and was not a notable twist. Leaky Caldron 20:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I thought but people keep wanting to add it in (If it needs to be noted then it can be in the Summary not the Nominations Table)--MSalmon (talk) 20:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sort of agree, sort of disagree. It wasn't a twist, and was basically nominations, but also should be noted that it took place after the eviction. --RachelRice (talk) 22:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmine guest

[edit]

I think it is best if we make it clear that Jasmine has returned in a task, as we did with Tashie and Rebeckah in BB12, and neither of them actually returned to the main area of the house, but were still counted as guests, therefore I think it should be the same with Jasmine. 86.137.180.111 (talk) 15:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, she was not a guest HM at any time. She was in the diary and task room only and did not interact directly with the other housemates. Leaky Caldron 13:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would make sense to have her as a guest. Where does it say that she has to come into contact with the other hm's. The point is, she was an evicted housemate who returned for a task, and she did not return permanently, so therefore she was a guest. Please take this into account. 86.137.180.111 (talk) 13:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Let us wait for more experienced editors to contribute. I don't agree with you but others might. In the meantime please stop making false accusations all over the place or you will be reported. Leaky Caldron 13:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Best idea is to leave it as guest, to show that she actually returned to the house at some point. Waterlooroadfan107 (talk) 13:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Guest indicates that she entered the house, she did not. We do not put the family members who voted in the last non-celeb version down as guests, so she shouldn't either. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 13:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So we should just change Tashie, Rebeckah, Chanelle, Rachel, and Nathan then, even though they have been 'Guest' for years. --RachelRice (talk) 13:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, and we wouldn't do that. Waterlooroadfan107 (talk) 13:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If they didn't enter the house and interact with the housemates, then yes we should GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 13:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But they all did enter the house, otherwise they wouldn't be shown on the episode. Waterlooroadfan107 (talk) 13:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just letting you know, that the task room and diary room are both part of the house. When someone goes to the task room (i.e. in this week's shopping task) then they haven't exactly left the house haven't they --RachelRice (talk) 13:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So are you going to put the names of all the people who have ever been in the Diary room in then? GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 13:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not, just the people that have nominated and their history in the house.Waterlooroadfan107 (talk) 13:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously not GimliDotNet, just for the previous housemates. Other guests already have their own section like I did with Marilyn and also Pamela last year. --RachelRice (talk) 13:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The nominations table is, by definition, for core participants. Jasmine was not a core participant at the time of her brief guest stay for a task. She was not part of the house routine, she was not eligible for nomination and therefore has no place in the table. Her participation is well documented elsewhere. Leaky Caldron 14:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)/[reply]
She was still a guest in the house though, and she entered the house. So for all previous Big Brother articles, we should do the same. I don't get the issue with having her as a guest on Day 11. What problems could it possibly cause? Waterlooroadfan107 (talk) 14:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you start that game then every new entry will get a [citation needed] required tag. Wholesale changes to genres require widespread consensus, not one or two editor's enlightened/disruptive opinion. Ask yourself this, what point is it you are trying to make? How does it improve the article? What sources are you going to use? Leaky Caldron 14:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just for a housemate being a guest? It is a fact, she was in the episode and in the house which you could clearly see if you watched that episode. Please ask yourself the same question, what point are you trying to make? We are not being disruptive, we just believe it would be better suited. Waterlooroadfan107 (talk) 14:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Simple. The nominations table records the HMs nomination history, not usually their participation in tasks. Participation in tasks is recorded verbatim elsewhere in the article. There was a bunch of naked waiters in BB13 and a clown in the diary room, do you want to show them as guests? Leaky Caldron 14:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But they were never housemates, Jasmine was. Look at all of the nominations tables in Big Brother UK. Any ex-housemate who returns(bar the very few that returned as an eligible housemate) is classed as a guest if they return in a task. I don't see what the problem with that is. What you are saying about naked waiters and a clown makes no sense whatsoever. Waterlooroadfan107 (talk) 14:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If Jasmine wasn't a guest, then I suggest Jon, Rachel, Ben, Nathan, Tashie and Rebeckah aren't either. I'll change them to evicted then. --RachelRice (talk) 14:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And that's why Jasmine was a guest. If Jasmine wasn't, then we have to completely redefine what a guest is. I bet if you tried to do that, they'd kick off. So stuck in their ways. Waterlooroadfan107 (talk) 14:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They seem to keep forgetting that Wikipedia is a community. Anybody can contribute and make helpful edits. Saying that Jasmine returned to the house on Day 11, is a constructive edit. Changing it back to what YOU think is right is not helpful at all. --RachelRice (talk) 14:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, and I'm getting fed up of each time I make a good contribution to Wikipedia, them taking it down because they think they own the article. It's not fair on us. Waterlooroadfan107 (talk) 14:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

:Comment on the article, not other editors motives. That way this will only end up at WP:ANI GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 15:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Our point is that how is it not constructive to put her as a guest? If anything it tells someone more information about the series, especially with the note attached. Waterlooroadfan107 (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)She was a task participant, details of which are fully covered elsewhere. Her mother was more of a guest but you are rightly not advocating her being listed. The fact that Jasmine had been a HM and returned does not establish her credentials as a guest. She was a hidden task participant, not a guest HM. Leaky Caldron 15:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Rachel and WRF that Jasmine should be a guest, it is more informative. 86.137.180.111 (talk) 15:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why she counts as a guest, but the naked butlers don't? GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 15:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because they weren't housemates! Deal with it --RachelRice (talk) 15:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes exactly! What a ridiculous comparison. Jasmine was a guest! Ask Channel 5 and Big Brother's Bit on the Side if you're so sure that she wasn't, I'm sure they'd give you the right answer. 86.137.180.111 (talk) 15:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do you define guest because you're applying it inconsistently. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 15:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the nominations table, a guest is an ex-housemate who returns to the house briefly for a task. Noone's applying it inconsistently. Waterlooroadfan107 (talk) 15:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A guest, if directed at the program Big Brother, is a housemate who has returned to participate in a task or for any other reason (Rachel, Ben, Nathan, Jon) --RachelRice (talk) 15:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To everyone except Rachael, please restart the indents on point from mine, that's what the OD template is for and second are you going to edit Big Brother 10 (UK) to include all the guests? GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 15:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article we are discussing is Celebrity Big Brother 10. 86.137.180.111 (talk) 15:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So article consistency and historical consensus have no meaning for you then? GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 16:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes of course they do, but surely if we want to keep article consistency then we put Jasmine as a guest(back to the discussion) like the other notable people. I personally did not watch BB10, so I am in no place to edit it. If there were guests in it, then yes they should be put in. 86.137.180.111 (talk) 16:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"please restart the indents on point from mine" - This is not YOUR site. Any user can contribute. --RachelRice (talk) 17:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a formatting thing, no need to get so uppity, the number of colons is getting out of hand, I've not told anybody not to edit, just to format their responses so you get more than one word before the sentence wraps! GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 18:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@RR. Please see WP:TPYES and associated guidelines and talk page layout. Also, please stop editing so aggressively towards other editors. You have done so since day one and it is really unnecessary and totally against policy on WP:CIVILITY. Unless you reassess your style of interaction it is inevitable that you will pick a fight with someone who will refer you to an Administrator. I urge you to think before your edit. Leaky Caldron 18:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think she was a guest. All news channels say so. Plus she did return to the house, doesn't matter how much interaction she did. --Imtitanium (talk) 18:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"all news channels"? Which ones, so we can use them as WP:RS? Leaky Caldron 18:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's clear that the overall consensus is that she was a guest. 4 people say yes, and 2 people say no. Therefore it should be changed back to Guest. 86.137.180.111 (talk) 18:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Too early. Also, you have now breached WP:3RR which is an absolute red line offence and will result in you being blocked. You were warned earlier on your talk page but have failed to read or take note of the policy. Please revert the latest change unless you wish to be reported and blocked. Leaky Caldron 19:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm amazed people are having to spend so much of their energy arguing about this. It is simply a question about how ex-housemates are listed on the nominations table, isn't it? If the 'guest' description has been used for past series, then I can't see what the purpose is to re-argue the issue. Some people simply like pretty coloured tables, so let the status quo remain, which is quite harmless ;) I'd prefer people do what's been done before and instead concentrate our time on more productive things. Sionk (talk) 20:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Finally! Someone who sees sense, now please stop moaning Leaky and throwing false accusations everywhere. There is absolutely no problem with Guest, in fact it looks really nice :D 86.137.185.34 (talk) 20:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeahhh!! That's what I'm talking about! *HighFive* :D --Imtitanium (talk) 06:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stick to discussing the article. This is not a forum for general chat. 86.137.185.34, if you persist in making accusations against editors you're going to wind up at WP:ANI. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 07:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really? 86 was responding to my comment weren't they? Though I agree the accusations about another user are not at all helpful. But an independent overview of this impasse may be useful. Perhaps WP:ANI would not be a bad thing. Sionk (talk) 07:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should stick to what the table is actually used for, nominations, and nothing else. If you want to list Jasmine as a guest do it in the summary (unless she actually had an effect on the nominations then it can be put in the table). --MSalmon (talk) 08:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any interested parties, this discussion has been raised at WQA GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 08:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed Jon, Ben, Nathan, Rachel, Tashie and Rebeckah as a guest, since they were nothing to do with nominations, even though it has been like that for years. --RachelRice (talk) 11:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jon from BB4 was different as the public had voted him back into the house although he was ineligible to win (the rest including Chanelle from BB8 can be removed)--MSalmon (talk) 11:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If he was voted back in, then he's not a guest. --RachelRice (talk) 11:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He is a guest because he was not eligible to win (i.e. he did not take part in nominations) --MSalmon (talk) 11:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OMG!! ROFL Seriously? You guys have nothing else to do expect for bickering in such useless debates? Baseball? Tennis? Friends? Dating? Anything? Cmmmon!!!! PITY :( --Imtitanium (talk) 11:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting beyond a joke. All this over whether the whole row is red, or if it's red, then with a nice bit of blue, then red again. Come on, seriously. Let's either have it that EVERYBODY that has returned is guest(Jon,Rebeckah,Tashie,Nathan,Jasmine etc.) or have none of them. Simple. 86.137.185.34 (talk) 12:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If Jon,Rebeckah,Tashie,Nathan,Jasmine etc. are being removed cause they had no participation in the nominations then i think guests who did actually participate should be included like the family/friends of the housemates who nominated on their behalf. So what is it gonna be? Guest who didn't nominate (but have been on the table for years plus on all international versions too) or the guests who did nominate but are unincluded in the table? Who stays? :S --Imtitanium (talk) 14:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a table about nominations, it should only contain information about people who are nominating. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 14:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So u mean to say that the friends/family donot qualify as "people"?--Imtitanium (talk) 14:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The situation with the non-resident friends & family nominations in BB13 is covered perfectly well by the relevant footnote. I would say from the quantum of your edits here that you are being provocative. It's not helpful, for example, to claim that "All news channels say so" when that is a statement without a shred of supporting evidence. Leaky Caldron 14:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WOW! you really are good at scaring people away! enjoy your "discussion" Leaky. Spare me! Goodbye. --Imtitanium (talk) 14:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to make claims in support of an argument which other gullible editors will take for granted and as a consequence inflame the situation I'm entitled to draw attention to it. (Personal attack removed) Leaky Caldron 14:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Leaky, you are the one being provocative and officious. 86.137.185.34 (talk) 17:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. He/she's being too passionate about his/her opinion. Every time someone makes a point he/she bashes them with one of those WP's. (Personal attack removed). I wonder how did i end up arguing with 'that' caldron to begin with? I thought my opinion on the guest think would matter so i commented but no one can win when Leaky Bully-dron has joined the party! --Imtitanium (talk) 17:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's absolutely ridiculous. Every time someone with a different opinion to him says something, he brings out a WP thing about abusing/bullying him or 'not sticking to the article', and reports you if you edit the page without his permission. There's more to life!86.137.185.34 (talk) 18:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Personal attack removed) and Sionk) keep adding some Wikiquette suggestions on my talk page! like wtf? Really? That's the reason why i hate lawyers. Every time you say something they hit you with the rule book, in this case some imaginary Wiki-book. This is so funny. They have a whole Wiki-world out here, man. There's a WP for everything and an imaginary Wiki-judge we have to comply with. I wonder how much useless time do these people actually have? --Imtitanium (talk) 18:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I think(not about Sionk but those other ones) constantly telling me to do as they say. And getting genuinely upset about whether the nominations table is Red, or Blue for a couple of cm, that's all it is!Waterlooroadfan107 (talk) 18:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Personal attack removed) keeps deleting my comments as per WP:NOTFORUM. I'm so done with this discussion i swear! have fun guys, keep fighting a battle in vain! :( --Imtitanium (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wider Project Involvement

[edit]

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Big_Brother#Proposal_for_consideration_by_all_BB_project_members

[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Big_Brother#Proposal_for_consideration_by_all_BB_project_members. Leaky Caldron 12:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC). Leaky Caldron 12:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Celebrity Big Brother 10. 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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:16, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Celebrity Big Brother 2 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:45, 19 September 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 05:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

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 12:32, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Celebrity_Big_Brother_(British_TV_series)_series_10&oldid=1216349264"