Talk:Bad Girls Club

Grammar and Sentence Structure

I really think that if anyone has time to go through this article they should, because it needs much help in improving sentence structure and small grammatical errors. RELBlack (talk) 09:06, November 6, 2012 (UTC)

Content dispute

I recently reverted countless additions of fancruft, unreliable sources and statements and unverifiable last names of the contestants on this show. However, it was reverted by AmericanDad86 (talk · contribs). The article is as of now not a good article like it once was. As the nominator who helped it achieve GA status, I would like to revert the undue weight here on this article added by vandalizing fans of the show. If the article stays as it is, it may be removed from the Good Article's list. Best, jona ^{talk to me} 14:28, May 27, 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the issue here to discuss; however, please do not refer to countless good faith edits of countless editors in the last four months as all being vandalism just because you may disagree with it. Keep in mind that GA status article, while an opinion in high regard, is all still just an opinion. Moreover, GA status versions can fall out of date. Apparently numerous other editors in the last 4 or 5 months, myself included, thought there were needed revisions to that version. Quite frankly, I thought the version you rolled it back to was not GA status.

For one, why were the bad girls described as "rebellious" and "mischievous" of all things in the version you rolled it back to??? Rebellious and mischievous, more accurate descriptions of a disobedient child, hardly describes the bad girls. Mischievous you might be able to get away with as a supplementary description for some of their sexual antics, but the bad girls are full-on aggressive, quarrelsome, and unruly girls. They are constantly engaged in violence. In fact, every season by the reunion special, the finalists brag to lasting in the house despite all of their hostilities and violence.

By the way, you complained of lack of sourcing to the new version. But "rebellious" and "mischievous" were unsourced in your GA status version of the article. While there was a source in front of it, it was misleading. This was the source used in your version and it states nothing about rebellious and mischievous: [1].

As yet another problem with your old version, there's a lot of information as provided that's now out of date and no longer even applicable. For example, your version reads:

They try to cope with one another and change their promiscuous behavior to become role models for young women. Some cast members try to accomplish specific goals.

But that is not what the show is about any more. Anyone who watches the show knows that these girls are anything but role models and are not trying to be when there's violence and ambushing in practically every episode. The most previous season ended with a girl getting jumped and everyone saying vile things about her when she left the house. This might have been the case in early seasons, but it's simply info that's now out of date and needed the updates that were provided in the last 4 months by the slews of editors. AmericanDad86 (talk) 18:51, May 27, 2013 (UTC)

• Too many bare URLs, wrong URLs, the current version is not a good article! --Tito Dutta (contact) 20:02, May 27, 2013 (UTC)

Pretty slick: [2] [3] AmericanDad86 (talk) 02:26, May 28, 2013 (UTC)

What is this? --Tito Dutta (contact) 02:32, May 28, 2013 (UTC)

Please refrain from biting users to join in this discussion. Everyone, including the GA reviewer, has the right to discuss improvements for this article. Secondly, I didn't say all of them were in bad faith (let's not get into the number of times the article was protected since its passing of GA status). In fact, the majority of those edits were minor ones fixing grammatical errors which I encourage, however, according to the article's edit history it has been brought to my attention that several users and IPs have engaged in edit wars and ownership problems are among those few. The revision I reverted to (and updated it per WP:Revision), were accepted reliable sources and offline sources accepted from the GA reviewer (User:Titodutta) and the WP:GOCE member User:Stfg. I simply removed content (such as the last name of the many unsourced cast members per WP:BLP) and sources that were not claimed to a ref to those unreliable ones such as blogs and YouTube videos which are generally discouraged. The rebellious claim are in fact sourced, per WP:LEAD the lead section does not acquire sources for claims that are most likely never to be challenged by users. Another thing, just because it is out of date (which many FAC, GAN and PR reviewers dislike) doesn't mean it is no longer valid. You are assuming that the information is no longer valid and have taken upon yourself to remove it and replace with an unsourced claim. Unless there are sources to back up the claim that the show is no longer a way to achieve goals and become role models, then the GA-accepted source would remain intact or removed by consensus. Lastly, we need to come up with a decision to fix this article before it falls to WP:GAR. Best, jona ^{talk to me} 23:47, May 29, 2013 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor who received the RfC, I'm more than willing to offer my input on this, and, as a Wikipedia editor, I know that I need to thoroughly look through the history before rendering an opinion; however, if both sides could please send me some diffs demonstrating the alleged vandalism (or good faith reverts) and their respective opinions on it, that might expedite the process - it looks like this dispute goes back a ways and that you are at risk of falling to WP:GAR. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 17:21, June 23, 2013 (UTC)

Death of a Bad Girl/page lockdown

So the page is on lock right now since the death of someone from season 12 was published in many sources. This is a CLASSIC case of "it doesn't matter WHAT the facts are, as long as there are reliable sources."---and this information HAS been reported far and wide all going-back to ONE source which is the woman's TV-network. As an editor, I'm not real satisfied with that, because an obituary would at least confirm age and maybe some other public details. We really don't even have an exact date of death, just the date that it was reported.

I think that we could safely edit something like (reported deceased), with a cite or ref to a reliable source article--(of which there are many), and leave it at that. I know that we don't usually require primary sources or death-certificates, or even obituaries per-se, but something is weird here. It could very well be that the family, (who are BLP--and even the woman shortly after death is considered BLP)-----is in mourning right now, and/or do not want publicity, but I am NOT comfortable with asterisking a "deceased" unless it is verified further, and until then the reality character/person is "reported-as" deceased imo.2601:C:6783:6A01:C80C:A620:F3FB:D718 (talk) 02:00, 5 April 2015 (UTC)This is me-I logged-in and added it-if someone wants to move the info.??? but I thought that putting it next to her name would help readers who are looking-for that info. find it quicker. Also-the ages are pretty ridiculous for ALL of these women. I don't think that we need an "age" column unless the ages are verified.ChangalangaIP (talk) 02:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you for adding the ref. The page went into lockdown because (1) there's a user who keeps vandalizing it and (2) people kept adding the death without any references. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

You are very welcome. I guess that death always has to be referenced really unless they are over a hundred and fifty lol. In this case, death is being reported and the page has seen an increase in visitors, some of who I am sure are editors checking to see if the info. has been added. http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Bad_Girls_Club ChangalangaIP (talk) 02:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Duration of cast vandalism and approach

Originally when I made the decision to split the season's of Bad Girls Club into their own individual articles back in 2010, I introduced the 'Duration of Cast' subsection. I am beginning to regret ever doing so as it continues to be the prime suspect of vandalism by IPs and WP:VOAs on Bad Girls Club articles. I decided to bring this topic to the forefront of WP:RfC and users who are regular combats of the constant vandalism found on Bad Girls Club related articles (and others who stumble upon them), to decide whether or not the "Duration of Cast" is encyclopedic and appropriate for this subgenre of television. The purpose of the "Duration of Cast" is to showcase the cast members appearance on their respective seasons by using various color codes for various denotations (e.g., removed, replacement joins). This table, though fails WP:ACCESS, was based on another subgenre of television such as game shows, whereas Bad Girls Club is a reality television show not based on competitive challenges. Because of this, the "Duration of Cast" is not appropriate for this subgenre of television, as producers do not plan to have a cast member removed from the show (even if it's always an occurrence) as it is not a game show like Survivor and Big Brother where producers plan to have an eviction or an ejection from the show as it progresses into the season. In Bad Girls Club, there is no eviction episode or an episode where producers plan to have a cast member voted out; if this was the case the "Duration of Cast" would be appropriate for Bad Girls Club. Currently, the "Duration of Cast" is seen as a battleground for IPs and VOAs who constantly rearrange or introduce color codes and start a color war based on fan cruft and are not based on reliable sources; rarely do you see an IP or VOA introduced a non-social media source to the article(s). Since its introduction the table used in Bad Girls Club have been duplicated into other non-game shows such as The Real Housewives. I would like to get consensus on this issue, should Bad Girls Club articles (with the exception of Bad Girls All-Star Battle) be stripped from the usage of the "Duration of Cast" based on the information provided above or should we continue to encourage the table and if so, which methods should be performed to tackle the current issues it faces? (vandalism, WP:ACCESS, color wars, and encyclopedic). Best, jona^(talk) 16:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

New Seasons

The 16th and 17th installments of the series have been confirmed by Oxygen via television promos. The 16th season is called Social Disruption and will premier in September of 2016. The 17th installment will be an East Coast vs. West Coast installment and is still in the casting process. This information should be added to the main page for Bad Girls Club.

Nightmusic0825 (talk) 03:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

References

Make a bgc16 page

Since the cast photo is out and we know he girls we should make a page for bgc16 Baconnnmmmmmmm (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

True that ^^^. Literally we know all the girls names and stuff and it comes out in less than a month, there should be a page for it. There was and then someone deleted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starbucks6789 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Why isn't there a bgc 16 page yet. It literally premieres in 2 weeks. The casting special is next week. Quit making a page and then delete it. There needs to be a page for it. Starbucks6789 (talk) 07:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The minimum requirement for a season article is a sourced episode list. At the moment the only information available is a cast list. When the episode table can be created, a season article can be created at Bad Girls Club (season 16), not Bad Girls Club: Social Disruption or Season 16. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok this is getting ridiculous that there is no page for BGC 16: Social Disruption. There are promos everywhere and the casting special premieres in 3 days and the first episode premieres in 10 days. There has always been a page for a new season probably a month before the actual season has aired. Now we are 3 days away and there's still no page. Starbucks6789 (talk) 10:21, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, you don't need to create a new section every time you post. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Notability (especially the general notability guideline) and MOS:TV. Subjects require discussion in reliable sources. We can't just create articles willy nilly. At the moment the only source that has been presented is one listing the cast. That alone is not sufficient justification to create an article, as already stated. Also as stated above, the minimum requirement for a season article is a sourced episode list. At the moment the only information available is a cast list. When the episode table can be created, a season article can be created at Bad Girls Club (season 16). Can you create a sourced episode table? If so, then create a draft at Draft:Bad Girls Club (season 16) and submit it for creation. If it's suitable for moving to article space, Bad Girls Club (season 16) can be unprotected and the draft moved there. It's really that simple. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:40, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

But the page that is made is perfectly fine! So why is it hidden, and why can I only get to the page from the link you just gave me. I think it deserves to be out and open. Not hidden. Starbucks6789 (talk) 02:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

The latest version of Bad Girls Club (season 16) was created after you posted here. It's not hidden. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:49, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bad Girls Club. 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/20110204085902/http://www.oxygenlive.com/ to http://www.oxygenlive.com/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://media.nola.com/politics/other/bad.girls.pdf

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) 23:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bad Girls Club. 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/20110204085902/http://www.oxygenlive.com/ to http://www.oxygenlive.com/

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: 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) 20:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2021

Jaimee and Jaz from season 15 are actually from Philadelphia, PA. Not from Florida. Paulkellyy (talk) 02:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Season 14 controversy

theres a tell all video of the Clermont twins explaining their experiences and they revealed that the cast members/the girls fed their dogs some laxatives and the production company was getting charged/sued for allowing animal abuse as well as other situations they revealed on it.

this probably would have given it their own section under controversy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.204.164.130 (talk) 18:46, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Y’all should have a bad girl for teens

Y’all should have a bad girl for teens 2601:2C0:4B00:60C0:410D:DA1:C7AC:CC30 (talk) 06:09, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

That's the worst idea I've ever heard. Tttttarleton (talk) 17:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Belittling of women

Now I get that the premise of the show is to call grown women "girls", but I believe that we, as encyclopedia editors, should not stoop to the level of the show. As I have been taught to be a gentleman, it is demeaning to call grown women "girls" as if they are minors or children or immature. Please let's keep the colloquial term to a minimum according to the needs of the article and the inherent dignity of women, especially those who choose to participate in this series. Elizium23 (talk) 01:37, 12 September 2022 (UTC)