Talk:Big Brother (Australian TV series) season 6

Archives
1: May 8-June 20 2006

Elise's Photo

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

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

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

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

Sfacets 12:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Housemates table

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reliable Sources

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

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

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

Personal websites as primary sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am satisfied that the BB project has adopted this mindset, and removed the {{not verified }} earlier Ste4k 16:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Definitions

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

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

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

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

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

I got rid of the definition I put on the page when I noticed you had put it on near the top. I was considering adding a Big Brother AU Lingo section, but I don't know if there would be enough terms. Maybe there are... I dunno. --JD^talk_email 17:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

JMHO, keep adding them until they look ugly, then you will have enough for the lingo section. I'll be happy to read it more carefully for you and place more like the one here below (hint hint) Ste4k 18:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Oh shame, I thought that said Intruder as well. An Insider is a housemate nominated by the public, from a pre-selected group, to work under Big Brother's command, normally to sabotage daily activities or find out another housemate's secret, without being discovered. Big Brother normally grants them exemption from the Nominations process for a week if they succeed. --JD^talk_email 18:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Nominations, in the top section, what kind of nominations? Save? Evict? Both?
• Fake double eviction - I haven't a clue; fake?
• enacted revenge - how is this done in general? I am picturing maybe nerf-balls.
• "game on moles!" - is this a colloquialism?
• three-point twist
• clown task

Please feel free to add those to content, I'll cleanup later. It's really coming together imho. Thanks! Ste4k 18:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Okey doke, here I goes...

• Nominations, in the top section, what kind of nominations? Save? Evict? Both?

Not quite sure what you mean by this one... Sorry. I think I got this one now, but correct me if I got it wrong. When housemates are up for eviction, in BB06 the public can vote to save a housemate, or to evict one; or as many as they like, as many times as they like (or can afford). The votes are then merged, and the final results are used to decide who's evicted.

Fill in the blank then make the edit to content, please:

Karen and Krystal were exempt from ______ nominations in the first round.

That sentence is fine as it is; that's all there is to it. --JD^talk_email 20:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Nominations are the things given by housemates in the diary room Monday night. They may given one or two nomination points. The three most nominated housemates are then up for eviction. Editors to this page sometimes use the term up for nomination when really they mean up for eviction. Usually and by default, whenever a nominations round is held, all HMs are potentially up for nomination: anyone can be nominated (except for rare exemptions). Home viewers may vote for a nominated HM: they can vote to evict or vote to save. Viewers at home cannot nominate a housemate. Asa01 20:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Gretel says up for nomination sometimes, when she means eviction. Maybe the BB Production Team use the term in that context as well. --JD^talk_email 20:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes in early seasons - probably because the show was new - HMs and Gretel usually stuck to the official terms. In later seasons things changed as Big Brother became "BB" and even "Beebs", "Nominations" became "Noms" and one might "Nom" or be "Nommed", and soon "Nominations" also came to mean eviction to. I guess when someone says "I am up for nomination this week" it is pretty clear wheat they mean, but it gets confusing when we do that on wikipedia too. You'll note this year "Beebs" etc are all banned and they get fined for saying that now; in a recent show Gretel used the term "Nom" before correcting herself. Asa01 20:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought fining them for not calling the big guy "Big Brother" was just another way to keep Ten in pocket. --JD^talk_email 21:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Here is the problem as I read it. Keep in mind that I do not watch television and couldn't care less about what the story line is here. My opinion is NPOV. This page needs to stand on its own for readability. There is no definition of nomination in the article at all. There is however, this idea which is planted early on: "Viewers are able to vote for Housemates they wish to SAVE, as well as those they wish to EVICT." So, when I get down to the line that says "Karen and Krystal were exempt from nominations in the first round." I am wondering if this is the audience or the people in the house, or both. And I am wondering what the rest of the "rules" are in this contest. The article never even states how many houses these people are living in. You have intruders and insiders and quite a few different terms that are clearly specific to the functioning of this contest, but are left completely to the readers imagination. Once again, I repeat from above, you have added nothing to this article that describes the show, and only vaguely how it works. You are concentrating too much on the story line and not enough on the program. You are adding the definitions here in the talk pages instead of in the article itself, and to be verifiably correct, the article CANNOT be making any statements about the future. Please see WP:NOR regarding the addition of original research. That pertaiins not only to making claims about the future, but also about providing defintions that you are making up yourself. You need to find these rules and these terms on a verifiable source and cite them. I hope this makes my point clear. Articles may not contain any previously unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position. The only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say. Ste4k 22:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The people that make the programme assume you already know what all these BB AU-related words mean. A lot of things, including the Nominations process, and what FNL is, are described in detail on the main Big Brother Australia article. Nominations is the process where the housemates vote for who they want out of the house, but other housemates are not allowed to know who each person nominates. The housemates with the three highest number of votes are then up for the public vote, where the public get involved. They can vote for the housemates they want to save, or the housemates they want evicted. On the Eviction show, these votes are merged (save votes are subtracted from the evict votes), and the final result is the person with the highest percentage of votes is evicted. It's assumed that anybody would already know this. Any definitions for any of the words are unlikely to be found on any website because of this. If the only real source, the Big Brother Australia website, cannot be used as a reference for anything, then the whole article, along with every other Big Brother article on Wikipedia, would have to be deleted as published proof would never be found. The article has it's information from the best available sources, and that's the best we can do. --JD^talk_email 22:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I gotta admit I do find it annoying on this page where editors freely use terms like "Three point twist" and "free from nominations". Those might have been the terms used in the broadcasts, but clearer terms need to be used here. The page says a couple of times that Karen and Krystal were free from nominations one week. Does this mean they couldn't nominate and couldn't be nominated? Does it mean that they could nominate but could not be nominated? Does it mean all the housemates went in not knowing about this and could and would nominate Karen and Krystal, only for the nominatations to be secretly voided by Big Brother after the event? (Like what happened to Michael one week where he succeeded in his secret insider task.) I would have fixed this myself but as I didn't watch these shows, I didn't know what actually happened. I think the unverified tags on the page seem a little pointless. It would be more contructive to place tags against contentious sentences within the page. Most of what is here seems OK and is merely description of televised events. Many television programs have lengthy descriptions of format, storylines and characters on wikipedia without each aspect of the description being verified by external sources. Note that I normally hate ever-growing list articles (like Jumping the Shark) but as this is linked to a specific tv season which will be over soon I figure this page will probably be eventually cleaned up when the series ends, so I'm not too worried about its format while the series is in progress. Asa01 23:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

a) The people that make the programme assume you already know what all these BB AU-related words mean.

Wikipedia on the other hand does not have that luxury. Find a source a cite it, or leave the information out.

b) A lot of things, including the Nominations process, and what FNL is, are described in detail on the main Big Brother Australia article.

Excellent. When you use those terms in this article use internal links to cite them in the main article.

c) Nominations is the process where the housemates vote for who they want out of the house, but other housemates are not allowed to know who each person nominates. The housemates with the three highest number of votes are then up for the public vote, where the public get involved. They can vote for the housemates they want to save, or the housemates they want evicted. On the Eviction show, these votes are merged (save votes are subtracted from the evict votes), and the final result is the person with the highest percentage of votes is evicted.

Why are you telling me this here in discussion instead of putting that information IN THE ARTICLE? I personally don't care how it works, but the readers of the article do.

d) It's assumed that anybody would already know this.

WP:NORArticles may not contain any previously unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position.

e) Any definitions for any of the words are unlikely to be found on any website because of this. If the only real source, the Big Brother Australia website, cannot be used as a reference for anything, then the whole article, along with every other Big Brother article on Wikipedia, would have to be deleted as published proof would never be found.

Yes I see you understand my point clearly now. I suggest that if you cannot find a definition or other reference to the words that you remove them, reword them, or otherwise explain them, IN THE ARTICLE or by a link to another resource.

f) The article has it's information from the best available sources, and that's the best we can do.

That's fine. You can only use what you have available to work with.

• Furthermore, you intentionally reverted the edits which speak into the future. This is again, only speculative. You can say that the network "promises" that some actor will appear, but you cannot introduce an analysis or synthesis of established facts by making forward looking statements. If the program has in fact been completed in its taping, then you should clearly write your statements in the past tense. If the program is in fact ongoing and the people are still living there, we cannot make promises that we cannot keep, and DEWEY did NOT win the U.S. Presidency over Roosevelt. Ste4k 22:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It would appear highly unlikely that any of the people wouldn't enter the house now; the webste has their photos and information about them on it. This was done with the last set of Intruders as well. Plus, they will be entering the house in a matter of hours, so I'm pretty sure. --JD^talk_email 22:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Like it or not, this is an encyclopedia and neither a free advertising agency, nor a contest status board. Please note the usage of {{prophecy}} and {{importance}}. Thanks Ste4k 11:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The article would only mention things that haven't happened yet if they are very likely to happen. That was the case with the Intruders. To say they may enter on June 21 is misleading, as that leaves room to suggest they may not enter. It was definite, and confirmed, that they would be entering the house on June 21, as they now have. --JD^talk_email 12:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

There are five reasons that your opinion is incorrect here.

• 1. It violates WP:NOR
• 2. The article itself points out instances which you could not predict; e.g. glandular fever.
• 3. You are chasing the future which requires more edits than necessary which ends up in silly arguments all over discussion, eats up peoples' time, and increases the liklihood of edit conflicts (which eat up more of peoples' time and patience).
• 4. You are spending too much time on one article which you evidently care about a great deal until the season is over, which can be seen by anyone that views the articles from the prior seasons; some of which STILL contain forward looking observations. In itself it shows that you are more interested in the program than the article or the Wikipedia.
• 5. Any forward looking statements could have been removed, and instead of cooperating with others, you instead chose to revert their edits. The action is hostile based on the fact that you had not addressed any reasonable reasons here in discussion before doing so, but instead decided unilaterally that your opinion would be accepted. Cooperation demands that you allow other people to come to agreement with your opinions before you decide to revert their actions.

---

Five Points

Your opinion is noted, but unless you can answer the five points above, your opinion is also incorrect. If you do not revert the reversions you made, the article needs to have the {{OR}} warning on the top. The choice is YOURS. You cannot have it both ways. DO NOT REMOVE THE {{OR}} warning until you have resolved this matter or I will request that this dispute be reason for a FREEZE on the page. Ste4k 13:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• 1. It violates WP:NOR

None of the research is original. --JD^talk_email 13:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Any forward looking statement is a new analysis or synthesis of published data. No forward looking statement can claim to be a fact. Ste4k 16:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• 2. The article itself points out instances which you could not predict; e.g. glandular fever.

The new set of Intruders were already in lockdown when the information was added to the page, so they were hardly going to get sick. --JD^talk_email 13:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You have missed the point and instead focused on the example. Please answer the point. Forward looking statements are prophecy at best. You should study history from people that give you good hints. Please see: Thomas_Dewey#Election_of_1948 Ste4k 16:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• 3. You are chasing the future which requires more edits than necessary which ends up in silly arguments all over discussion, eats up peoples' time, and increases the liklihood of edit conflicts (which eat up more of peoples' time and patience).

Better to be correct than slightly misleading. --JD^talk_email 13:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Better to leave the information out than to provide false information, or wait for the season to close before providing any information You could use that time to concentrate on the articles of the prior seasons which DO NOT MATCH the look or feel of this article whatsoever. The more time you spend on this article, the more likely you will lose the opportunity to collect older data. Ste4k 16:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• 4. You are spending too much time on one article which you evidently care about a great deal until the season is over, which can be seen by anyone that views the articles from the prior seasons; some of which STILL contain forward looking observations. In itself it shows that you are more interested in the program than the article or the Wikipedia.

I am interested in the programme, but I am equally interested in it's article here on Wikipedia. I can't be held in any way responsible for the way any of the previous articles turned out, as I did not contribute to any of them. --JD^talk_email 13:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Your point of view, then, is biased. And you fail to realize that those articles are STILL ALIVE rather than "turned out". You should be responsible for the way that they look since they are as equally important as this article. And there is nothing preventing you from contributing to any of them. Ste4k 16:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say there was anything stopping me from contributing to them, but as I rarely look at the previous articles anyway, I haven't spent enough time looking at them to see anything wrong. If I had any reason to be concerned about them, I would be. --JD^talk_email 17:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

So you agree that point four here is correct, true? Ste4k 21:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily, the other articles simply haven't interested me as much, as I haven't seen as much of those series as I have the current one. --JD^talk_email 21:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is not an argument and it is not about winning or losing. It is about mutual understanding and cooperation. I will not waste the time explaining your own words to you any further. I highly suggest you read this entire conversation again, more carefully. It would be a much better use of your time than filling up this discussion with denial, and a better use of my time working on other projects rather than repeating myself. Thank you. Ste4k 21:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• 5. Any forward looking statements could have been removed, and instead of cooperating with others, you instead chose to revert their edits. The action is hostile based on the fact that you had not addressed any reasonable reasons here in discussion before doing so, but instead decided unilaterally that your opinion would be accepted. Cooperation demands that you allow other people to come to agreement with your opinions before you decide to revert their actions.

Again, I didn't make reverts on any of your work; I only made alterations to your edit. Changing the tense of every word to past tense is incorrect int he article, and I changed the relevant words back to present tense. I don't think every decision I make about this article is unilaterally correct, but as is the way on Wikipedia, if something is wrong, it is corrected. --JD^talk_email 13:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• [[1]] To revert is to undo all changes made after a certain time in the past. Therefore, by your own admission here in writing, you did indeed revert. Ste4k 14:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

If to revert is to undo all changes, then by definition, I didn't revert anything. As I said, I only changed some of the things you did. By changing everything to past tense, some of the information was no longer correct, so I corrected it. If you look at the page history, I didn't change everything back. --JD^talk_email 15:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• WP:3RR Please learn to read the documentation on your own time, I am not your teacher, nor do you pay me to be. The policy states that an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single Wikipedia article within a 24 hour period.

a) [[2]] Reverting, in this context, means undoing the actions of another editor or other editors in whole or part. It does not necessarily mean taking a previous version from history and editing that. A revert may involve as little as adding or deleting a few words or even one word. Even if you are making other changes at the same time, continually undoing other editors' work counts as reverting.

I do not wish to argue with you, and I think you should take me more seriously. I do not play games. I know that you want a very fine article, just as all of us do. In my opinion, you should take a little more time being careful with other peoples' words, and chasing time is exactly the opposite way to do that. It does not matter to me if you edited this discussion intentionally, accidently, or in a creative manner. Whether you did not take enough time to think it through, made a mistake, or or something else. The end result was the same. Ste4k 16:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

---

• Fake double eviction - I haven't a clue; fake?

The eviction plays out like a normal one, but instead of exiting the house the "evictees" are taken to a secret room. The evictees won't know it's a fake eviction until they are taken to the secret room, and the other housemates won't know until they are told when the evictees return.

• enacted revenge - how is this done in general? I am picturing maybe nerf-balls.

lmao nerf balls would probably end up with the housemate given a strike. I'm not quite sure about this one myself, as when this happened in BB06 I missed it, and when it happened in BB5 UK, I missed it...

• "game on moles!" - is this a colloquialism?

It's just a term Anna coined while in the house. The word mole is derogatory towards women in Australia.

• three-point twist

The winner of Friday Night Live gets to take three Nomination points off any housemate of their choice. I put a good-ish explanation of the nominations process on Wikipedia, if you follow that link in the previous sentence.

• clown task

Just a task given by Big Brother, where the housemates had to act like clowns.

If you got more, bring them on. --JD^talk_email 19:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

Tense - The sections should either all read in the future, the present, or the past. Past is preferred since this is a history. What hasn't actually occurred, you SHOULD state as "Bill was scheduled to . . ." however, that would be currently misleading. If it isn't yet a fact, then it shouldn't be printed. The content of the show is advertised in other places. This article needs to keep an encyclopedic attitude. I was worried about an edit conflict; since you are highly motivated to edit this page, please try to make these changes. Thanks! Ste4k 19:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but some of the information refers to events that occur even now, like John's Tourette syndrome for instance. If he "had" GTS, he would be cured of it now (I'd assume); but that isn't the case. Also, for the photo captions, present tense is normally used. --JD^talk_email 19:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

For all you know, he HAS been cured. He could even have died. Write the facts and you cannot wrong either way. Thanks! Ste4k 19:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

That's what I've been doing. :) --JD^talk_email 19:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The Tags

I don't want to start an edit war by removing the tags again, so I'll bring up my points here. There's no point in having the tags because a lot of the information on it is received from televised broadcasts. There's no way to cite these. Any information that comes from the BB06 website can't be cited either, because as soon as the series finishes, that site gets blanked; and as it's unlikely that there will be another series of Big Brother Australia, I wouldn't be surprised if the website didn't come back. None of this is original research; if something was incorrect, or if somebody felt that a part of the article were inaccurate, and they know as a fact that it is, they will correct it. The tags are unnecessary. --JD^talk_email 22:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but it needs to be cited, wikipedia is based on evidence, not facts. By rights, the parts not cited could be removed. -- 9cds^(talk) 23:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It's unlikely they information pertaining to the weekly updates will ever be cited. The television series can be referenced in the References section to show where most of the info comes from. I have removed the Original Research tag as only one unreferenced tag needs to be there and while the article is largely uncited, it isn't original research as it's all secondary information derived from the television show, the website and other media. -- CHANLORD ^[T]/_[C] 00:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Whitespace above contents

I'm trying to clear it - is there any reason for the 5 inches of whitespace? -- 9cds^(talk) 23:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You said it was 5 inches before, and it's much smaller than that now. Can you move the colour key box thingy so it's immediately under the infobox, if that's what it's called? --JD^talk_email 23:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, once I find some tuits. Still 5 inches, I'm afraid. -- 9cds^(talk) 23:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Some tuits? --JD^talk_email 23:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, round ones. -- 9cds^(talk) 23:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Still don't follow. --JD^talk_email 23:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

A consensus

This is an attempt to build a consensus on whether Big Brother articles should be written in past tense, present tense, or future tense. This is merely a consensus building attempt for the project, so please no edit warring or flaming. Once you have said your opinion, that's it. The vote will run until Monday 26th June. -- 9cds^(talk) 16:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Past:

1. -- 9cds^(talk) 16:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
2. Ste4k 16:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Save the time of re-editing the pages later, chasing time, increasing liklihood of edit conflicts, facts/not prophecy, no liability for fwd-looking statements, etc.
3. -- It's a reality television. By definition, it isn't fiction, they are past events edited for entertainment. Past tense makes it less confusing. -- CHANLORD ^[T]/_[C] 00:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Present:

1. This is a television show that has been edited for dramatic effect, not a series of unaltered, true events. That puts the original text in the realm of fiction, and when you write about fiction, you must use present tense. Even after the show has ended. --Chris Griswold 18:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Future:

Comments: What's the need for this? If this is about me, then there's no point in it. It's obvious that things that are in the past should be written in the past, but not the whole entire article. Only where writing in past tense is correct, it should be used. --JD^talk_email 16:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It's because the article got protected because of an edit war that got stupid. So I'm getting involved, and settling it. -- 9cds^(talk) 16:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I'd actually rather the article were written in present tense, but think it should be written in past tense, but things that are valid in real time, such as John's GTS, or Karen and Krystal's relationship, peoples' jobs, and other things like that, should be written in present tense. If something that is known to be happening, such as new housemates entering the house, is going to be written into the article, it should be written in future tense until such a time where past tense would be appropriate. --JD^talk_email 18:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, I think captions should be written in present tense, unless there's a Wikipedia standard that says they shouldn't be. --JD^talk_email 22:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

1. Things that happened in the past (e.g. On Day 3, so and so argueD), but things which are still happening (e.g. Karen and Krystal being mother and daughter) should be written in the present. they'll never stop being related, so should be in the present. Things which are going to happen should be written in the future (e.g. On Day 89, so and so WILL BE evicted) Ellisjm 20:13 UTC 21 June 06

• I have three small questions:

1. Is there a rush to get this article printed and published?

2. Is there some reason that this particular article is more important than the other five?

3. Chris Griswold says this article is fiction. Do you agree?

Ste4k 20:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• I myself don't agree that it's fiction, but I do agree with everything else Chris Griswold has said. --JD^talk_email 22:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• I don't believe the article is fiction, but the television show can't be commented on as if it were straight truth. --Chris Griswold 23:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• And what about my other two questions? Ste4k 03:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Attempts to Nominate and Evict Big Brother from Wikipedia

I'm a casual viewer of the show and a casual editor of the BB Aust wikipedia pages. In the last few days it has become apparent that several editors have various problems with Big Brother pages on wikipedia. There have been AfDs on the Ryan Fitzgerald, Simon Deering, Tim Brunero and David Mathew pages. Some have been AfDed to make a point, and others seem to be cut and paste AfDs applied to any page about a former Big Brother housemate. Gee I wonder if this page will also be targetted? Asa01 11:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I have a pretty good idea of what's been happening, and the cause of it; but I don't want to say anything in case it starts another conflict. --JD^talk_email 20:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• This brings up another small question: If Big Brother were nominated for deletion would you be concerned that a majority of people would agree to have it removed? If so, why? Ste4k 21:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

As it currently stands none of the AfDs on Ryan Fitzgerald, Simon Deering, Tim Brunero and David Mathew successfully led to the article being deleted, so it seems unlikely that an AfD to delete the main Big Brother page would succeed. Since many, many television shows, even ones far less popular, influential and long-running than Big Brother, have wikipedia pages, I don't see why BB shouldn't be here! Clearly lots of people don't like BB, but that is no reason to obliterate references to it on wikipedia. Twenty years ago it was soap operas that were derided and criticised in this way, but these day they all have individual entries on wikipedia too. Asa01 21:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It is apparent then that this section of the discussion is moot regardless of what it hoped to allude. Thanks! Ste4k 03:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Although it's worth noting that the AfDs for Simon, Tim & David (among others) are still in progress; I'm not saying they won't be successful, but they haven't failed yet either. Jxan3000 06:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected

This article has now been unprotected. Full protection really isn't solving everything. However, you still need to address the concerns listed by 9cds above and come to a consensous. DO NOT re-start and edit war or I will be blocking users. I think the involved parties need a cool down period for a while, then resume editing later. Best of luck, Pilot|guy 20:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

^{23 June 2006 10:15} Ste4k wrote: I am sad to see that editing of tense continues regardless of a lack of final concensus. I am also sad that my points have not yet been addressed whatsoever. Changing the tense of only one word, rather than the entire article is hypocritical and disrespectful. I will not, however, bother to re-do all of the work that was initially done, and this leaves a bad taste in my mouth about the {{importance}} of this entire project.