Talk:Big Brother 9 (American season)

Evicted together

It pretty much says on the commercial that they could be evicted together. It doesn't say that they will be evicted together. The show would only be on for seven weeks, while in past seasons the show is on for 12 weeks. It might just be a twist for a certain week in the house. Sort of like a double eviction week. I know it says that they will be evicted together on tvguide.com, but I think that they won't do it every week. I think that it should be changed and I just wanted to know what you guys thought of that. Seth71 (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that if the ratings aren't very good, CBS may make it seven to eight weeks. On the other hand, if the ratings are exceptional; they may break the couples up in the middle of the season or do any kind of combination to extend it to ten to eleven weeks. - Atlantics88 2008-02-09 21:55 UTC

'Til Death Do You Part

This is a bit confusing. Is "'Til Death Do You Part" a subtitle of the show, or the actual title, as in "Big Brother: 'Til Death Do You Part?" Because as far as I've seen, the show isn't being reffered to as "Big Brother 9" anymore. The CBS website doesn't do so, and neither does the guide on my TV. The title of the article doesn't need to be changed either way, does it? MadMagFreak (talk) 18:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

'Til Death Do You Part is a subtitle for Big Brother 9. We will have to wait and see on Tuesday. This could be a similar situation just like the All Stars season. The actual logo had Big Brother 7 with the 7 being replaced by a star. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 23:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Plus the CBS does still call this show "Big Brother 9" under Shows on their main site. Plus the Canadian broadcaster also refers to this season as Big Brother 9. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alucard 16 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It's more than likely just the seasons theme. Sort of like BB6's summer of secrets, BB4's x-factor and BB5's project DNA. Seth71 (talk) 17:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

After having watched the show, it's not being reffered to "Big Brother 9" at all. Just "Big Brother," with the occasional "'Til Death Do You Part" added at the end. No "9" at all. Just a note. MadMagFreak (talk) 04:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

We will leave the name of the article as Big Brother 9 since this is the ninth season. All Big Brother US articles are listed this way including the All Stars season.♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 19:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Also worth noting the official Big Brother site is http://www.cbs.com/primetime/big_brother_9/ . 9 it is . - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Reference Table

I've added a collapsable table to the top of this page which contains a bit of basic MoS stuff, for reference as we get started here. Feel free to add anything to it. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Eviction table

I think that we should leave the table as each housemate individually, not as couples since it's easier to find a specific housemate. Also, it's extremely probable that the couples will eventually be broken apart, especially refenced by Julie saying that if Ryan and Jen make it to the finals, they'll win together despite being in couples with different people. Geoking66_talk 02:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that we're going to have two parts to this table, one that's for the couples portion, and if (and that's a big if) they do split apart, one for the singular portion of the game. T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 03:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I was wandering prior to the start of the season on how we would format the voting table with the pairs. It was decided that in the beginning we group them all in to pairs. Then when (or if) the pairs spit apart and the HouseGuests can play the game individually we would split the remaining HouseGuests at that point and leave the evicted HouseGuests in pairs. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 03:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with T, I think 2 tables is best if it does split 3bay sam (talk) 03:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe at the point of splitting there's a thin grey line but thicker than cell dividers, that way there will be cross table singles once they split up but show all the information in one table. id est

	Week 1	Week 2	Week 3	Week 4	Week 5	Week 6		Week 7	Week 8	Week 9	Week 10	Week 11	Finale
Adam	Nominated	x	x	x	x	x	a
Shiela	Nominated	x	x	x	x	x	b
Alex & Amanda	Nominated	y	y	y	y	y	Evicted

Why the eviction colour shows up oddly (only on this page) is beyond my explanation. Geoking66_talk 04:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

HouseGuest Infobox

Should the pairs be put together on it? As a matter of fact, is that even possible? If not, the least we could do is move the pairs names' next to each other, right? MadMagFreak (talk) 04:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think for now we should leave the infobox alone. In the event of the pairs being split then we would have to undo the pairs. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 06:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Another thing. Shouldn't we be reffering to Jen and Parker as "Power Couple" as said on the show, instead of HoH? MadMagFreak (talk) 06:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, why are we showing EVICTED houseguests before confirmation from AFTER DARK or the actual show? We decided earlier in the discussion that every SECTION that contained a spoiler should have a tag stating so, but instead there is a chart RIGHT on the page that shows the spoiler.

I just don't understand the concept of wanting to ruin the show for its viewers? I mean great you got the information early, WHO CARES. Casual readers who want to use Wikipedia like an ENCYCLOPEDIA cannot because of the spoilers. The article is about the SHOW, which airs on CBS and SHOWTIME. If it's not there than its JUST SPECULATION! RMThompson (talk) 14:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

RMThompson, this has been debated for years, but the outcome has always been that posting spoilers is acceptable since it is a direct contradiction of Wikipedia to withhold information from viewers. As much as you debate this point, it will be consistently rejected as per convention. I'm sorry, but we have proof via feeds and it is confirmed.Geoking66_talk 16:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

My argument is that these people are NOT VERIFIABLE SOURCES, as strictly outlined by Wikipedia's guidelines. Someone who saw it on a feed is NOT a verfiable source of information! As stated on Wikipedia's VERIFIABILITY article:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source.

That means that while yes, the eviction may have already happened ITS NOT VERIFIABLE. It might be "TRUE" but it is NOT VERIFIABLE, and therefore not admissable. If it's verified, please show me where! RMThompson (talk) 20:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the HouseGuests Infobox. This is just a debate with the Spoiler issue again. RMThompson again if something happens on the live feeds or Showtime's Big Brother After Dark it will be posted here. Both are verifiable. If you want to talk about what happens on TV only then we can restrict this to the CBS highlight episodes and Showtime's live feed show. Everything that is listed here will be cleared up tonight's highlight show on CBS. The following things are acceptable to be included in the article and reason why:

Event	Source
Soulmate twist revealed	2/12/08 Highlight/Launch Show
First Power Couple Competition & Winner	2/12/08 Highlight/Launch Show
First Evicted Couple	2/12/08 After Dark
Heads of Household (Alex & Amanda)	2/12/08 After Dark

Now everything that has happened on After Dark like the first evicted couple of Parker & Jen's choice will be shown on Wednesday's show along with the new HoH. Nominations will happen sometime in between now and Sunday so they can broadcast it during Sunday's highlights show. The Veto will happen sometime after the nominations and Tuesday so it can be included on Tuesday's highlights show and the second evictee will happen live on the live eviction show on Wednesday. Now if something is stated on the live feeds and After Dark before the CBS broadcast it will be posted here. And since you are allowed to cite episodes of a broadcast here on Wikipedia we can just spend the extra effort citing the After Dark's episodes. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 20:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The spoiler issue is just out of hand. What happens on the live feeds and After Dark will be posted here. We have the necessary tag at the top with this warning:

It may contain non-definitive information based on advertisements, websites or interviews. The information may change as the date of broadcast approaches.

♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 20:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good except... THERE WAS NO AFTER DARK LAST NIGHT! That show doesn't start until TONIGHT, and in my opinion, is an entirely different show. Still unverifiable, but again, you get your way. RMThompson (talk) 21:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Big Brother After Dark premiered on Showtime 2 at 12 AM Tuesday night/Wednesday morning. I watched the whole three hours bub and it was on. It premiered three hours after the launch on CBS and the live feeds stared after the launch was aired on CBS. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 21:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You know what? You don't need to call be "Bub". According to the information I have, it wasn't ON. Sorry if that was wrong, but don't make it personal. Please explain how YOU WATCHING a TV show is NOT "independant research" and how it can be considered "verfiable"? Don't tell me its the way things have always been, that's not a reason. RMThompson (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

If my last post made you mad then I am sorry for calling you "bub" but to be fair you don't need to capalize certain parts of your posts and the little message on my talk page I didn't take to well. You could have phrased it a little better. I was just pointing out that Big Brother: After Dark did in fact air at 12 AM EST. From my understanding it is live on the East Coast but delayed on the West Coast. I didn't make it personal I was just stating it did air last night. And my reason for going ahead and updating the page with information that was gathered from the live feeds and BB: After Dark is simply for one it is normally included here and two, if a new user tries to edit table (like in the past) they could end up messing up the entire section or article in their attempt to add the information. And before saying someone is making something personal you should look at your posts, some people could take the way that you capalize your posts as personal. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 22:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Ratings

I have added this bit to the ratings section.

Big Brother 9 airs three episodes a week, with shows airing Sundays at 8 p.m. (EST), Tuesdays 9 p.m., and Wednesdays 8 p.m. The live eviction show was moved to Wednesdays due to Survivor: Micronesia airing Thursdays 8 p.m. This is the first season of Big Brother to air during an official television season and the second to air along a season of Survivor. The first episode premiered on February 12, 2008 with 7.33 million viewers (4.6/7 viewing audience), down from last year's 4.8/9 (7.4 million viewers) launch.

Should we note that launch night was up against American Idol that night. And the following Wednesdays will be as well until March. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 21:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Auto archiving of this talk page

Why don't we set up auto archival? Say threads without comment after 10 days to be archived? - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Works for me but I don't know how to do that. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 00:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll set it up. I'll have it archive sections with no comments after 10 days. If anybody objects, please note here. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

All set. When an archive hits 50K in size, the next archive page will be started automatically. We'll just need to add a link to the archive box. -Rjd0060 (talk) 00:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay thanks. That is why I made an archive today. The talk page was 53 kb. This will be very handy. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 00:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

HouseGuests Images

I have added two images of the HouseGuests in the HouseGuests section. One is a picture of the girls before they entered and one is of the guys. Both are screenshots taken from the first episode. I think I put the correct fair use rational on both images. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 00:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Power Couple/Head of Household

Since being a "Power Couple" is different than being "Head of Household" should we note this change/twist in the article and how the two are different? According to tonight's episode Jen & Parker were the first Power Couple and Alex & Amanda are the first Head of Household. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 02:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Power Couple and HOH are different, and should be noted as such. How should we do this? Tommy (talk) 07:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This is my plain for now. In the event there is another "Power Couple" the voting table can use this color     . This color is in the Infobox as well so if the need to use "Power Couple" again it is there. But this should be explained in the article. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 08:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Splitting the table. (Note if you mind spoilers please don't read)

Okay I am not adding this yet until we decide on it or wait for the CBS broadcast but something has happened and Neil is gone from the House and Sharon is back. And judging from After Dark Josh & Sharon are now a couple. So I suggest we make the table normal for this season. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 05:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we just split everyone up as individuals now. Or we can separate Neil and Jacob as individuals in the voting table and leave the rest of the couples as is. Atlantics88 (talk) 06:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we split them up as individuals but in the order group them in their pairs like Adam, Shelia, Alex, etc. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 06:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is how it would look if we did it in my sandbox I am unsure if it is the seventh or eight day in the House though. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 06:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

That was the idea I had in mind. Except for combining the HoH/nominations as one when they win together/get nominated together.Atlantics88 (talk) 06:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh and to better seperate who is in pairs now I have all current pairs color coded. Neil and Jacob don't have colors. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 06:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is what I had in mind. I'm not sure about the colors though; let's see what other members have to say.Atlantics88 (talk) 07:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yea but how would that worked if they split the couples up? It would defeat the purpose I think. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 07:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, we should just use your table for now and adjust it during the week or until Sunday to see how the CBS broadcast plays this out.Atlantics88 (talk) 07:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I say if they use pairs for the entire season then we can format the table later on to look like your table. But just on the filp side they don't we should have everyone as individuals. Who knows with this season we could flip on Sho2 tomorrow night and Jacob might be back because someone was expelled. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 08:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Do we need another color for "left the show", as opposed to "evicted"? This would need to apply to the voting history table and the table at the top of the article. I can't remember - has anyone ever quit BB before? Do we have a precedence for this? Tommy (talk) 08:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

If you hit the [Show] tab on the right where it says "General MoS table for reference" inside a red bar. At the bottom there is a Voting History Color Guide. These are colors that are for standard use across all Big Brother articles around the world. If a Big Brother article has a Nominations table or a Voting history table then these colors are the ones to use. I will post the color guide below:

Eviction Table/Voting History Color Guide
Head of Household	Power Couple	Nominated	Evicted	Exempt	Not Eligible	Walked	Expelled
			Re-evicted		No Nominations
#CCFFCC	#CCCCFF	#959FFD	#FA8072	#FBF373	#CCCCCC	#FFCCFF	#FFE08B
To use place style="background:[COLOR];"| in the square needed. Replace [COLOR] with one listed above. Exempt needs to be used only when another HouseGuest other than the Head of Household has been awarded immunity from eviction for that week. See Big Brother 8's voting table.

With these tables we have a seperate color for "Evicted", "Walked", and "Expelled" ("Ejected" in the UK). If a HouseGuest Walks then the pink color will replace the read color and their bar spanning to the end of the table will read [ Walked (Day xx) ]. The same goes for Expelled (see season two voting history for example.) The only color that is not standard across all Big Brother articles is the Power Couple color. This is one of two extra colors in the Infobox that is available for use if needed. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 09:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks for being patient and cluing me in! Tommy (talk) 09:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Your welcome. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 09:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Realtime Updating? and Joshuah/Neil/Sharon

So I'm confused. Where do we stand? I thought we were committed to updating the article realtime instead of waiting for the telecast?

If that's the case - can someone help me with a few things? I'm not sure of the proper way to edit the tables and switch colors and move things around. However, I feel that we should update to include the Joshuah/Neil/Sharon switch. Based on watching BB After Dark and rewinding key parts, it's clear that Neil left the house with absolutely no notice, and did not say goodbye to any of the other houseguests. He went into the diary room, and a long time later, Joshuah was called in, as well, to find Neil gone. Joshuah was then given the choice to bring either Jacob or Sharon back into the game as his partner/Neil's replacement, and he chose Sharon.

We need to indicate this on the table of who exited on which day (at the top of the article), as well as the eviction/voting history table....however that can possibly fit in? I'm wayyyyy too unsure of how to do it properly, so I'm not even gonna touch that one.Tommy (talk) 08:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I was waiting until tomorrow when more editors would be on since this is the first time that someone has Walked from Big Brother US. This is breaking news in Big Brother world and I was waiting for a discussion with more editors. I went ahead and updated everything in case someone tried but accidentally makes a mistake. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 09:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

What day is it?

Can someone clarify for me (either simply here, or in the article), which DATE = which DAY in the house? For example, we say that Jacob and Sharon were originally evicted on Day 3...but for the sake of those of us who want to figure out what day we are currently on (for example, to say that Neil left on Day __), which day is which....

I guess, to put it simple.... Thursday, February 14 is Day #__? And which timezone do we use? Thanks! Tommy (talk) 08:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Today is currently Day 7 (at 1:10 AM PST/4:10 EST) in the Big Brother House. We use the Pacific Time Zone where the House is located. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 09:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Tommy (talk) 09:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Neil's leaving

Please people do not add speculation of why Neil left. We have no proof that it was for family or other reasons. Adding such could be libelous if added until we have proof positive of why he left. Rumors are flying all over the place. Just leave it as he left for an unspecified reason at this time. If anonymous IP's continue to add this non factual material then the page should be semi protected. --_pete 17:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Right - we don't know why Neil left, but we do know that Joshuah had the opportunity to choose Neil's replacement - either Sharon or Jacob - and he chose Sharon. Tommy (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, if you don't think we can state that Joshuah chose Neil's replacement - "because he might be lying", then we also can't say that Neil left the show "voluntarily". He may have been kicked off, and we don't know. For that matter, let's just scrap everything we see and hear, because someone might be lying and we won't find out about it until later - or possibly never. This thought pattern is ridiculous. Neil CLEARLY STATED that he was given the choice between Sharon and Jacob, and he chose Sharon, and this information should be included. Specifics about Neil's departure should not - unless they come up in today's live feeds, which I don't presently have access to.Tommy (talk) 18:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I state we currently leave the article as is. Then await the CBS broadcast that contains this. I think it could appear Sunday or Tuesday on CBS. I am thinking Sunday since Sunday is nominations. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 18:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

So are we now going back to the idea that we're only updating based on information in the CBS telecast, and ignoring what we see in the Live Feeds and After Dark? Otherwise, I disagree. At the very least, we have information from last night's After Dark that says that Neil had the choice. There is absolutely nothing to show any indication that Neil actually left on his own volition. If we say that Neil left "voluntarily", we're speculating. At least Joshuah has said several times that he was given the choice in Neil's replacement. That's a blatant contradiction.Tommy (talk) 18:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you (I think we should leave, not state.) on leaving it as is until official word. I am not happy with the wording of voluntary leaving as is but will accept it. I do think it should say something as unknown reason at this time or the like. --_pete 18:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

How about just "left the show for unknown reasons" or "left the Big Brother House for unknown reasons"? Tommy (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Either one is better then voluntary leaving. --_pete 18:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Can someone more qualified than me change the voting history table and the elimination table at the top of the page to remove the information that Neil "walked" and somehow indicate that he is simply no longer on the show for unknown reasons - walked/kicked off, etc.Tommy (talk) 19:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

We don't have anything to state it was for unknown reasons for the Infobox. We have to put Evicted/Walked/Expelled. For now I suggest we leave it as walked. This is why I wanted to wait till today to see how other editors think we should handle but someone wanted to go ahead and update the article in Realtime. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 19:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Also why we should keep him as "Walked" is due to the fact he is no longer there and the reason is currently unknown. Judging from the feeds and After Dark last night it was a personal choice and therefor it should be classed as "Walked". We will find out more on the CBS broadcast as they will have to explain on Sunday or Tuesday's show why Sharon is back after Wednesday's episode. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 19:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

What makes you say that it was a personal choice for Neil to leave? I don't have the live feeds, so please fill me in if something happened since last night's After Dark. If nothing came up during today's live feeds, then I feel it would only be speculation to say that he left for personal reasons, because, according to what we have been able to see on After Dark (but we're not allowed to post about?) Neil left from the diary room without saying goodbye to anyone, and without any explanation to anyone. BB may have explained it to Joshuah and/or Sharon, when Sharon was brought back....but unless we hear otherwise, we'd only be speculating to say that it was personal reasons that caused Neil to leave. (Although I'd say it's a safe bet, it's still speculation.)Tommy (talk) 19:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

If I remember correctly last night you were the one wanting to go ahead and update the article in realtime. Neil has left the House okay. We are NOT sure how. We don't know if it was a voluntary exit or him being expelled we don't know. Currently his status is "Walked" because he has left the House. We have nothing else to classify him in. We can't use "Evicted" since he wasn't evicted. Using "Expelled" would be giving potentially false information as to why he left. A HouseGuest that is "Expelled" usually poses a threat to the other HouseGuests. "Walked" for the time being is the only thing we can classify him as until we receive more information via the Sunday or Tuesday broadcast. If it is something other than "Walked" or "Expelled" we will deal with it when the episode airs and we have more information. I wanted to wait if you remember before updating Sharon's return and Neil's departure so all the editors could decide how we should go about handling this. I am just handling this situation the best I can based on how other BB articles have been edited in the past. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 21:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to argue, and I appreciate your dedication and passion about the article - I really do. Yes, I do feel that we should be updating in realtime, according to the information we gather from any official source (CBS, After Dark, Live Feeds, etc..). If you remember, last night, not one of my edits to the article said "Neil left voluntarily" or "Neil decided to leave", because we don't know. I can see, however, that my comments here in the talk section were ambiguous to that, and I'm sorry for that. I did discuss with you last night how we should label someone who quits the show, and I can see how I seem to be contradicting myself on that one. Not my intention. By bringing up that change today, I was simply going with the flow of "let's wait until Sunday". I'm fine with leaving Neil's situation ambiguous at this point - because that's what it really is, to all of us - until either the Live Feeds reveal something, or until Sunday's show explains it. However... I'm still not sure why we're not including any information about Joshuah being able to choose Neil's replacement as either Sharon or Jacob. The same logic that would say "we know who's HoH because we hear them talking about it" or "we know who the power couple eliminated because people were talking about it" would indicate that if we hear Joshuah talking about how he CHOSE Sharon as Neil's replacement, then it should be included in the article. If we ever find out otherwise, we'd edit it then - just like we currently have "walked" for Neil, but there's a tiny tiny chance it might have been something else, like an expulsion. Just my opinion, but I think it should be included now. Thanks again. Tommy (talk) 00:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought that you went ahead and updated the HouseGuests section with the information. The fact Josh chose Sharon should be noted. Also with Neil leaving like you said him leaving isn't clear right now. Until we get a clear reason as to why I put him as "Walked" for now. Putting "Expelled" would defeat the purpose "Neil left the House for unknown reasons" because that is more associated for something bad. By having "Walked" this is a better solution because "Walked" is more open and it varies depending on the situation. Basically in this type of situation "Walked" is more flexible than the other two options at the moment.♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 00:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Awesome. I agree with you, and I think we're on the same page. :) Thanks! Tommy (talk) 01:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Pete - just becase you keep leaving notes like "TAKE IT TO THE TALK PAGE FIRST" doesn't mean that you automatically get your way. We took it here. It was discussed (see above), and so far, it seems like you're the only one who doesn't agree with posting about Joshuah CHOOSING Sharon to return to the show. Please take your own advice and "TAKE IT TO THE TALK PAGE" first before you undo my edits.Tommy (talk) 01:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed from Broadcasts

I removed this bit from the broadcast section:

Although little is known as to when the Big Brother 9 season will end, mathematically speaking there should only be 7 weeks of Big Brother action. Many rumors are posted on blogs and online forums, until CBS confirms an exact date, we can only speculate. During the season premiere Julie Chen says to the group of women before entering the house,

"Take a look around you, these will be your housemates for the next three months"

Was this an error on the part of Julie Chen, or was it said with intent?

It looks like original research. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 21:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Twist Section

Hello, I'm not sure how to start new topic, so I'll put it here. Could we add a twist section like on the BB8 section? This season's twists fell apart. Everybody knows about Jen and Ryan, and Jacob and Sharon are seperated now. Sure the whole couples thing is new, but the diry secret tag thing is crushed. 69.158.184.70 (talk) 20:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

That's ok I spit it from the Neil topic. That wouldn't be a bad but I don't understand completely what you mean. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 21:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You know how last season's twist was the Biggest Nemisis? That backfired. I think someone should add that bringing two Ex's together and having real a couple with two seperate game-partners was supposed be a secret. I've seen a few ads for this season with "my dirty little Secret" or something like that, as the slogan for this season. But now their's no secrets that the show intended to hacve in the game. 69.158.184.70 (talk) 22:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Me again, new question. Does anyone know if they vote to evict as couples or individually? It's probably couples like everthing else, but considering how flat the season's turning out, they might vote individually for an attempt at a surprise. 65.95.196.167 (talk) 23:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

shelia

I removed the part that said that adam calls shelia ma. I just saw it as pointless and not importent. Seth71 (talk) 01:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Neil's departure - Part 2

Okay, here is what should be in the article about Neil and his departure from the Big Brother House. He left on Day 6 and Sharon returned to the House at 9 PM PST/12 AM EST. Neil had left the House prior to 9 PM due to unknown reasons. The reason for his departure was not clearly stated during After Dark. However it was clearly stated by several HouseGuests that Joshuah had the option to chose either Sharon or Jacob to be Neil's replacement. He chose Sharon to return to the Big Brother House. Now here is what should be in the article about Neil's departure. Any portion mentioning that he left should read Neil left the House for unknown reasons on Day 6. For how Sharon returned something in this manner Sharon returned to the House on Day 6 as Neil's replacement. or On Day 6 Joshuah was given the choice to have either Sharon or Jacob as his Neil's replacement, and he chose Sharon. Something along the lines of that is acceptable due to lengthly discussions that have been occurring today. For the sake of the Infobox and the Voting history table, Neil is classified as "Walked" on Day 6. We are, again, not sure of the nature of his exit, using "Evicted" or "Expelled" would provide false information. "Walked" is more appropriate at this time. The reason for Neil's departure should be explained on either the Sunday show or the Tuesday show. Neil was present for nominations but he left before the Power of Veto so we could see this be explained on Sunday or Tuesday. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 03:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed! Tommy (talk) 03:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, except that "walked" indicates that he left on his own, when in fact he may have been removed by CBS, or left for medical reasons. Why not "left show" or something along those lines. RMThompson (talk) 19:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Highlights table

First, I thought this section was referred to as "Chronology" as in past seasons? Second, can we start this table like it looks in Season 6 and Season 7. I think having it this way provides an easier way to locate information in the table. If we start off using this table, we won't have to go back through the entire season at the end and redo the table. What does everyone think? - zachinthebox _{(User • Talk)} 11:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyone have any comments? - zachinthebox _{(User • Talk)} 17:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any preference between the two. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

COMPROMISE OFFERED ON NON-VERIFIABLE SOURCES

After talking with ALucard and other members of this community, it seems that a compromise may be made in showing unaired information on the page. On the one hand, we have the ability to share information before its aired because of Big Brother's live feeds, but on the other this information is at best, questionable and is considered unverifiable!!! Even if it's true, the information need to be independantly verifiable. So, as Alucard and I discusses, a compromise may be suggested.

There are two versions of the compromise, please discuss:

Proposition 1: In this compromise, the top infobox and highlight box will ONLY contain information that has been AIRED on CBS, after that show date, and will be verified using various websites and the CBS website. The "voting history" table may still contain any information found on the feeds, with the notation that the information is about an upcoming or unaired episode and may be changed.

Proposition 2: The compromise is as listed above, but doesn't allow unaired information in the infobox, highlight OR voting history tables. Instead, in this proposition we add another section towards the bottom of the page. In this section users may post items that fansites are reporting but have yet to air on CBS, with the stipulation that there is a tag stating that the information is about an upcoming or unaired episode and is subject to change.

Personally, I am partial to the second version, and I think it offers the most verifiable, sourced, article we can during the course of the show.

Please discuss, and if anyone knows how to add one of those nifty tags that asks people to come here and discuss, please do!

RMThompson (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I strongly dislike and discourage the idea of having 2 different sets on information on the page. That is rather inappropriate. I am suggesting that we continue on with the article as we are already doing. Again, the sites that are used have proven reliable, thus, I see absolutely no reason to stop using them as a source. The live feeds are as accurate as we can get, and there are several reliable websites which post feed information, therefore, we have our verifiability from these proven-accurate sites. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

And we also need to remember that no "warnings", "indications", or "spoiler tags" are required for any information listed here. See Wikipedia:Spoiler and note "... Wikipedia carries no spoiler warnings ..." as a general guideline, but of course, there can be some exceptions to this. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that I don't agree that these fansites are reliable or verifiable. To me anything seen on a live feed is considered "original research", so until verified through a third party, should be inadmissable. I'm not concerned with spoiler tags, but a warning that the information therein contains UNAIRED and possibly changing information is just.

As posted in another part of Wikipedia:

We do have a guideline against ownership of articles - I'll take a look and issue a notice to the other editors if this is the problem. However, you are correct - live feeds are not verifiable or reliable sources. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

As it remains, even if people are using the fansites as their sources, they certainly aren't quoting them.

Remember this:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.

RMThompson (talk) 20:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Until you can demonstrate in which way the live feeds have been unreliable, or the specific sites unverifiable, I will not change my opinion on the matter. I am not saying we should use any "fansite" as a source here, but only specific ones that have demonstrated accuracy. Also, I'm not sure why your brought up ownership here; I'm obviously stating my opinion on these matters, and I am fine if consensus changes and we do things differently. However, it appears that you are really one of the only people who have a problem with the current consensus - you need to realize that we are going to continue using the current consensus (like we did last year), until the consensus changes. I see you're trying to accomplish this, and you appear to be going about it in an appropriate manner, so please realize we appreciate that. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggested in a seperate discussion about having the Infobox at the top follow the highlights/recap episodes on CBS since it is at the very top of the page and have the Voting history table updated as the live feeds and After Dark progresses. Also for the most part we do follow the highlights/recap episodes when it comes to the Highlights section. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 21:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree I am also partial with Proposition 2 along with putting it in a hide/show nava box. --_pete 22:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I also agree that these sites can not be trusted. We are watching a game where the players are using everything in their power to stay in the game. --_pete 22:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a hide/show Infobox is necessary. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 22:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we should just leave it how it is, I don't like the compromises suggested. Also, unless we add some sort of tag; the idea of having the Infobox at the top different than the Voting history table might lead to some confusion with readers. Live feeds and certain sites have been proven to be reliable so I don't really see the problem, other than certain users who keep bringing the issue up.Atlantics88 (talk) 23:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Plus I also agree that certain fan sites are reliable. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 23:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

As I've discussed above, I agree with both of the above comments, obviously. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's continue with the page, as we have been all along. I just started getting involved with BB8's article, and it seems that this discussion comes up every season, and the standard is always to proceed the way we have been. I dislike both "Propositions", because the article itself would be a contradictory mess, and then we'd bicker about who is updating which set of information. As I said, I say we continue as we always have. Tommy (talk) 05:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

No compromise required. Sufficient video clips from live feeds are posted on Youtube and other sites that the basic facts can easily be verified by anyone who chooses to go look for them. It's not difficult to find, and that constitutes online publication in addition to those reliable fan-sites with years of peer review. Citations are not required for every little fact, particularly easily verified facts. The fact someone doesn't choose to find the verification isn't a valid argument. - Eric 72.199.4.13 (talk) 10:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Amen.Tommy (talk) 00:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Big Brother 10

Is there any confirmation about Big Brother 10. I read an article online with the casting director and she stated February 25th is when casting for Big Brother 10 may begin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.115.108.120 (talk) 13:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Spoilers are allowed - stop deleting over them!

This consensus has continually been reached, do not delete spoilers! Geoking66_talk 01:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Please stop deleting content because you disagree with its inclusion. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed! I'd go as far as to say that they're not even really spoilers, since the information is already available to everyone on either the feeds or After Dark.Tommy (talk) 01:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

They are allowed don't delete them. That is the last I am saying on the subject. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 02:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Natalie & Matt's sexual incident

I don't see how this is important to the article. It may have been the second case of sexual activity in the BBUS house but just because incidents like this keep occurring mean we have to post them every time? There may have been other cases where sexual activity may or may not have happened in previous seasons. I just don't think it's relevant. The video has also been taken down due to violating the terms of use on youtube. Please tell me what you think. Atlantics88 (talk) 01:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I kind of agree. I personally don't care much that we mention it, although it seems a little crass, and I think pointless. However, just because the clip isn't on YouTube anymore, doesn't necessarily mean that we can't talk about it here as fact, since we've agreed that the live feeds and After Dark are good to go. Having seen the video in question, I don't recall actually SEEING the action take place... from my recollection, they remained completely covered by a sheet, and it wasn't very discernable exactly who was performing which act on who. And believe me, I tried to figure it out. But that's beside the point. Do we need to talk about sex in the house? Eh, I'm really 50/50 although my gut says no. Tommy/DippyDawg1932 02:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Eh, I have no opinion. I have nothing against just a brief mention. It isn't necessary, no. It is, however, a rare occurrence (at least with BB US). - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that, yes, it is clearly notable that on a US television show there have already been two "real sex" incidents within the first week- we are talking about a country that is currently trying to fine NYPD Blue for showing a woman's nude rear end. So, the amount of sex being shown here (on the show, feeds, and After Dark) is absolutely notable.

Also, shouldn't we mention that James has appeared in pornography?

"Soulmate"

Can we come to a general consensus on how to notate the word "soulmate"? In the article, should we say "soulmate", or soulmate? Should we capitalize it, since we capitalize HouseGuest? I think this could use some consistency.

Personally, my vote is for: soulmate Tommy / DippyDawg1932 (talk) 02:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I say soulmate is just fine ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 02:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)