Talk:Big Brother 11 (U.S.)/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Affiliate Links

Affiliate links should be avoided. Someone added as the "CBS Official Live Internet Feeds" when it is only an affiliate website using direct order path. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohitsjustme (talkcontribs) 02:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Early Proposal

While it's in my mind, I'd like to make a proposal. I don't like how when I come on the site, things the happened on the feed are on the site before they're shown on TV. Here's my view on this: the article is about the TV show itself, while the feeds are a supplement. I know I probably shouldn't be on here if I don't want to know, but I don't see the point of putting results from the feed, considering not everybody that watches the show has the feeds, but everyone that has the feeds watches the show.Stjimmy61892 (talk) 00:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I typically avoid reading the article until after the show has aired for this exact reason. The problem is that even if we have a consensus among most of the editors, this is not going to stop others from posting. Hence, I think this problem is unavoidable. It's unfortunate, but true in my opinion. We already have enough trouble with people posting what they "wish" would happen, so at least what you are describing is factual. Plastikspork (talk) 02:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
This has been brought up for the past three seasons, due to the fact that the live feeds are part of the show itself information from them like the winner of the PoV competition, nominations, etc can be posted here. During the duration of the season there will be a notice at the top stating this article will contain "non-definitive information based on advertisements, a website or interviews" and with the new Flashback feature RealNetworks is employing I doubt this will change as editors who have the feeds can simply plug in the time and see that the events did happen. Also it has been discussed that the live feeds are just as credible as book sources (ie. you have to go and get the book to verify the source, you will have to get the feeds to verify the sources here). If you look back at the archives for the past three seasons you can see the huge debates regarding this. Now if we were BBUK we would waiting for the telecasts or official news via the official website due to them not having a continuous live feed. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 15:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Isn't that the reason most come to this article during non-episode learn the spoilers? Why else would someone come here? (talk) 16:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Not necessarily. In my case, for instance, I come on to find out any information I might have missed from a missed show, and inadvertantly (especially for Thursday's eviction shows) find out information TWO EPISODES in the future. It really pisses me off.Stjimmy61892 (talk) 21:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
First of all this is an encyclopedia not a fansite and should not be treated as such. I think editors that are working on Big Brother 2009 (UK) reached a consensus that information should not be posted until a reliable site (see WP:FANSITE) has posted the information. This could be information prior to the broadcast or after, they have been posting some information with the {{cn}} tag added after until an appropriate source can be found. My recommendation based on past discussions for the time being is if you add the HoH, nominees, Veto winner, etc prior to the east coast broadcast of an episode add {{cn}} at the end. This is just for the time being until a consensus is reached on this matter and to avoid edit wars. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 22:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, alucard, it seems as though people aren't doing the cn thing. How do we ensure that people DO do it... or is there no way?Stjimmy61892 (talk) 20:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

House Calls

Should be mentioned that it may be camcelled.--Cooly123 (talk) 19:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The cancellation of House Calls shouldn't be mentioned until CBS releases the press release detailing the features & spin-off shows of the season (ie. House Calls, After Dark). ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 15:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Changes to Big Brother 2009 (UK) should be applied here.

I noticed that the article for the new series of Big Brother UK has revamped the structure of season articles. One of the noticeable changes is the "Housemates" section merged with the "Summary" section and the Summary written in prose instead of a table. Also the nomination/voting history table is now sourced. These changes should help Big Brother articles become FA articles. Take a look at the talk page for the article. I think we should adapt these changes to this article as well then once the season is over go back to previous seasons and apply the changes to them as well. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 15:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

BBUSA Task Force

Back in November I proposed the idea of Task Forces (a mini group inside a project with a more dedicated focus on a certain area within the project). Since Big Brother (US/UK) was off-air I guess many editors didn't notice my initial post until editors of the UK articles started proposing a UK task force. I think to better improve the USA articles a USA Task Force should be created since the USA version of Big Brother has different rules than other versions. The first USA edition would follow guidelines established by the UK task force due to their similar rules.
Also (and with the proviso that voting is evil or not).

All in favor of a task force:
  1. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 22:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
  2. Have been working on BBUS articles for almost half a decade now. Geoking66talk 04:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  3. Plastikspork (talk) 13:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  4. T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 00:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  5. I wouldn't mind joining at all. Just be aware that I won't be able to do much for a few weeks because I'm at a music camp.Stjimmy61892 (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Changes for this season

Several changes to the overall article structure was made to Big Brother 2009 (UK) such as merging the Housemates & weekly summary sections, sourcing the nomination table, axing the ratings table and replacing it with prose of the notable episodes and ratings. These changes should be adapted here in order to help strengthen the article. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 19:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

New Houseguests

Hi, when did the new houseguests officially enter the house? MSalmon (talk) 11:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

July 5th, they enter the house four days prior to launch. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 13:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok thanks, I don't really follow the American version so im not sure how it all works MSalmon (talk) 17:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
The HouseGuests typically enter the House a few days prior to the TV launch so they can introduce the HouseGuests and air the first HoH competition in the same episode. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 22:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Color Coding

Shouldn't we follow the colors that CBS imposed on the show for the Cliques?

Like red for the popular, yellow for the off-Beats and so on and so forth... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this, also in the chart area the houseguests shouldny be listed in alphabetical order they should be listed in click sectioned. --Cooly123 (talk) 01:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Nah, alphabetically is fine since we do that for all the other articles, but yeah, the colors should match the ones they use on the TV show, boldly changing now... T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 03:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
They should be listed alphabetically since after the HouseGuests are evicted they are moved to the bottom as they are evicted. The colors should match the colors Big Brother used, the past two seasons (6&9) didn't have specific colors. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 17:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Apparently someone changed the Off-beat's color from yellow to orange. I changed it back to normal —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The Offbeats color is kind of yellow-gold color isn't it? The orange that was there was closer than the yellow that's there now, but I think that the "Saffron" color I used yesterday was closest. T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 06:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Since it seems like the colors are different each time I visit the page, we should come to a solid consensus about coloring. How's this to everyone: Off-beats (#FFD800), Athletes (#1C39BB), Brains (#03C03C), Populars (#E32636)?

Is that eye thing the official logo? I think the official logo is that 3D gold house with a door on the front with a purple background, or am I wrong? T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 03:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

That is the press logo, I am going to upload the correct logo today ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 17:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good! T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 06:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


Are spoilers on BB allowed, I know wikipedia rules state that Wiki isn't a crystal ball, and im not sure if it has to air on TV before it can be added into the page. Overlordneo (talk) 05:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Were the nominations a spoiler? I was watching the show and honestly don't remember hearing the nominations, but, here they are.
An agreement from past seasons was to allow the Infobox and the Voting history table to be updated as the live feeds progress but update the Weekly Summary as the show airs so all the details can be placed in the weekly summary.♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 17:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I just don't like how spoilers are visible at the top of the page. For people just stopping by looking at what the time the show comes on, spoilers are fairly hard to miss. Also, a spoiler warning might also be a good idea. I had no idea that there were spoilers already until after it was already too late.-- (talk) 21:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Posting nominations and POV winners before the actual television episodes air is CLEARLY a spoiler for the show's primary audience: those who watch it on TV. Viewers of the live internet feeds are not the show's primary audience. To make things worse, seeing the POV winner before tomorrow's episode was pretty much non-avoidable in my case (and I'm sure many others'), as it's right there in the info box where readers will, more likely than not, view. If the core audience of this show were live internet feed viewers, it would be a different story. But that isn't the case, therefore we need to gear this article toward those who watch the show on TV, yet would also like to see its article on Wikipedia WITHOUT finding out the result of a future, yet-to-be-aired episode. Percxyz (Call me Percy, it's easier) 15:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why they cannot be added. Nearly every show is updated as it progresses, BB11 just happens to have other ways of viewing the information. --Turian (talk) 15:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
That's the thing - the show hasn't progressed yet, so why is information within the yet-to-be-aired show being added? There may be other ways of viewing it (well actually, there's only one other way - which is online), but the main way of viewing it is television. Therefore, as I've already stated within my last comment, we need to make this article TV-friendly. Percxyz (Call me Percy, it's easier) 16:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
You can view it on ShowTime as well. They talk about many things that have already happened. I would not be fully opposed to the "friendly" version though. I guess we can see what more people think. If not, I say we might as well change it. I know I would be mad to be spoiled if I didn't want it. --Turian (talk) 16:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
All I know is that after finding out who the POV winner is, I'm staying away from the article altogether until some sort of change can be agreed on. I'm so pissed HE, of all people, got it, lol. Percxyz (Call me Percy, it's easier) 16:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

(indent reset) There's two issues at play here. First, spoilers are allowed. Wikipedia does not conceal information for the benefit of people who haven't seen a show yet. The secondary question is, is the information verifiable? If online sources are as official as the show, then information that's been revealed online is verifiable to a reliable, if primary, source. —C.Fred (talk) 17:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

At the very least I think we should move the table that shows who is nominated to the bottom of thr page. The article is pretty much useless to those who don't want to be spoiled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


What happened to the rating section??--Cooly123 (talk) 22:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I would say it's not necessary unless the ratings are particularly good or bad, in which case there would be a news article covering this detail. Plastikspork (talk) 23:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
The ratings section will return but in prose form. See Big Brother 2009 (UK) as an example. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 06:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, with citations for each statement. I don't think that something like Survivor:_Gabon#Ratings is necessary, but it least it is properly sourced. Plastikspork (talk) 21:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
There is no reason why they shouldn't return, all of the other seasons have them on their respective articles.-- (talk) 16:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Sure, as long as all the ratings are properly sourced. Plastikspork (talk) 21:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Rating have been very consistant 5.5-6.6 million a night. Sunday Aug 9, 2008 it rose to 7.2 million. --Cooly123 (talk) 19:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Again why are the ratings missing for most of the bg brother seasons? Also a note that the 8/13/09 episode was watched by 7.6 million, the highest to date this season so far. -- 03:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 (talkcontribs)

Two Things

1. I think a Nomination Vetoed background entry should be used on the voting history, as the only way to currently tell is the confusing entries on the top. 2. Something needs to be placed in the winning cliques entry boxes for voting history. Whether it be immune or exempt I dont care, I just think something needs to be there. Thoughts? --Turian (talk) 17:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Also to add, there may have been a consensus reached on BBUK, but there was not one reached here. These are two different shows. There was no consensus on the project page. Every article before has been a table and not prose. And let's not fail to mention the jumble prose creates when trying to include different information. The table is by far the best option. It is easy to edit, consistent, and easier to read than prose. --Turian (talk) 01:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
On Big Brother 2009 (UK) the reason for the reduction of tables is to bring the articles more in line with WP:MOS plus editors have converted past Big Brother UK articles from tables to prose. So just because past articles have tables isn't enough reason. Also when an article formatting change comes up on one of the articles under the project's scope changes are generally applied to other articles regardless of nationality. The only exceptions are the nomination tables as they are designed for each show's eviction format. However if a key color is changed on one articles (like the eviction color) then the change should be applied to other articles as well. (The argument of two different shows isn't true, they are two national variations of Big Brother.) Most of the changes that was made to Big Brother 2009 (UK) is with the aim to get the article to GA or FA status.
Also to add I brought up these changes prior to the start of the season to see what editors think but no one decided to discuss them until the actual change was implemented. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 02:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Also regarding the Voting History table, the only time something is placed in a HouseGuest's box is when they can't vote for eviction (or in the UK version nominate for eviction). Like Exempt would be placed in the Athletes boxes if they was exempt from voting for eviction but since they aren't nothing is placed in their box. Also when an HoH casts the tiebreaker vote the words "Head of Household" are removed for that week. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 02:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
But making a consensus for one article on an entirely different article is not right. People who don't even watch/edit/care for BBUK most likely would not have seen that article. It needs to trickle down, not leap across articles. And what I mean by that is that a more general page needs to play the role of host if more than one article are affected. --Turian (talk) 03:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, it was discussed before, and nobody objected to the change. It may be that only now that we see what the change looks like are there objections. Regardless, the change was not out of order. It's open for discussion now, clearly, but I think it may be that a case needs made for why the table should stay, since prose is preferred per MOS. —C.Fred (talk) 03:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
As I have said, the table allows information to be obtained a lot quicker than multiple paragraphs (especially the ones I have seen). Prose tends to be created with brevity as a sacrifice. It is just better. I can't say any more to further it. --Turian (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
If the UK summaries can be fit into 1750c words then the USA summaries surly can fit into the same amount without sacrifice. Also with the USA articles the summaries give a very detailed description of what went on and I mean the competitions are very detailed, what when on during the week is very detailed, any blowup is covered in full. The USA summaries are written like they belong on a fansite, not an encyclopedia. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 04:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

\=> It is for simplification. It is ridiculous to have it as prose. Also, throwing around threats of vandalism is show-boaty. There was no consensus on this article. Consensus on another related article is not enough to warrant a consensus on a different article. Please, stop throwing your weight around. --Turian (talk) 06:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

All the changes that are being applied here like sources for the voting history table, no tables for the ratings and summary sections I did start a discussion over. I started a discussion on this article on June 12, enough time for a discussion to be held and no one opposed it. The competitions don't need to be in great detail, outlining every aspect of the competition or documenting every blowup in the house. Everything like twists, major events, etc. can fit into prose without sacrifice. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 17:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
BRING BACK THE TABLE! I think we are forgetting that the English Big Brother to my understanding that is, does not include challenges like the American version does, or at least not of the same sort. In the tables used in the past, the competitions were divided apart from what exactly happens in the house. And due to CBS editing sometimes thigns that happen in the house do not necessarily happen in that correct sequence so a "prose" as you call it is unsatisfactory. And for the objection thing, i didn't pay attention to this article until the show actually started so i can easily say that the hole objection thing isn't fair for those who visit the site after the show airs and not before or right after the first episode. BRINK BACK THE TABLE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris4z01 (talkcontribs) 20:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
The table was removed in BBUK a month ago without any form of consensus (I was always against removing it and I find the replacement to be utterly worthless and unnecessarily confusing). Any attempt I made to bring it back resulted in some completely superfluous and unjustified backlash from a trio of editors who seem bent on having every article their way; I gave up because it wasn't worth the effort. Geoking66talk 01:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I thought the table was removed by consensus, it wasn't? (I feel like an arse now). ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 03:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Voting history/Infobox colors

Since this is the first season of Big Brother (U.S.) that will heavily feature the "Exempt" color some editors want to indicate what the color stands for. Since the HouseGuests that are exempt from being nominated will still be eligible to vote on eviction night the words "Exempt" or "Immune" will be removed on Thursday and replaced with the HouseGuests vote. I would like to point out that when the infobox templates was revamped during 2007 the goal was to standardize the colors used in both the nomination/voting tables and the infobox. All the possible colors that can be used in any giving Big Brother (immune/exempt, walked, expelled, etc.) are the same for the tables and the infobox. The legend in the infobox describes what colors are used and what they are so there is no need to indicate in the table area which colors mean what. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 16:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Voting History Box Sized

Please change these boxes to the same size as the boxes from other seasons. It looks horrible right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Once the season progresses the table will look like other tables. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 03:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

yellow shading in the voting table

Am I the only one thinks using the yellow shading for when a houseguest cant be nominated is kind of distracting and purposeless? MarkMc1990 (talk) 04:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not purposeless, it shows that they were safe. The color has more importance in international versions like the UK, Austraila, etc. where new HouseGuests enter and are exempt from the entire process or earn immunity in a task. With members of the cliques being immune each week (for the foreseeable future) the color should be used here as well. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 17:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I know what it symbolizes, I just don't think its all that necessary. I mean after that week its not really important anymore. I'm not admant about removing the yellow I just think its more distracting than helpful is all. MarkMc1990 (talk) 06:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I think it is worth the mention. It is better than not having it that is for sure. --Turian (talk) 22:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't spoil it

What if people who watch the show without live feeds visit this article? I mean, the table is just right there flashing you as soon as the page loads. The poor saps don't stand a chance. Maybe we could move it further down with a big ol WARNING SPOILERS AHEAD banner. Or make it one of those where it's hidden and you have to click "view" or some other word. I saw that on another article.

Maaladeisia (talk) 00:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Maaladeisia

Wikipedia allows spoilers, so they should know to not come to Wikipedia. I see no reason to change it now. --Turian (talk) 00:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
But what if said person doesn't spend a bunch of time online? What if they are not a frequent user of Wikipedia? They don't KNOW these things. Like I said, they don't stand a chance. I'm not suggesting we CHANGE the table, I'm suggesting we move it lower to the page so at least they don't see it the very instant the page loads. Or, more practically, use the hide table/show table feature. I just don't think it's right. Maaladeisia (talk)
Then they find out the hard way. If you move it down, they are likely to scroll down and see it anyway. Nothing needs to be changed. --Turian (talk) 04:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you kidding Turian???, when somebody post a spoiler on an article, it's deleted immediately Gonzalochileno (talk) 01:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not deleted from Wikipedia; Wikipedia contains spoilers. "It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot." —C.Fred (talk) 01:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Although, I do not mind the spoilers, I do agree that some people do not want to see spoilers, SO until the season is over and we do not have to worry about spoilers, we should make a SPOILER FREE wiki page, along with this one.--Bkopicz3 (talk) 23:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia allows spoilers. There is no reason to change it. If someone comes here and sees the spoilers, then we know they won't come checking it later. And two pages of the same article won't fly. ––Türî∂n 00:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Like i said, I do not mind them. How bout putting a note at the top saying this page contains Spoilers. I agree with both facts. Yes Wiki allows spoilers, but some do not want to see them PERIOD. so give them a warning at the top saying theres spoilers here to save them the trouble. --Bkopicz3 (talk) 02:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is pretty clear here, there are no spoiler warnings. Dayewalker (talk) 02:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. People find out the hard way. "Fool me twice, shame on me." Hopefully the first time they see spoilers will be enough. –Turiantalk 02:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Week 2 Summary

In the week 2 summary, it states that Ronnie "targeted" Jeff and Laura for eviction, but in the diary room he said his plans were to backdoor Russel, so he wasn't targeting Jeff or Laura...I think there needs to be a better word choice for that part of the summary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris4z01 (talkcontribs) 01:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have confirmation that Jordan was the replacement nominee. Even Ronnie's tweets seem to suggest it was Russell..."I would have to say that it is much easier to slay a cartoon dragon than evict a real person... Unless it is Russell!"--approx. 6pm PST 7/20/09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources have been added to the table regarding this week's nominations. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 23:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Eviction votes received column

There was a table in the article for the HouseGuests that was created and keeping track on the total number of eviction votes a HouseGuest may get in one season (similar to the "nominations received" column in the UK articles). Since in UK articles that type of column is okay I just removed the unnecessary table in List of Big Brother 11 HouseGuests (U.S.) and added the column to the voting history table similar to Big Brother 2009 (UK) until a consensus is reached about the column for American articles. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 02:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I saw that addition to the table and think it's a pretty nice touch. Works for me. T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 22:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

What Day?

I was just wanting to know what day is today (Friday 24 July 2009) because I am not entirely sure MSalmon (talk) 10:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It is currently (Friday, July 24), Day 20. Julie Chen caused some confusion when she inaccurately identified Day 12 as Day 11 last week. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I thought it was Day 20, just wanted to make sure MSalmon (talk) 19:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


I'd screw it up if I tried to fix it myself, but obviously someone needs to undo all of Jokan66's vandalism to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Better? MSalmon (talk) 19:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

HouseGuests section

There is a discussion over at Talk: Big Brother 2009 (UK) regarding the Housemate/HouseGuest section/articles. Due to standardization the result of the discussion will be applied to all Big Brother articles with these sections (American, Australian and British. See Talk:Big Brother 2009 (UK)#Housemates section. 20:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Game cites?

I personally don't like the decision to move from a chart summary to prose. I especially don't like that the entire section is uncited save for one fact. The supposed reason for this move to prose is to make the article more eligible for Featured status? How is it going to get there with no citations? Mike H. Fierce! 08:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but majority rules. Also, you can add citations as well. There are summaries on the CBS site for each episode. --Turian (talk) 09:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd be much more inclined to work on the summary section if it were in the old format. Mike H. Fierce! 05:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
As would I. The old conversation can be found here. If you want to bring it up for discussion again, I will support you. (And yes, the "decision" on the UK article apparently affects the US version as well.) --Turian (talk) 07:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I think we should have different consensus between the US and UK articles since they are basically different shows, with different rules and different nuances. Actually, I think nuance is a weak word because the premise is basically the same but it's a completely different game. The UK editors rarely edit the US articles, and vice versa. I'll read it over and bring up a proposal just for the US articles soon. I don't know who decided due to standardization, but the active editors of each national version should decide that, not editors who are uninvolved with certain articles (UK and US, etc.). Mike H. Fierce! 07:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
My thoughts exactly. If you need help, just drop me a line on my talk page. ––Türî∂n 09:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I have went back and added sources for the first two weeks. I also would like to point out that no one had a problem with standardization when the tables were present on both articles in the same format. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 22:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Some people may have simply not been present. Was this decision made before July 9? A lot of the Big Brother editors come only during the Big Brother season cycle; it's a bit silly to say "nobody had a problem" when most of the people weren't even there and didn't know of any discussion. Mike H. Fierce! 01:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Summary section

I was thinking about the summary section. Since the American version airs less episodes per season than the British version maybe a table could work. I have been working on a different table format in my sandbox which is similar to the table here and that article is at Good Article status. What does everyone think? ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 22:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I personally like the idea of a table like the one in the season 10 USA article AND prose (as long as it's by someone that can actually WRITE and summarizes the actual events well, cause now it's only about the competitions and ceremonies). Maybe that would be considered too much, as a lot of users hate that for some reason. I cannot do anything serious yet; I haven't been a user for long.--Maaladeisia (talk) 01:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I am not too sure if we need an exits column. People don't walk from the game like in the British version, so we won't have it as frequently as that one. ––Türî∂n 22:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
That is a good point. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 22:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Exits could easily be placed under events. Mike H. Fierce! 01:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that was my implication :) Perhaps we could do a red background for it as well to make it stand out. But that isn't the greatest of our worries. ––Türî∂n 02:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Removed the exit column from the table. How does it look now? ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 03:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Looks good. Perhaps for time scale, you could have the day numbers going down vertically, with each episode "rowspan"-ing the appropriate days. Perhaps it could work. I might throw something up in a sandbox in a few if you don't understand my jumbled thoughts :) ––Türî∂n 03:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Voting History

Oh god what happened to the table?.....Looks like someone had an abortion in there! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: Don't you guys think that putting the number of votes against a houseguest doing too much? like reinstating the fact incessantly? For example, Braden's evicted section reads: 6 of 11 votes to evict....then on the far right sides (on the newly added: "eviction votes received") says 6 (votes to evict). Why are we following the UK Big Brother when the set-up and gameplay are different? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. The table looks WAY too crowded like that.--Maaladeisia (talk) 04:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
It only looks like much due to the cliques and the colors for each one. And the votes against only matches because only Jordan has been nominated twice. As the season progresses it will be more useful. –Türî∂n 02:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I just think it's too much.....The old table was fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
This season is very different. And we want to get this article to good article status. –Türî∂n 03:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for sidebar occuring on BB10UK talk page

I've suggested that we stop using the Nominated/Up for eviction colouring on the sidebar as it breaks Wiki policy. As this would affect the BB articles worldwide, I've posted a link to this discussion here. Please don't discuss the issue here, please take it to the link posted in order to centralise the discussion. Thanks, DJ 22:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


Is it really necessary to refer to jessie as the two pump chump on the houseguests page? Seth71 (talk) 03:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Apparently not. He doesn't appear to have been. —C.Fred (talk) 03:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
It was removed here. –Turiantalk 03:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Posible Color Change

Is it posible to change the color on the sidebar for hoh or nominations? The Colors are bout the same and on older monitors they look the same --Bkopicz3 (talk) 04:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there needs to be a change. If there i any confusion, then the people who have old monitors can just scroll down to the voting chart. ––Turiantalk 05:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Chima vs. Russell Controversy, and the Live Show

I just removed an edit about the Chima vs. Russell terrorist controversy, and also the live show, and wanted to go into greater detail here. While Chima and Russell's dustup was entertaining, there was no coverage of it as a major notable controversy. The source given was a blog, and what I read didn't even involve the argument. If it gets significant coverage, it should be readed but for now, it just seems like another BB blowup, not notable outside of the show where it aired.

As for the reason for the taped show tonight, the source didn't definitively state the reason for the change in show filming. It speculated, as we're all doing, that the reason is because Chima could go nuts if Jeff used the Coup D'etat (or as he would pronounce it, the "Coupe Tater"). Unless we get official word from a reliable source that Chima was the reason for the change in taping schedule, I don't think we should state is as a definitive fact. Any thoughts? Dayewalker (talk) 23:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I added it because we should portray the HouseGuests as they are. I still see it as a controversy, even if minimal. –túrianpatois 02:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Voting History Table

As a result of various discussions during Big Brother 8 - Big Brother 11 USA I have restored the format that has been agreed upon through various discussions. If anyone would like to change part or all of the table please start a discussion first. This revision has the correct table. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 01:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Besides the Natalie thing, I believe this is good. So whoever reads this, don't change it per consensus. –túrianpatois 01:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Couple Questions

Could we get a Table for the Jury? and the other question, short while ago Chima had told Kevin that her, Natalie and Lydia were going to walk off the show, should that be posted cause it certainly is newsworthy. (talk) 03:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Ok, it turns out those 3 DID say that they were going to walk off, and Production, in order to keep them, gave them all Beauty Products. I think that it should be noted in the Controversy Section possibly. (talk) 03:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd say lets hold up on putting into the article until we see it covered somewhere in a reliable secondary source, so that we can easily show it's notable. Dayewalker (talk) 03:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Ah ok, and what about the Table for Jury? (talk) 04:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Ok, now THIS should be placed on the Controversy Section, during tonight's BBAD, Chima just said that Russel is a n@zi of a terrorist and that she is the Twin Towers. THATS crossing the line, and BB didn't even call them on it. (talk) 05:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

If this is picked up by reliable secondary sources, we should report it. However, it's not up to us to decide what's notable and what isn't. Wikipedia isn't just to report everything we see on the internet feeds, or on BBAD. If something's a legitimate controversy, it'll be discussed in secondary sources and we can add it from there.

That being said, it wouldn't surprise me to see some of the things Chima's saying to wind up causing controversy outside of the house. We just need to wait until it's confirmed as notable. Dayewalker (talk) 06:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


I am having an issue with Chima on the voting table. I think we should only have one Head of Household cell for Day 33, then change it to exempt on Day 40 being the overthrown Head of Household. I am getting repeated reverts. Why??? I have been warned as vandalism, when I did not vandalize the page. --Dudejerome (talk) 20:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe it should remain the way it is. While she was overthrown, she was still HoH for the entire week. And the notes clearly explain what happened. And you were warned for editing against consensus multiple times, even after I left a message on your talk page. You straight up ignored it. (Read this page, there is a bunch of consensus reached.) –túrianpatois 21:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, didn't Julie quite clearly state that as of the Coup D'etat being used, there was no HOH, and that was the justification for allowing Chima to play in the new HOH contest? I think the table can be interpreted as correct either way, but making her exempt for the second half conveys the information more quickly at a glance, which is really the point of a visual chart as opposed to prose. The way it is, if Chima had won HOH again, anyone looking at the table would have to seek out additional notes to figure out how that could have happened. Actually, the use of the "Exempt" label in her case here seems like the only valid used of having that category anyway. In all other cases, exempt houseguests are already noted by other info in the chart (being part of the In-Crowd clique, winning HOH or POV). For example, why should Kevin be singled out as being exempt this particular week. Being listed as the POV winner already conveys that info; the particular rules of the Coup D'etat were redundant. It just seems if you take the trouble to redundantly add info, it should be added in cases where it actually provides clarification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)