Talk:Big Brother 8 (U.S.)/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

FCC Classificaation as an Entertainment Show

I included information that the FCC has classified Big Brother as an entertainment show, yet this edit was immediately yanked. I can understand that the producers would not want people to think that the outcome is pre-determined. However, I think the FCC has made it clear that this is not a game show, that it is much like pro-wrestling and that this information should be included. Wanzhen 00:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I am the one who removed it, all of your edits actually. That is a pretty strong statement about what the FCC supposedly said, and if it is true, you need to cite that. Your comments regarding Americas Player were inappropriate for an encyclopedic article, especially the one that Eric is "payed to rig the show". - Rjd0060 00:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

so why not just put in citation. seem mean-spirited, much like the show. by the way, wikipedia is second life for corporations, not an encyclopedia. encyclopedias have editos who have paid their dues in the world of proof reading and editing. Wanzhen 02:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It is true that Eric Stein is paid by CBS to rig the show: for every 5 completed manipulations he is paid $10,000. That was stated on the show itself and in this article. Wanzhen 06:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

No. What was stated on the show is that Eric, Americas Player, is paid $10,000 for every 5 tasks completed. I don't see the phrase "rig the show" in there, nor have I ever heard it from CBS, Big Brother, or CBS.com. - Rjd0060 14:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Truly you are not saying that exact phrases of CBS have to be used in the article? Can the article not use CBS's propagamda? Wanzhen 03:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Correct. I truly am not saying that exact phrases of CBS have to be used. I never did say that, nor do I agree with that statement, so thank you for pointing it out. - Rjd0060 19:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

here is the source, from cbs itself... http://boards.cbs.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?msg=26642&nav=messages&webtag=CBSBigBro8MB Wanzhen 02:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

someone faking an FCC statement (which is probably somehow illegal) on a message board isn't a source, sorry - Spyke1077 02:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

If you can prove that it is fake, please provide that info. Wanzhen 06:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, if you want to add as statement like that, we don't have to prove that it is fake. You have to prove it is true. Anybody can go to the CBS message board and post anything. - Rjd0060 14:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you Spyke. That would not be considered credible. And I am pretty sure Wikipedia IS an encyclopedia. - Rjd0060 02:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

If this is not creible, then most of what is posted in the article should be taken down. You want to take down all unsourced statements, please. Wanzhen 06:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The reason that is not creditable is because a registered member of the CBS boards posted it NOT CBS. And someone could be faking that FCC statement like was stated above. And about other unsourced statements usually those are removed or a vialed reference is found later. After the season ends and the hysteria dies down the unsourced statements that keep getting into the article like Dustin and Joe on Elimidate or Dick being a finalist in Seasons 5 and 6 will be removed after the season ends if a vialed source can't be found. But a statement like the FCC Classifies Big Brother as an Entertainment show not a game show is WAY out there and needs a source. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 12:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

One can see that if the producers created and pay an actor called "America's Player" to manipulate the game, then the game is pre-determined - he has to be around to fulfill the choices of the viewers. So, now I think an FCC source is not needed to say that the game is pre-determined - it is self-evident. Wanzhen 03:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You have no idea how angry and crazy I got when reading the comment you posted just above this one. You continue to think that just because you pretended that you were the FCC and wrote this "statement" with flashy fonts and colors (which a company would probably not do; they would stick with basic fonts and black lettering) to have fun on the CBS message board is a source. IT IS NOT. I now officially cannot make it any clearer to you. You are making yourself look like an idiot! This is an absolutely ridiculous claim you are making! You have NO SOURCE that America's Player is paid by CBS to "manipulate the game". You are just clearly not paying attention to or watching the show the rest of us are. I can't go on any further. I think you get the message and understand how I feel about his - Spyke1077 04:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It is hypocritical of you to use wikipedia policy when you want to and then vioolated that same policy and resort to name calling. Furthermore, this is not an issue about how you feel, but about how the FCC classifies the show. Please remove the name calling and false accusations or you will be reported. Wanzhen 06:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

What hypocrisy? - Spyke1077 06:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems that Spyke1077 has been pushed beyond all reason and has snapped. That's unfortunate. However, I agree with the sentiment completely that there is no evidence that Big Brother has a pre-determined outcome. Message board statements aren't reliable, and simply having someone on the inside performing certain tasks as determined by internet vote does not predetermine the outcome of the overall game.Snowfire51 06:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You said it perfectly. I haven't snapped, but ya, I got mad and I am just sick of this Wanhzen guy. Ridiculous, this guy. I don't think calling him an idiot is that bad. I'm sure there are other people who would agree. I toned my comment down so I wouldn't look like a mental case. This Wahnzaenehaenh guy should be blocked/suspended. He keeps trying to push this "the show is fake" thing and it's crazy that we have to keep fighting over this. - Spyke1077 06:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

So, you continue to violate Wikipedia policy on name calling. Consider yourself reported. Where did I say that "this show is fake"? But since you brought it up maybe you want to explain why you would voluntarily bring up that the show is fake. Perhaps that should be a new sub-section of the article. Wanzhen 17:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Dude, you need to chill. I already took stuff out of my comment. "Idiot" is not that bad. There are way worse things I could've called you, but I didn't. You say that Eric is paid to rig the show, and that it has a "pre-determined outcome", so essentially you are saying that the show is rigged or not legitimate in some way. And I still don't understand your comment about how I a hypocrite. I never tell anybody to do anything on Wikipedia. I take constructive criticism from others, and I don't reprimand other users because personally, I think that doing that would make me look like I am better than others. And I know that people would say I should do that to make Wikipedia better. I have never said anything to other users about how name-calling should not happen. I think that this entire discussion needs to end because this is getting out of hand. This talk section should be deleted. Even if you are right, we shouldn't spoil it for the fans. It would take the fun out of watching the show. So I think everybody needs to stop pushing whatever argument they have in this section. Wahnzen needs to stop. I need to stop. Alucard should stop. Rdj should stop. everyone should just stop fighting over this. The most miniscule thing has gone berserk. - Spyke1077 17:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I love how you say you never tell anybody to do anything on Wiki after earlier telling someone else to chill and then telling everyone to stop. I also don't get how you can tell someone else to chill when you already admitted to becoming "angry and crazy" about something on Wiki. Then you say you're not a hypocrite. Maybe you should look up that word in a dictionary. If you are getting so psychotic over a stupid Wiki article, you need to take a step back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.7.94 (talk) 14:16, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Your explanation on unsourced statemnts is not satisfaying... "some are removed" etc... Well why only some? Why wouldn't some just consider this article as promotioanl material for CBS's show? Wanzhen 03:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Only some are removed because the others have been aired on the show, or on feeds. A statement such as you are proposing absolutely needs a reliable source to back that claim. If not, anyone can removed it. It can be considered a libelous statement, and all statements about a company or persons has to abide by WP:BIO. A message board is not a reliable source. You need to provide, if not a primary source, a reliable secondary source to add what you propose into this article. This is not a tabloid, Wikipedia strives to be an encyclopedia, and there are policies guidelines to help build one.

America's Player is a gimmick, but it is only one person. One person, whose votes come from the public, cannot control the outcome of the game as you seem to suggest. Also, a lot of people assume that Big Brother is like Jeopordy or some such, which is so far removed. This taken from the The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy; the term Big Brother is used to refer to any ruler or government that invades the privacy of its citizens. Also, have you ever read George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four? It may help you understand the premise. I'm not saying it measures upto literature, but the premise is similar in that Big Brother is watching you. - Jeeny ^Talk 04:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Spyke is correct and this conversation needs to be concluded, to avoid any further negative confrontation. I believe that something has been accomplished, and that is the understanding that we don't need any POV comments like Erics role is to "rig the show". Also, Wanzhen, hopefully you understand that a CBS message board is not a credible source as anybody can add just about anything to it.

- I agree, I think this discussion is finished and should stop. There is no evidence the ultimate outcome of the show is predetermined. Snowfire51 21:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

AP Task #22

I just want to make sure of this one. I know that Eric kissed Jessica late Saturday night or early Sunday morning, however that kiss was prior to the assignment. This task says completed. I want to make sure that he kissed her again, and this is not just some confusion. Does anybody know for sure? - Rjd0060 14:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing. Also, are the non-nomination/vote tasks retroactive. I.e, does he really have to kiss her again or does he get credit since he already did it? I suggest we switch back to Pending until we have verification. Jj04 15:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Also is it verified that Jessica is even the intended target, or is this an assumption based on the fact that they've already kissed? Jj04 15:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I am not sure if we know that Jessica is even the target either. I have changed back to "Pending" and removed Jessica's name just in case. - Rjd0060 16:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, unless somebody knows 110%, I think we should just leave it as pending. The show is tonight anyways, so we will know for sure then. - Rjd0060 16:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It is now confirmed that Eric did kiss Jessica again so it is completed. Chrismaster1 19:48, 29 August 2007

Thanks. I changed it last night after the show. - Rjd0060 23:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Nude Luxury Competition

Given the nudity in the Luxury Competition of Sunday 8/26 and the "24/7" pay-per-view service that CBS offers on "BB", weren't all those women in the competition shown naked on CBS' website LIVE (without the "blurring" of "bathing suit areas" on the edited show)? And doesn't that risk exposure to lawsuits by them if such videos make their way to YouTube or download websites? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.150.208.34 (talk) 20:20, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it. The feeds usually (always) cut to trivia sessions during competitions and anything else that the BB producers don't want the public to know about. - Rjd0060 20:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

And remember, This is a talk page for discussion of the article about Big Brother 8 (US). It is not for discussion about the program itself, unless that discussion involves improving the article. In particular, it is not for discussion about whether or not Big Brother 8 (US) is a "good" or "bad" program; or finding out what "this and that" are; or what will happen after "something". - Rjd0060 20:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way Rjd0060, the talk page if I remember correctly is to talk about the show and how to make the article better. So I don't see anything wrong about talking about the show on the talk page I mean that's why it's called a Talk page. Chrismaster1 14:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you are incorrect. As per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, "The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page.". There is even a template at the top of the page, which says the same thing. And as far as leaving "threatening messages" on your page, I would never have done it if there was no reason to. (Cross posted) - Rjd0060 22:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

CBS Big Brother 24/7 is a live internet service, and is 24/7 with some exceptions. The internet feed is blocked when competitions are in progress in order to get fans to watch the show (in previous years, food competitions were not blocked; starting in season 8, they were blocked). The internet feed is blocked during ceremonies and during special events, such as a video on the water screen or other things CBS wants to save for television broadcasts. Even though the houseguests will talk about the results of the events, we won't actually see them play out until they are aired on television. Diary Room confessions are not shown to protect the integrity of the show. It is blocked when a houseguest sings for music copyrights (this is why when the houseguests are given a musical wake-up call, the feeds will usually cut out after the voice of Big Brother says "Good morning, houseguests. It's time to get up for the day."). It is blocked when houseguests get uncooperative or unruly (such as violence or not obeying rules, two things which could also cause a legal dispute). It is blocked when a houseguest slanders a person, place, product, business, or service in the outside world who has not consented to their name being aired. This is also to prevent legal disputes.

The man pushing the button to turn the screensaver on and off is a CBS technician, not a lawyer. They don't have time to check if something is okay. So: If in doubt, cut it out.

So, assuming you either skipped or stopped reading three sentences in to that first paragraph, the luxury competition was blocked and no nudity was shown on the internet feeds. After the luxury competition, the feeds returned to show the girls running to the living room to find the coat racks. The guys were sitting by the memory wall in brown robes watching. So, yes, no nudity was shown during that time. However keep in mind that the houseguests change and shower on camera (though most of the time houseguests will do their best to conceal their nudity), and that it is in their contract that they consent to being recorded 24/7. - Spyke1077 04:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler tags

I believe that a spoiler warning is not needed for this article and for Big Brother: After Dark for the following reasons:

The {{Future television episode}} already appears at the top of the article (and it should be added, in the latter article's case), providing sufficient warning of spoilers throughout the article.
The current spoiler guideline strongly opposes use of the template at the top of articles. Axem Titanium 02:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as this page, I think one of the warnings could be removed. I am not saying I want it to be, and I'm not saying I want to keep it.

On the After Dark page however, I definitely think we should keep it. Earlier, I moved that warning to what I think is a better place. I moved it to the section "Show Highlights Per Daily Episode", since anything before that section is not really a spoiler. So it is no longer at the top of the page. - Rjd0060 02:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary, "Show Highlights Per Daily Episode" is pretty obvious in its announcement of its content: Show Highlights Per Daily Episode. If that isn't redundant with "spoiler", I don't know what is. Axem Titanium 05:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This article should NOT have anything written into it that has not aired yet on the actual episodes. It's bullshit that someone would come here to check information after watching Sunday night's episode and see at the top of the page who won veto, a spoiler that they shouldn't know until they watch the Tuesday night episode. DO NOT POST SPOILERS ON THIS PAGE, especially in such an obvious area as the cast chart at the top of the page! StrandedKSig 13:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I know what you said in your edit summary. That still doesn't change my opinion, which is to keep the tag on the After Dark page. If other people disagree with me, that's fine, and if enough people disagree it will be changed and I don't have a problem with that. As far as having spoilers or not, that has been discussed way too many times. StrandedKSig needs to read through this talk page, and through the archives. This discussion isn't about having spoilers or not. It is about how the tags should be placed. - Rjd0060 14:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not fighting your right to spoil all of this bullshit, but you should NOT be posting information that isn't show canon at the top of the page like that. There should be a separate page for it. It's simply not fair to be blasted with information like that with no warning and no way to avoid it. Period. This is not your spoiling forum, head elsewhere for that. This is an ARTICLE about what has happened in the game and been shown in the episodes.64.8.1.2 18:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I cannot believe that this conversation is still happening. You should read through the archives, and understand them. Spoilers are on these pages, and will probably continue to be on these pages. This has been discussed many times. There are at least 3 warnings on the page, and even one at the very top of the page. If somebody comes to the page, and sees that there are spoilers on it, it's obvious that that person should not visit the page again if they don't like it. So, there are warnings, and there are ways to avoid it. Obviously you don't like the spoilers. So.....AVOID THEM....at least the ones on this page. - Rjd0060 18:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure who you are referring to when you say "...your right...", and "...not your spoiling forum...", but note that most people who actively contribute to this page have agreed on this. - Rjd0060 18:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

(kickback indent) I would like to say that removing spoilers is a form of censorship, or at the very least, molly-coddling readers who come to Wikipedia and expect to find exactly the right amount information that it wouldn't spoil the next episode that he hasn't seen yet. Limiting information is a big no-no. For the same reason, I think that the spoiler warning is not necessary. Axem Titanium 23:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

This discussion was either deleted or archived (cannot remember which), and the person who started the discussion (Axem Titanium) objected to that because there is no clear result from this discussion. I am assuming that we would like to keep the spoilers, and keep the spoiler tags in the article, contrary to the suggestion by Axem Titanium. If there are any people in support of Axem Titanium's suggestion, then now is the time to say so, since this will probably be archived very soon, as the page is beginning to fill up again. - Rjd0060 14:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Big Brother Jury

I was going to write about adding information to the HG articles about their stay in the jury house, when I realised they hadn't show any yet! Why has this not happened? I watched S6 and S7 and they had that stuff. It would be nice if information was available so it could be added to Houseguest profiles for this season. Example being that last season it was probably worth noting the howie/george incident from last year. Anyone have an answer? - Spyke1077 04:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

They may show something today since Jen is supposed to be there. Unless they do something surprising like a double eviction which they need to do because their main site has the show going for ten weeks on their voting history. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 06:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember them having that much about the jury house. I could be wrong. I do remember that they showed jury members reaction when a new member would show up. So like Alucard is saying, they will probably have Dustins reaction to Jens arrival on tonights show, and maybe some more info that could be used in the article. - Rjd0060 14:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

FCC Discussion is over

The FCC discussion is over. Do not repost it. It's done and finished with. It got out of hand. So that's that. Do not respond to this. Everyone is getting mad over nothing. - Spyke1077 16:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

As you see, the discussion has been reverted back to this page. Instead of deleting it, it should be moved to archive 4. The first 2 discussions could probably be moved. - Rjd0060 02:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This person should not be allowed to delete stuff just because it was embarrassing to him.

Created Archive 5. Archive 4 was huge enough. See you next year. - Spyke1077 02:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You leaving us?supremegoddessofall 02:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully they will ban him. He is clearly too disruptive and unstable to handle updating this page.

Amber

The house made a stupid decision in tonight's show! I hope Zach doesn't Head of Household! Daniele deserves it more. i even think America's Player should go home. I hate him more than I did earlier today! User:ScottAHudson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.213.90.227 (talk) 01:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Scott not to be rude but talk pages are not a place to discuss the show itself but how to improve this article. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 01:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Citing

Is there anyway to cite an episode of the show? I am just wandering. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 06:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Check out the video entry at Citation Templates (WP:CITET) - fmmarianicolon | Talk 17:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Week 11

Why is there a week 11 when it has been mentioned no where, and the cbs only goes up to week 10? Anung Mwka 21:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

If you count from 6 starting at the beginning of week 9, the second segement for week 9 will have 5 remaining, 10 has 4 remaining, 11 has 3 remaining and results has 2 remaining. User:ScottAHudson

Have you thought about the possibility of week 10 being a double evict as well? Anung Mwka 23:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Leave it be for now. And besides when giving an explanation about why House Calls won't have future evictiees/jury members this year on the show (read "House Calls Interviews" below) Gretchen said (from a statement from Big Brother) it is a twelve week competition. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 07:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

On "America's Player"

Has it ever been stated what exactly will happen should he make it to the final 2? If they're doing as they've done in past seasons and showing the jury members current episodes of the show, would that influence their decision too much if they knew that Eric is already raking in cash from his tasks? If anybody knows this stuff, I think it would do well in the article. Ric | opiaterein 22:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I really don't believe that they have said what will happen. However, I think we can assume that the jury members are not seeing the complete episodes. I assume that they only see ceremonies and competitions. I highly doubt that BB will show them all of the conversations that are shown in episodes, and doubt they will show any DR sessions (including AP assignments) to the jury members. So to answer your question, since BB has not said anything, I don't think we should add any speculation to the article. - Rjd0060 00:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the whole speculation thing but I found some stuff out that I think that should go in the article. On the cbs web site, it says that AP ends September 12. This is listed on the Americas Player section in the TERMS AND CONDITIONS. Here is what it exactly says, Voting Periods: America's Player on Big Brother begins on Sunday, July 8, 2007 at 5:00 PM Pacific Time (PT) and ends at 11:59:59 AM PT on Wednesday September 12, 2007 (the "America's Player Period"). Voting Periods: There will be twenty-nine (29) voting periods (each a "Voting Period and collectively the "Voting Periods") that occur within the America's Player Period. Basically this means that we have no control in what Eric does after Thursday. I wanted to put this in the article but I wasnt sure how I should phrase it or exactly where it should go. Heres the link to the page http://www.cbs.com/primetime/bigbrother8/americas_player/rules.html Rosario lopez 02:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

GOOD WORK on finding this. - Rjd0060 02:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The article says that if he is a juror, we will decide who he has to vote to win. Is this even accurate? That is important to find out. If it IS true, maybe something like this? "Erics final Americas Player assignment will be announced on the September 11 episode, unless he is a member of the jury, in which case viewers will decide on who should receive his vote to win the game." ... On second thought, maybe that doesn't sound too good but it is something to work off of. - Rjd0060 02:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is what I think will happen: The final voting day (according to the AP terms) is Sept. 11, which is the Thursday before the finale. I believe at this time there will be 3 people remaining in the game, if Eric has been evicted at this point, the viewers will vote for who he should vote to win. If the highest vote getter is evicted before the finale night, I think that they will do just as they have been all season and just go to the next highest vote getter. If Eric is still in the house at this time, the final task will probably (and most likely) be who he should evict. Thats just what I think will happen - it isn't from a source or anything. - zachinthebox _{(User • Talk)} 03:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

New double eviction style

I was thinking, and I though that instead of having two completely separate columns that differ in width from the rest, that we could possibly use rowspan="2" so that all of the double eviction week information could be in one column and it wouldn't mess up the voting boxes. Just my opinion. Geoking66_talk 04:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that sounds good. Could you make like an example of what your talking about so we can have a visual? Sounds good though. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 05:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this what you are talking about? Note I can't predict the future so this is not correct.

	Week 8	Week 9	Week 10
Head of Household	Jessica	Zach	Jessica
Head of Household	Jessica	Daniele	Jessica
Nominations (pre-veto)	Amber Zach	Jameka Jessica	Dick Danielle
Nominations (pre-veto)	Amber Zach	Zach Eric	Dick Danielle
Veto Winner	Daniele	Eric	Jessica
Veto Winner	Daniele	Dick	Jessica

Daniele	Amber	Jameka	Nominated
Daniele	Amber	HoH	Nominated
Dick	Amber	Jameka	Nominated
Dick	Amber	Zach	Nominated
Eric	Amber	Jameka	Danielle
Eric	Amber	Nominated	Danielle
Jessica	Head of Household	Nominated	Head of Household
Jessica	Head of Household	Zach	Head of Household
Zach	Nominated	HoH	Evicted (Day 69)
Zach	Nominated	Nominated	Evicted (Day 69)
Jameka	Zach	Nominated	Evicted (Day 69)
Amber	Nominated	Evicted (Day 62)

Notes	See notes 2, 4	See note 4	See notes 2, 4
Evicted (votes to evict)	Amber 3 of 4	Jameka 3 of 3	Daniele 1 of 1
Evicted (votes to evict)	Amber 3 of 4	Zach 2 of 2	Daniele 1 of 1

I do think this would look better plus you can tell each week apart very well. I wouldn't mind fixing the tables up for this. I do think for a double eviction week if the table is going to be like this we should use "HoH" to identify Head of Household instead of the full name. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 06:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The only problem with this is it would make it's not *easily* identifiable as to who went first (although it is down at the bottom based on the number of votes), nor is it possible to see who was nominated against the first evictee versus the second one. - supremegoddessofall 06:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't like this at all because it's difficult to determine which order the events happen. The double Week 9 column looks fine and makes it congruent with other columns in the table. This tight version could be easily misinterpreted, and it just looks too overloaded and would require several explanations to make it fully clear to the reader. Keep the current version. --Mtjaws 07:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Leave the double column, and just make another footnote about the fact that it was a double eviction week. The evictions aren't going to happen simultaneously, even if they are aired on the same show, and making a single column makes it look like both evictions are part of the same event. - supremegoddessofall 07:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I messed up when I made that one Zach is supposed to have two rows in Week 9. I fixed the one above but refer to my sandbox for a better example. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 07:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I made a full example for this new style in my sandbox if anyone would like to take a look at the full example. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 07:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I like the new one, but supremegoddessofall has a point. - Rjd0060 14:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of the new one, but I find it really hard to read the individual votes of each player, with all the colours of HoH and Nominees. I think that we should leave it as 2 columns. - zachinthebox _{(User • Talk)} 15:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

That's what I meant (the table), but I think that the two column will work better. Geoking66_talk 02:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

House Calls Interviews

Gretchen has stated on Friday's show on CBS.com that beginning with Amber no evicted HouseGuest who is a jury member beyond this point will be interviewed until after the finale. I am going to attempt to type the statement below that Gretchen read from Big Brother:

We have made jury members of Big Brother available to the press the past few seasons always with the proviso that their questions not inform the ejected HouseGuest of influences outside his or her personal experience in the House. This season several cast members have made either offensive statements or exhibited controversial behavior, we respect journalist interests and rights to pose questions about these statements but believe at the same time doing so could provide information that influences the final vote and potential outcome of this twelve week competition. For that reason the remaining jurors will not be made available to the media for the duration of the program. They will be made available to the press after the Big Brother finale on September 18th.

Here is the the link for the video on CBS.com. It took me a while to get this word for word although I may have missed a word or two lol. I can recite the first part of Friday's House Calls now. I think this should be included somewhere in both the House Calls section on the main article plus the Incidents section in the main Big Brother article. How would we source this though? ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 05:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I figured out how to cite the episode, I think. Plus I found another source about the decision. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 11:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Tally on Eric's tasks

We should number Eric's completed tasks so we can see at a glance how many he has completed. Right now he's one away from his next $10,000. The numbers matter. Yes, there's a total elsewhere. The chart itself should indicate that. Wryspy 02:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I saw this version of the table, but didn't like how it looked. I see the numbers by each word and it just looks bad. There is a running total on top, and I believe that is sufficient. - Rjd0060 02:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that the table is fine the way it is. Adding another column just takes away space from an already over-crowded chart. - zachinthebox _{(User • Talk)} 15:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Wryspy didn't want to add another column. See This old revision, and notice that the numbers are right next to the word "Completed" for each task. Zackinthebox: I personally don't like this proposed way, but wanted to make sure you know what exactly the proposal is. - Rjd0060 16:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I guess I misunderstood. Thanks Rdj! But anyway, I still think that we should leave the table as is. I don't really like the numbers at the end, as they can be easily confused with the actual task number - zachinthebox _{(User • Talk)} 17:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

America's Player table

Would anyone object to abbreviating "August" and "September" in the America's Player table to prevent the date wrapping around to a second line? Are there any guidelines against abbreviations like that? Should "July" also get abbreviated to "Jul."? I made the changes in my Sandbox and I think it looks better. Any thoughts? Thanks. --Mtjaws 02:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I would say abbreviate all months to 3 letters (so I would do June=Jun , July=Jul). - Rjd0060 02:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I would do just as in your sandbox, along with Rjd's suggestion, but without the ending period, so just keep it "Sun, Jul 08". - zachinthebox _{(User • Talk)} 03:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

As long as we are talking about the table again, here's another suggestion. We need to be more consistent in the "Description" column. What I mean is:

Either call him Eric, or call him Americas Player throughout the column (Now, sometimes he is called Eric, and sometimes AP)(Obviously this would be just for consistency)
Word the same tasks the same way (For who should he get nominated, and who should he get evicted.)

What does everybody think about this? - Rjd0060 14:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

At first, we had the descriptions paraphrased in from the episodes (this is before the CBS website), but then I changed them to word for word from the website because of the Task #3 confusion. Though I would like it to all be the same, I think we should keep it just as CBS has them. - zachinthebox _{(User • Talk)} 14:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, makes sense. - Rjd0060 16:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Table Vandalism?

Uhh, someone's edited the table so it says that everyone's been systematically voted off until Daniele has won and Dick has been the runner up... which although it's possible, definitely hasn't happened yet. I would edit the table back myself, but I'm not sure how to do it, and I don't know if this is on purpose or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.70.153.75 (talk) 05:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I fixed it. Wryspy 06:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Voting Table Notes

I wanted to let everyone know that I made two different notes for America's Player for the Voting Table. Note 2 is if the person America voted for leaves and Note 3 is if the person America votes for doesn't leave. I did this so new visitors to Wikipedia wouldn't be confused after my cousin was asking me if America wanted out Nick in Week 3. Poor thing. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 07:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

America's Player Revisions

I've edited the America's Player table twice already to reflect that, no, Eric didn't get Jessica nominated in week two as per his task, but someone keeps changing it back. I understand there'd been controversy about the other "is so and so nominated" tasks, but seeing as Jessica wasn't even nominated for the first time until eight weeks later, can someone explain to me why this task keeps being changed back to "completed"? Quack-Wabbit 14:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Hm. Checking the CBS site says that the task was completed, in spite of the fact that a) by all appearances, it wasn't, and b) this pretty much directly contradicts the information Julie Chen told Eric on the most recent live eviction show. Ruling? Quack-Wabbit 14:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Eric's nomination task week two, as provided from CBS.com was "Of the remaining HouseGuests, who should Eric try to get nominated?" (emphasis added). Eric did try to get her nominated, and therefore is a complete task, see BB's website. In the following weeks, the producers changed the task's wording to "Which HouseGuest do you want Eric to get nominated?". This change in wording requires Eric to get someone nominated, not just try to. Jj04 13:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, during the eviction ceremony last week (Thu, Aug 27), when Eric went into the Diary Room to "cast" his vote to Evict (being Amber because America told him to do so), Julie announced to him and us that he had completed 17 of 22 tasks, obviously that isn't including the "get Amber evicted" (Task #23) task because it had not yet happened when Julie had said it. So 17 completed tasks, up to, but not including, Task 23 would indicate that Eric completed Task #3, by trying to get Jessica nominated. - zachinthebox _{(User • Talk)} 14:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Semi-Protection

Is it possible we could get the semi protection back on this page until after the season is over? The vandalism is back... Constant reverting gets tiring... —TRAiNER4 (talk • contrib) 18:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I requested protection again for the article. We'll see what happens this time - zachinthebox _{(User • Talk)} 18:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Semi-Protection Approved. Zackinthebox: Hope you don't mind I added to your original request on the RFP page, and requested that it be semi-protected for 1 month (which it was) since the show will be over by then and won't be nearly as many edits. - Rjd0060 02:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind at all LOL - zachinthebox _{(User • Talk)} 02:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, you know how some people are! - Rjd0060 02:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, I do LOL - zachinthebox _{(User • Talk)} 02:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Jury Members in Voting History

If we put "Evicted to Sequester" for the Jury Members in the Voting History instead of "Evicted" that would make the table look ugly when we get to Week 10/11 when an evicted Jury Member has one box to put "Evicted" in if this makes any sense. The Jury Members are noted in the Infobox plus I added a message above the table about Jury Members voting for the winner in the Finale. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 05:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I changed it for now. I used the color from the info box and put Jury member, so then it can be changed to who voted for whom when they vote. What do you think? - Jeeny ^Talk 05:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This whole Jury Members thing is getting on my nerves. That could work for now. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 05:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I know what you mean. EVERYthing is getting on my nerves lately. Sheesh. :) - Jeeny ^Talk 05:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Your Suggestions

I have rewritten the entire Big Brother (US) article. Mainly I formatted it similar to Big Brother (UK) in the way it is set up. I added a controversy section since WP:BIGBRO said it needed one, removed all the lovely trivia, decreased page size from 65 KB to 34 KB, added Big Brother: After Dark, and increased sources from 3 to 34. I have a complete list of changes on the talk page of the main article. I just wanted to get everyone's opinion on the new re-write and since this is the most popular place to be I thought I would post this here as well. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 13:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Veto

I think we already discussed this, but I'm not sure what was decided. As far as the Veto symbol, I think that:

If the Veto IS used, it should stay by the person who it is used on until the Thursday show.
If it is NOT used, it should be deleted after the ceremony.

Was this discussed, and if so, what was decided? - Rjd0060 14:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if it was discussed I forgot but I have it fixed to reflect the website since the CBS website has the Veto indicator for Dani and Nominations for Jameka and Jessica and HoH for Zach. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 16:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

OK. I think that we should just stick with CBS.com and leave the veto symbol until Thursday's show (when they remove it also). - Rjd0060 16:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, from my experience they do remove the Veto indicator if it is used though. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 18:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Correct. - Rjd0060 19:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Power of Veto Page

Guys the PoV page is nominated for Deletion and currently there are four votes for Delete and one to Keep (me) and I am posting here since this is currently the most active BB US page around. So please voice your opinion on this matter. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 16:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Jury members in voting history

Someone added "Jury Member" to each houseguest's name in the voting history. I reverted this because that space is for the final vote for the winner of BB8. 99.243.247.227 01:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

We were going to leave it as jury member until the final vote. Then it will be changed. - Rjd0060 01:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Yea we are putting "Jury Member" in the vacant box until the finale because some other users expand the "Eviction" all the way across the table. Also when the season is over we are changing the Jury Members in the Infobox to evicted because of the same users putting "Jury" in the Veto spot. If you look through the archives this has already been discussed. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 01:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Voting History Notes

I have added Notes 8, 9, and 10 to the table. Note 8 is about the evictions on Tuesday (Day 74) and Thursday (Day 76). Note 9 is for the last HoH and eviction. Note 10 is that the Jury votes for the winner except that America controls who Eric votes for. If anyone can check them to see if they are worded right please do so. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 01:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Not so IMPORTANT: AP Task?

I just want to make sure that we are 110% sure that Eric's jury vote will be an AP task. Julie wasn't very clear on the show tonight. I believe she said "You have one more task. You have to come back on September 18". Now unless I missed it, she didn't associate coming back with Americas Player. So, are we POSITIVE about this? If not, we need to remove all comments in the article that mention this, until we know for sure. - Rjd0060 01:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea. You know how BB changes things as they go along. lol. It better mean we, the public, get to vote. - Jeeny ^Talk 01:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The way it stands now and based on earlier episodes it is currently America who has Eric's Jury vote. Unless we hear different. This should be confirmed once we have the final two so for now we just leave it as America has his Jury vote until the final two are decided. That is when they should let America vote for who they want Eric to vote for. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 01:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thats what I really thought (that we would control his vote) but then I heard that so I'm just trying to do the whole "not a crystal ball thing". I'm fine with leaving it for now. - Rjd0060 01:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Reason I said leave it is if you back to when it AP was introduced early in the season it is stated that if he makes it to the Jury America controls his Jury vote. I really need to delete some programs from my DVR. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 03:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Just checked out CBS.com AP page and it says America's Player is not done yet! He has one more task to accomplish. On finale night Eric will need to cast your vote for the winner, America. More details to come. So we do control his vote to win. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 13:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Alucard..I just wanted to make sure it was a sure thing.- Rjd0060 14:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem this is the only task that I am looking forward to voting in. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 15:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I went through and did a tense cleanup on all of the America's Player sections, but as I was proofing it, it occurred to me that some things might need to remain present tense if his jury vote will be an America's Player task. Most of the tense changes I made are still appropriate either way, but if a decision is made on this, then could someone rescan the section and see where it should be flipped back to present tense? --Robb0995 05:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The Schedule for BB/Voting Table

Here is a list of the upcoming episodes and what will happen during each episode as described by Julie:

Sunday (Sept. 9) - Head of Household/Nominations
Tuesday (Sept. 11) - Live Power of Veto Ceremony/Eviction
Thursday (Sept. 13) - Final HoH/Last Eviction.

And with the Voting History the Thursday show with the eviction is considered part of Week 10 so for this season Week 10 will have "colspan=2". For now the way the schedule looks and the way it has been done in the past please leave it alone until after two HouseGuests are going in Week 10. On Thursday nights we don't start a new week until after the eviction. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 22:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

And the finale will be Tuesday Sept. 20 and there is a Sunday show until CBS states otherwise.♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 22:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify: the 20th is a Thursday and the finale is on Tuesday the 18th. - zachinthebox _{(User • Talk)} 22:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Confirming that the finale is Tuesday, September 18, 2007.- Rjd0060 22:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry thinking of Survivor also. Can't wait for the new season. Sorry for mixing up the dates my bad.♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 22:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Veto Competitions

What time are veto competitions usually held? I mean time of day by the way!!!! ScottAHudson 17:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not the place to ask this but the veto comp. is usually held on a Saturday during the afternoon if I am not mistaken. Sometimes this varies. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 18:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Prizes

Didn't Dick win a plasma TV in a veto competition. I'm not sure what day it was but it was during the Christmas one, where Jen had to wear a united.Rosario lopez 22:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. See Big Brother 8 (US) highlights, and it is under Week 2 competitions (3rd bullet point). - Rjd0060 22:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok I added his win to the prize section.Rosario lopez 01:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Eviction question

It shows Jessica being evicted in week 9, and Eric in week 10, but they were both evicted the same day (69), which is the same week. Is there a way to fix this ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.82.79.140 (talk) 18:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The coral/pink "Evicted" boxes show when a person wasn't in the house. For example, Eric's status became "evicted" at the start of Week 10, while Jessica's evicted status begins halfway in the Week 9 column, only because she left before Eric. Week 9 is spread out over two columns to account for two people leaving that week, even though they left only a few minutes apart. --Mtjaws 19:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I get it now, both are "pinked" out for week 10, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.82.79.140 (talk) 21:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Houseguest Image

The caption for the image of the group of HGs is: "The first 11 HouseGuests to enter...". But that isn't accurate, is it? Since the other 3 (Dick, Jessica, and Dustin) were already inside, in the HoH room. What should this be changed to? - Rjd0060 21:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I moved around those pics when they were first posted, but something was always unsettling to me about the way they were captioned. My memory is a little fuzzy, but did CBS ever label Dick, Jess, and Dustin as "nemeses"? If they did, ok, I guess there's reason to caption the image that way, but since there are two halves to each set of "nemeses", it just seems odd to me. I just wish we could find a picture of all 14, because it's not like the 3 "nemeses" remained an isolated group for more than about 11 seconds of the show. They were fully integrated into the rest of the cast, almost right away. Tommy 03:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe "The first 11 house guests introduced on the show" - 209.82.79.140 17:54, September 10, 2007

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the "11" arrive on day one, whilst the other three arrived a couple of days later? On the first show where Julie revealed that Dick, Dustin and Jessica were upstairs, the others had already spent a few days together as they enter before the show begins airing. Seaserpent⁸⁵ _Talk 08:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

True, they had been in the house before the first episode, but Julie said that before the 11 HGs entered, the 3 "nemeses" had already entered and had been sequestered to the HoH room. - zachinthebox _{(User • Talk)} 10:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

But I don't really think that the 3 were up there for days all alone. What screws things up is that the HGs were in the house for about a week before the first show. I wish we knew how many days they were in there prior to the first Live show. But we still should change the caption (for the 11 pic) to something that doesn't mention how long anybody has been there. Maybe something like "The HouseGuests excluding the three nemesis" and maybe the word nemesis can be a link down to their picture? - Rjd0060 14:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain it was only a matter of an hour or two, based on what I remember of the houseguests' conversations that "first" night. I specifically remember them saying things like "We were just starting to get to know each other", etc.Either way, it clearly wasn't days that Evel, Jess, and Dustin were living in the HoH room with no food or water. If you watch the very beginning of Episode 1, the voiceover says "Tonight, 14 men and women will enter this house..." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y37MVtnFaR0) Beyond that, if you watch the episode, the "11" compete in HoH, and then you see them sitting back in the living room. Several of them are still wearing the same clothes from before HoH (Nick), and Kail had wet hair, because she took a shower after getting covered in flour (or whatever that was) in the HoH comp. Dick/Jess/Dustin are all still wearing the same clothes they were introduced in, when they come down from HoH to meet everyone else. Tommy 15:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

What I am saying is, when we watched the HGs enter the house, I don't know if that part was live. But that doesn't really matter though. We are veering off the topic of this discussion, and that is what should the caption be for the 11 photo. I am going to change it now to "The first 11 HouseGuests introduced on the show" - Rjd0060 19:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the phrase "The first 11 HouseGuests introduced on the show" would be more fitting. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 15:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

"The first 11 HouseGuests introduced on the show" or "The HouseGuests excluding the three nemesis". Either one is fine with me, but it is agreed that it needs to be changed. - Rjd0060 15:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but I gotta ask again...why are we branding Dick/Jess/Dustin with the term "nemesis"? I can't find that used by the producers in the episodes...but Julie Chen says "a rival, enemy, or someone with whom they have unfinished business." I just think it's a weird word to be using to describe the reality of the situation. Tommy 15:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as using the word "nemesis", I see no problem using that because if you see one of the definitions for nemesis, it "is a formidable ... rival or opponent", and I think that is an accurate description. - Rjd0060 19:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I still don't like it. I feel like the way we use it in the article almost makes it seem like it's an official title to separate those three from the rest of the HG's.Tommy 21:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I dont know why you think it sounds like an official title. It does separate them from the rest, but they kind of should be as they were separate from the rest. That was a big deal since they couldn't compete in the HoH comp. If it were to be changed, what would you recommend changing it to? - Rjd0060 22:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives