Talk:Big Brother 7 (American season)

Moved speculation

I have removed the speculation out of the article per WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Below is the speculation. I also rewrote content, which was copy/pasted from CBS.com. --Rob 05:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

List of the 20 considered cast members?

Big Brother 7 Different lists of Big Brother All-Stars candidates accidentally revealed on CBS.com

The 20 candidates for the all-star edition of Big Brother have been (apparently accidentally) revealed CBS.com. Strangely, the site is showing at least two separate lists of possible houseguests. (The list is supposed to be officially unveiled June 21, when viewers will be able to vote for their favorites from a group of 20; only the top six will enter the house, along with a group that producers select.)

At 6:09 p.m. ET, I went to the show’s official site and the following list of candidates, written in white text and formatted as a poll, came up instead of the show’s actual site, which was visible just moments earlier:

• Alison(BB4)
• Amy(BB3)
• Brittany(BB1)
• David(BB4)
• Diane(BB5)
• Drew(BB5)
• Erica(BB4)
• Jack(BB4)
• James(BB6)
• Janelle(BB6)
• Jason(BB3)
• Josh(BB3)
• Kaysar(BB6)
• Maggie(BB6)
• Mike(BB5)
• Monica(BB2)
• Nicole(BB2)
• Roddy(BB3)
• Shannon(BB2)
• Will(BB5)

Earlier today, JokersUpdates.com posted a screenshot that showed a slightly different list:

• Alison (BB4)
• Bunky (BB2)
• Dana (BB4)
• Danielle (BB3)
• Diane (BB5)
• Erika (BB4)
• George (BB1)
• Howie (BB6)
• Ivette (BB6)
• James (BB6)
• Janelle (BB6)
• Jase (BB5)
• Kaysar (BB6)
• Lisa (BB3)
• Marcellas (BB3)
• Michael (BB6)
• Mike (BB5)
• Monica (BB2)
• Nakomis (BB5)
• Will (BB5)

Why two different lists? And why is their site working sometimes and not other times? Maybe someone screwed up, or maybe they’re screwing with us.

I remember seeing that explained, but can't quote the source anymore. The initial list that jokers published was both a CBS mistake and correct. Once discovered, rather than indirectly validating the list by removing it, they tried to discredit the leak by posting incorrect lists to cause confusion. So yes, they screwed up AND they were screwing with us.

Look

In order to follow the guidelines of the Big Brother WikiProject, once the first episode premiers, we should aim to have this page look like Big Brother (UK series 7), which epitmizes the guidelines set by the WikiProject. This includes {{Template:Big Brother housemates}} and sub-headings of the houseguests. I did this to a minimum on the fifth season of the US version, to give an idea. Geoking66 20:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The UK and Australian versions air more frequently during the week, so it makes sense that their relevant Wikipedia pages are updated more frequently. Because the US version only airs three times a week, should it only be updated after an episode airs or as events occur in the house? For example, live feeds are already airing but the first in-house episode is not until tonight. Update now or then? Fmmarianicolon 12:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

We'll update after every episode. Also, the game table shows things not revealed until later episodes, but a spoiler warning has been placed so there is not need to fret. Geoking66 23:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Try not to model it too much on the Big Brother UK 7 article; look at BB06 and BB7 UK, and take the best things from them both. --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 16:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Legend

I'm not sure how to change "Against Public Vote" to "Nominated" If anyone can, thank you. Geoking66 00:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Probably best to bring it up at the discussion at the template talk page. The template is supposed to be used for all Big Brother series. Dancter 01:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC) Never mind. It's been addressed. Dancter 01:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I haven't seen the premiere, so I don't know quite how it works this season, but the US series works differently than the other Big Brother shows, so I don't know how this template is going to work. Is there a US-specific Big Brother template? Should there be? Suggestions? Dancter 01:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It's been fixed. This is the template mention in the WikiProject and it can be used for all series of the show. Geoking66 03:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm assuming you mean in a general sense, with no indications of HoH or PoV for the US series. I noticed you shot down my idea of repurposing the legendrem parameter for showing the Head of Household. I can accept that, but it seems to me that the current status of housemates should be indicated somewhere, beyond just Evicted and Nominated. Dancter 04:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

If the legend is changed here, will it change the legend on the UK and Australia pages? --Fmmarianicolon 04:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't. Parameters "legendevic", "legendnom", and "legendrem" have been provided to allow editors to change the legend text locally. If left blank, the defaults are:

• legendnom = Against Public Vote
• legendevic = Not in house
• legendrem = Removed

To my understanding, these defaults are set for circumstances particular to the current UK series, making them ill-suited for the other series, the US series in particular. Dancter 05:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The defaults are more suited to the 'default' method of nominations, however, can be changed. -- 9cds^(talk) 07:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I will of course defer to a more veteran watcher. I am a little surprised, though. For some reason I was under the impression that the rules were generally simpler for the other shows, but "against public vote" and "not in house" seem pretty confusing to me. Is it really that incorrect to call candidates for elimination "nominees" and eliminations "evictions"? Dancter 08:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It was originally like that, but there was lots of hassle and complaints. God bless Wikipedia ;) -- 9cds^(talk) 08:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm assuming the current legend should read 'Head of Household'? -- 9cds^(talk) 13:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've made it so that it has nominated, evicted, and HoH. Is that right? -- 9cds^(talk) 16:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

What about Power of Veto? Where does that fit in? FireSpike 16:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure but colors should be something like this: Green should be HoH - HoH is "safe" Green is associated with safety. Red should be evicted - Red is often seen as a negative. Power of Veto Holder should be Yellow, as the veto itself is gold. Nominations get blue by default. FireSpike 16:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Remember that it's a generic template for all contries. Which is more important - HoH or veto? -- 9cds^(talk) 17:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Using colors wouldn't be very useful for indicating Power of Veto, as it can be held concurrently with another status. I don't think there is an elegant way of showing that using the current template. Dancter 17:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you could add a small (V) next to the name? Anyway, I'm currently after opinions of an optional fourth colour to be coded in the template - needed? -- 9cds^(talk) 18:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought of that, or even a icon to match the design of the veto medallion. But it seems that the template parses the text in the name fields to make a link to a housemate's heading in the article. Changing the name field text would break the link. Concerning a fourth color, I don't see much need for one. But then, I am not familiar with the other series. I think if there is need for another element in the legend, it should probably be something other than a color, and be versatile enough to accomodate cases such as that of the veto. Perhaps I'll take a look at the template some more and see what I can come up with. Dancter 18:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

You could put it in the exit or entry column? As for something other than a colour, what do you mean? (Please don't change the template without discussion - it affects many pages) -- 9cds^(talk) 18:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking of something like endnotes, based on symbols such as the icon I mentioned, or asterisks. But for the Veto, your suggestion of using the exit column might work. And of course, I wouldn't make any changes to a template such as this without vetting them on the talk page first. Dancter 19:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Head of Household is far more important than the Power of Veto. FireSpike 03:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

We do not need a Power of Veto color at all. We have the "Game Table" section which talks abou that. Remember, we are now using the official Big Brother template (for Wikipedia). By the way, I think that this is the best season page for our American version of Big Brother. Geoking66 23:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Housemate Pictures

If anyone can get screenshots of the housemates in the Big Brother 7 house from the feeds, that'd be great. We can add them to the sub-biography parts of the articles. See Big Brother (UK series 7) to see what I mean. Geoking66 03:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

If it's at all useful, there's a screenshot of Chicken George from Season 1 that was featured in his "Vote for Me" tape. FireSpike 16:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It's all done now. I may get screenshots of them not in the Diary Room, but I guess we'll have to wait. Geoking66 23:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Would it be alright if I was to replace that picture of George with one of him holding up his veto necklace he got last week? FireSpike 01:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Consensus building

I've started up a consensus building for chronology on the Wikiproject talk page. -- 9cds^(talk) 07:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Chronology

Are we going to do a chrnology section for the article? If so, how often should we update it? Should it be: every show, every eviction, or at any time we please. We should include this section. The article is coming along nicely. Geoking66 02:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

It should be every week, not every two weeks. --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 16:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Infobox straw poll

A straw poll is taking place on this page about whether the current infobox should stay, or if the one previously in use should be used again. Users are encouraged to vote, but are not obligated to. If you have the time, please look at the straw poll. --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 21:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Renaming

I suggested this on the main Big Brother page, but as it's not getting many responses, I'll just go around to the Big Brother pages where I'm most likely to get a response, and propose this there. I think the Big Brother pages should be renamed, to either Big Brother USA 7 or Big Brother 7 USA, and that the main Big Brother USA page be named Big Brother USA. --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 19:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I second this motion. The current titles are unnecessarily obscure and complex. –Dvandersluis 20:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

If it's changed, Wikipedia:WikiProject Big Brother#Naming should be updated first, and the new standard should be used for all seasons in all countries (unless there's special circumstances). --Rob 20:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I asked this on Big Brother UK and Big Brother Australia's current running seasons' talk pages minutes before I asked on this one. --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 20:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we should keep it. By moving it, we have to make redirects and besides, other Big Brother series/seasons use the same naming system. Geoking66 22:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Well that's what I'd want changed. I've asked on BB7 UK, but that's not going so well... Redirects wouldn't be so bad; if the articles ever did get renamed because of this, I would do all the redirects and stuff, being the one that wants to cause the whole mess and all. --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 22:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Revert back to Pictures around the house

I think that we should revert the houseguest pictures back to the ones of them around the house. Noöne ever discussed this change, and now the pictures look ugly, and so does the article. Geoking66 17:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the article looks better with them, but I thought fair use meant they couldn't be used because screenshots are already available. --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 17:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's much difference in terms of policy, as screenshots are also fair use. Dancter 17:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Who's in the house

I missed Seasons 1 & 2 should Chicken George and Will be in the house all i know is that will already won once. Why the heck is Erika in the house not only that but on America's Choice Cowboy should be in--Kevmicester2000 18:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

This isn't an opinion forum. All we know is that the people in the house were either chosen by America or the producers. Cowboy is not in the house and that's that. Geoking66 00:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Information from Live Feeds

I know that this article gets augmented with information from the live feeds, and even though it is slightly annoying that after (for instance) Sunday's episode (nominations) the article already lists the veto winner (which doesn't "take place" until Tuesday's episode), I'm not going to complain about that. However, how did people know who was going to be evicted before Thursday's show? Is it not really "live" as it purports to be? Is it just filmed earlier on the Thursday? I'd think that as it generally has a number of minutes' worth of "boring" footage (ie. people standing around after someone gets evicted) that it is in fact live... – Dvandersluis 17:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The evictions are live. In the first few weeks, the votes are pretaped due to the volume of house guests. It would take a lot longer for 14 people to vote live. Therefore, most feeders are able to tell through discussions and pre-eviction strategy. For example, feeders knew that Nakomis was going to go because Kaysar informed his alliance that they did not have the votes do they should "dump them". This meant they should forget trying to save Dedmon and, instead, tip the votes in favor of keeping Diane. Since feeders already knew of Danielle's (she made a deal), Jase's (hated Dedmon), and Marcellas' (promised Diane a vote against Dedmon) votes we just add two Season 5 votes and the votes end up being at least 5-5 for a tie. So, to make it a short answer: they watch the feeds, cobble together information from prvate talks, and make their best guess from what was said. 68.51.57.237 03:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation! –Dvandersluis 18:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

What is up with the weeks?

Will somebody please tell me why the weeks are broken up into sections of two weeks? —JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 15:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Article length

The article is now 36KB (at 23:40 UTC, 26 July 2006). Does anyone have any ideas on how we can shorten this to make the size more preferable? Geoking66 22:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

<whisper>split the chronology... the chronology is the way...</whisper> --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 22:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

reply-we can take away the peoples pictures

Reference hacking

People keep on deleting parts of references. Keep them in! They cite sources and are very useful. Geoking66 04:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Events and 24/7 feed

I don't have the 24/7 feed so what days do they really do the Veto, food and nominations. I know is that the HOH is live.--Kevmicester2000 17:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Friday - Food & Nominations
• Saturday - Sometimes Veto Challenge
• Sunday - Sometimes Veto Challenge/Sometimes Veto Ceremony
• Monday - Sometimes Veto Ceremony
• Tuesday - Usually Nothing
• Wednesday - Votes Cast (As number of guests decrease, voting is live)
• Thursday - Live Eviction and HoH Competition

FireSpike 06:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Mike got veto? WTF?

If I were a bigger fan then I would change this myself, but I really only watch this show with my girlfriend and I can't be sure. Boogie and Erika are listed as put up for eviction by Janelle, but doesn't that happen on Sunday's episode? Also, it lists Boogie as having winning the veto, but this is supposed to be on Tuesday. Somebody correct either myself or the article, 'cause something is definately not right. --Zeromaru^TC 00:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

My girlfriend just confirmed my suspicians. I've removed all notices of Erika/Boogie being nominated and Boogie winning veto. --Zeromaru^TC 01:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The Policy here seems to be that we update the article as it happpens live and not as it airs. Erika and Booger were nominated on Friday evening, and Boogie won the Veto very early this morning. FireSpike 02:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Made a separate houseguest list

Due to article length, I've added a new article for the housemates. The same has been done here. Geoking66 03:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with that, but whatever floats your boat. FireSpike 01:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree as well - I feel it is all relevant.--NYKenny 13:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler warning

I don't believe the current spoiler warning is sufficient for the article. Even with the warning, the infobox which keeps track of the nominations, veto, etc. is still visible on the right side of the article. Since some people seem to get off on posting information the second it happens, the infobox should probably be moved down the page, or removed altogether. Otherwise it is possible to come to this page on Monday, read the spoiler warning and intend to leave so you don't spoil the show, but then glance to the right and see a big veto symbol next to boogie's name. Cjosefy 13:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, the WP:SPOILER asks that you don't put spoilers in edit summaries, and there is definitely some of that going on with this page.Cjosefy 13:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like other BB pages (Big Brother (USA season 6)) have already solved this problem. I suggest moving to the type of infobox on those pages which is hidden by default. Cjosefy 13:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

That infobox was specifically for series that had ended, but I just changed it so it could be used for this article. —JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 13:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks good. Cjosefy 14:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Well it got removed... —JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 00:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

What's it to be then? Collapsible infobox, or normal all-exposed infobox? —JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 18:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what the answer is. I just want there to be some way to have the spoiler warning mean something. As it stands, I can't go to this article at all because the infobox at the very top gives away all the possible spoiler information. This is an issue that will continue for each new season of BB, so I think it should be taken care of. If it is possible to allow the current infobox to stay the same, yet be hidden by default, I vote for that. Cjosefy 19:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Having the infobox collapsed by default is unnecessary, in my opinion. Anyone who is concerned about absolute up-to-date info on the house status can just as easily scroll down to Nominations and evictions. With something as visible as the infobox, I look at it from the perspective that it's not official until it's broadcast on television. I think it'd be a decent courtesy to hold off on updating the infobox until after the Pacific broadcast. Dancter 20:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

That was never the case with Big Brother Australia articles - the information was updated before the western states even caught wind of who might be up for eviction; and the winner of Big Brother 2006 Australia was updated within seconds of it being announced by Gretel Killeen. It seems highly unlikely that anybody would agree to hold off on updating the information until other states get the broadcast. —JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 20:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The collapsable box is good for protecting spoilers, and in my opinion is MUCH more aesthetlically pleasing. FireSpike 23:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I hate the show/hide box. When opened, it looks really ugly and boxy. I think that it should be reverted back. If you don't want spoilers, don't look. Geoking66 21:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Come on, be fair; telling a person not to look at something that's right there is as bad as telling somebody not to breathe. It's kinda hard to miss or avoid as it was. If you have a better solution, do that; but while there's spoilers right at the top of the page, something needs to be done to hide them. —JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 21:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Your template is called Big Brother ENDGAME, therefore it should not be used for current Big Brother series. Geoking66 23:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The template is named {{Big Brother endgame}} because it's designed to be used after a series has ended, but that doesn't mean it can only be used after a series has ended. Using it on an article about an ongoing season isn't going to bring the world, or Wikiepdia, to an end; it's just the name of the template. —JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 23:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's a simple solution: NO SPOILERS! However, noöne is going to adhere to that, so it's pointless. Geoking66 00:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

In response to Geoking66's most recent summary:

The season is currently going on, and therefore Big Brother housemates must be used, according to WP:BIGBRO

There is no must about it. In case you hadn't noticed, I wrote most of that, so nobody else has even voiced an opinion on anything that that page says. If you think {{Big Brother housemates}} must be used on articles about ongoing seasons, with no exceptions, say that on the WikiProject's talk page. As has been said many times before, there are valid reasons for using the {{Big Brother endgame}} template; and when you change the template, you haven't changed everything else back that isn't on both templates. --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 01:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we all just get along? There's a rather simple way we could solve this - why can't the infobox just be moved down to where it cannot be seen on the first page. I certainly don't want to see this turn into a locked entry because we can't agree on a damn infobox and keep changing it back and forth. Personally, I think the collapsable one is best, but Geoking seems to think not. Just a suggestion. --Mr. Brown 05:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, no no, we aren't fighting or anything; this is a healthy discussion :) Seriously though, the infobox can't be moved down, otherwise that defeats the purpose of it being there. And I just thought of something, but correct me if I'm wrong: All Big Brother America seasons, with exception to one, have been released on DVD boxsets, so information on previous articles will always be a potential spoiler; in which case, what makes this article any different to those previous ones, except for the fact that this season is current and ongoing? If information is currently, and will always be, a potential spoiler, it should be treated like every other Big Brother America article, even if the infobox was originally changed to serve a completely different purpose. —JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 12:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Anybody want to tell me why...

Head of Household no longer appears in the legend. FireSpike 00:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

When I changed the infobox to use the post-season infobox, I had to change some of the stuff on the page, so that the colours and stuff still appeared. I wasn't prepared to adjust the template that much because it's in use on too many articles. Two choices: keep this infobox, and have everything as it was before, or use the post-season one. I'll change the stuff back for now, so that it all works again, if nobody beats me to it. —JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 00:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Anybody want to tell "me" why

Why in the Infobox they took out the Power of Veto sign and instead of being nominated your now going to be Against public vote"? --Kevmicester2000 23:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Because it's set to default, because people that changed it didn't change everything; they only changed the template in use. You all need to decide what infobox you're actually going to use, so that it doesn't keep getting changed, and so that this doesn't happen again. —JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 23:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

TY and another thing Does James' right to change an eviction vote mean that if it's 4-3 vote to get him evicted one he can change it to a 4-3 to get the other person evicted?--Kevmicester2000 23:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay that's not my kinda question - I don't watch Big Brother America. —JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 23:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

We don't know the answer yet. By the title, James gets to ban a housemate from voting to evict. He doesn't get to choose who to evict. Geoking66 00:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

We now know by the broadcast tonight that he gets to nullify one houseguest's eviction vote. --Mr. Brown 02:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

From what I understand if it's 4-3, he could void one to make it 3-3, allowing Danielle, the HoH to cast the deciding vote. FireSpike 19:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

New nominations and evictions table

I was thinking that the nomination and eviction table was getting too cluttered. I'm thinking maybe we can shorten it a little. Basically it's half of the voting history article. I have two ideas to shorten it:

	Week 1	Week 2	Week 3	Week 4	Week 5
Head of Household	Janelle Jase	Kaysar	James	Janelle	Danielle
Nominated	Alison Danielle	Diane Nakomis	Jase Will	Diane Erika
Evicted	Alison 8 of 10 votes	Nakomis 8 of 10 votes	Jase 9 of 9 votes	Diane 7 of 8 votes

Or I can use this one:

	Week 1	Week 2	Week 3	Week 4	Week 5
Nominated	Alison Danielle	Diane Nakomis	Jase Will	Diane Erika
Evicted	Alison 8 of 10 votes	Nakomis 8 of 10 votes	Jase 9 of 9 votes	Diane 7 of 8 votes

So respond and tell me which one you think is better. Geoking66 00:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep the one that's on the page right now. It's fine, and not too cluttered. FireSpike 19:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The table that is up there now is not cluttered, and gives much more information (HOH) than the other table. Keep the table. --Mr. Brown 00:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

sorry...wasn't erika the new head of household??? 24.6.45.60 17:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

She was - they apparently conducted the HoH competition again due to multiple technical malfunctions during the original competition. Kuru ^talk

A editing warning??

Is there anything we could possibly add that would warn users to read the discussion page before editing? I find myself correcting this page on an almost daily basis because people have erased nominations, etc. as they go by what CBS airs, rather than the live feeds. --Mr. Brown 04:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You can put something in those <!-- COMMENT THINGS --> where ever you think is necessary on the article. --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 04:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

That lasted so long. They were erased this evening, and the nominations were changed again. --Mr. Brown 02:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

This Big Brother article is for the CBS show not the live feeds. Info on the live feeds should be placed somewhere else.

Actually, this article is about Big Brother 7: All-Stars. Any information, whether from televised broadcasts, live feeds, or elsewhere, should be included in the article as long as it warrants inclusion. _{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 21:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality?

This isn't left - right politics or anything, but I kind of think the latest entry for Week 5 was using biased language. As if Janelle's wins (punctuated by exclaimation marks) somehow triumphed over Danielle's failure ("Danielle was very wrong..."). There is no precedent for posting anything other than what happens in the game. Let's not editorialize it. I'm not going to edit it, because we should come to a consensus.

I agree with you - it wasn't very neutral. I removed the offending comments, and it looks like the people after me improved upon how it was phrased. --Mr. Brown 21:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Coup d'Etat

How are we going to handle to Coup d'Etat in the various tables associated with this article? I know another user added an extra row (Nominations post-Coup d'Etat), and I did the same on the voting history table. But I feel as though this makes the tables cluttered, and it also doesn't answer who won the coup d'etat in the table. Perhaps there's a better way of handling it? --Mr. Brown 06:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the Coup d'État will make tables cluttered. My suggestion is that the only three rows of the table should be "Week," "Nominated," and "Evicted." Nominated should be the people nominated either after the Power of Veto ceremony or the Coup d'État. Therefore, it only shows the two people nominated for eviction and the evicted housemate. We avoid the need to show a winner of HoH and Cd'E. Geoking66 04:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Exit Before Enter

How come the Exit column is list before the enter column? It just doesn't make sense to me. TeckWiz^TalkContribs_{# of Edits} 23:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Discuss it on the template page, whichever one it is... {{Big Brother housemates}} and {{Big Brother endgame}}, most likely the former. --JD ^{don't talk} _{email me} 23:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Coup d'État Winner

In the nominations and evictions table, it says that Mike won the Coup d'État. However, this is impossible because we don't know who wins until Thursday's live show. I know that this article's information is usually based on live feeds, but how do we know that he won it? Geoking66 20:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there anything on Wikipedia that even says what this Coup d'État thing actually is? --_{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 20:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

i think this will answer your question http://www.bigbrotherupdates.com/article-3276--0-0.html

if you still feel that mike's name should be erased, than please correct me, thanks

Thank you for that, but with all due respect, I don't want a link to a website, I want to be able to get that information from the article. Does the article explain that process? Is this something that's going to happen every week, or is it a one-off? --_{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 09:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the producers have announced whether it's a one-off or not. -- ArglebargleIV 14:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

CBS Fears Lawsuit

I think that the part of the fourth reference that says that CBS feared a lawsuit really needs a source. --JD 19:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

After what happened with Stacey Stillman in the original Survivor (Stacey claims, IIRC, that Mark Burnett tried to entice her not to vote for Rudy so early for better storyline purposes) that CBS has any worries about a lawsuit from Big Brother contestants. Even if so, better to get a lawsuit from one contestant as opposed to the chances of getting multiple lawsuits. --TampaPauly 00:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Table Clutter

The table in the nominations and evictions table is getting way too cluttered. I propose that we shorten it so that it only includes the people nominated and evicted. For example:

	Week 1	Week	Week 3	Week 4	Week 5	Week 6	Week 7
Nominated	Alison Danielle	Diane Nakomis	Jase Will	Diane Erika	James Kaysar	Erika Marcellas	Erika James	revealed later
Evicted	Alison	Nakomis	Jase	Diane	Kaysar	Marcellas

Geoking66 06:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not cluttered, it's just big. There's nothing wrong with big. _{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 10:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

It is a little bit cluttered, but the thing is, if you want to get rid of anything, it should be the Coup d'Etat rows. They add nothing now that Mike's power has been revoked and could be easily dismissed with a note at the bottom of the table. FireSpike 18:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Unless they do another coup d'etat, I think they should be removed from the final table. In addition, the table is not cluttered, and we should NOT remove HoH rows and veto rows... see other BB US articles. --Mr. Brown 22:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone have a suggestion on how to better present the information on the table? None of it is fancruft, it's all notable information. As far as I am aware a table is the most efficient way to display all of this. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 23:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Just get rid of the Coup d'État nothing happen with it and nothing will ever since Mike can't use it, the HOH, and Veto winners need to be up there, because they play a big part in the game.

Erika out of house?

What is with the charts on here they say Erika is up, and the voting history chart says she got kicked out. What is that about they haven't even replaced Janelle with the veto yet how does whoever change it know that this is going to happen.

Well, I saw "Erika" and "James" on the block this morning in the table, and further propagated it on the voting history table, which I do apologize for (as I was just copying the info off the main page), but couldn't tell you who put that Erika was kicked out. People need to stop being idiots. --Mr. Brown 04:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

HOH

Would people please stop writing HOH? It's incorrect, the correct form is either HoH or Head of Household. It's also irritating to continually change. Thanks. Geoking66 01:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that should be a problem that you have to go to every HoH or HOH and make sure people are useing the right one. Everyone knows what HOH is, and if they do only think of it as HoH it's not that hard to get that HOH=HoH.

Live feed

Any information posted on the Big Brother All Stars article that comes from the live feed should state in the article that that info came from the live feed and not the broadcast. By doing this it should help clear up any confusion that a reader of the article might have if they have only been watching the broadcast.Lobot72 21:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Does it actually matter whether information comes from a live feed or a televised broadcast? The article isn't meant to be commentary on the broadcasts, it's meant to include information about the series. I don't see any reason for writing anything specific for the benefit of those that view Big Brother on television. Is there any major significance between the live feed and the televised broadcasts? _{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 21:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

There are people I know that have read this article have wondered if they missed part of an episode because there was live feed info in there, and they didn't remember seeing that on the broadcast. By indicating info that came from the live feed as live feed, it may be beneficial to readers who haven't kept up closely with the show. We have to remember that this article may be read by people other than fans of Big Brother.

There should be a spoiler warning at the top of the article. If people start think they've missed an episode because of information that's been put in the article after viewing it on a live feed, with all due respect, that's their problem. This problem was never encountered on BB7 UK or BB06 AU. _{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 21:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with the citation of live feed verses broadcast. Wiki represts information and when possible it is presented in manner consistent with saying where that information comes from. Often if this is not done wiki requests it. Just like you would not put all the information for the show on wiki without saying what week it is from; so too it is not prudent to put information that has come solely come from the webcast without citing.
Specifally:
I am not refering to information that is posted prior to broadcast that will be known to everyone upon watching the next installment; I am refering to any information that would and could only be known by watching the webcast.
Example:
I watched the episode where Will was evicted and I did NOT see Erica say that she had ever found out about "Operation Double Date". She did convince Jannell that it was a better strategy to get rid of Will rather than her, but this was based on both of them finding out they were both told that they were both in Chilltown followed by a comment on secret ninja moves. The fact that they realized they were being played is not the same as finding out that the plan was refered to as "Operation Double Date". This discussion needs to be address and resolved; or one might be inclined to edit the enitre piece based on only information from the broadcast. cprockhill

Dr. Will Kirby

I changed Will Kirby to Dr. Will Kirby. It is inconsiderate not to recognise a title that a person may have such as King, Queen, Lord, Doctor, General, Major, Admiral, Professor, Judge, ect.

The change was reverted because his name is just Will Kirby. The titles above are actually part of people's names, such as Queen Elizabeth, which is actually her name, not just a profession prefix. Geoking66 21:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Obviously coming to this rather late, but no, it's not her name, it's just a title. As are all of the examples that the original editor listed. That's why her article is at Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, with no mention of Queen in the article title. It's certainly true that holding a Royal or noble title alters how a person should be referred to or addressed, but the Wikipedians who say that such titles are part of the person's name are, quite simply, wrong. That being said, yeah, I'd agree it's not necessary to include Dr Kirby's professional title, since his profession had no bearing on his participation in Big Brother. Binabik80 03:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Articles are Public Domain

All articles on Wikipedia are public domain and do not belong to anyone. Some people who make edits may become possessive of articles and delete accurate information without disscussing it first. Many editing wars are the result of people becoming possessive of an article and not allowing changes to be made to that article. Removing accurate information from a article is a violation of Wikipedia's Vandalism policy. It is discouraging to members if their work is constantly deleted for no good reason. Remember these articles belong to no one, so please refrain from removing someone else's work if it is accurate, or make suggestions on how to improve or make better use of their info. See Wikipedia Policy, Ownership of Articles for further explaination. 75.21.124.189 17:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Articles are NOT public domain at all. They are licensed to the Wikimedia Foundation under the GFDL. Copyleft and public domain are not the same thing. — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 01:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Competitions table

Out of curiosity, what was wrong with the competitions table, and why was it removed? -- ArglebargleIV 00:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know either. So I reverted the person that did remove it. It was Geoking66, so I think you should ask him on his talk page. TeckWiz^TalkContribs_{# of Edits} 14:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)]

The competition table serves no extra purpose to the article. The competitions are mentioned in the chronology sections, and therefore the table is redundant. It is excessive and adds no new information. Geoking66 21:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

If the information in the table is already in the chronology, I think the table should be removed. _{J Di}^talk 21:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

If a table provides a useful summary of information that is spread throughout a longer section, it should be kept. For myself, I think the chronologies are way too detailed, there should be a weekly summary at best, and a quick list of the competition/POV winners and nominees should be at the beginning of each week -- that would both get rid of the table and shorten a way-too-long article. But if the detailed daily chronlogies are kept, the tables are needed. -- ArglebargleIV 00:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The competitions are in the chronology, but so are the nominations and evictions. If one table is removed, shouldn't they both be removed? --Benjaminx 00:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Jury House

Shouldn't events happening at the jury house have their own section in the article, or should they just be blended in with the exisiting sections?Lobot72 04:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no live feed for the jury house and they only show the new people arriving once a week. Any events there should just be blended in if they're even mentioned at all because nothing interesting happens anyways. Benjaminx 06:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It is interesting there has been much (any?) mention of the jury house since the Marcellas/Howie tension. I wonder if it belongs in here at all? Cliffie97 23:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The fight between George and Howie was probably the most interesting thing to happen on BB 775.21.113.23 02:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Nicknames

Is it necessary for people to keep saying Mike "Boogie" and "Chicken" George when writing the chronology, or can we take those nicknames out everywhere except for their contestant profiles?--Benjaminx 04:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The only names the chronology should use are the ones used on the show by producers. _{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 08:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Notable Vetos?

Is it notable that for the past eight veto competitions, the winner has been one of the nominees (who then vetoed themself)? I can't remember it happening this often in previous seasons. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 00:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Make that nine. Acetic Acid 06:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Sign your name

I see many comments on the talk page without signatures. Even if you are not a registered user of Wikipedia, please sign your comment with ~~~~ so that people know who is writing what. Geoking66 21:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Fixed game rumors do not belong here

Big Brother may well be fixed, but unsourced rumors and POV editorializing do not belong on Wikipedia. If it is to be included, find a source alleging it. -- ArglebargleIV 02:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm willing to discuss this. I don't think it belongs here, but I'm not willing to violate the three-revert-rule. -- ArglebargleIV 03:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Signature Moments

I see that the reference to Will and Boogie's ongoing diary room phone calls has been removed. Where could such a signature set of scenes from the season belong? In light of Boogie's teary unanswered call after Will's eviction, it seems that not including it might miss one of the most emotionally honest and genuinely sad moments of the season, if not of all 7 US seasons.

A fist full of "Boogie"s

Please take it easy when using Boogie in the article. It gets annoying when there are 15 "Boogie"s in just a 1 week entry. 75.21.113.23 06:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Mike is HoH

According to CBS, Mike is HoH. People keep changing this in spite of notes in the page. Please notice that at the CBS site it shows a post-Janelle houseguest list and Mike is still listed as HoH. I believe that this is because it may influence who gets to talk first/last on the final episode. Regardless, if CBS lists Mike as HoH after he has already evicted Janelle, I don't think we should be overriding CBS's definition of HoH. Sure, this will change once the winner is announced, but to remove it now is wrong.

Speculation

The recent addition of a paragraph about speculation should get a source site; a news article, a magazine article, an article or interview on the internet...etc. Otherwise it is just a rumor. cprockhill

Voting History

Why are the jury votes deleted? ScottAHudson 03:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Could we please re-add Diane Henry into the Houseguests box at the top of the page and in the houseguests list? User:ScottAHudson

Chronology section/Article structure

I am redoing the Chronology section so it would look more like that of Big Brother 8. I also changed the structure of the article to fit in better with the guidelines of WP:BIGBRO. I should have the Chronology section finished up within two weeks. When I am through with the Chronology section the Competitions table can be deleted since that information is in the Chronology section plus that will help to reduce the article's size. Alucard 16 10:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

What about finishing it like Big Brother 6 (US), and then redoing the first couple weeks later? I can do it if you'd like Alucard 16 - zachinthebox _{(User • Talk)} 17:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I've done up to week 4, I also commented in the original table right below this message in case we need it later: -zachinthebox _{(User • Talk)} 18:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Competition Table

Commented right under this is the competition table, in case it's ever needed - zachinthebox _{(User • Talk)} 20:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Can we add an "On Slop" section in the Voting History?

Because if we are doing it for Have-Nots then we might as well do it for On Slop as well.

Either that or I will delete the Have-Not sections.

--RachelRice (talk) 02:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Big Brother 7 (U.S.). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060506222201/http://www.realitynewsonline.com/cgi-bin/ae.pl?mode=1&article=article1972.art&page=1 to http://www.realitynewsonline.com/cgi-bin/ae.pl?mode=1&article=article1972.art&page=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Big Brother 7 (U.S.). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.realitynewsonline.com/cgi-bin/ae.pl?mode=1&article=article9762.art&page=4
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140414050713/http://www.celebrityspider.com/news/july06/article072806-8.html to http://www.celebrityspider.com/news/july06/article072806-8.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110929023026/http://www.celebrityspider.com/news/august06/article081806-14.html to http://www.celebrityspider.com/news/august06/article081806-14.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222025133/http://www.celebrityspider.com/news/august06/article082106-2.html to http://www.celebrityspider.com/news/august06/article082106-2.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222025240/http://www.celebrityspider.com/news/august06/article082506-7.html to http://www.celebrityspider.com/news/august06/article082506-7.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:22, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Mike Malin

I opposed the deletion of this article, but I can go along with its merger. I don't watch the show, so I would not be the best person to merge them. Tagging User:Chris_troutman for help. Bearian (talk) 15:23, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Big Brother 7 (U.S.). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130411221640/http://www.the-trades.com/article.php?id=728&print=yes to http://www.the-trades.com/article.php?id=728&print=yes
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130724192931/http://attwx.com/bb7.shtml to http://attwx.com/bb7.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Before going (or not) along with the merger... / Improper closure?

...Should we have another discussion about merging or not merging this article? It's been almost a year since the original discussion occurred, and public opinion may have changed (or remained the same) since then, but there's no way to tell without an actually recent discussion. Should we check in with everyone to see if public opinion's changed since then? Instead of merging or deleting the page, should we improve its cited sources to make it a good article? Impartially, I'd think it would be most fair for those on both sides of the argument to discuss this year-old merger again before going through with it. Paintspot Infez (talk) 14:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, since only 5 people participated and 2/5 of the people involved literally said NOT TO DELETE/MERGE the page, I'm pretty sure it was improper closure to say that there was a consensus to merge. Shouldn't it have been left at NO CONSENSUS until further discussion was had and a consensus was reached? Paintspot Infez (talk) 14:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Celebrity Big Brother 1 (U.S.) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Big Brother 1 (U.S.) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 12:33, 22 December 2018 (UTC)