Talk:Big Brother 9 (American season)/Archive 2

Auto archiving of this talk page

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

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

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

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

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

It should be working by now. :P - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

HouseGuests Images

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

Power Couple/Head of Household

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Realtime Updating? and Joshuah/Neil/Sharon

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

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

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

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

What day is it?

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

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

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

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

Neil's leaving

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Removed from Broadcasts

I removed this bit from the broadcast section:

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

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

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

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

Twist Section

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

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

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

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

shelia

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

Neil's departure - Part 2

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

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

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

Highlights table

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

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

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

Compromise offered on non-verifiable sources

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

There are two versions of the compromise, please discuss:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As posted in another part of Wikipedia:

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

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

Remember this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Actually, while the "spoiler" content should then be allowed, if everyone agrees, it does not change the fact that we should still be referencing verifiable sources. If its a youtube video, please state as much. There are essentially two arguments here, and while I can agree that fansites and youtube can be verifiable, I still dont think one person seeing something on a live feed IS. RMThompson (talk) 13:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

More than one person watches the live feeds. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Still not verifiable unless its PUBLISHED elsewhere! 14:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RMThompson (talk • contribs)

Big Brother 10

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

Spoilers are allowed - stop deleting over them!

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

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

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

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

Natalie & Matt's sexual incident

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

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

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

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

Also, shouldn't we mention that James has appeared in pornography?216.194.21.170 (talk) 01:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

News to me. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

What makes you say that? Was it something you've seen, or was it discussed on the feeds/After Dark?Tommy/DippyDawg1932 04:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Several BB fan sites have reported James being in several gay porn websites. While it does appear to be him, as the tattoos match; I supposed it should be added since Sheila's Penthouse Pet of the year was added to her description. Atlantics88 (talk) 05:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

He is referring to a post on Reality BBQ just scroll down the main page and you will find the article. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 05:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

(Wow)...Yes, I agree that to keep consistency, it should be added. Have we done this in past seasons for playmates? and have there been any other former porn actors? My memory is a little rusty.Tommy/DippyDawg1932 06:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

From my knowledge they didn't do porn prior to entering the House. Scott from BB4 posed for Playgirl after the show, according to the site mentioned above & Joker's Update. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 06:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I seem to remember seeing those Playgirl pics while he was still in the house, now that I think of it.Tommy/DippyDawg1932 08:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

"Soulmate"

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

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

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

Neil's depature (Date & Time)

For the sake of vandals Neil departed sometime on Day 6 (Feb. 13) and Sharon returned on Day 6 prior to 9 PM. Sharon was on After Dark which aired on the late night of Feb. 13/early morning Feb. 14 at 12 AM which is Feb. 13, 9 PM in the Big Brother house. So if anyone changes their dates to Day 7 it should be counted as vandalism. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 06:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it noteable that CBS actually changed their opening graphics to reflect this before they had officially announced it on the show? I know they made a rather small deal of it, and it happened before the first commercial break, but it still might be something to metion? - zachinthebox _{(User • Talk)} 22:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

So does this mean I can revert this entry made by ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ as vandilism? I know it would be wrong to do so, but I would only be following the orders of ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪. --_pete 23:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I made those changes after the CBS broadcast because we were off a day. And was that called for? ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 23:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Move-In Date

This page has the move-in date as Friday,February 8, but people in the house have confirmed it was actually the 7th. There is no reference that confirms it was actually the 8. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.18.169 (talk) 07:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

From what I have read it was on Friday when they entered. So far the show matches up with the Days we have listed. (HoH on Day 4). And from what I read Nominations/Neil's departure/Sharon's return all happened on Day 6. Tuesday should straighten the time line out for us. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 07:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Until Tuesday, let's keep the timeline as we have been all along, with the Neil/Sharon switch happening on Day 6, and we can re-evaluate on Tuesday, when we see what Day BB calls it.Tommy/DippyDawg1932 08:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I wish the show would launch on Day 1 like the UK that would be so much easier. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 09:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It used to, years ago.Tommy/DippyDawg1932 06:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

HoH Comp

Why is there no info on the Day 4 HoH competition in the "Highlights" section? Shapiros10 (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Added Controversy section at the bottom

I added a Controversy section at the bottom due to Adam's remarks. Anyone remember the Amber incident? But instead Adam's remarks made national TV. I think the section could be worded a little better and I was wanting some other editors to take a look. It has three sources from Yahoo, Comcast, and iWon. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 20:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)