Talk:Big Brother 8 (American season)/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Reminder that Core Policies Still Apply

I understand that there are a few newer users working on this article. With that in mind, please note that WP:V and WP:RS still apply for article content. Specifically, the America's Player box should be probably changed to pending for numbers 6,8,9,10,11,12, and 14 until the success or failure of the task is confirmed by a reliable sources. Also be wary of original research in the character bios in the article. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Jury Member Color

Someone wants to identify the Jury Members so I made it "legend5" which is a dark purple color. I put as the description Jury Member (Evicted) so people not normally watching will know that that person is a Jury Member but no longer a houseguest. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 00:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, that's a bit too far. Evicted is evicted. T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 01:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Well people want to use the spot that is intended for us to put the veto so to compromise just make the Jury a different color. I know it is extreme but people will keep changing it so I say compromise. We can change them to evicted after the season ends or keep them the same. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 01:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Alright, it can stay, under the condition that after the season ends it is pink like the rest of the seasons. Deal? T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 01:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Ya, I agree, as long as they are pink at the end of the season. Please don't change it in the voting history. Not just you, Alucard16, anyone. - Spyke1077 01:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

You mean light red like the rest of the season lol. Pink is if they walk. Deal T, I accept. And don't worry about the voting history, the results box is indicator enough to say he is Jury! ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 01:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It should be the evicted colour since he's been evicted (Dustin that is). Geoking66_talk 01:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yea I agree, but people want to identify Jury Members during the season so to make a compromise that causes less frustration is we identify Jury Members by a different color then when the season ends we change the color to evicted. Less work on us changing it back during the season. Once the season ends it won't matter and we can change the jury to Evicted when the season ends. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 02:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm... this is tricky, I don't really agree with the jury color, but it can't do any harm, I really don't know what to do here. T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 02:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It's temp. until Sept. 18, it can't do harm and will *maybe* stop inexperienced users from messing with the Infobox. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 02:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Alright, but I'd like a concrete decision on this pretty quickly, we have to make a choice and stick with it. T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 03:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep the color until the end of the season ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 04:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that it should stay as evicted, what if someone does walk? Then what colour would we use? Geoking66_talk 01:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The Jury colour looks very similar to the nominated colour, so it kind of looks like 3 people are nominated. So if there was to be a jury colour, I think it should be something a lot different than blue (nominated), yellow (HoH) or red (evicted). Maybe green? - zachinthebox 03:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Green becomes the winner in Big Brother endgame and in the voting history. Geoking66_talk 03:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Here are the colors and what to use. When it was decided that I could make colors in the Infoboxes match Nominations/Voting History tables I had to add some colors. Here are the colors for both the {{Big Brother housemates}} and {{Big Brother endgame}} Infoboxes:

     - Winner ("legendwinner") (Endgame Only)
     - Nominated ("legendnom") (Housemates Only)
     - Runner Up ("legendrunner") (Endgame Only)
     - Head of Household ("legendhoh") (Housemates Only)
     - Evicted/Re-Evicted ("legendevic") (Both)
     - Walked ("legendwalk") (Both)
     - Ejected/Expelled ("legendeject") (Both)
     - Extra Color 1 ("legend3") (Both)
     - Extra Color 2 ("legend5") (Both)

So there is all the colors and what they mean, as you can see "Walk" is the same pink to match the Tables and pink is exclusive to walk, etc. There was a discussion on WP:BIGBRO about this and only three people replied. If anyone has any color suggestions for "legend3" or "legend5" please say so because those are the only two colors that I could think of.♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 05:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

A memorial for Jeeny

As we know from a previous discussion or our own discovery, belovèd Big Brother editor Jeeny has left all of us because of a racism discussion on a talk page. I have put a memory dedication for Jeeny on my user, not talk, page if anyone is interested. Please sign if you feed to do so. Geoking66_talk 02:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I signed. That was really nice. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 02:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I signed as well, that was a nice thing to do. T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 03:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. Geoking66_talk 03:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, I'm sure if she sees it, she will really appreciate it. - Spyke1077 04:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Buck up. I'm not dead.... yet. :) Thanks everyone. :) - Jeeny ^Talk 03:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

YAY! Jeeny's back! - Spyke1077 05:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I am so glad Jeeny's back! ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 05:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Jumping Jack's

Does anyone else think Eric's jumping jacks should be removed, because Jessica and Jameka's discussion seems a little too much on this page. Seth71 19:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking it off. Seth71 19:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I totally agree with you. I think the the fact that he has a small dick is not important, nor would he like to see it written here. - Spyke1077 01:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

This is fact and was seen on Big Brother : After Dark, by putting himself in the public eye and making statements like that, others are entitled to that view. He opened the door, he is now required to walk through it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.158.9.241 (talk) 04:16:07, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

Wow, whoever signed up there is an idiot. Yes, it is a fact that Eric got naked. But you're missing the point, the point is, that it's UNNESSECARY information. Nobody wants EVERY last detail! That fact is very un-important. No, he is not "required to walk through the door", as it will not be added back because it's not required. Melanie 03:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

DANI WINS PoV

DANI WON YAY! go to jokers updates for evidence. 2 HoH and 3 PoV !!!

Hope she takes someone off because I have heard that Dick wants to backdoor Jen! User:ScottAHudson

Dani does not want to use the veto and wants to get Amber out. Don't say those things here they are for comments for improving the page. Seth71 15:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

No, Seth71, Daniele has said she would like to backdoor Jen. - melanie2408 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Melanie2408 (talk • contribs) 16:50:19, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

Dani is starting to change her mind. It's what Dick wants. Seth71 18:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Reminder: 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".

Please see "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" and "Wikiquette" for information about the proper use of talk pages. - zachinthebox _{(User • Talk)} 18:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

ANONYMOUS CONTRIBUTERS.

Am I the only one who's annoyed by IDIOTS who add immature things?!

Seriously, most anonymous contributers add UNNESSECARY things, like who cares about Eric doing naked jumping jacks and that the fact that Jameka and Jessica imagined it to be bigger? Shouldn't that be included somewhere else, rather than his description? Why should his description include the fact that he did naked jumping jacks and some people commented on the size of him. Well, anyways, that's deleted so that's not really important right now. Yet, it's just an example of what some, maybe most, anonymous editers do. They add really immature things, and it's a hassle to try and fix it. Well, yeah, it's okay for anonymous editers to contribute, only if they add acceptable information, but how do they know whats acceptable? People would need to inform them, but most of them don't have a talk page! That's what's so irritating. You can't even tell them what they're doing wrong so they won't stop. But there's probably nothing you can do about that. Most of the stupid things they do, they should be aware that it's unnessecary. Now, some people who are USERS do that too. So not all the blames on the anonymous people. But almost all of these people don't have a talk page.

BLAH. it's so annoying.

Also, don't you think when it says, Six HouseGuests have moved in with their enemies. Would it or wouldn't it be "Three HouseGuests have moved in with their enemies?" Six HouseGuests makes it seem as though there are 12 HouseGuests that are included in this twist. Just asking. However, it does seem to make sense that Six HouseGuests have moved in with their enemies, because they're paired together.

(Melanie 19:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC))

THANK YOU!! Yes, I think that it is getting absolutely ridiculous. After every notable moment in the house (with anon. users that have the live feeds) they all get on here and screw things up. Then when people who actually know what they are doing (like you, myself, and most of the other registered users) try and fix it, the anonymous people engage in edit wars. At least when there is a problem with a user, who is registered, it can be settled formally, with the warning tags and other stuff. There is no way to control the anonymous users. I think we should block this page from being edited by anonymous users. Same with the Big Brother: After Dark page.

And as far as the number of HouseGuest's that moved in with their enemies, 3 of them did. - Rjd0060 20:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I know, the After Dark page is getting RIDICULOUS. There's so many spelling errors, personal opinions, and just so much more! It's getting out've hand. - Melanie 20:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on whether or not it's merited here as I'm not overly familiar with the article, but just so you know you can request semi-protection over at WP:RFP if edits from non-registered users are creating a problem in keeping the article readable. Seaserpent⁸⁵_Talk 20:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I am going to request Semi-Protection on this page. Thanks - Rjd0060 20:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with both of you 100%! Also, I think it said that six will move in because if it said three, it sounds as though the three coming into the house are angry with the three already living there, but the three living there have no problem with the three coming in. Although, the phrasing with six also sounds like there are six different sets of enemies. I think that the correct phrasing should be "The twist this year is "Biggest Nemesis", as there are three sets of enemies living together, and have...". I'm going to change it to that for right now. - zachinthebox _{(User • Talk)} 21:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good! - Rjd0060 22:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• I was just informed by zachinthebox that the page has been semi-protected. Problem solved......for now! Thanks - Rjd0060 22:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Dick

Under Dick it said: (Dick) taunted some of the religious beliefs of some players because of their complete contrast to their behavior in the House

We need to watch out for when people tend to put things like this in here, it seems to be discriminating and stereotyping.--Sugarcubez 23:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but saying that Dick has said some anti-Christian remarks is too, kind've. He hasn't, he has made some negative remarks to other HouseGuests because of their contrast to their behavior in the House. Don't you think Jameka (a Christian) calling Dick's, Christian, ordained minister, mom a bitch, contrast? I would. Maybe I wouldn't have said complete, but I didn't put that there. How is that stereotyping, stereotyping is, for example:

• skinny, tall girl = model.
• guy with glasses = nerd.
• blonde = stupid.

etc. Anti-Christian remarks is too harsh, and I don't think he has. He has made some negative remarks to other HouseGuests because of their contrast to their behavior in the House.

Anyway, there is already a topic about this up above, which is why I keep changing it. Melanie 03:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Daniele

How can Daniele be Head of Household and have Power of Veto? Fugio 00:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you ever seen Big Brother? - Spyke1077 01:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, my God. I agree. You clearly haven't watched Big Brother or you're new. But just to make it clear, if you are Head of Household, you are FOR SURE, aloud to compete in the Veto competition, rather than have your name picked. (Melanie 03:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC))

Maybe they it meant she had been saved with veto. -- 3bay sam 09:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

No, Daniele has WON the Veto, while she is HOH, if she is HOH, she cannot be on the block, therefore she can't be saved by the Veto. She has in previous weeks, been saved by the Veto. But the Veto symbol, represents that that HouseGuest currently holds the Power of Veto. Melanie 15:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Article containing unaired spoilers

It's very disappointing that this article allows unaired information to be shown. It makes it impossible for a casual watcher to view any information without being exposed to SPOILERS.

I understand if in the plot section of a movie's article with a SPOILER TAG, but the editors of this page are ridiculous. I just want to come here to look at information on the contestants, and you've ruined Tuesday's show already.

Please consider making this article spoiler free, or putting spoilers at the bottom with a spoiler tag. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.96.32.45 (talk) 13:33, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

The simple fact is that Wikipedia is run by CONSENSUS, not by the few editors who have made this article their "baby".

We should consider making this spoiler free. Sure you have may have discussed this before, but Wikipedia is supposed to be pliable, and willing to change at the will of it's users. That is the IDEA here people.

Stop treating this page as your personal website and start to consider the feelings and ideas of others. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RMThompson (talk • contribs) 13:54, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

Simple solution is to not visit if you don't want to see spoilers. You may not like that, but that's the only feasible answer - you can't censor the views of the majority. If you want to make a big positive impact on the article without reading spoilers, then come back after the season has finished - most contributors will vanish, leaving a half-finished mess that needs clearing up. Seaserpent⁸⁵_Talk 14:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

No that's simply not the case. Let's think about this logically shall we? Why do people visit Wikiepdia? For INFORMATION about a subject? Correct? So the average user comes here, to find information about the show and instead is INUNDATED by spoilers? They cannot access ANY part of the article without viewing spoilers? That's RIDICILOUS. Please look at these points.

1. The article is about the show, not the live feeds.

2. The live feeds have NO evidence except for OTHER fan run websites and word of mouth, which should not be considered a SOURCE until confirmed by CBS. Name ONE website that isn't merely run by other fans? Morty's, Jokers, Hamsterwatch, all fansites people!

3. In previous seasons we've seen things changed by CBS. One thing will happen, and then sometimes they will turn off the live feeds and change the outcome. Ive seen it myself, a few years ago someone got into some trouble and they made him eat PB&J as if he lost the competition, and they refilmed it to reflect it.

4. People want to view information on the show, this should not be a spoiler site for people to check and see who's going home, it's informational.

BESIDES - WHO VOTED on this? The few people that were here before the season started?

This is utter nonsense. It's really sad when Wikipedia becomes a place for Ultra Fanboys who want to post spoilers as SOON as they are on seen on the live feeds.

You say that it's run by what the majority wants, but let's be honest, the only people are are EVEN READING discussion are the people who are editing the article. Only a few are like me that actually know HOW to voice their opinion about this. NONSENSE I SAY! Bring WIKIPEDIA back to the PEOPLE, please! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RMThompson (talk • contribs).

First off, I may have not made clear my personal views on the subject - I'm neither particularly in favour of or against including said 'spoilers' here, my reply above was merely the realistic answer to your problem. I'd also like to say you're not alone in your thoughts, and the topic arises frequently in all similar reality shows - just for your reference, some recent discussions can be found here, here and here. Since you've taken time to raise some points, I'll do my best to explain/answer them from my point of view:

• The article is about the show, not the live feeds.
  • Not necessarily, if the article were purely about the show there would be no HouseGuest bios or other background information. The live feeds are a part of the Big Brother 8 topic overall, and the information from them is relevant to the article. Whether or not information obtained from the feeds is being cited correctly is a different matter - but by the time it would have taken to fix those issues, the information would become widely available and citable anyway.
• In previous seasons we've seen things changed by CBS
  • Whilst that may be the case, any such event will no doubt spark its own discussion right here and can be dealt with separately and almost immediately (one plus side to it being such a highly trafficked article!)
• People want to view information on the show, this should not be a spoiler site for people to check and see who's going home, it's informational.
  • Wikipedia is many different things to different people - there's always going to be someone who either won't find what they're looking for, be that by too much or too little information.
• You say that it's run by what the majority wants, but let's be honest, the only people are are EVEN READING discussion are the people who are editing the article.
  • I'd disagree, the majority of edits that include spoilers have been by unregistered users - nearly all the reverts done to try and hide these 'spoilers' is done by registered members from my experience.

I hope that gives you a better insight as to where I'm coming from. It's one of those issues that crops up time and time again - usually by the time everyone's stopped squabbling, the season is over and the argument becomes redundant until the next time! Seaserpent⁸⁵_Talk 21:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Still you have no argument that these edits are being based on speculation from one or two users and other fan sites, clearly not a source. Should I go look up what is considered a source on Wiki? RMThompson 21:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not arguing the case for anything here, I'm just trying to explain the situation to you. Such information 'is citable - I'm sure the {{cite episode}} template could be used for information that scrolls along the bottom of Big Brother: After Dark if you really are bothered about the source, however it seems to me that you're just using this as an excuse to back up your argument for not including 'spoilers'. Seaserpent⁸⁵_Talk 21:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• The fact of the matter is this: People (including myself) have complained about the very issue that you are complaining about. It has been discussed several times, long ago, and to the most recent time just about a week ago. Wikipedia is run by a consensus, and it has been made known, several times before, that this article WILL contain spoilers, hence the warning signs on the page. This is NOT going to change. It would be nice if people would just understand that. You can complain all you want, so can the next person but please understand it is not going to change anything, so you might be better off if you stop wasting your time. - Rjd0060 22:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• • I just don't get it. If people are complaining, and it's run by consensus, then how does it still contain spoilers. It's not about the article anymore, it's about what WIKIPEDIA should be about, and it's not about cronyism and cliques. It's about getting the most reliable source of information. Ive shown how until anything is aired on CBS there is NO verifiable SOURCE! According to Wikipedia :In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.

I don't see how a fansite is reliable.

Furthermore I think people need to realize that CONSENSUS does not mean democracy. Just because the same 10 people sit here are update this site everyday, does NOT make them rulers of this page. I think this is WIKIPEDIA ABUSE, pure and simple. If I edit the page to NOT reflect spoilers, and people accept that, than that's how it should be. Not overrun by a bunch of naziesque rulers. --RMThompson 20:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I am neither for or against this argument, but am a neutral reader. This particular discussion has been up for about a day now, which is plenty of time for people to see it, but there have only been 2 people (one anonymous) who have actually been against the spoilers. Though you may argue that also 2 people have argued for it, this discussion isn't for the spoilers, it's against it. Again, I am neither for nor against this, I am just explaining that this article isn't "overrun by a bunch of naziesque rulers" - zachinthebox _{(User • Talk)} 22:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It's sad that I've heard other people in my talk page say they think the site should be spoiler free but because they've tried and failed to get this to happen in the past, they give up. It IS ruled by naziesque rulers, because you know if I change anything, the people who are so adamant about keeping it spoiler free only have to switch it back, and I am stuck because of the 3r rule. This is BLATANT abuse of power on Wikipedia and I will be reporting. --RMThompson 13:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)á

FURTHERMORE PEOPLE ARE STILL POSTING THINGS THAT ARE UNCITEABLE AND USING UNRELIABLE SOURCES! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RMThompson (talk • contribs) 13:07, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

Just wondering who exactly you will be reporting? I think you've been given a very thorough explanation here, both myself and Zackinthebox have stated that we are neutral on the issue and yet you don't seem to be listening to what we are saying. You can't blanket label the regular editors "naziesque rulers", this article would be nowhere without them. And also, if you really are concerned about uncitable and unreliable sources which I doubt you are, then I explained above how these 'spoilers' can be attributed to a source, Big Brother: After Dark. Seaserpent⁸⁵_Talk 13:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

- ::::: No this has certainly evolved to being concerned with what can happen to articles when someone is this attached to them. If you are neutral, then don't say a word and let me do it the right way, make the change FIRST and then discuss it here, which is what I am doing. If someone wants to use Big Brother After Dark as a source, then we need episode numbers, but I doubt it can prove a lot since it's only 3 hours. Live feeds are not reliable and nor are fan sites. --RMThompson 14:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

We are neutral on this topic, being unaired spoilers. We are not neutral, however, on disregarding Wikipedia policies and changing information based on what you want. - zachinthebox _{(User • Talk)} 16:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

THEN please explain to me how LIFE FEEDS are VERFIABLE? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RMThompson (talk • contribs) 18:06, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

Spoilers are always going to be there, if you don't want to see spoilers don't come to the page. Plain and simple! -- 3bay sam 07:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

This isn't just about spoilers anymore. It's about verfiable sources, which none of you apparently understand. --RMThompson 13:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Jen

Well for article sake I am confirming that the information about Jen is true and should not be removed. She has broken a fundamental rule of Big Brother US by eating food while on slop. She is still supposed to be on slop due to the veto competition on Day 36, plus she was on this week's losing team. Big Brother has given her a penalty nomination for next week if she survives this week (I think this a notable first for the US Series and quite possibly Big Brother overall since I think this is the first ever punishment in a US Season.) Due to this she can not participate in the Veto, can't be saved with the Veto, or participate for HoH as she must be a nominee the whole time. I know Wikipedia is not a forum but this relates to the article and contains some info to why it should stay until the broadcasts. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 06:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, Zack has said that the Executive Producers had left before the incident happened and they can make a different call to the situation. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 06:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Organizing Chronology Table

I mentioned this on the Highlights page but that talk page doesn't seem to get too many visitors so I'll say it here too: Why don't we organize the table like that on Big Brother 6 (US), it makes the information easier to find, and it looks (to me) more organized. - zachinthebox _{(User • Talk)} 15:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Definitely looks a lot better that way. - Rjd0060 15:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Veto Winner

Would the Veto image stay in the infobox with the winner until the week is up or remove it after the veto ceremony? ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 21:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I would say that it should stay, although I believe that if it used, the person that was saved rather than the person that won it should have it next to their name since the person who was saved is technically holding it. T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 22:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Penalty Vote for Jen

What do you mean when Jen has to recieve a penalty vote on Day 55? User:ScottAHudson —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 23:03, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

On the feeds Jen will receive a penalty vote against her now plus any votes from the HouseGuests for continuing to break the slop restriction rule. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 23:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Does this mean a houseguest has to vote for her? OR Does it mean the producers penalize her with their vote? User:ScottAHudson

Jen will have a vote against her on Thursday. The houseguests can vote any way they want but Jen will have a vote against her. The house doesn't have to vote to evict her if they don't want to. All five of the eligible houseguests that can vote to evict Jameka but Jen will still have a vote against her. Did that make any sense? ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 00:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Feeds are NOT a reliable source. This information should be removed.--RMThompson 13:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe people watch the feeds and then add the info. Do you ever think about that? There IS a spoiler warning at the top of the page, saying that "Details unaired on CBS are included in this article" meaning there ARE spoilers. Your continuing removal will constitute breaking the 3RR rule of Wikipedia. —TRAiNER4 (talk • contrib) 16:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I am well aware of the removal policies, and the 3RR rules and what they entail. However you should probably look up what a VERIFIABLE source is.

READ: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader 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.

That means if you saw a plan fall out of the sky, you shouldn't add it until it is picked up by a reliable source and people can CHECK THESE FACTS. Since the Live Feeds are not archived, anyone could make up anything they want, and there is no VERIFIABLE SOURCE to them. Please understand that. --RMThompson 20:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The live feeds are, in fact, archived - maybe not officially by CBS/Endemol, but you can find almost anything being discussed, copied from the live feeds and posted on YouTube or various other sites. Tommy 20:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Youtube is not a verifiable source, and they surely don't have EVERYTHING on youtube. It's simply not accurate to say anything that is NOT already aired as anything more than SPECULATION. --RMThompson 20:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I really don't understand what you're trying to achieve on this talk page. Are you saying there should be no information unaired on CBS on here at all? Or that anything that is yet to be aired should be cited? You seem very keen on getting sources, and yet as soon as the information has been aired I don't see you adding the relevant sources to the article. I stand by what I've said numerous times, that even if these 'spoilers' were sourced properly you would still be complaining. I think everyone here has been very civil towards you, we've given you full answers (and I've personally pointed out past discussions on the same issue), no one has directed you to countless policies and yet you're still commenting here, which you yourself have admitted is getting you nowhere. Just take a step back and, if it bothers you that much, come back after the season has ended and actually make a difference then. Seaserpent⁸⁵_Talk 20:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This situation will be addressed on Thursday's Live Eviction show. We will find out official word on Thursday. But for now according to the feeds she has a penalty vote against her. Please wait until after the Thursday show to discuss this matter further as then there will be official word. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 22:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

That's MY point. Nothing can be FOR SURE until Thursday and it shouldn't be on the article.

To SEASERPENT, what I am trying to achieve to make sure that there are no spoilers, or any information, that is using the LIVE FEEDS or a FAN PAGE as a source since they are NOT Verifiable and at the same time are spoilers. --RMThompson 23:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Requesting Protection for Big Brother 2 (US)

I am posting this here since this is the most active BB US article. I don't know how to request protection so could someone help. There are anonymous users who keep changing colors to the Voting History table to stupid colors like Violet for no reason, changing the infobox to housemates instead of endgame. And just do unnecessary things to the article. It has gotten to the point that I am checking the article every day to make sure everything is right. So could someone help me get this protected for a while? ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 00:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Alucard, head over to WP:RFP and follow the instructions at the top of the page for semi-protection. I'd do it for you but the best way to learn these things is probably to have a go yourself. Let me know if you have any problems :) Seaserpent⁸⁵_Talk 00:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Seaserpent85 I put in a request. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 00:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Just want to make sure you know it has been denied. Just got this from WP:RFP

Declined – There is not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection at this time. - I also see some constructive edits from anon editors there - Alison ☺ 01:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC) - Rjd0060 03:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yea, I know I am just so frustrated with that page, it seems like every time I check it something is wrong and 100% of the time some anon editor made the change. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 03:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Note A3 Citation Needed

[1]

I cannot do it myself because I don't have a username, but there it is. They said they needed proof to be safe, there it is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.230.61.217 (talk) 02:52, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

I, personally, don't think this is a credible source because it's run by fans. Thats just me though - zachinthebox _{(User • Talk)} 02:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the article at all? They said they contacted CBS b/c many fans were unclear about the America's Players rules. Also, this isn't a minor website, it's very popular. Furthermore, you're not gonna find book sources about Big Brother. This is getting rather ridiculous IMO. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.230.61.217 (talk) 02:57, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

I have followed RNO (Reality News Online) for several years. For those not familiar with RNO, the website covers most American and Canadian reality shows. Articles on the site include previews of new shows and upcoming seasons of returning shows, recaps of episode (and live feeds for [i]Big Brother[/i]), and opinions of how players' strategies played out in the competitive shows. While some of authors are first-time authors, many of the articles are written by published authors who also happen to be fans. Network reps, executive producers, hosts, and contestants often give interviews to RNO.

In the terms of the ref that 72.230.61.217 gave, I think it's a valid reference. Much of the information from the first paragraph in "America's Player" comes from this article. However, there is an error in the article in regards to the number of tasks Eric had won. It states he completed 7 of 9 tasks as of the Thursday (August 2) episode. I think the article meant the Thursday (July 26) episode. I can't tell for sure whether the author or CBS rep made the error. If it did mean the July 26, then it does seem like nominations count even it's not the whole week. I don't see specifically where it says the nominations count, though.

"Yes, I know it's a lot of blubbering, but hopefully that made sense. - fmmarianicolon | Talk 03:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I have read this article, many times prior to right now, and I realize there will be no "book" on Big Brother, however the website doesn't provide the person contacted to verify the credibility or anything. It just simply states that he has completed 7 of 9 tasks. I am not saying his article is wrong, and I am not saying it's right, all I am saying is to WAIT until CBS has confirmed it on the TV show. - zachinthebox _{(User • Talk)} 03:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I am going to agree with Zachinthebox. I don't think that this is a credible enough source. I could easily say "CBS told me....". Sorry, but I don't think that we should go by this site. - Rjd0060 03:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

There appears to be a definitive list of all of the AP Task results here: [2] N.B. This is from CBS' own poll archive, not the CBS wiki. If there's consensus, perhaps we can update the table with the correct information? For clarification, it appears that tasks 4, 8, 11, 14, and 16 are the only failures, with task 20 pending. All others are successes. Bobthecorncob 05:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Jen's penalty vote/penalty nomination

I think we need to get this clear, because I personally am confused about it. It was my understanding that Jen had her penalty nomination rescinded, with the penalty vote her replacement punishment. So not both, just the penalty vote.

• This person has a point. I have been following [3] all season, and they have been 100% accurate as far as I can tell and they are reporting (from live feed talk): There was no Penalty Nomination. Based on what Dick has said they apparently changed their mind. Jen found a ‘loophole’ in the rules that allowed her to get away with eating this week. That is why people have told Jameka she should eat as well and probably why Zach said she was a cheater. I think the loophole might have had to do with being taunted with food. However she has been assessed a penalty vote for the cigarettes I think. Maybe we should change this info on the page? - Rjd0060 03:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• • She was initially assigned the penalty nom for eating food, but since this made it "unfair" to Jameka (which, IMO, it didn't. Jameka had the same opportunity to break the rules and eat) I'm pretty sure they made it a penalty vote instead. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.230.61.217 (talk) 03:04, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

nooo. she got the penalty nomination for eating while on slop. she then continued, therefore for a penalty vote. she has two punishments for eating. Melanie 03:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Correct, but then one of those punishments may have been taken back. We are never going to know for 100% sure until we hear from them. I have heard both possibilities. - Rjd0060 03:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I have heard both but I haven't heard of them removing her penalty nomination. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 03:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Melanie, it's good to "see" you here. :) RE: Penalty nom, we only know she recieved one. Just because she continued does not mean she recieved another. Anything more would be speculation on our part. - Jeeny ^Talk 03:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Prior to the day's events, the HGs were leaning toward evicting Jen. When Jen was given the penalty nomination punishment, they realized that Jen would be automatically nominated next week without chance of Veto. Since this gave everyone a sure shot at evicting Jen next week, the HGs began turning toward voting out Jameka this week. Thus, some thought it was "unfair" to Jameka because her place in the game would be damaged due to Jen's rule-breaking. Hope that cleared things up. (As to penalty nom., penalty vote, or both: Dick stated after today's house meeting that the penalty nom was recinded.) - fmmarianicolon | Talk 03:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

And to replace it she has the penalty eviction vote. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 03:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a video that her penalty nomination is replaced with the penalty vote. I am not sure about posting YouTube videos here but if someone would like to see it just let me know. So we can remove the note for next week and just leave the penalty vote note in the table. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 04:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

But that is all conjecture that it was unfair to Jameka, so it's really a "citation needed" or removal from the commentary. CBS/Our House Productions has not yet said what they are doing (or what they were doing) and everything posted is based on the houseguest's comments on the live feeds and BBAD.

You really need to sign your name when you are on a talk page, Thursday like I said all this will be formally addressed on the Thursday eviction show. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 05:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Based on Live Feeds, Julie will address the situation on Thursday's live episode this week and explain Jen's penalty eviction vote. Jen doesn't have her penalty nomination but she has her penalty eviction vote. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 11:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Doen't Jen know about Eric and America's Player?--Sugarcubez 20:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think she does. She shouldn't anyways, as Eric is not allowed to reveal that he is AP. - Rjd0060 22:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Later it should be reported if the producers told Jen Johnson when she was in the house about Eric as the AP in order to explain the destruction of her property and the resulting penalty vote/nom meltdown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wanzhen (talk • contribs) 00:11, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

America's Player Tasks

Cbs posted up the official results to the task he has completed. Im going to go correct the ones we have wrong. Heres the link to the page http://www.cbs.com/primetime/bigbrother8/americas_player/archive.shtml Rosario lopez 06:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Finally, well at least we now know what is Completed and Failed. Thanks Rosario lopez ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 08:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm looks like I was right...again...you guys are smart people!68.99.22.105 02:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Will Tuesday's task now turn into a "Should Eric use the Veto"? ....... Anung Mwka 13:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Not unless they change the schedule - the veto ceremony takes place on Mondays - which would be before the viewing public even knew Eric had won the veto. They could use the previous votes from before though - for example, they could tell Eric to get the person with the second most votes nominated, which could involve using the veto on Zach. This is all speculation though, so nothing can be added to the article yet. Seaserpent⁸⁵_Talk 14:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

America's Player Task #3

CBS.com has task 3 listed as complete while my tivo'ed episode #6 has CBS buzzing and infatically saying Eric failed the task to convince Jen to nominate Jessica. Which is more official, CBS.com or an episode of Big Brother? I would personally think the episode because the producers help edit and create a layout for the episodes but leave the web site to the network, but I think this should be discussed. I vote we list as TBD untill CBS explains why this task was completed when the episode says it was not and Jessica was in fact not nominated. Comedy240 18:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to say that a nationally aired episode has more basis than a webpage.208.137.139.5 19:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment, and would rely more on the episodes if possible. However, please remember that the webpage actually is the Official CBS website, so it too should be treated as factual information. It's a toughie. - Rjd0060 19:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The reason he passed it was because task number 3 was just to try to get her nominated. Eric did not need to actually get her nominated. I have seen the episode and buzzard did go off but only when Jen said he would not nominate her. But this doesnt matter since he didn't have to get her on the block. The buzzing was just to show that Eric failed at actually getting the task done, but not for completing it. I know its confusing but Eric in fact did past that task. The following week Big Brother changed the wording/rule so that the person America chose had to be nominated for Eric to get credit.Rosario lopez 19:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

On the America's Player archive page, the first nomination task with Jessica says "Of the remaining HouseGuests, who should Eric try to get nominated?", note the "try", but every other nomination task says "Which HouseGuest do you want Eric to get nominated?" with a little more added to the beginning on a few. - zachinthebox _{(User • Talk)} 20:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

That buzzing that can be heard in episode 6 was the same buzzing that went off in every other task he failed (i.e. Joe's bed, Jessica's silent treatment), so that would be BB telling us he failed the task, actually they buzzed him 6 times during his talk with Jen in the backyard, here is the clip [4]. Whenever Eric passes a task we hear a ding and sometimes we see a checkmark. I think it is pretty clear one of two things happened. Either the producers failed Eric during week 2 and by week 7 they have changed their minds and decided to pass him OR the producers failed Eric week 2 and the CBS.com typoed. It is undeniable that during the editing of that episode Eric had officially failed that task. I would like to make two changes to this page: the first would be to mark task #3 as TBD, but I will leave that up to the group, the second to add a little more prose about the tasks in general which I will do sortly after posting this. Comedy240 22:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

First off I like what you did to the America's Player section (I think that was you). You are right with the buzzard always going off when he fails but the buzzing for episode 6 was more for a comical purpose, it kept buzzing as a joke. This was only the third task and Eric didnt fail any task yet, so the buzzard wasn't established as a meaning that he failed. And again the whole thing is the wording of the question. Task #3 was just to try to get Jessica nominated, the following weeks it was changed so that he has to get the person nominated. Big Brother knew that Eric would be making a lot if money and that is why they changed it. Or at least that is the way I view it.Rosario lopez 05:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

With the vote 3-2 in favor of changing to TBD I think I will go ahead and do so. It is pretty obvious that the night of the 6th episode that the producers failed Eric on task #3. Untill CBS gives a press release on why Eric now has passed a test which he had once failed I think it is acceptable to assume that there might have been a typo on CBS.com Comedy240 23:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

NO, It says who should Eric TRY to get nominated. He ATTEMPTED to get Jessica nominated. Therefore, he completed the task. Melanie 02:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

HouseGuest Photos

This will probably require the help of someone who has the first few episodes of this season on tape somewhere, but I think it would help the article to have photos of the HouseGuests on here. Before anyone reminds me of the terms of fair use, I do realise we used to have them and that they were removed. However, I've been involved in a few similar articles and it turns out there's nothing against including up to 3 images showing the HouseGuests in groups. What does everyone think? Seaserpent⁸⁵_Talk 22:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I think three to four max is fine, we would need a fair use rational for them though. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 22:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep, the fair use would be no problem as I've written a fair few of them on my time here. The problem is mainly getting hold of the screenshots in the first place! I'll have a look back and see what I can find, but Carol wasn't in many episodes so it may be hard to find suitable shots. Seaserpent⁸⁵_Talk 22:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, some group screenshots would be good. I tried putting one of those on the BB8 UK article once, but somebody removed it pretty quickly. I'll find some screenshots as soon as possible. T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 22:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Turns out I had the first episode all along! I've split it into 2 groups (it's unbelievably hard to get decent stills with more than 2 people in!) which are the originals and the 'nemeses'. I think they fit in pretty well and both have suitable fair use rationales. :) Seaserpent⁸⁵_Talk 01:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced penalty nomination statement

In the voting table nomination twist notes, the statement:

“ Jen broke a rule of Big Brother on Day 52 by eating food while she is on a slop diet due to Week 5's Veto Competition. Originally if she survives eviction on Day 55 she would have received a penalty nomination but this was unfair to Jameka, instead she will receive a penalty eviction vote against her on Day 55 in addition to any eviction votes cast against her by eligible HouseGuests. ”

can be found. Although a discussion is in a previous section of the talk page, someone needs to find a reputable source for this information, not about the penalty nomination, but rather the second sentence (Originally if she [survived]…) Geoking66_talk 22:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Currently there is no official statement from CBS because the Thursday show hasn't aired but since everyone puts what happens on the live feeds here I posted about Jen's punishment for eating while on slop. On the feeds she originally had a penalty nomination for eating but the executive producers found that unfair to Jameka so they took back the penalty nomination and gave her a penalty eviction vote instead. This is on the feeds but since the Thursday show hasn't aired CBS has not released official word. This is one of the problems I think about posting information that is on the feeds before they air. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 23:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

There are various sites like Hamster Watch and RealityNewsOnline that have the information about the penalties. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 23:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I doubt we are going to get any official word on the penalty nomination because it was changed to a penalty vote. Most likely they will just ignore the penalty nomination on the show and act like it was never an option. But I will try to find an actual link that says that she originally received the penalty nomination.Rosario lopez 05:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Your are most likely right but we will have to wait and see. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 08:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Series duration

I know this doesn't have much to do with the article, but when will there be a double eviction, and when it happens, how do we show it in the voting history? I think there has to be at least two, it ends Sept. 18. - Spyke1077 19:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at Big Brother 6 (US) and Big Brother 7 (US) and that will show how we put in the double evictions. And I don't know when they will do those maybe in Week 8 and 9 I think. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 21:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Semi-Protecting the Chronology

Can someone request to protect the chronology article for one month. An anon user keeps adding ridiculous stuff to the punishments section for Week 7 like

The whole list of punishments was worthless, though, as Jen was evicted at the close of the week, and would have been anyway if not for the penalty vote.

and just other ridiculous stuff. I would do it myself but I just don't have the time to request protection. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 01:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I would do it but I actually don't think we should request it. The reason is that there has only been a couple anonymous users in the last few days. Although one of them placed that vandalism on it (maybe the other one too, but I didn't check), they have also provided some good edits. I really don't think a protection request would be approved for that reason. I will add a warning tag to 75.39.59.16 . And if that person continues, we can always report it and they will be blocked. Make sense? - Rjd0060 03:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Original 11 Photo

I moved the "original 11" photo, but now it kinda messes up the alignment of Ambers bio. Could someone who's better at this than me please make it prettier? It was just REALLY bothering me that it was mixed in the middle of the bios, and seemingly part of Jen's bio. Tommy 04:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind...sort of? I think I kinda fixed it (meaning it looks less worse), so at least Amber's bio isn't mashed in with the photo. But maybe someone could still pretty it up a little more? Sorry, I'm tryin! :) Tommy 04:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I moved the nemeses photo to Dick's section, above his last paragraph in the code so that it's not smooshing much into Dustin's section. Does it look better there? - fmmarianicolon | Talk 13:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Reality TV star noteability guidelines

Hello, I've just created a seperate page proposing guidlines for noteability of Reality TV contestants and if they should have their own articles. I did this due to the mass number of articles being created and deleted on these subjects in recent months, and confusion among editors if they are in fact noteable or not. You can read this here. All edits and comments on the talk page are welcome. Thanks, Dalejenkins | 16:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC).

Voting Table Notes

I have kinda edited the Voting Table already but I am explaining what I did here. I wanted to reduce repetitiveness in the Notes section where there are two or more notes for that week. Instead of having this:

	Week 6	Week 7
Head of Household	Jessica	Daniele
Nominations (pre-veto)	Daniele Dick	Amber Jameka
Veto Winner	Dick	Daniele
Nominations (post-veto)	Dick Dustin	Jameka Jen
Notes	See note 2 See note 4	See note 2 See note 4 See note 5
Evicted (votes to evict)	Dustin 4 of 6	Jen 6 of 6

The notes section of the table could be formated to look like this for weeks with two or more notes, less repetitive and cleaner I think.

	Week 6	Week 7
Head of Household	Jessica	Daniele
Nominations (pre-veto)	Daniele Dick	Amber Jameka
Veto Winner	Dick	Daniele
Nominations (post-veto)	Dick Dustin	Jameka Jen
Notes	See notes 2, 4	See notes 2, 4, 5
Evicted (votes to evict)	Dustin 4 of 6	Jen 6 of 6

♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 09:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I like this way a lot better - zachinthebox _{(User • Talk)} 13:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Does look a lot better. Good work! - Rjd0060 14:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

A lot less cluttered. Looks awesome, great job! - Spyke1077 23:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought that some people might not like it. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 06:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Prizes section

I had to edit the prizes section because the dates were wrong. Just a heads up to any user (specifically new/inexperienced users) that POV competitions are held on Saturdays, not Fridays. Nominations are Fridays. - Spyke1077 23:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Voting Table-Suggested Change

I think we should go with this format for the voting table, without the reading lines.

	Week 1	Week 2	Week 3	Week 4	Week 5	Week 6	Week 7	Week 8	Week 9	Week 10	Week 11	Finale
Head of Household	Kail	Jen	Dick	Dustin	Daniele	Jessica	Daniele	Jessica
Nominations (pre-veto)	Amber Carol	Daniele Dick	Jen Kail	Jen Kail	Jen Kail	Daniele Dick	Amber Jameka	Amber Zach
Veto Winner	Daniele	Daniele	Jen	Jameka	Jen	Dick	Daniele	Eric
Nominations (post-veto)	Amber Carol	Dick Joe	Kail Mike	Kail Nick	Eric Kail	Dick Dustin	Jameka Jen
Twist Notes	Note 1	Note 2	Note 3	Note 4	Note 5	Note 6 Note 7	Note 6 Note 8	Note 6
Amber	Nominated	Joe	Mike	Nick	Kail	Dick	Jen	Nominated
Daniele	Carol	Joe	Mike	Nick	HoH	Dustin	HoH
Dick	Carol	Nominated	HoH	Nick	Eric	Nominated	Jen
Eric	Carol	Joe	Kail	Kail	Nominated	Dustin	Jen
Jameka	Carol	Joe	Mike	Nick	Kail	Dick	Nominated
Jessica	Carol	Joe	Mike	Nick	Kail	HoH	Jen	HoH
Zach	Carol	Joe	Kail	Kail	Eric	Dustin	Jen	Nominated
Jen	Amber	HoH	Mike	Nick	Eric	Dustin	Nominated	Evicted (Day 55)
Dustin	Carol	Joe	Mike	HoH	Kail	Nominated	Evicted (Day 48)
Kail	HoH	Dick	Nominated	Nominated	Nominated	Evicted (Day 41)
Nick	Carol	Joe	Mike	Nominated	Evicted (Day 34)
Mike	Carol	Joe	Nominated	Evicted (Day 27)
Joe	Carol	Nominated	Evicted (Day 20)
Carol	Nominated	Evicted (Day 13)
Evicted	Carol	Joe	Mike	Nick	Kail	Dustin	Jen
Vote	10-1	9-1	7-2	6-2	4-3	4-2	6-09

What do you think? We could incorporate the notes from the original design into this one, I just wrote alot of notes in making my voting table on my page. We could also use HoH instead of Head of Household. User:ScottAHudson

I, personally, see no problem with the one we are currently using. - Rjd0060 15:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I like this one better because I do not like the reading lines or the evicted color in the Evicted box. User:ScottAHudson —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 15:34, August 26, 2007 (UTC).

I prefer the one already in the article, there's no need to change it. Seaserpent⁸⁵_Talk 16:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Ya, me too. The one in the article is fine. Someone already tried to do this and people didn't like it so they changed it back. - Spyke1077 17:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I thank you for trying but the one we are currently using is fine plus it *sorta* matches the tables used in other BB Versions. And since we want the articles to be as uniform as possible the current table is just fine. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 23:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggested Modification to Floorplan Used in this Article

The floorplan of the house used in this article should be re-drawn to scale using this as a reference. This suggestion was originally made on 12 August 2007, but it has since been archived without anyone acting on it. I would redraw the floorplan myself, but do not have access to any good graphics programs. Please continue further discussion on the suggestion here, but be aware that a volunteer to complete this job is still needed. --Anonymous 17:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I created a proposed update to the floor plan, based on this suggestion. See the current image talk page for proposed image. Jj04 04:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)