Talk:I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! (Australian TV series)

Day #

We need to come to a consensus on the day numbers. My belief is that Day 1 was when they entered the jungle, Day 2 Chrissie, Barry & Joel completed the first tucker trial and Day 3 was the first live show which would mean the evictions would occur on Days 10, 17, etc. This was also supported by Barry in episode 7, after Leisel's eviction but before Tim & Anna arrived he stated that they had been there 10 days & 9 nights. So i'm changing it back, until we have anything that disproves a contestant's word then I suggest we leave it that way.

Also I feel like would should find a way to incorporate the info box which lists the contestants entry and exit days, as this seems to be uniform for the british series so I see no reason why it shouldn't be included. Sws1991 (talk) 12:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Why don't we use episode numbers and not day numbers. After all, that's how the official website describes episodes [1]. WWGB (talk) 13:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Removal of contestant "Evicted 1st", "Evicted 2nd" etc. and Bottom Two information on Eviction table NEEDS to stop.

After reading through the edit history I think that there should be a rule that this page needs to remain fully identical to that of ALL 14 series of I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! (UK TV series). I'm requesting this for a bit of fluidity to readers of both countries articles. I say this because all countries seperate series/season pages of Big Brother (TV series), Dancing with the Stars etc. are all the same to show all information required. This page looks a mess and incomplete without any sort of Eviction status in the contestant box and a bottom two information on the results table. Can the removal of such information please stop. Superdry19 (talk) 03:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I've looked at seasonal pages for Big Brother U.S., U.K. and Australia and they do not detail specifically the position of evictees, but rather just order them in order of their eviction - and as such it is a poor example to support your case. In saying that, however, you are correct in that shows like Dancing with the Stars and international versions of I'm A Celebrity do detail specifically the eviction position. So if it is required that the page conforms with international versions than yes it should be included. But if not, isn't it rather arbitrary and stating the obvious (the order in which participants are listed is the reverse order in which they were evicted)? Just my two cents. Forbesy 777 (talk) 03:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

So, let's see. Evicted 1st, evicted 2nd etc is there for the dolts who cannot work out that bottom-up constitutes an order, and also cannot see that eviction dates provide a sequence. And we must list "Bottom 2" for other dolts who cannot marginally lift their gaze to see exactly the same information already provided in the same column. While we are at it, show me any "rule" or "requirement" that every IAC franchise must have an identical Wikipedia format. Because we just know that so many readers hop from one national broadcast to another, and will be sooo confused at the slightest variation. Not! WWGB (talk) 13:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Results Table

Alright this is getting absolutely ridiculous! I understand both sides of the argument, and yes it is true that Freddie was not eliminated, he did leave the jungle (albeit as the winner) so in a sense he was evicted. My side of the argument is that all the other I'm A Celebrity articles include the winner in their tables, not to mention Big Brother and other reality tv shows that use these tables. I know some have said that these articles are irrelevant, but I couldn't disagree more. Some people believe that the winner should be included, some believe it shouldn't. I'm sure this isn't the first time this has been discussed, but based on the other articles it's clear the consensus was that the winner should be included. I don't see any reason why we should go against the other hundreds of articles that follow this format. Sws1991 (talk) 12:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Arguments based on WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS are not rational arguments. WWGB (talk) 21:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps even something like this would suit better User:Sws1991/sandbox so at least Freddie can be somewhat differentiated from the other contestants. Sws1991 (talk) 12:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Analogy of an eviction

Because of all the trouble on this article, with regard to Freddie, I will try to explain was eviction means, by using analogies.

The comment that Freddie was 'evicted' just because he left the jungle after winning through to "King of the Jungle", is tanamount to saying that all sportmen and spectators are 'evicted' just because they leave the grounds at the end of a game or match.

Another analogy is saying that all actors or singers leaving a theatre, at the end of the play or concert etc., are 'evicted because they leave the theatre or concert venue at the end of their performances.

This is NOT what eviction means. Eviction, with concern to spectators at a sporting event, is what happens to a spectator who misbehaves during a match and is forcibly ejected from the ground as a result of this. It does not apply to all the spectators who have attended an event and who leave at the end of the match.

With regard to "I'm a Celebrity ... Get Me Out of Here", eviction is what happened to all of the celebrities who received the least votes, within the program, and had to leave the jungle *before* the crowning of the "King of the Jungle".

Eviction always takes place *before* the end of the event. Freddie left the jungle *AFTER* the event was all over, because "I'm a Celebrity ... Get Me Out of Here" had ended - therefore, he was NOT evicted, and should not be counted in the 'eviction' section of the article. Figaro (talk) 07:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I completely understand your point (and I understood without the need of analogies), however my point is, traditionally these tables include everyone who entered and left the jungle/house/competition at some point. And before I cop another "other articles have no relevance here", my point is it works perfectly for all these other articles, why should this one be different? It's not like the winner isn't clearly distinguished from the others by the green background. Sws1991 (talk) 03:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I do not know why there is such a 'blind' enthusiasm to follow other pages - written by other Wikipedian editors (are any of these editors *expert* in their field - or are they any more knowledgeable about what they are writing about for there to be such blind enthusiasm to follow them?). With regard to the Australian page, it is *unique*, with far more information than is given in any of the other articles. Also, as I mentioned, Freddie did not leave during the program's run - he left *after* the program was finished - therefore he was not evicted. Please try to understand. It is interesting how you have now developed a special 'survivor' section under the eviction section to try to make your edits more acceptable to other editors. This 'survivor section' is not really relevant, or applicable, either, because, even though it says that Freddie had "most votes to win", all the other 'survivors' you mention in that particular section are those celebrities who were the bottom two or three, with 'fewer' votes than others, each week, but who were not evicted at that time. Freddie never had 'fewer votes', so does not belong in that section.). Figaro (talk) 07:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Season 5 notes

Did this really happen?

"On Day 6 the contestants played a game called 'Escape Fartists' which allowed Luke, Richard and Angie to move onto the Red team, in exchange for Jacqui, Sam and Yvie's positions."

There is no mention of this game on the season 5 page. (Fran Bosh (talk) 17:02, 11 February 2023 (UTC))