Talk:Big Brother 19 (American season)/Archive 1

More Information Available

BB19 is less than a month away from its premiere, so by now, there should be plenty of information available. Once it comes from a reliable source, include it in the article.--OfficerAPC (talk) 13:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@OfficerAPC It doesn't matter that there should be plenty of information available. What matters is if there actually is plenty of information available. Also in response to this edit of yours [1] it's not relevant that BB19 is weeks away from it's premiere. That's not a valid reason to remove a redirect. 74thClarkBarHG (talk) 20:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@OfficerAPC: @74thClarkBarHG: Re-created the article and found several independent sources along with press releases from CBS to start article with all available information at this time. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 00:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

74thClarkBarHG, please stop redirecting the article. This season premiers later this month. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

@Another Believer First of all, I have stopped redirecting the article which you would have known if you checked the View history. Second of all, just because the season premieres later this month isn't a reason to stop redirecting the article. 74thClarkBarHG (talk) 21:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

lol, I did review the page's history, so I'm fully aware, and I disagree with redirecting per TOOSOON. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Names of Houseguests

Some of you are adding the names of houseguests, when they have not been announced yet. CBS said they would announce the names tomorrow at 8 AM (Pacific Time). Until then, no names are to be listed yet.--OfficerAPC (talk) 00:26, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Picture of Julie Chen

Is the picture of Julie Chen from 2009 really necessary? VietPride10 (talk) 22:02, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

No. MB298 (talk) 02:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok, so do you guys think we should delete the picture of Julie Chen from this article? VietPride10 (talk) 03:53, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Image of Logo

There is an active discussion about the logo that has been used on previous season articles >File:Big Brother 16 (U.S.) Logo.png< and at the present time it should not be used for this article until the discussion is resolved. According to the discussion currently going on it is being discussed if using this image on multiple articles violates item 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. In order to keep this logo on Big Brother 16 (U.S.) I uploaded a different logo used by CBS for the show to Big Brother (U.S.). It is also being discussed if using this same image on multiple articles is in violation of a widely accepted consensus for WP:TVIMAGE. So until such discussion has been closed with an outcome the File:Big Brother 16 (U.S.) Logo.png image should not be used on this article. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 13:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

So it can only be used for season 16, you'll have to delete it from the 17 and 18 articles too? ValarianB (talk) 14:43, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The discussion mentions season 17 and 18 and is still being discussed. The reason why it was removed here I believe is because it was added to season 19 after that discussion began and before it ended. Once a decision has been made with that discussion we can then figure out whether to use here or not. WikiVirusC (talk) 15:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok, guess I jumped the gun in adding it here. The image use rules are pretty daunting to get one's head around. Is it permissible to take say the pink, tropical logo from the CBS site and crop it? ValarianB (talk) 15:11, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Just updating here the discussion about File:Big Brother 16 (U.S.) Logo.png was relisted on July 2nd for more discussion and consensus about its usage so for the time being that image of the logo shouldn't be used here. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 19:45, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Until the discussion about the actual logo is resolved I added the promotional image used in advertisements for this season to the infobox instead as per WP:TVIMAGE. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 20:14, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2017

Eseaman13 (talk) 01:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Ring of Replacement: If one houseguest takes the temptation, they will be able to swap places with one of the three players chosen by random draw if they’re not one of the six houseguests playing. Filed under twists

Question: Does anyone know if Wikia can be used as a reliable source? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 01:27, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

The rule of thumb is to ask yourself the following question. "If I was doing an academic research paper, would I use that as a source for material?" If yes, the source is reliable; if no, the source isn't.--OfficerAPC (talk) 01:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Thanks, @OfficerAPC! jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 01:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

References

Megan Lowder

Prior to her self-eviction, Cody Nickson nominated Jillian Parker and Megan Lowder for eviction. This means the latter's status should say "Nominated" in blue before the pink "Walked" merged cells.--OfficerAPC (talk) 18:08, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree VietPride10 (talk) 18:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I also agree. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 19:06, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I disagree, I think she should not have a nominated latter unless we create a second column (which we already decided not to do) because she never faced the live eviction and houseguests were not capable to vote for Megan. Musicalorange6 (talk) 18:56, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, if someone is saved by the veto, you don't place a nominated latter under their name. Alex and Jillian are nominated not Alex, Jillian and Megan. A nomination latter should only be under her name if she faces the eviction vote or if we create a second column.

Musicalorange6 (talk) 19:01, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

According to the established format by WP:BIGBRO because Megan was nominated for eviction prior to her leaving her cell should retain its blue shading with the word "Nominated". The only time "Walked" should include the current week is if the HouseGuest left the House but wasn't nominated (see Neil in Big Brother 9 (U.S.) & Dick in Big Brother 13 (U.S.)) because for non-nominated HouseGuests that square is used to record their eviction vote. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 19:34, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. This way makes it seem as though Megan was a nominee at the time of the eviction voting, when eviction voting will in actual fact be between Christmas and Julian. Megan left the house before eviction voting or, before the final nominees were decided, so a blue box is not appropriate in this situation. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 02:51, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Could we correct that with a note than explains it? (Note #5 on voting table) VietPride10 (talk) 03:37, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Logo

Can we upload a new version of the BB Logo, which is similar to BB16/17/18? I don't think the pre-season promotional logo is best as in the episodes the BB16/17/18 logo is used. VietPride10 (talk) 03:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

At this time I would recommend holding off because if the image looks too similar to File:Big Brother 16 (U.S.) Logo.png then it could be flagged as an unnecessary duplicate file. I recommend waiting until the discussion about the usage of File:Big Brother 16 (U.S.) Logo.png is resolved. If there is a version of the logo where the background is not similar to the file being discussed then we can use it here. If the outcome is the image can only be on one article then alternate images of the logo for BB17 and BB18 will be needed. However if there is a poster for the season similar to Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 17) and Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 24) then they can be used instead. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 05:30, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Christmas Abbot's age

Christmas' age is listed as 33 on the official CBS website, but some insist that "she said 35 on TV" and keep changing it to that. Unless 35 can be verified with a usable source, I'd think that CBS bio is definitive. ValarianB (talk) 15:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree, until a reliable source is published that says she's 35 it should remain 33. Whether she's actually 35 or not, people have lied about their ages on Big Brother before so there's no reason to believe her saying it on the show is reliable. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 15:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I totally agree; the addition of content from questionable sources is what led to the article being marked for protection.--OfficerAPC (talk) 15:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I change it because her age is listed as 35 as well on her Instagram in a post from a company she is sponsored by — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewreliford (talk • contribs) 01:46, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

That is not a reliable source. Absolutely DO NOT change Christmas/Cody's ages unless there are reliable sources reporting so, or more ideally, CBS alters their ages on their bios. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 03:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

then how is the contestant's themselves not saying their age "reliable" enough for you guys — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewreliford (talk • contribs) 12:30, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

People do lie about their ages on the Internet as well as Big Brother, so the point is information MUST come from a reliable source. If we use what the contestants say, it may be considered original research.--OfficerAPC (talk) 13:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Is this reliable enough http://www.greatestphysiques.com/christmas-abbott/ , it lists her birth year as 1981 which would make her 35. VietPride10 (talk) 20:01, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I put more weight in the television network that does extensive background checking on its contestant than on a fitness magazine. ValarianB (talk) 19:22, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Thats fine, but if your google Christmas Abbott, everywhere it lists her age as 35, leading me to think that CBS simply made a typo, but we can wait until Christmas herself confirms it when the game is over.VietPride10 (talk) 00:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

What time did Cody reveal he lied about his age? --- Drew — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewreliford (talk • contribs) 23:32, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

It could be possible Christmas lied about her age on her application but after searching around the web I have found some things. This CBS article from May 13, 2015 has her age as 34. This article from Mar 15, 2013 about her time in the pit crew has her age at 31. So mathematically if she was 31 in 2013 then she is 35 now not 33. Also the HouseGuest page says her birthday is December 20, 1983 which shouldn't be there because there is no source that provides an exact date. Now after researching I have found valid sources that can be used to override CBS.com for Christmas' age. This article from The News & Observer which is a local newspaper in the area Christmas is from has her birthday as December 20th with her age at 35 and was printed on June 6, 2017. This page has her birth year as 1981 which would match with her age of 35 as per the article from The News & Observer. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 17:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Until now, it seems most had agreed to stick with CBS, but if people now want to go with other verified sources, that's fine, we just had one person pledging to be combative regardless until he got his way. That was problematic. ValarianB (talk) 18:35, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Going with CBS isn't bad and usually is the best source for the HouseGuests I was actually trying to find a secondary source to back up CBS but while researching her age I did find an article from CBS News that contradicted the cast bio on their own website. I don't agree with any editor causing an edit war without discussing the topic or backing up their edits with sources like this and it was not my intent to find a source to back up the change the editor kept reverting to. However because WP:BLP is very strict about making sure information about living persons is accurate is why the source from The News & Observer in this case override's CBS' website. It is a well respected and reliable source that is also independent from the topic of the article and the contestant. For all other contestants unless there is a source like for Christmas then CBS' website and cast bios should be used. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 05:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Ring of Replacement Curse

Neme81 reverted my edit of (I believe) CloudKade11's edit of The Ring of Replacement curse, saying that "If the HouseGuest accepts this offer, they will have to choose 3 HouseGuests that if chosen to play in the veto they are eligible to replace... The holder of the ring may only replace these three HouseGuests" is "a confirmed curse they just didn't reveal it in the episode." Where was this confirmed? I want to save you the trouble and tell you it wasn't "confirmed" because it's fabricated, but I may have missed it. I am going to revert it until an actual confirmation is given. Thanks. -- FBISD (talk) 02:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Raven Walton's disease

So Raven has a disease that only 2 families have. You guys should take research on it to check some of it. Miilkx (talk) 00:47, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

That is not relevant to the gameplay MSalmon (talk) 12:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Medical conditions are not to be included unless they play a part in a contestant's gameplay. For example, PTSD (Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder) can be mentioned in the article because that is what caused Megan Lowder to quit the game.--OfficerAPC (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Controversies

There is VERY clear bias against Paul Abrahamian under the controversy section, using words such as "this is wrong," or "fans find this bad," as well as several other phrases that invoke emotion and do not use a factual basis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.197.56.126 (talk) 01:03, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I have removed that entire section, obviously a violation of WP:BLP. – jona ✉ 01:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

It was not violation. All of the things that they wrote, did happen and were controversial. After all, we have heard them say those things yet in the Big Brother 18 (U.S.) article, we never heard Jozea Flores make the comment about Fourth of July, yet it still made the cut.Musicalorange6 (talk) 02:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Irrelevant! There were no reliable sources to support those claims.--OfficerAPC (talk) 04:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't say irrelevant however comments like that can't be added to the article without a reliable source. The section here simply violated the WP:BLP guidelines and the section didn't seem to be written from a WP:NPOV.

Just because it happens on the live feeds doesn't mean it needs to be here unless:

• It is included in the broadcast episodes which can be used as a cited source.

• An exception to this is the game aspect of the show due to its live nature. Game elements like HoH, PoV, nominations and twists can be added before the CBS episode airs. Big Brother After Dark can even be used to cite these instances prior to the CBS episode if the need ever arises.

• A verified, reliable third party source has published an article about the behavior happening on the live feeds. Please also see MOS:SELFREF, WP:CITE and WP:VERIFY for applicable policies and guidelines.

There are several instances where non-broadcast material that aired on the live feed was controversial and included however they were backed up with a source. Instances where controversial live feed material that was included in the season articles include: Matt's use of a racial slur in BB9, BB11's controversy section and some comments made by HouseGuests in BB15 that wasn't aired in the broadcasts was due to reliable third party sources picking up on them and reporting them.

• In a nutshell content (especially controversial content about living persons) can't be added to the article that violates Wikipedia policies and guidelines such has WP:BLP, MOS:SELFREF, WP:CITE and WP:VERIFY ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 05:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

It does not have to be aired to be controversial. As you can see in the Big Brother 18 (U.S.) article, the majority of the controversial subjects were not broadcasted. In fact the only aired controversial subject was Paulie Calafiore's comments to Natalie Negrotti. Abrahamian's comments have caused a lot of controversy. I will source a couple articles. Musicalorange6 (talk) 04:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@Musicalorange6: I said in my note above that there are instances of controversial material that isn't on the CBS broadcast but was reported in the media then it is okay. Upon re-reading my note at the start I wasn't very clear about that but at the end I was for that I'm sorry. That section should not be added back until it meets the following guidelines and polices WP:BLP (biography of living persons), WP:NPOV (neutral point of view), WP:VERIFY (has to have reliable sources that no one would question). If that section does not follow those three guidelines it doesn't get added back at all. If anyone wants to add that section back then re-write it to comply with policy don't keep reverting its removal and not doing anything to the section. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 05:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

The part about Megan shouldn't be added back without reliable sources and must follow the same Wikipedia policies that the information about Paul needs to follow. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 05:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

References

Sources for controversial events

This section goes along with the above section but I had to break it out because I couldn't include a separate set of references for an example. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 05:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@Musicalorange6: Looking up those articles is a good start but before the section can be placed back into the article it needs sources and needs to be written in a neutral point of view. However some of those sites would be considered unreliable or disputed:

• CelebDirtyLaundry.com - looks like a fan site blog some editors could dispute this site
• TheAshleysRealityRoundUp.com - fan site blog that would most likely be disputed
• Inquisitr.com - A news and media aggregate site its news mainly comes from other sources which could be unreliable
• Wetpaint.com - As far as I am aware (could be wrong) this is unreliable because it used to be a wiki farm someone could shed some clarity on this if it is reliable now that the wiki farming was spun off from Wetpaint.

I don't have time this week or I would go ahead and re-write the section myself so it could be added but just by searching for a few seconds I found five sources that I doubt would be disputed I will post them here in proper format if anyone can re-write the controversy section to conform to WP:BLP and WP:NPOV then these references should satisfy WP:VERIFY. | | | | ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 05:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Every single source listed above is considered unreliable. Wikipedia does not consider TMZ or any other tabloid sites valid. The AOL and Bustle sites list inaccurate information and therefore cannot be used. As of now it looks like the "Controversy" section will be removed unless someone can provide credible sources. CloudKade11 (talk) 03:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Looks like I finally have caught up with the edits made and thank you for noting what happened in the edit summary. I did just get done adding a RefIdeas template to the top so that we do not need another Reflist-talk template after this. Having said that, I want to point out that I have made my own additions to the RefIdeas template, specifically the articles from Global TV, Decider, The Hollywood Reported, and FanSided. I would like to ask if you or anyone else has objections to these four are possible references. Additionally, since I cannot seem to figure it out, which portions of the AOL and Bustle article were inaccurate? --Super Goku V (talk) 07:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

References

Wrapping the eviction vote count

What is the need for making this not wrap? It looks horrible when they are wrapped and makes the columns width not match up with the rest of the page. Bgc7676 (talk) 18:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

This has been discussed before numerous times, specifically with you, that it needs to be wrapped so there isn't three line breaks, but only two. We have already came to an agreement on this with the other Big Brother articles, so please stop reverting it. VietPride10 (talk) 18:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

One column or Two columns

Week 1: Megan Lowder's Self Eviction

There's been discussion over if Week 1 should have one or two columns since Megan walked. I do not know which style is better, so I think we should discuss it here. VietPride10 (talk) 18:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I think one column is fine. Two columns is unnecessary and is going to make the table unnecessarily large. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 18:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I prefer one as well because it is just unnecessary information, Cody's nominations can be done by crossing Megan out and putting Alex below her that is all MSalmon (talk) 19:11, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

As long as the walk did not result in a new Head of Household being named, I don't see the point in having two columns.--OfficerAPC (talk) 19:20, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

It didn't otherwise we would have known about it by now, it is only if there is a new HoH then the column can be kept MSalmon (talk) 19:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok it seems like we have a consensus to have one column then, I'll edit the table now VietPride10 (talk) 19:31, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

To be honest the extra column is not needed and whoever is reverting it back needs to stop comparing it to other seasons MSalmon (talk) 19:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I think you should wait for more responses before determining a "consensus" from 2 people. CloudKade11 (talk) 22:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I feel like the 2 column works better because Megan was still nominated when she quit. It's not right to cross her nominated out when she still was nominated when she quit. The 2nd column will have who the replacement nominee is instead of having it all on one column. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.198.8.138 (talk) 23:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

The thing with the voting history table (or nomination table if looking at international versions) is there can only be so many columns before the table stretches beyond the page margins for a full desktop screen. The table is already at 16 columns and for it to fit properly it shouldn't exceed 19 columns. The one column formatting for when a nominated Housemate/HouseGuest leaves has been standard across multiple Big Brother articles regardless of formatting. The only time a second column needs to be created is if the eviction completely canceled and a new Head of Household is determined. Having Megan's "Day 2" square shaded blue with "Nominated" indicates she was nominated during her time in the House. Cody was asked to simply replace Megan's nomination with another HouseGuest so this doesn't justify another column. The strike through the word "Nominated" doesn't have to be there however the extra column just because Megan walked out of the game is not needed. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 02:07, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Another thing to keep in mind about the columns is the show in years past has typically had two double evictions later on and if this season has two double evictions then that would increase total number of columns to 18. Also we have no clue what the temptations will do to the game which could result in the need for another column down the road. Its best not to create unnecessary columns now to avoid having to condense the table later. One other point, there is always the possibility for any HouseGuest to walk or be expelled for any reason so in theory say three different nominated HouseGuests end up walking like Megan did (which has happened in other versions) and the consenus is to create a second column in each time then imagine how big this table will get. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 02:15, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I believe there should be two columns or we should revert the edit on Big Brother 11 (U.S.) when Chima got evicted because we added a column there. Having three nominees makes the nomination slots lop sided and It looks bad. Adding extra column is not horrible, we could just change the font size in the future can't we.

Musicalorange6 (talk) 03:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Search up what consensus means because I disagree.

Musicalorange6 (talk) 03:36, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

The column for Chima's Hoh from BB11, is not the same situation here as in BB11, chima had her full hoh week w/ veto. In this situation, the only thing that changed was Alex was nominated in Megan's place as she walked, which we can simply designate with a strike through her name. Also Cody stayed HoH, and there was not a different HoH. This will save space from additional columns which should take precedent over your opinion that the table "looks bad" . VietPride10 (talk) 04:01, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Everyone please quit changing the Voting History table during a discussion I changed the table back to the previous version but if this continues the page may go under full protection until a clear consensus is reached. @Musicalorange6: just because you disagree with the one column format doesn't mean you can change the table back during a discussion to achieve a consensus especially when the consensus is in favor of the one column format for the table. As of this writing there are 5 registered editors for the one column format, 1 registered editor for the two column format and 1 IP in favor two column format. So if the discussion were to be closed right now the consensus would lean in favor of the one column format.

The established format used for Big Brother articles (regardless of show specific format) that has been used by WP:BIGBRO is one column per round of nomination/eviction. The reason why the voting history for Big Brother 11 has two columns for Week 6 is because when Chima was expelled the producers clearly stated that Michele's duties as Head of Household was complete which ended that round. A new round began when a new Head of Household competition was held. For this instance, when Megan left the show Cody was asked to name a replacement prior to the Veto competition and ceremony meaning this second eviction round is still ongoing. Yes this will cause the pre-veto nominations line to have 1 extra spot than the post-veto nominations line and that is okay. The thing to avoid with the tables is having too many columns and having to reduce the font size to where either you have to squint to read, need a magnifying glass or use the zoom feature on a browser to read the font MOS:ACCESS is prioritized over aesthetics. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 06:22, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

The definition of consensus is "unanimous". Even if one of us don't agree. It is not a consensus. Yes, I see what you mean but can we at least make a note saying Alex was nominated after Megan left because the way it looks, it seems like Cody nominated three people from the start and then Megan left. You have to dig through the summary to find out that Alex was replacing Megan. I just feel like one extra column is not too much space. We can always change the font. I am not trying to be rude, I am just frustrated that no one is considering what I am saying because I have considered what you said.

Musicalorange6 (talk) 06:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Note was added, please stop changing the table back to the two table format whilst in middle of dicussion as User:Alucard 16 said. VietPride10 (talk) 06:47, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

We understand what you are saying Musicalorange6 but you can't compare this season to BB11 because it is a different game to what happened then MSalmon (talk) 09:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

After watching the episode of Big Brother where Megan self-evicted, they did a second nomination ceremony after she left. Does this change anything? Musicalorange6 (talk) 01:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Not really because the episode made it very clear this is still the same round of nominations because Jillian was left on the block. Had the producers canceled both nominations from the Thursday episode and had Cody redo both nominations then another column would be needed. Plus having the one column fixes the issue of the two nomination rows being lopsided because if we did have two columns then the post-veto Nominations row would be bigger then the pre-veto nominations row now both are balanced. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 05:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I made examples in my sandbox of the current one column format, the two column format Musicalorange has proposed and an alternate one column format based on a similar situation from Ultimate Big Brother. Hopefully this will provide a better discussion on the matter to help reach a consensus. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 05:52, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I still think one column is still best, and I agree with Alucard that pre-veto and post-veto nominee cells will not be lopsided now. VietPride10 (talk) 06:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Week 3: The Battle Back

Looking at the Voting History table, there are two columns for Week 3. The first column includes a normal cycle of an HOH and two nominees; the second, however, is displayed for voting results on who to designate as the House Challenger for the final round of the Battle Back. The question is, should we keep that second column or should we get rid of it and present the information elsewhere in the article?--OfficerAPC (talk) 20:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2017

Just saying that Cody reentered the house on day 31 as Dom left the house on day 30. Yet it says the wrong day. Dom left on a Thursday night live eviction and then cody reentered the house on the friday right after. Unless this is just because some of it is not live. Just thought I would fix it but I can't because this is a new account. Akaben2 (talk) 19:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Temptation Competition

With the curse of the Temptation competition, should we designate it with the yellow immune color in the voting table for the winner of the competition, instead of creating a whole new role for temptation comp winners? I prefer using the yellow immune color and notes to explain it rather than add a new row in the voting table. VietPride10 (talk) 02:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely, having the yellow immune color will make it clear who won the competition with immunity as the prize. However, due to the unpredictable nature of the show, we should only have that note apply to Week 5 for now.--OfficerAPC (talk) 03:11, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Are we marking the loser of the temptation competition (Jason) as nominated in the Big Brother Housemate chart at the top right of the page? TheDoctorWho (talk) 00:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, sorry didn't notice that, I think the temptation nominee, should be marked as a usual nominee. VietPride10 (talk) 01:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I thought we would, just wanted to make sure. Sometimes there's reasons and I didn't want to do it if I wasn't supposed to. Thanks! TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:23, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree, there is already a note to explain why there is a third nominee.--OfficerAPC (talk) 03:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Halting Hex

Two out of three of the leaked temptations were right. Why not just put in Halting Hex too. Musicalorange6 (talk) 05:47, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

While it was leaked like the Ring of Replacement we should refrain from adding it to the table until voting officially opens. Due to the live nature of the show it is entirely possible the producers could still move this temptation to later in the season or scrap it altogether if they wish. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 05:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

In the section for the Halting Hex, it says "preventing anyone from being evicted." The Halting Hex cancels out the round of an eviction we don't know whether or not someone will be evicted. Musicalorange6 (talk) 08:48, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I thing when i checked the percentages editing CBS page, Ramses and Elena got the most, i might be wrong though.. Miilkx (talk) 00:43, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Stop placing Jessica as the winner. We have no idea who got the temptation yet. Musicalorange6 (talk) 02:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Jessica used the Halting Hex during week 5 due to her and Cody being on the block resulting in no one leaving the house — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.168.164.226 (talk) 13:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Please Do Not Add Any Results Until there is 100% Confirmation that it happened.

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2017

-Under summary Paul won the POV and used it to save Jason leaving Jessica and Cody on the block (fact). Under week 5, Jessica used the Halting Hex to safe herself and Cody from elimination therefore no one was evicted that week (fact). There will also probably be a double elimination during week 6 due to Jessica using the Halting Hex (guess). 31.168.164.226 (talk) 13:51, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 14:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2017

Since Josh is HOH for week 6, everyone knows he is gunning for Cody and Jessica (who he calls the meatballs) so he will either nominate 1 of them with back dooming the other 1 or nominating both. If someone besides Cody/Jessica win POV they will use it to save the 3rd nominee (targets are to keep Cody/Jessica on block-especially with Josh as HOH). If Cody were to win POV he would use it on Jessica and thus knowing he would be going home since everyone in the house (maybe not Mark & Elena) don't like them. 185.46.76.39 (talk) 19:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

That does not necessarily mean it is going to happen. Big Brother has been known to be very unpredictable.--OfficerAPC (talk) 19:55, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2017

Will Be Honest. Will not make any changes that are false. swear to god Princepretty (talk) 17:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

What changes are you wishing to make?--OfficerAPC (talk) 18:19, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Week 7 Have-Not(s)

The have-not section for week 7 is listed as "none" but during Big Brother: After Dark Alex stated something along the lines of "Have-Not's for the week are allowed to eat hot dogs along with their slop". Are we sure there are no have-not(s)??? TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:06, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps it is time to reconsider having a table for this at all, or even a section, due to the waning coverage. In seasons past the Have-Nots were a big deal, there were fan votes for what they had to eat, competitions (separate from HoH and PoV) to determine who became one, and so on. Have-Nots are picked by the HoH so there's little drama or suspense, the BB producers are just not covering it much anymore. So I'd say delete the table and section, and incorporate occasional Have-Not happenings into the summary body. ValarianB (talk) 12:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

ValarianB I think it's still very important to include as it plays a bit of a role in the game. Such as this years Have Not Temptation or the fact that Have-Nots could eat Elena's hot dogs. TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

With Big Brother introducing unpredictable twists to the houseguests, it's always worth including the Have-Not table as there may be offers for exemption from Have-Not punishments and/or risks of Have-Not extensions.--OfficerAPC (talk) 02:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

OfficerAPC I agree 100%%!!! TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

The problem is the lack of sourcing to be found. We may run into an issue where the article is relying solely on personal testimony from what viewers see on the Live Feeds as production addresses it less and less on the broadcast episodes. That can get shaky, WP:RS-wise. ValarianB (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Format of the Game

I'm thinking we should NOT include a section called Format for every season Big Brother has aired as it is essentially the same words with some minor variations. Simply copying and pasting text from an article to another article counts as plagiarism and was one of the issues with an article reported the controversies of the show.--OfficerAPC (talk) 03:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't really have an opinion on it. Just for future reference Wikipedia allows copying and pasting within Wikipedia as long as attribution is given. See WP:COPYWITHIN, WP:ATTREQ, and WP:PATT. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:54, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

If the article is ever nominated for GA/FA status a brief rundown of the core format is required and can be linked to the main article's format section. So a small format section explaining general week to week rules like how evictions work, what happens if someone leaves or is removed, etc. However what shouldn't be there is a section for Battle Back explaining the twist, the same information in the summary then all of that information repeated in the Voting history. Example we don't need a record of every vote for Paul to complete against Cody in the Battle Back showdown in the Voting history table since that same information is included in two other spots. Only Cody's re-entry into the game in purple should be there and the note on the table should reference the "Battle Back" section. If the consensus is to keep the votes in the table then the actual "Battle Back" section needs to be removed entirely because who versus who in all rounds is recapped in the Summary as well. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 04:08, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Infobox Image

Did we ever come to a consensus on the infobox image or did someone just ignore the warning and replace the image??? TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:33, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Temptation Winners

In the voting history table, there is a row for temptation winners; should we include winners of the Den of Temptation, the Temptation Competition, and the Tree of Temptation?--OfficerAPC (talk) 23:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

As the row says "Temptation Winner" I personally think we should leave it specifically as that. If you want to add you either need to add more rows and/or change the name of the row.TheDoctorWho (talk) 01:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

The name can stay as it is because notes will explain the story briefly.--OfficerAPC (talk) 01:59, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Then if you're leaving the name the same then I don't think we should add anything other then the temptation competitionTheDoctorWho (talk) 02:34, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

In my personal opinion it's just too vague. Just as in the article the each have their own subsection have their own subsection in the chart.TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Apple Tree

Does anyone think that there should be some sort of color code for the "picker" and "result" on the apple tree chart???? TheDoctorWho (talk) 01:30, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, for result, Paul could be in standard yellow immune picker. We have to decide on color for picker though. VietPride10 (talk) 01:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

We could do a green for "accepted" as done in the den of temptation chart? TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:17, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm thinking we should use the green accepted for pickers who obtained powers and the red rejected for pickers who obtained punishments.--OfficerAPC (talk) 03:30, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Alright. I updated that in the note i left on the chart TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:36, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I feel as if there should be an explanation of what type of temptations are offered through the tree in the description. I have added this at the end "The results of picking an apple include, save a friend, can't play in next HOH, second veto, bounty on your head, and eliminate two eviction votes." NintendoGeek (talk) 06:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Controversies II

Are the used sources reliable for the controversy section of Big Brother 19? If so, great; if not, information from such sources must be removed without question.--OfficerAPC (talk) 03:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Several sources are tabloids, esp the Daily FMail, but there are citations to AOL, TV Guide, etc...so IMO it's ok. ValarianB (talk) 16:54, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Leaked Eviction Results

According to the Big Brother Network, there are rumors of eviction results leaked all over the Internet. Until after tonight's surprise eviction episode, such information should not be added due to the fact they may come from unreliable sources.--OfficerAPC (talk) 23:10, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2017

Alex was evicted on Day 84.

One - Kevin said it in his eviction speech This Wed eviction was not live it actually was taped on Tuesday Mmedits14 (talk) 00:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done for now: Julie Chen stated that Alex "Would be back one week from tonight" which would make it day 85. She also stated at the end of the episode "Tune in tomorrow [Thursday the 14th] for ANOTHER LIVE eviction episode." so it may not have been live but for the course of this article unless we have reliable sources we're referring to it as live. TheDoctorWho (talk) 00:46, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

http://bigbrothernetwork.com/big-brother-19-who-was-voted-out-2017-09-13/ This confirms a pre-filmed eviction, whether it is reliable enough for this consensus remains to be seen. When the live feeds return with nominees and a veto winner this should be further confirmation that this eviction did occur on Day 84. Sws1991 (talk) 02:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Already done TheDoctorWho (talk) 22:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2017

Mmedits14 (talk) 01:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Josh and Paul left Day 92

Already done TheDoctorWho (talk) 01:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2017

Add to the Summary section, right after "She became the final member of the jury.": "On Day 92, after receiving votes from Matt, Raven, Kevin, and Christmas, Paul (for the second time) won $50,000 as the runner-up, Josh won the $500,000 grand prize by a 5-4 vote, and Cody won the title of America's Favorite Player and received $25,000." The quotation marks shouldn't be included. TheMason (talk) 02:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Done TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:41, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Wrapping Eviction Results

Original Discussion: Wrapping the eviction vote count

Some folks continue editing the voting history table to make the results not wrap. Even if that means making the font bigger without making the table stretch beyond page margins, there is still a consensus that requires wrapping to eliminate one unnecessary line break per round per season.OfficerAPC (talk) 15:39, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Errors/Omissions in "Big Brother 19 (USA)" Page

This text, "Head of Household ("Sugar Shot Head): Sponsored ..." is missing a right quotation mark.

This text, "Head of Household ("Hocus Focus"): The HouseGuests..." has the first letter of "The" in bold, when it should be in plain text for consistency elsewhere.

This text, "Head of Household ("Everyone's A Wiener"): The HouseGuests..." has the first letter of "The" in bold, when it should be in plain text for consistency elsewhere.

This text, "Head of Household ("The Revengers"): The HouseGuests..." has the first letter of "The" in bold, when it should be in plain text for consistency elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.214.61 (talk) 15:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC)