Talk:Big Brother (Australian TV series) season 9

Untitled
Hey guys! I've created this page due to the upcoming confirmed season of Big Brother Australia. In the past, pages like this have been unfairly deleted if created a long time before the start of the season (despite the fact other country's Big Brother usually have pages on confirmation of the new season). The reason for this is because of the constant unreferenced information that fans post on the page, most of it turning out to be untrue. To combat this; I will be deleting anything that isn't referenced or isn't confirmed in a reference (YouTube clips are not valid references, nor are pages that spread rumours and are not based on fact). Please try to reference everything and keep this page on Wikipedia. Bbmaniac (talk) 11:53, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to add that just because something is referenced does not mean the source is reliable. Articles that rely heavily on rumor or speculation are not reliable sources. Please ask if you are unsure whether or not information should be included in this article or read the information below. Please understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is not a means of relaying rumors of speculation. 142.110.227.247 (talk) 01:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I completely understand, hence why I said 'anything that...isn't CONFIRMED in a reference', therefore anything that is rumour or speculation will be deleted. Can't make it any more clear. Bbmaniac (talk) 23:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

MOVIE WORLD
The information regarding Movie World was removed. Wikipedia is only interested in FACTUAL information not RUMOR. The article that was used as a source only said that it was a possibility the house could be located there and was not a verified confirmation. You state that you will be removing information that isn't confirmed in a reference? Well I'm here to tell you that an article that talks of a "possibility" and not a DIRECT confirmation from any of the parties is not a confirmed reference and is nothing more than rumor and not based on fact. News sources are notorious for spreading false information or rumors and most of what is printed turns out to be untrue. Only information that is verifiable, confirmed and comes from a named and verifiable source should be included in this page and not possible outcomes. Just becaus something is printed in a reputable newspaper doesn't mean it's actually fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.110.227.247 (talk) 21:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth
 * Themeparkgc  Talk  22:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * --Questionable sources--


 * "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or which lack meaningful editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion. Questionable sources should be used only as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves; see below. They are unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.110.227.247 (talk) 06:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * --News organizations--


 * News sources often contain both reporting content and editorial content. Mainstream news reporting is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact, though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors. Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces are reliable for attributed statements as to the opinion of the author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.


 * When taking information from opinion pieces, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact. Book reviews too can be opinion, summary or scholarly pieces.


 * For information about academic topics, scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports. News reports may be acceptable depending on the context. Articles which deal in depth with specific studies, as a specialized article on science, are apt to be of more value than general articles which only tangentially deal with a topic. Frequently, although not always, such articles are written by specialist writers who may be cited by name.


 * While the reporting of rumors has a limited news value, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should include information verified by reliable sources. Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors.


 * Some news organizations have used Wikipedia articles as a source for their work. Editors should therefore beware of circular sourcing.
 * Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article will be assessed on a case by case basis.
 * Some stories are republished or passed along by multiple news organizations. This is especially true for wire services such as the AP. Each single story must only count as being one source.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS
 * 142.110.227.247 (talk) 07:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I would consider News Limited as a reliable source, wouldn't you? The citation for the information wasn't some teenager's blog, it was a national news company. To quote part of the policy that you had highlighted in your defence: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should include information verified by reliable sources". The information about Movie World is verified by a reliable source, News Limited, and therefore can be included. Whether it is true or not is a different story (refer to my original reply and WP:V). Themeparkgc   Talk  08:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * In most cases YES News Limited is a reliable source but it this case the article focused on an unverified rumor commenting on a third party. In this case News Limited is not a reliable source. The information on News Sources clears a lot of this up and it clearly states that Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors.''142.110.227.247 (talk) 08:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * BTW I did refer to your original reply and WP:V). Which is where I got this information from and in this case the News Limited information is not verifiable in any way shape or form and relies heavily on rumor and I quote


 * --Questionable sources--


 * "or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion."


 * Also most "entertainment" sections of websites are highly promotional which also calls into question whether or not the source in question is verifiable. Most entertainment companies will leak information to the public as a means of promotion true or untrue. Unless an article contains direct and variable quotations from the third party they are commenting the source is questionable and therefore should not be included in the Wikipedia article.142.110.227.247 (talk) 08:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Again I have removed the information regarding MovieWorld as a possible house location as the source of the material is highly questionable and is nothing more than speculation and rumor. I have however left the infomation regarding the Queensland Premier and Dreamworld as a possible location as both pieces of infomation are coming from a verifiable person and contain direct quotes. Neither sources claim to be fact and but simply discuss possibilities. I also removed information regarding Queensland as a "confirmed" location for the house as NONE of the parties have "confirmed" anything at this point. Now had a verifiable and named Representative of MovieWorld been quoted in the News Limited would have be allowed. A "Spy" is not verifiable and therefore the article is suspect.142.110.227.247 (talk) 09:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the most recent edits regarding the house are more suited to this article. As I said before I removed MovieWorld as a possible location as the News Limited article is not a reliable source and the information within the article cannot be verified. The location of the house has not been confirmed by any of the parties involved as of yet. The current information contains direct quotations from reliable and verifiable persons and is not relaying information from mysterious and possibly fictitious persons. Should someone wish to verify the information they could as it is a matter of whether the person named in the article said this or not. Quite simply they aren't RUMOR! 142.110.227.247 (talk) 09:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You are claiming that two reliable sources are infact just rumurs. The way Themepark has re-worded it not only makes sense, but would suit your way of saying it's a rumur, by saying "such and such" claim that the Big Brother house is moving to "this place". Stop your disruptive editing, please, that means removing reliable content from the two sources. I will report you. -- MST  ☆  R   (Chat Me!) 09:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I remind you that Wikipedia is an ENCYCLOPEDIA and is NOT a means for relaying rumors or gossip. Maybe you need to read the News Limited article to understand what I am talking about. IT IS NOT A RELIABLE OR VERIFIABLE SOURCE. 142.110.227.247 (talk) 09:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's owned by the Nine Network; and you also are removing content + a source from The Daily Telegraph -- MST  ☆  R   (Chat Me!) 09:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Doesn't make it any more verifiable as is said above News Articles that are promotional are also "Questionable" and not reliable sources. The way the Articles are worded they can only be considered RUMOR!142.110.227.247 (talk) 09:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm willing to let this version of the page stay after the protection is lifted, however, I'd like to comment on a few of things mentioned above and my earlier actions. I believe this came down to my misunderstanding of the term "source". My previous understanding of the word would have just covered the person/company who published the information (in this case News Limited). However, upon re-reading the reliable source policy I have found this to be not true. A source is defined as:

The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, book), the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and the publisher of the work (for example The New York Times, Cambridge University Press, etc.).

I was unaware that the work itself, even though it was published by a reliable newspaper, could be considered an unreliable source. In hindsight, the content in the article was reporting about reports from a spy which is rather stupid. I apologise for reverting and thank Worm for protecting the page as a means of intervention and for not blocking all of us. Kind regards Themeparkgc   Talk  10:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

RECEPTION
It doesn't matter how the information has been received in the media and adds nothing to the article other than filler. Remember we are only interested in facts here not public opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.110.227.247 (talk) 22:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Reception sections are common in Wikipedia articles. Please see Wikipedia:Criticism - "Reception" or "Response" section Themeparkgc   Talk  22:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * - Very true and to quote


 * "eventually all major topics would one day have reception articles"


 * The key word here being EVENTUALLY which implies deals with topics after the fact. The information that I removed was neither objective, balanced nor did it add to the overall article. It is too early to gauge the overall reception of this season of Big Brother as nothing significant has happened and the show isn't even airing yet. Reception sections also deal mainly with viewing numbers and the overall public opinion NOT the opinions of a particular journalists or group of journalists. I also found the articles particularity biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.110.227.247 (talk) 06:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand what you are saying with this point. I think you have justified the removal of that section. Themeparkgc   Talk  08:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you now hopefully you can understand why the News Limited article is questionable as well and we can all be happy 142.110.227.247 (talk) 09:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring?
Seriously? I've protected this page temporarily. Sort this out on the talk page. I'm currently thinking up good reasons why I shouldn't block all three of you. WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 09:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi there Worm! This is really not an issue that needs to be discussed. As I'm sure you are aware Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of various topics and is not a means to relay rumors or gossip. While the sources in question are not under normal circumstances considered to be unreliable sources the way the information is being relayed in the articles can only be considered Rumors at this point. The third party or group of third parties being mentioned in the articles have neither confirmed nor denied the allegations being made here and the articles do not include any named sources who are able to relay information from any of the various third parties involved or who could possibly be involved in the production of this show. I am not saying that we cannot include information that leans towards possible outcomes but only if the information contained within the source is verifiable in some way and isn't coming from a mysterious "spy" (as the News Limited article puts it). In it's current form the article does speculate that a possible returns to Queensland and/or Dreamworld probable but nothing is confirmed. Both Sources quote key players who would be part of the decision making process and should a diligent person want to can verify any claims being made. On the other hand the other two articles simply relay gossip and rumor because their source is neither named nor can a diligent person verify any of the claims being made. I am sure you are aware of what a questionable source is, why these sources are in fact questionable and what the regulations regarding News Articles are so hopefully you can understand why I was justified in editing the article WITHOUT prior consolation and why further consolation on this matter is unnecessary. 142.110.227.247 (talk) 10:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi 142.110.227.247. I haven't actually looked into the dispute to a large extent, as it's regarding a television program I dislike on the other side of the world. However, as a neutral third party, I must point out that Wikipedia has methods for dealing with content disputes (which is what this is). You and the other editors disagree on whether some text should be included in the encyclopedia. Both sides believe they are doing the right thing, so the way to sort that out is to discuss it. Stating that it's not up for discussion is not helpful, and a battleground mentality on the article page is a wholly problematic way of looking at things. Discuss the matter here and see if you can come to some agreement with the other editors. If not, start an RfC to get outside opinion.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 10:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment to 142.110.227.247. Your arguments about what should be included in the article are persuasive. Your suggestion that those arguments justify edit warring is decidedly not persuasive. Likewise, I don't know what "further consolation" means, but if you're suggesting that further discussion of this content disagreement should not be permitted, then that's a misunderstanding. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The rules for source material are pretty clear and while they weren't clear to me at the time of my first edit they are now. When I edited the second time they were in fact very clear and I acted based on those rules and those rules alone. By default you could argue that one can't argue that an article should or shouldn't be in violation of said rules. Therefore this matter can't nor should it be up for discussion as the sources are clearly in violation of said rules. 142.110.227.247 (talk) 10:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, what the discussion could be about (or was about) was whether the sources meet Wikipedia's guidelines (the "rules") or not. You hold one view on that, other people hold (or held) another view. Talk pages are the correct place to discuss those differences in views. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, Wikipedia is pretty unique in that there are no firm rules - we even have a policy that if a rule is stopping you from improving the encyclopedia - you should ignore it. As Demiurge1000 correctly points out, this means that interpretation of rules does matter significantly - and discussion should always happen. In fact, if it's clear that a "rule" is incorrect, then the rule can change through discussion. Something similar is going on at the moment on WT:V, one of the encyclopedia's most important policies. The key is to collaborate, work together with the other editors.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 11:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * True and I did in fact post here several times outlining the edits I made but the other parties either chose to ignore what was being written here or seek clarification before they hastily reverted the edits. If one had read the article itself it is a textbook example of what is outlined in the "Guidelines" as unreliable or questionable and one cannot argue against them. This was more a matter of the other parties acting before examining all the evidence. Basically I was labeled guilty before innocent. I still state that this wasn't a matter that needed to be discussed because had they actually looked at this objectively it was black and white. 142.110.227.247 (talk) 11:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Human beings are fallible, and therefore do not see things in black and white - even if they are. That's why there needs to be discussion, and then sometimes more discussion. If you react to initial discussion being unsuccessful, by moving directly to edit-warring just because you are sure you are right, then that just reinforces other editor's beliefs that you are not right. If one or more editors are failing to understand the situation "correctly", then you need to go and seek outside opinions. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As you were removing sourced information - you should have followed the Bold, Revert, Discuss framework. In other words, you made a bold change and another editor disagreed and reverted it. At the point, all reversions should stop, and the matter should have come to the talk page, until either both editors come to agreement or it goes through another route on the WP:Dispute resolution process. It wasn't a matter of guilt or innocence and it's certainly not black and white.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 11:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * What you are saying goes both ways and maybe this exposes a flaw in the edit process. Perhaps linking the TalkPage to The Edit History is a good idea? These types of pages a notorious for rumour mongering and it is common for respected News Sources to source Wikipedia in their work. I'm not going to sit idly by and let an article substantiate claims that may or may not be true. I'm not saying I wasn't willing to clarify my position or clarify the guidelines to anyone who had questions but that clarification should have come before the original edits were reverted. In this case it was just a matter of needing to review the subject matter and the guidelines not a discussion of the actual subject matter because it was such a textbook case of infringement. 142.110.227.247 (talk) 11:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Worm I have to disagree the Edit should stand whether it is considered Bold or not and then the edit should be discussed in the TalkPage and it certainly is a case of Guilt or Innocence and in cases like this the matter was EXTREMELY Black and White. A person is always innocent before being proven guilty.142.110.227.247 (talk) 11:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this may be a bit of difficulty on understanding how Wikipedia works. This isn't a matter of guilt or innocence or even right and wrong. Wikipedia maintains the status quo, unless there is agreement to change it. Generally, there is no disagreement, so editors should be bold and make improvements. However, if there is a disagreement, it should be discussed, which allows for collaboration.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 12:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Worm I understand what you are saying. But IMO allowing the edit to stand is actually a less combative approach and would increase the likelihood of a discussion happening. Maintaining the status quo is just asking for an edit-war as it doesn't encourage acceptance, innovation, or discussion on either side of the argument. 142.110.227.247 (talk) 12:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I wholly disagree. If an article has not been changed for a while, it follows that it has been read and not changed, and therefore the status quo is not an issue. If an editor disagrees with the status quo, they should do something about it, making a bold change. If no one disagrees with the change, this becomes the status quo, and we move on. If someone disagrees, then a discussion should happen - and the last agreed status quo should be where the article sits whilst the discussion happens. I do agree that there is a possibility of ownership of an article, where a single user can block changes, but the way to combat that is to get opinions from uninvolved editors, so a consensus can be reached.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 12:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't leaving the change intact during discussions bring more people into the conversation? In cases like this were the article is still in the early stages of being developed editors are more likely to visit the page on a consistent basis, watching for new material and looking for ways to improve the article. The status quo would be sort of an all clear and most editors would simply move on. If they see something is missing or new information is added that they possibly don't agree with that is an indication that maybe they should look into the matter further therefore bringing them into a discussion they would otherwise not be aware of. I was always taught that two heads are better than one so in this case wouldn't that also be true? 142.110.227.247 (talk) 12:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Now here, I find it more difficult to argue. If we were discussing that fact that someone wanted to put in information about our queen was replaced at birth by lizard men, it would be blatently obvious that the information should not be there whilst the discussion happens. On a new article where things are developing, the idea is less clear cut, but the concept still stands. An editor who wants to make a change is an individual, whilst an editor who wants to stop the change has the theoretical backing of anyone else who's read the article and not made the change. I would suggest that it wouldn't bring more people into the discussion, but more people are needed to discuss the matter - indeed two heads are better than one.
 * Importantly, Wikipedia isn't finished and is in a constant state of flux. The changes don't have to be made immediately, so why not leave the change out until a consensus for the best way forward is agreed upon?  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 13:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps there needs to be a way of marking disputed content or letting others know that something is up for discussion? Something that shows both the status quo and the suggested change would be a better solution? 142.110.227.247 (talk) 13:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In fact, there is. You can use different tags, depending on the situation. For example, if you felt an article was lacking in notability, you could tag the whole article by putting at the top of the page, which alerts editors to the fact that the article is under dispute. Many of the tags you could use are listed at Template messages/Disputes.   WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 13:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Daily Telegraph? Or not?
I'm slightly puzzled by this. One of the references that's been removed in the recent edit-warring, gives this URL at news.com.au, and also uses the title from the web page at that URL as its title. But it also has "newspaper=Daily Telegraph|date=10 October 2011" (which refers to The Daily Telegraph (Australia)).

Do we know what the newspaper in question actually reported on 10th October 2011? If so, why are we not citing that, rather than citing a webpage that makes a statement about what the newspaper said, and also statements about some other things? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Because the information is the same in both articles and both use the same "spy" as their source. Basically both articles contain nothing more that rumor. 142.110.227.247 (talk) 10:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * On the right hand side next to the title, it states "The Daily Telegraph    October 10, 2011". I therefore attributed the source to the Daily Telegraph on the 10 of October. Does this resolve your question or am I misunderstanding?  Themeparkgc   Talk  10:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, got it, thanks. I should've assumed there was good reason for it, and looked until I found it!


 * Maybe worth wikilinking the newspaper name to help make it clearer. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Since the page is currently protected, I can't link it now. I won't bother making an edit protected request, but if an administrator reads this, could you please link the words "Daily Telegraph" in the referenced mentioned above to The Daily Telegraph (Australia). If not, I'll do it once the page becomes unprotected. Themeparkgc   Talk  10:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * ✅ - I've linked all of the publishers/newspapers now. Themeparkgc   Talk  00:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Nominated Deletion
Guys, I'm a little bit upset that a page I have created is being nominated for deletion due to immature and unnecessary 'edit wars' taking place on it. I suggest a good majority of you should read the Wikipedia rules and guidelines about editing before you continue your actions. This page serves a purpose and it is being ruined by some of you. For the rest of you, if you believe in what I do, go to the Deletion Discussion page found on the tag at the top of the article page and argue its right to be a Wikipedia article. Thanks Bbmaniac (talk) 22:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Stop your whining Bbmaniac. You yourself acknowledged when you created this page that it likely should not have been created yet. It is not that people have ruined it for the rest of us it's simply a matter that the page should not have been created in the first place. Many of us have reviewed the guidelines and I suggest you do the same. You can also read the discussions above which will no doubt show you exactly why this page should be deleted. Jschro (talk) 23:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't speak to me like that, Jschro. At the time of stating that, yes, I didn't think the page would have been necessary. If it wasn't it would have been deleted then. Now, several months after creating it, it is still here and only now is being nominated for deletion by what looks like one disgruntled member who stumbled upon this page, feels his opinion on when articles should be created overrides all others. This page has attracted negative problems, but it is improving and is clearly a source people value for information on the series. The series has been confirmed and there is enough verifiable information about it to warrant the page. I simply put this message up on this discussion page to plead with people to treat this page with respect and keep it going because it does serve a place. Bbmaniac (talk) 03:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep it WP:CIVIL, y'all...users who attack other users tend to get blocked. Remember that this page is intended for discussion of article improvement, not the relative merits of specific edits (or editors). Finally, take a look at the AfD Discussion page. Right now it looks to be headed for a WP:SNOW close with consensus to KEEP. I watchlisted this page when it came across my Recent Changes queue; I think I'll leave it on my watchlist for a while. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 16:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries, Alan. While at times I can be a bit aggressive with my approach, let it be known that I would in the end thank Jschro for his point and I have taken it on board wholeheartedly. I think his point is valid and one that needs to be addressed, so I thank him for that. As you said, there is no reason to continue this discussion. Bbmaniac (talk) 21:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If my point is valid then why are you still arguing to KEEP the article then? This article CLEARLY meets the criteria for deletion. Jschro (talk) 02:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I said your point is valid, as in you were well within your rights to bring it up as an issue to discuss. I never said your point was CORRECT. Bbmaniac (talk) 07:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Deletion Tag
Can we please remove the deletion tag now in accordance with WP:SNOW? The consensus to keep is positively overwhelming! Bbmaniac (talk) 01:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * NO even if it is removed I will put it back! You need to get a grip here BBmaniac. Right now you are only seeing what you WANT to see and are refusing to see the very valid points that have been made. This article clearly MUST be deleted in accordance with WP:Crystal you just simple need to READ and UNDERSTAND what those Guidelines are. The KEY to this being actually READING. Jschro (talk) 02:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * OK; fine, I don't mind if it isn't taken off in accordance with WP:SNOW. Let it go through the whole process before it gets deleted. I have a grip, Jschro. I wouldn't mind just not posting anything at all or getting involved at all and let this saga just work itself out. I am not seeing what I WANT, I am seeing what you don't WANT. I have told you time and time again exactly why your WP:Crystal claims are false and misleading and why your points are not valid. Also, don't treat this as if it is just me who is getting what I want over the sake of the Wikipedian community- the Deletion discussion page tells me a completely opposite story. It is in fact YOU who is pushing for this to happen, and you are doing it alone and against everyone else's wishes. If you do repost the tag and put the deletion of this page up for reconsideration, let me remind you of WP:DPAFD which states:
 * After a deletion debate concludes and the page is kept, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome.'. Your attempts to reconsider this page for deletion would not only be more futile than this current one, but you would run the risk of becoming a nuisance in which case there are a swag of rules and guidelines I could point to, to have you officially warned. To conclude, I would very much accept any decision to close the page if that was what the community consensus was. It clearly is not. Because of it, the tag just looks ridiculous, hence my want to remove it. I won't remove it and for your sake, I will keep it on the page and 'stop my whining' as you have asked me to do in the past, but look at the deletion discussion and look at your own side; it is clear that your intentions are not for the good of Wikipedia. Bbmaniac (talk) 06:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In short, no, it can't be removed. Not until the AfD discussion is concluded and properly closed by an uninvolved admin. If said admin elects to close the AfD discussion early, in accordance with WP:SPEEDY, that's their prerogative...and based on that AfD discussion content to this point, it's a distinct possibility. But ONLY an uninvolved admin may remove the tag., you appear to have a bad case of "I didn't hear that". Several experienced editors have already noted their positions at the AfD discussion as to why this article meets WP:GNG and does not foul WP:CRYSTAL. Your statement above concerns me, in that you appear to assert your willingness to re-nominate the article at AfD immediately on closure of the current discussion. That, as points out, runs afoul of WP:DPAFD, as well as WP:POINT. A hallmark of a good Wikipedia editor is the ability to accept the weight of disagreement. Now, since an article Talk page is not supposed to be used for purposes other than discussing improvements to an article, any further commentary regarding this matter should be taken to a User Talk page. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln)  (talk) 15:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit Protection
There is currently a lot of vandalism happening to this article and too much disputed content. There is also a very clear lack of understanding regarding suitable source material. For this reason I have asked that the page be fully protected until such a time as the AfD is resolved and we can come to a clear understanding of acceptable source material. Jschro (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Big Brother: Secrets
Big Brother: Secrets has not been confirmed the Official name for the new season of Big Brother Australia this secret's part has only been seen in the papers and the news. According to Southern Star and Channel 9 Official websites the show is only titled Big Brother. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Expert TV (talk • contribs) 12:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Other than there being a whole range of sources I can provide you, instead, I'll show you the Nine Network advertisement for Big Brother: Secrets. BBSecrets Ad here. Anything else? -- MST  ☆  R   (Chat Me!) 12:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Naming and season number
Recently has been performing cut-paste moves to change this article to Big Brother Secrets Australia 2012 and also to label it as season 1. I have two questions: Personally, until more details become available I would vote to leave it the way it is but I would like to form a consensus with other users. Themeparkgc  Talk  22:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Should this article be renamed to Big Brother Secrets Australia 2012 or another variation?
 * 2) Should it be labelled as season 1?
 * I express the same issue with this. Better safe than sorry, so I say keep, to how the article was originally named, until things are much more clear. -- MST  ☆  R   (Chat Me!) 02:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've actually noticed in promotions and online that Nine are shying away from the 'Secrets' sub-title; and while I'm sure the sub-title will be present in the series, I do think this season is a continuation of others and the 'Secrets' title will be minimised. Therefore; while I think it is appropriate to have the title in the article, I don't think it is appropriate to include it into the actual title of the article. Bbmaniac (talk) 09:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I actually hate the name. I hate the Secrets part of it - personally I want it the same format as last seasons. Barring my little outrage, it's been ages now - sources have decided to be unclear on the name. So if you'd like it changed (article name) proceed with it, I won't stand in the way :D -- MST  ☆  R   (Chat Me!) 09:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Stop changing the font size
The font size for Big Brother Australia has always been at 90%, however SecretStoryStyle keeps changing it to a much smaller and harder to read size. Please refrain from changing the font size. --RachelRice (talk) 16:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Weekly Summary
I remember a few years ago it was agreed that all Big Brother articles (for all countries) would include written summaries rather than a chart summary. I would like to delete the weekly summary chart and begin typing in paragraph format (like in the recent editions of BBUSA), but I don't want to upset anyone and wind up wasting my time and theirs. If there are no objections in the next few days, I will begin typing the summary/updating the summary. Thanks in advance. :) -- Sethjohnson95 (talk) 22:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, paragraph style will be much better--Jwood74 (talk) 12:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If no one is going to update the weekly summary soon, I propose we nix it altogether. It's still on Day 21; it's now Day 36. Jandal3c (talk) 15:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The summary is rather poorly written. If no one is able to contribute to a concise but also detailed write up of events in the house, then I will nix it. Jandal3c (talk) 02:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have been writing these weekly summaries. It doesn't really look like its poor to me. Though I have not had the time to get these summaries off another website. I don't know what you guys want, but change it if you will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manhpham (talk • contribs) 04:12, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Day Count
Can we get a consensus on what Launch Night is considered to be? Is it Day 1 or is it Day 0? Jandal3c (talk) 16:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Entry Days
This is rather confusing. The last few years of BBAU have listed the entry date as Day 0, therefore, I believe this season should as well. Also, Michael told George and Ryan that it was Day 3 in the house when they entered (Day 2 if starting on 0). Therefore, the infobox/summary should both state that the original 10 entered Day 0, George and Ryan entered Day 2, and Benjamin and Ray entered Day 3. I'll leave it as is for now, so others can post what they believe should happen. Thanks. :) --Sethjohnson95 (talk) 21:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, according to the tweet feed, Ray enter the same day as George and Ryan, about 10:45pm and Benjamin entered sometime between 11pm and 4am . So technically, Ray should enter Day 2 and Benjamin 2/3 depending on when it was he entered.--Jwood74 (talk) 13:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that info! I think until we have a confirmed date for Ben, we should just list him as Day 3 (shortly after midnight), and George as Day 2. :) --Sethjohnson95 (talk) 21:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. August 16 was the day 4. Because in the daily show of August 16 they said "Day 3" talking about the day before. So normally, all the girls entered Day 1, then Day 2 for some other boys and Day 3 for Benjamin and Ray. - SecretStoryStyle 00:13, 17 August 2012 (GMT)

Page Protection
Can someone protect the page please, there is too much vandalism by non-users making inconstructive edits on the article, Thank you --RachelRice (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, RachelRice, I agree with your stance. I have requested that this page receive a semi-protected level of protection from IP users. Bbmaniac (talk) 07:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Nominations super power
The footnote after the nominations table is going to be really long by the end of the season. Shouldn't the information about the weekly change to the power be a subheading under the "Format" Subheading.--Goobie m (talk) 05:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Should we add a BBAU9 Redirection?
The common consensus this year is that through Twitter trends, Facebook and general banter the series has been given a bit of a nickname with "BBAU9". Reckon it'd be worth adding a redirect for when people search BBAU9 on Wikipedia? --His Lordship,The Count of Tuscany (you wish to address his honor?) 08:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Big Brother 9 Australia Eviction week 10
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Brother_9_%28Australia%29

Could you please correct the save percentages for today's eviction week 10 21st October 2012

Angie 10.6% Ben 20.8% Layla 21.6% Sam 11.4% Zoe 15.5% Estelle 20.1%

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.46.42 (talk) 09:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Someone's fixed it now, but are we doing decimal places? It should be the same for all weeks if so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.198.125.9 (talk) 11:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Big Brother 9 Australia Eviction week 12
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Brother_9_%28Australia%29

Could you please enter the save percentages for today's eviction week 12 4th November 2012

Sam 7% Estelle 24% Ben 20% Layla 18% Michael 16% Zoe 15%

Regards thank you

p.s. Re previous post for week 10, I only included the decimal point because the broadcast included it probably cause it was so close — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.255.26 (talk) 09:11, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Celebrity Big Brother 1 (U.S.) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Big Brother 1 (Australia) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 07:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Big Brother (Australia season 1) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)