Talk:Big Brother 14 (American season)

Number of weeks
Hi, do we know how many weeks the show will be on for? --MSalmon (talk) 21:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * CBS has Big Brother currently on a ten week (75 day) schedule. When Survivor premieres that is the day they air the finale.  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  02:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * September 19, 2012 will be the season finale according to Ian on the feeds. --FBISD (talk) 20:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Spamming and Spoiling
Please stop posting who is returning. I've already been spoiled idiots. Also, stop spamming the page. Who else thinks this page should be protected? Post Protect It to protect it or Leave it to leave it.

Protect It. DynasticAnthony (talk) 20:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Protection has already been requested at WP:RFPP. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 20:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Semi-protected for three days - that takes it past the premiere and maybe the excitement will have died down. JohnCD (talk) 22:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Colors
I remember reading this debate for last season, but I'm going to bring it up this year. The color used to describe the mentors is awful. It doesn't go with the other colors used in the Voting History and infobox. Are there any other suitable options?
 * I think after three years I may have finally found a suitable option for the third extra color. Hopefully Apricot (Crayola) will work as it is distinguishable from all other colors but fits in with the infobox.  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  04:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The new color is perfect in my opinion. We are running out! But the light orange works perfectly with all the other light colors. Thank you! Good find! --FBISD (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The Expelled color needs to be changed-its too close to the Coaches color.--Tech-Chef (talk) 13:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Use legend5 in the infobox for the Coach's as it is not covered by any other statuses --MSalmon (talk) 13:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Can more distinguishable colors be used for the HoH and Nominees? You can barely tell the shade of blue from the shade of green....maybe a darker shade or blue or darker shade of green? but as it is, you can hardly tell one from the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.124.114.139 (talk) 04:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Voting History Table
The voting table right now looks horrendous I have tried several times to use this version which is much neater that separates the new HouseGuests from the Coaches. I believe that this version should be used instead of the current one which has unnecessary row spans of the word "Coach" across the entire table. It seems that new editors don't want to give the neater table a shot and instead insist on re-instating the other version as seen on page. I am going to try it again but this must be discussed. ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  04:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I support the separate table format. It's still yet to be seen what voting power (if any) the mentors have, but if we just put the "not eligible" sign for the votes they don't take part in then that's fine. They're playing a separate game, so they deserve a separate section. - Katanin (talk) 04:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have removed the coaches from the table because they are not eligible to vote during evictions for this season (Dan's eviction vote is explained in the notes section). --MSalmon (talk) 08:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of repetitive sections in the voting history table. The Coach's Competition (which maybe should be Coaches' Competition) and the Coach's Power are represented by the yellow box in the voting table and Note 2. They mean the same thing. It's unnecessary to have both. I suggest those rows be taken out. The Voting Method row is also doubled by Notes 3 and 4 as well as the current Have Nots row. We may need to wait a bit to see if anything happens with the coaches (such as them competing for the $500,000, etc.), but the boxes next to the coaches' names should NOT be who they chose for Have Nots. It is a "voting" table, not a who they chose to be a Have Not table. And again, all the information is already stated by the notes and other rows. Plus, we have been doing "Have Not," not "Have-Not." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.39.200.85 (talk) 22:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Jodi's Eviction
Hi, just wondering if Jodi's eviction should be Day 6 or Day 1 (since all the HouseGuests moved on July 7)?
 * Day 1, that's when the eviction was held. Best, Jona yo!  Selena 4 ever  14:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, just wanted to check --MSalmon (talk) 14:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So episode 1 on the 12th was actually showing what happened on the 7th?Robinrobin (talk) 05:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Will the next eviction be on Day 13 then (July 19)?--MSalmon (talk) 18:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, next Thursday :) --Firegazer101 (talk) 21:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Table information
Where are people getting all the nomination info from? The first episode only took place yesterday and people have already noted down the nominees, immunity winner, have nots, and the coach competition (whatever that is). Shouldn't all this be left for when the next episode is aired so it's not all spoilt? Thanks --Firegazer101 (talk) 21:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The live feed is a good source here on Wikipedia. If it happens on the Live feed then it can be added. This discussion appears every year for a Big Brother with live feeds.  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  23:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Updating
I just noticed veto holder and nominates are updated here. I don't think they should be. It shouldn't be updated here until the episode airs.  Statυs (talk) 22:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Because there is Live Feed, the results may be posted here. Keep in mind that the shows are only house highlights of what went on in the House prior; Live Feed is not a spoiler per se. Plus results have always been posted here before the episodes air, and I don't see that it should change for people who only watch the episodes. Jandal3c (talk) 05:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not everybody buys the live feeds. The show is all the general public see, and what is meant to air. It should be changed; otherwise, the article is giving away spoilers to those who don't have the feeds. I'm quite shocked to see that this has been going on for a while. I personally have the feeds myself, but if I didn't and came across this, I would be pissed.  Statυs (talk) 04:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I see no problems with this information being included plus Spoiler and Content disclaimer covers this adequately. This debate usually appears once every year but really is discussed on the American Big Brother articles due to the low number of episodes per week and the fact the episodes lag behind the live feed. Like an event will happen on the live feeds but won't be covered on the show until 3 or 4 days later. Where as in other countries there is a 24 hour delay between the live feed and television broadcast.  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  10:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I do however think that there needs to be a spoiler alert at the top of the article, if only while the season is currently on air. Having it be buried only in the relevant section is not sufficient. KRam41 (talk) 04:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I thought about it after I wrote the message and also remembered Big Brother After Dark, which also reveals that information. I bet there's probably something like this once a year, haha.  Statυs (talk) 04:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with the original statement! I just found out stuff just cause I wanted to know the end date of the series! How do we know the stuff actually happened until it airs on TV. We can't see the live feed, a lot of us, because it cost, so how do we know all the results aren't just lying. I don't like it! Entertainer91 (talk) 17:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Day of Nominations Ceremony
When did the first nominations ceremony happen, where Willie chose his nominees? Because at the moment we have only got the date of the eviction. Thanks --86.169.137.251 (talk) 09:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It hasn't happened yet, and it is the PoV winner that chooses the new nominees (if they wish to change them) --MSalmon (talk) 10:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The Veto winner can remove someone but the HOH picks a replacement.--174.49.176.161 (talk) 15:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It HAS happened. It just has not been shown on the CBS show yet. It happened before the feeds came on. --FBISD (talk) 20:24, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

New Table
I like the new table regarding whose team the newbies are on! The table does, however, state which coach won the coaches comp. and who they saved, so shouldn't that information be taken out of the voting history chart? I don't want to do it myself and upset anyone, just a suggestion. :) --Sethjohnson95 (talk) 14:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The table is just a duplication of the voting history table so it doesn't need to be there really. --MSalmon (talk) 18:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I second liking the new table. I saw it yesterday. It was a way of finding out the Coaches Comp info without having to search the other table for it.--Tech-Chef (talk) 13:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah I created it to keep track of the teams, but Msalmon doesn't seem to like it. Since its 2-1, I'm going to put it back now.--Firegazer101 (talk) 13:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Everything can be kept track in the Voting History table, in order to comply with Wikipedia standards there can't be a lot of tables. That is why the Weekly Summary table was changed to prose. Any changes of teams can be noted there and with a note for the Voting History. I merged the two together in a new compact format that way all key information can be kept track of.  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  18:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I did remove it but it was readded --MSalmon (talk) 20:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

List On the Right of Page
I think someone should but the coaches at the start instead of alphabetical order. So the top 4 are the coaches then go alphabetical order for the contestants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.116.240 (talk) 02:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Messy table
The voting history table is a mess! We need to clear it up! And do we seriously need the have-nots row there? what's that got to do with the voting process! --Firegazer104 (talk) 03:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I took out the rows "Coach's Competition" and "Coach's Decision" as that information can be inferred from the table. I also took away which coach chose which player for Have Not, as not only is this a Voting History table but the information is completely covered in the notes as well as the "Have Nots" row. Creating new rows or cells for information that is already in the table is superfluous. My edit was cited as vandalism. I will make the edit again. If someone feels that the is a good reason to put the same information in the table more than once, please discus it here before changing it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.39.200.85 (talk) 16:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I made the edit again and it was reverted two minutes later by Msalmon without discussion.
 * Reason for edit: what table are you talking about exactly?
 * It's difficult to respond to a question in an edit without editing. Please use this Talk page. The table I am talking about is labeled Voting history on the Big Brother 14 (U.S.) Wikipedia page. Again:
 * All of the Have Not information is in the "Have Not" row as well as in the Notes. All of the information in the "Coach's Competition" and "Coach's Decision" rows can be inferred in the Notes as well as the yellow immunity boxes and the coaches' colors next to each HouseGuests' names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.39.200.85 (talk) 16:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well try discussing why the change should be made here with a copy of the table in your sandbox that way everyone can see both versions and it can be discussed more thoroughly. Try to avoid getting into an edit war if at all possible because then the article will be locked so only the admins can edit it.  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  16:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Current table:

Jenn
What does the 2 refer to next to Jenn's name in the finale column? Is it supposed to be in the votes received column?Robinrobin (talk) 20:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Comp Chart
Why do we need a competition chart when all of that information is stated in the summary? --Sethjohnson95 (talk) 23:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't know what it is there, but it looks alright as to showing all of the information. Since it is a table that is somewhat redundant, it will likely be removed in the next few hours anyways.  204.106.251.214 (talk) 04:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

It is way more readable than the summary, and it shows all the players that participate in each comp. Think we should improve them sections.--187.65.12.19 (talk) 04:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Tables such as the competition chart and a weekly summary should be avoided. In order to get a Big Brother season article promoted to Good Article status the majority of the article needs to be in prose not tables. In 2009 there was a consensus made to use Big Brother 10 (UK) and Big Brother 11 (U.S.) as templates for past and future articles. Only the American articles are still holding up to this original consensus while editors that are currently doing the British articles have reverted back to the old format. Right now 7 out of 14 articles are using the current format. If anymore tables other than the Infobox, HouseGuests, Voting History and Viewership are added this would give the article more tables than prose and would make the article ineligible for Good Article status in the future. The goal is to achieve either Good Article or Featured Article status.  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  07:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Legend
I think there should be a different color for the winner of the coach competition. 99.45.166.113 (talk) 07:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Day 5
The current voting history chart lists the second entry for week 1 as Day 5. Where does this number come from? It seems arbitrary to me. Willie was crowned HOH on day 1, before Jodi left the house, and the actual voting and eviction took place on Day 13. I think listing it as day 13 would make more sense, considering this is the day the actual voting took place. (Of course, there might be some sort of precedent at work, here, which is why I'm asking for a rationale behind the decision to list it as day 5.) --LeoChris (talk) 22:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, we should put the day as the day the nominations ceremony took place. However, this confuses me a lot actually. Can someone please tell me did nominations take place on Wednesday 11 July (Day 5) or Thursday 12 July (Day 6)? Thanks --2.222.115.96 (talk) 23:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The nominations were on Day 5. I don't really like it being listed as 'Day 5' on the chart, but oh well. It wasn't my decision. Lol. Sethjohnson95 (talk) 21:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Have-not section
Do we seriously need the Have-nots on the 'VOTING HISTORY' table? It has nothing to do with voting whatsoever and therefore should not be there. Thanks --2.222.115.96 (talk) 23:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Color Change Proposal
I propose we change the colors for the list of contestants for the "Nominated" and "Head of Household" sections. The colors chosen are way too similar. It's very hard to distinguish between the two. Here is the current list with the current colors. I'm proposing #75B2DD or #7FFFD4. Tcatron565 (talk) 23:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

i agree i was coming here to post a comment about the colors being similar for HoH and nominated so i support the change suggested. Smith03 (talk) 16:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What excatly are you talking about? --MSalmon (talk) 16:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

No Coaches Comp. First Night
Someone keeps saying that Britney won a Coaches Comp during the first night, it wasn't a Coaches Competition it was an HOH Competition so it should be listed as none. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.82.148 (talk) 22:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought --MSalmon (talk) 22:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Coaches Entry Date
Right now the table says that the coaches entered on day 1. I think that it should change to day 27 when America/the coaches voted to enter the game as players. Does anyone else agree? Behun (talk) 23:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No it should be when they entered the house not the game --MSalmon (talk) 08:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. It should remain as Day 1, as that's when they entered the house. --Sethjohnson95 (talk) 21:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Shane's 2nd HOH nominations
they have not had nominations yet on the feeds. all that has said is that is who he is most likely putting up. mike and frank have not been put on the block yet. Pieniazek666 (talk) 16:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This is WP:NOTFORUM --MSalmon (talk) 17:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * i posted it here as i had noticed someone had added nominations to the page for shane's HOH and they had not happened on the feeds yet. i normally would have deleted it myself but i dont usually mess with the tables.Pieniazek666 (talk) 19:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Wrong Info
I am watching Big Brother page because lately I've been seeing nomination has been wrong as of right now 2:44 mst, Pov is going on according to Big Brother Buddy who that guy or girl always watch show online when things goes on no matter what time it is and keep us update 24/7 He told me its going on now, so nominations shouldn't even been changed yet. So whoever is changing the nominations for some reason please stop unless its right. From 4:20-4:50 mst, I've been editing this section because people that been doing that, is giving false info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriciasigmond (talk • contribs) 20:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Food Comp section for BB1-BB10
Since BB11-BB14 have a Have-Nots section in the Voting table, why dont the other seasons have a "On Slop" section? 108.21.234.146 (talk) 23:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Tbh Have-Nots have nothing to do with voting so they shouldn't even be on the table. --RachelRice (talk) 23:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Dan Being a Have Not
Whoever is saying Dan is being a have not, because of frank, where did you get that from because I am looking at two different fan sites and both haven't say anything about anyone being a have not, and one of them does tells us who is a have not or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.87.110 (talk) 17:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It may have been from the live feed, which can be used to add information in. --MSalmon (talk) 17:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Ratings
Does anyone know when the official ratings will be coming out? --MSalmon (talk) 20:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems to be within a few hours to a day. 204.106.251.214 (talk) 01:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Citations in the "Controversy" section
I've been a user on Wikipedia for five-and-a-half years, and I've never seen anyone get away with using blogs, fan sites, forums, or YouTube as reliable sources. Especially for something as controversial as a possibly rigged/manipulated reality show. I'm not passing judgment on whether or not it is in fact being manipulated by the production staff, but could we at least find better sources, such as a major third-party news source, a la the Associated Press. If these allegations are real (by that I mean the actual controversy section, not the veracity of said allegations), then I'm sure that you can find acceptable sources somewhere. -happy5214 08:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I second that. I called for reliable sources and the other editors cited blogs and forums. George Al-Shami (talk) 23:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Minor correction. The sources were ones I dug up were to cover the citation needed as it was before the current state of the section.  - See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Big_Brother_14_(U.S.)&oldid=509152688 -  For the statement, "Many fans believe that this was a result of the production team's desire to keep Frank in the game" I tried to find places where fans were saying that since it was the fans and not anyone in the media who was saying that.  A similar case goes for, "The scandal also ran throughout the Big Brother House and caused tension between opposing HouseGuests, who were not allowed to discuss the situation" since the only proof was Big Brother having the live feeds be blanked each time is was mentioned.  I can understand why the sources need to be reliable, but I could not find that much outside of that.  204.106.251.214 (talk) 23:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Pandora's Box
Frank actually won $1.05, $7.11, and $3,333, for a total of $3,341.16. The article says he won $3,000, which is not accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.66.89.192 (talk) 16:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The need to put useless things in the Nominations History
I've always been bothered by the inclucsion of the "Have Nots" in the nominations table, it doesn't affect the game at all. If every little detail should be addled then there's A LOT that is missing from that table.

I don't understand why people have put Ian's "Golden Veto Ball" or whatever that thing is called. It doesn't affect the way the voting works. In fact, if you guys are going to make a super special thing out of who plays in the veto and who doesn't, then I think you should actually give each and every table the names of the players. But I think that's kinda useless isn't? It's useless information, Weekly Summary is where that info belongs, not on the Voting History. --BigOz22 (talk) 22:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think why it is included is because there are times where people vote to have a person be a Have Not at times, such as with this week where Dan was made a Have Not due to Frank's decision. Though, I think that being a Have Not does affect how a HouseGuest preforms.  If there is any other details that you think there should be on the table, then they can be mentioned to the Big Brother task force for discussion since they usually control and vote how the article will be for Good Article status.  For the Golden Ball of Veto, the reason it is mentioned is that it can affect how the Nominations will work.  Since Ian can save any of the nominated players in a way similar to the normal veto, it gives it a reason to be mentioned on the table.  To mention, the Coup d'État from Big Brother 11 and the Diamond Power of Veto from several seasons are handled in a similar way to the Golden Ball of Veto from the current season.  I will add that I do not understand the meaning of the sentence, "In fact, if you guys are going to make a super special thing out of who plays in the veto and who doesn't, then I think you should actually give each and every table the names of the players" since other than the notes I do not see a mention of who plays in the Veto on the table or in any of the cells in the Voting History.  204.106.251.214 (talk) 22:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * There's so many details, like arguements, alliances, etc. that aren't included into the Voting History. Regarding the Golden Veto Ball thigny, see, I didn't know that, and from reading Voting History itself, it never occured to me that Ian actually had a veto of his own, I thought that Veto did nothing more than just give him some kind of great power over the Veto Pass in earlier seasons. --BigOz22 (talk) 16:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Can we please remove the Have-Not section?
It has nothing to do with voting --RachelRice (talk) 13:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It does. It added fuel to the fire for Willie's expulsion and Dan held his own "funeral" of sorts. It shouldn't be removed. It was apart of this since the beginning and it would be pointless to remove it. DynasticAnthony (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * But it's a VOTING HISTORY table, not a VOTING HISTORY AND HAVE-NOTS table. Shall we put an 'On Slop' row for Seasons 2-10 then? Because we didn't do that didn't we --RachelRice (talk) 08:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The Have Nots section doesn't harm the table and at times the HouseGuests do vote for who should be Have Nots. This is also seen as a form of the Rich/Poor divide in other Big Brother articles which is generally included in the nominations/voting history table. With Seasons 2-10 PB&J/Slop was just a food restriction, Have Nots sleep in a separate room designed for discomfort and take cold showers.  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  10:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * However what has it got to do with voting for eviction? --RachelRice (talk) 10:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't oppose the detail, but what i do suggest, is a sepereate table for Have Nots. --BigOz22 (talk) 16:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * For me, the reason for having the Have-Not row is because it can affect the HouseGuest(s) on it by making them weaker and (more importantly) what Alucard 16 already said about HouseGuests voting others as a Have-Not when it happens. A table could be created for the Have-Nots, but it would not work well due to the rules for articles getting to the Good Article status.  I would mention talking to the BB task force about this here, but you are already talking to Alucard 16.  204.106.251.214 (talk) 00:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request
A new paragraph for the Summary for later: (Later on Day 55/After the eviction), the houseguests competed in the next Head of Household Competition. The houseGuest had to hold onto a rope as they were rotated in the air around a sun. The last houseguest to fall off of their rope would win. There were also a punishment as decided by the viewers voting between either the punishment or a reward on Twitter. (HouseGuest) was eliminated first and received a special punishment and (HouseGuest) won their (Number) HoH competition and became the new Head of Household. Super Goku V (talk) 01:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Wrong Information
Would someone please delete the line that this is the first season to have multiple double evictions in the same season? Both 6 and 7 had two double evictions. Stjimmy61892 (talk) 04:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, didn't realize it was another FF. Stjimmy61892 (talk) 12:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 September 2012
Allison Grodner is rigging this for Frank, this should be added somewhere in the page.

82.135.153.237 (talk) 05:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This shouldn't be added to the article for many reasons. It's too direct. We've already put rigging mishaps in the controversy section, saying that Allison rigged it, is way too diverse. --RachelRice (talk) 12:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


 * This page is not protected now, so marking the request as answered to get it off the list. RudolfRed (talk) 19:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Mistaken information in Controversy section
Ian stated multiple times that the producers didn't want Ian to use the veto. That they would ask how would using the Ball of Veto benefit him [Ian]. The way it reads now, it sounds like the producers were trying to push Ian into using it, which is mistaken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.59.37.123 (talk) 13:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you happen to have a source since that line is already unsourced at the moment. 204.106.251.214 (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have a youtube video, but one example was around 9:24 pm on Fri Aug 24 where Ian tells Brit and Dan that production asked him "How does this benefit you in any way?" and tried to talk him out of using the veto. You can check the joker's updates logs at least. Another part of the controversy, although this is definitely more speculative, is that the houseguests complained that Ian's veto was always referred to as the "second veto", but Ian had to go first. This let Jenn use her veto second to take Dan off the block, letting Frank blindside Brit. If Ian went second, he would have been able to save Brit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.59.37.123 (talk) 13:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

False Information in Summary
This has been bothering me for a while, and since the protection prevents me from fixing it, I ask someone else do it. The sentence, "On Day 62, yet another double eviction will occur, making this the first time that two double evictions will occur within the same season since Big Brother 7" is false. There have been two double evictions in Big Brother 6, 7, 10, and 13. The correct information would be to state that this is the first time two "one-hour" double evictions will occur in a season, since Big Brother: All Stars only had one "one-hour" double eviction. Please fix this error. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.11.219.83 (talk) 21:36, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you please not delete my reply. Big Brother 14 has had three double evictions actually --RachelRice (talk) 21:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not delete any reply... Would you please update the information to being the first season to have more than two double evictions? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.11.219.83 (talk) 22:35, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Neither BB10 or 13 featured two double evictions. The article is correct as is. -- Sethjohnson95
 * Indeed they did. BB10 had two double eviction weeks, but only one "one-hour" double eviction, along with BB13. I'm just stating that the sentence needs to be more specific than what it already was.--108.11.219.83(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 September 2012
It should say that this is the first time that more than one double eviction has occurred in the same season, not two.

98.30.11.207 (talk) 03:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * This page is not protected now, so marking the request as answered to get it off the list. RudolfRed (talk) 19:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it should so more than two, since there have been three double evictions (Week 1, Week 6, Week 8) --RachelRice (talk) 20:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Jury Members
Why keep removing the jury members from the infobox? They are jury members and should be noted as such. DynasticAnthony (talk) 19:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * In order to stop/prevent edit-warring among other editors, I did a compromise edit by making purple = Evicted / Jury Member. It makes sense to indicate which evicted houseguests are on the jury since it most completely represents their current status. By having one color for evicted jury members and a different color for evicted non-jury members, it will provide clarity and prevent confusion as to what their status is. :) --76.189.126.159 (talk) 02:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The jury members shouldn't be listed in the infobox (they are already listed in the voting history table) and they never have been so don't re-add them --MSalmon (talk) 13:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's confusing to some because jury and non-jury members looks alike in the infobox. DynasticAnthony (talk) 19:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry Msalmon, but that simply makes no sense at all. ALL of the other statuses are in the history table also - nominated, Head of Household, Power of Veto Holder, evicted and expelled. So why should all the statuses be in both the history table and infobox except for jury members? Why exclude that one status only? It not only should be in the infobox, it must be in the infobox because (1) it maintains consistency by having all of the statuses included, and (2) it most accurately and completely shows the status of those who were both evicted and put on the jury vs. those who were evicted and not put on the jury. Evicted jury members cannot have the same color as evicted non-jury members in the infobox because their statuses are not the same. Also, as evidenced by the edit history of the article, there are many more editors who want jury members in the infoxbox than do not. It makes no sense not to indicate in the infobox who the jury members are. Therefore, pink = evicted, and purple = evicted/jury member. --76.189.97.91 (talk) 19:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC) formerly 76.189.126.159 due to dynamic IP
 * It appears that this matter is resolved because Msalmon made this edit at 19:37, 7 September 2012‎. He did not remove the jury members from the infobox; he only changed the purple box text from "Evicted / Jury Member" to "Jury Member" with the edit comment "don't need to say evicted." This indicates that Msalmon now accepts the view of a majority of editors that jury members should be included in the infobox. --76.189.97.91 (talk) 20:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Jury members are not listed in the infobox. It doesn't matter if you can't tell them apart from non-jury members. We never list every single thing happening in the game in the infobox, that's what the voting history table is for. Please stop adding them and causing an edit war when this issue hasn't even been resolved yet. You will be reported for disruptive editing. I'm only following guidelines here yet you people keep breaking them. CloudKade11 (talk) 00:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * CloudKade11, this issue has already been decided. You are now the only editor saying that jury members should not be indicated in the infobox, while at least six other editors, according to this thread and the edit history, disagree with you. Msalmon was the only editor who had agreed with you, but he has changed his mind and only wanted the wording of the purple box changed. By the way, you should be very careful about making repeated, baseless threats of reporting other editors (who all say they disagree with you), because your history of edit-warring on this content may very well result in you getting blocked instead. I suggest you re-read the above comments to see why it makes no sense not to include the jury members in the infobox. There are six statuses in the "Voting history" section: Head of Household, Nominated, Power of Veto Holder, Evicted, Jury Member, and Expelled. For some inexplicable reason, you are saying that only five of them should also be included in the infobox, while all the other involved editors are saying that all six should be. I would suggest you drop this issue, stop edit-warring, and move on. --76.189.97.91 (talk) 01:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You clearly have no idea how Wikipedia works. There are several other users who have been undoing your disruptive edits these past days. It doesn't matter if people agree with me or not. I'm following guidelines. CloudKade11 (talk) 01:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * CloudKade11, let's get two facts straight. First, I do know how Wikipedia works. You should not assume that you know more than IPs. I suggest you educate yourself on WP:HUMAN. I guarantee you that there are many IPs who know a lot more than you about editing. Second, and most importantly, no one except you has reverted my few edits. So your claim that "several other users who have been undoing your disruptive edits" is both false and outrageous. Of course, you included no diffs to prove your claim. Also, if you describe all the good-faith edits of the many involved editors as "disruptive," simply because they disagree with you, then it is perhaps you who doesn't understand how this project works. The fact of the matter is that you have repeatedly removed the jury member content from the infobox (re-added by many different editors) and violated WP:3RR in a huge way. Anyone can look at the diffs listed below (at 01:56, 8 September 2012) to see the six reverts you did just in the past 24 hours. Finally, you say "It doesn't matter if people agree with me or not" and "I'm following guidelines". Well, actually it very much matters that so many other editors do not agree with you. That's called consensus. And you fail to explain to all of us what "guidelines" you are referring to. A clear majority of editors disagree with you and have given well-reasoned explanations, but you refuse to accept it. Again, I would strongly suggest that you stop your edit-warring and intransigence or you could find yourself blocked from editing. --76.189.97.91 (talk) 02:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you clearly have no idea how Wikipedia works because you are being rude and are handling this issue in an uncivilized manner. IP's do not get to send out warnings to actual users. Your account could get terminated for impersonating an administrator. You don't understand what we're trying to say, IP. People who cause edit wars are known as disruptive editors. I was simply leaving the page as it ORIGINALLY was before until we could fully resolve the issue. Just because 1 person does not agree with what you say does not mean you have to be disrespectful about it. Please, sir, be mature about this situation. And as far as I can tell, there are other users who happen to agree with me at the moment. Give me a good reason why jury members should be listed in the infobox this season and not previous seasons. Maybe we could work something out. Also, people do not get to decide when an issue has been resolved, especially by an IP and especially when only 2 people were present during the discussion. CloudKade11 (talk) 00:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Cloudkade11, you really need to check your facts before you speak. Any user can send warnings, not just administrators. And the reason for having jury members in the infobox has been stated in this thread repeatedly and in an extremely clear manner, and in the edit comments of the many editors you inappropriately reverted. In any case, my comment below at 02:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC) will explain that consensus has already been reached on this matter. I suggest you seriously consider your own words: "People who cause edit wars are known as disruptive editors." And in terms of your implication that IPs are not "actual users," you seriously need to educate yourself on WP:HUMAN. You should read the entire page, but I hope you'll pay special attention to WP:URIP2. --76.189.97.91 (talk) 03:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry IP, but I have to agree with CloudKade11 and Msalmon. It's completely irrelevant to list jury members in the infobox considering they're not even part of the actual game anymore. The infobox is meant for things that are currently happening in the house and current game updates. Jury members are not a part of the actual game anymore and therefore have no more updates. Miss HollyJ (talk) 01:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant?? Not quite. It makes no sense that you would call the people who will choose the winner irrelevant. The fact is that they are hugely important. And Msalmon now agrees that jury members should be included in the infobox; perhaps you didn't read the entire thread or see his edit. The infobox colors are not about who's still playing the game; they are to show what the current status of each person is. Clearly, evicted houseguests who are jurors should not have the same color as evicted houseguests who are not jurors. One group is evicted with no more involvement; the other group is heavily involved because they will vote on the winner. There is overwhelming consensus established on this. --76.189.97.91 (talk) 01:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I never called the houseguests irrelevant. You're misunderstanding what I'm trying to say here. The infobox is meant for current game updates. Things that are happening at this moment. There is nothing current about the jurors because they are not playing the actual game anymore. It's like adding a color to Jodi, Kara, Jojo, Willie, Boogie and Ashley's name and putting "At Their House Watching the Show From Their Couch" as the legend. Once someone is evicted we make the bars pink and leave there names alone for the rest of the season, thus receive no more updates. Being a juror is just a little "fun fact" is the best way I can put it. I understand it makes the infobox more colorful and decorative but users stopped adding the jury members to the infobox a long time ago for this exact reason. Miss HollyJ (talk) 04:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have a strong opinion on this matter either way, but it seems there is in fact a precedent for listing jury members in the infobox... The only problem? Is that this precedent dates back to BB8 see here. It wasn't done for BB9-13, as far as I can tell. --LeoChris (talk) 01:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I never called the houseguests irrelevant. You're misunderstanding what I'm trying to say here. The infobox is meant for current game updates. Things that are happening at this moment. There is nothing current about the jurors because they are not playing the actual game anymore. It's like adding a color to Jodi, Kara, Jojo, Willie, Boogie and Ashley's name and putting "At Their House Watching the Show From Their Couch" as the legend. Once someone is evicted we make the bars pink and leave there names alone for the rest of the season, thus receive no more updates. Being a juror is just a little "fun fact" is the best way I can put it. I understand it makes the infobox more colorful and decorative but users stopped adding the jury members to the infobox a long time ago for this exact reason. Miss HollyJ (talk) 04:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have a strong opinion on this matter either way, but it seems there is in fact a precedent for listing jury members in the infobox... The only problem? Is that this precedent dates back to BB8 see here. It wasn't done for BB9-13, as far as I can tell. --LeoChris (talk) 01:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Just so everyone is aware, CloudKade11 has been warned for edit-warring.
 * These are his six most recent reverts of the content, all within 24 hours:
 * 01:40, 7 September 2012‎
 * 01:54, 7 September 2012‎
 * 02:29, 7 September 2012‎
 * 04:59, 7 September 2012
 * 00:23, 8 September 2012‎‎
 * 01:16, 8 September 2012‎
 * He also reverted the same content a few days ago. The editor he reverted at that time started this thread, but Cloud did not post here until about a half hour ago. --76.189.97.91 (talk) 01:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that once the game is over, purple (Jury Member) will be removed from the infobox and all the jury members can be changed to pink (Evicted). Purple is simply to show their current status, until a winner is chosen. As with all previous seasons of the show, Head of Household, Nominated, and Power of Veto Holder will also be removed from the infobox once the game ends; the only statuses that will remain are Winner, Runner Up, Evicted, Expelled (for Willie), and any other permanent statuses that may happen, such as America's Favorite HouseGuest. So this entire matter will be moot after September 19. --76.189.97.91 (talk) 03:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Good riddance. Adding jury members to the infobox is ridiculous as it is. So happy to hear it won't be staying. CloudKade11 (talk) 04:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This is getting way out of hand. To be quite honest, I have no problems listing the jury members in the info box, as long as their status is reverted to evicted once the game ends.--TheDevin13 (talk) 18:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * We will keep it like that until the game ends later this month. How does that sound? DynasticAnthony (talk) 18:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly. That's how it is in the articles for all previous seasons. Both CloudKade11 and Msalmon have been warned about their edit-warring. --76.189.97.91 (talk) 21:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * the fact that it will be changed once the season ends seems like it is more work than needed since it the fact that the jury has not changed to the last 7 before the final 2 are jury. but i will side with the majority Pieniazek666 (talk) 00:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * CloudKade11 has yet again ignored consensus and reverted the content. This is at least his 8th revert, including six in 24 hours. He's been reported to an administrator. --76.189.97.91 (talk) 01:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * How do you want to solve anything if you're blatantly ignoring what I have to say in this situation? I reported you to an administrator as well and it wasn't Dennis Brown. CloudKade11 (talk) 01:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * CloudKade, your behavior is outrageous and needs to be dealt with. There are now at least 11 editors who disagree with you (based on this thread and the edit history). And it's interesting that after I reported you to administrator Dennis Brown, you claimed (now twice) that you then reported me to another administrator. The records show otherwise. However, you are more than welcome to do so. But fair warning: Beware the boomerang. Finally, it should also be noted that a neutral, uninvolved, experienced editor, User:Go_Phightins!, reviewed this matter and indicated that consensus has indeed been established on this issue. He said, "Upon further review, far more than 3 editors agree with the IP, so that to me is consensus and therefore I would side with the IP. Go Phightins! 02:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)". You can see his comments in the thread on Dennis Brown's talk page. --76.189.97.91 (talk) 02:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * My behavior is "outrageous"? Please stop with your ridiculous exaggerations. You're the one that started the edit war and made no decision to see what others thought about your ideas before you posted them. And trust me, I reported you just today. Not only for edit warring but for having uncivilized conversations with other users. I've seen your history, I know about that Clint Eastwood article. Don't try to act sneaky just because you're an IP. CloudKade11 (talk) 04:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Cloud, again it's very important to check your facts before making outrageous allegations against another editor. It seriously damages your credibility each time you make a claim that anyone can easily prove to be false. You claimed that I was "the one that started the edit war," but the fact is that the reverts actually began long before I even made my first edit. According to the edit history, you in fact were the one who began the edit war at 22:08, 1 September 2012 when you reverted AmazingRaceClub. My first time in the article wasn't until almost a week later. Therefore, your claim about me was not even close to the truth. You and Msalmon had reverted many editors over several days before I even arrived here. You need to understand that when many other editors indicate that they disagree with your position, either through their edits or in a talk page discussion, you should just drop it and move on. And if you filed a report other than interjecting in my thread with Dennis Brown, that's fine, but your edit history doesn't show it. But as I said, remember to always beware of the "boomerang" as your own behaviors will definitely be looked at closely. In any case, I was very happy to see your most recent comment in Dennis's thread which said, "Fine, the purple color thing can stay" and "The season is over next week anyways." It's good that you accepted the editor's view that consensus was established. I hope you'll also accept the advice given to you about trolling. Finally, you apparently did not read WP:HUMAN and WP:URIP2 yet. You really should. It's important to understand that everyone on Wikipedia is an IP. If you don't believe it, see here . --76.189.97.91 (talk) 07:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Double Eviction
I can get why some people assume Week 1 was a Double Eviction, but seeing as how there were nearly two weeks between Jodi and Kara's evictions, should that really be considered a Double Eviction? -- Sethjohnson95
 * Fixed it.--108.11.219.83 (talk) 01:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request - voting history table
Dan's and Ian's names have been switched in the voting table, and colors have been changed. This could be fixed by undoing the edit at 23:28, 13 September 2012‎ by Thechrisgriffin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.239.134.28 (talk)

Week 1, Day 1 in Voting History.
The table current lists "none" for both the HOH and nominations columns of Day 1. Shouldn't Willie be listed as HOH, though? He obtained the title before Jodi was voted out by Dan, this is different from, say, BB9's Power Couple. There, the HOH competition happened AFTER Jacob and Sharon's eviction. Furthermore, since the actual table's rows list Jodi, Kara and Danielle as being nominated shouldn't they also be listed as being nominated? It's a de-facto nomination, but it's not different than 2 HGs being nominated at the final 3. --LeoChris (talk) 21:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 September 2012
Willie was evicted on day 16 NOT 14.

JohnF119 (talk) 01:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please quote reliable sources. Vacation9 (talk) 23:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Danielle's Nomination
People keep undoing edits made that Danielle is Nominated. Only one person put a reason and said "not getting in the final round of the final HOH comp does not mean you are nominated for eviction." If you don't make it to the third part how does it not mean you up for nomination? The following people undid the edits; User:TwilightFanx23, User:Singularity42. User:12zaPziP and myself added Danielle being nominated only to have it undone. CCamp2013 (talk) 00:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've also undone the edit. The Head of Household competition isn't finished yet, so by definition there can be no eviction nominations. The competition doesn't finish until Wednesday, so there won't be any nominations until then. Until that point, this is all speculation. Dayewalker (talk) 03:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not speculation? Danielle can not participate in part three of the Head of Household comp. therefore she is automatically Nominated. CCamp2013 (talk) 03:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * A HouseGuest is not officially nominated until there's an HoH, and a nomination. There's no need to put information in the article until it's actually correct. Dayewalker (talk) 03:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Every year the one that loses the second part to the HOH comp. we add them as nominated. Last year when Adam lost he remained Nominated. There will not be a nomination ceremony because who every loses is nominated automatically. CCamp2013 (talk) 03:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no Head of Household yet, so there are no eviction nominees yet. There's no need to put up information on speculation, anything could still happen in the house. Dayewalker (talk) 03:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Danielle being Head of Household is something that can not happen. Which is why she is officially nominated. CCamp2013 (talk) 03:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * She is not officially nominated. In fact, she was close to being ejected from the house after the second part of the HoH competition. She could be ejected, Dan or Ian could be removed for a family emergency, medical crisis, etc. While those may be doubtful scenarios, anything could still conceivably happen, which is my point. Until it's official, she's not nominated. Hopefully we can get some kind of comments from some of the other editors who've made edits to this page, and get a consensus. Dayewalker (talk) 03:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Touche. However, I do want to point out that even when the nominations are "official" or when you say they are, that anything could happen at that point also. Like an ejection or a family emergency. Which was my point. CCamp2013 (talk) 03:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Could we please wait until the competition has actually been completed before adding anything, otherwise it is just speculation which will be removed. --MSalmon (talk) 08:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * She is out of the running. Dan won the first HoH, Ian won the second, only one of them will become HoH meaning that Danielle is automatically nominated. It's basic facts, it's how final HoH works --RachelRice (talk) 15:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that Danielle should be listed as a nominee. She can't win hoh. She is/will be a nominee barring some unforeseen event like the house blowing up. Those types of unforeseen events could happen any week and we still always list the nominees in those weeks. The final week shouldn't be any different. 98.122.21.13 (talk) 00:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Number of days
I'm unsure why the dates in the main table are being reverted back to fabricated dates. I believe the first incorrect dates were created by 2a02:c7d:6091:b200:bd57:6c17:b71a:9f4a here, were later changed to another set of incorrect dates by 2a02:c7d:6091:b200:3de4:5532:99db:bfb0 here, and then changed back to the original incorrect dates by here. I have no idea where these fake dates are coming from, but according to the rest of the article, the voting table, three independent update sites, the episodes, and what actually happened, there were 75 days in Season 14. Davey2010 has twice more reverted my edits tonight back to the fabricated dates. I am going to change them to the correct dates one more time, with a note to discuss any further changes here on the talk page. -- FBISD (talk) 02:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, IPs for quite some time have changed the dates, The IP change above was apparently never detected so I apologise for reverting you but you can understand why I assumed you were vanalising, Thanks. – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 03:31, 1 January 2017 (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 05:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk: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 12:34, 22 December 2018 (UTC)