Talk:Big Brother 21 (American season)

Banishment Background
I wanted to open a discussion on what the background for the Banishment should be. Jayab314 16:11, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Option 1: – Act as if the banished HouseGuests were evicted and the Banishment competition was a re-entry competition.
 * Option 2: – Act as if the banished HouseGuests were at risk of getting eliminated and the Banishment competition was a sudden-death competition.
 * Option 3: – Act as if the banished HouseGuests were eliminated and the Banishment competition was a re-entry competition.

Thoughts
Edit to my initial thoughts: On second thought, this would make the first four "evictions" into "banishments" and Julie called Ovi's an eviction, so maybe Option 1 is the best of the three in that case for organization purposes. Jr0929 (talk) 14:47, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Undecided - Personally, I am undecided as I see points for both sides. Jayab314  16:11, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm still supporting option one for now. As said before Julie explicitly stated that the HouseGuests were out of the game once banished. Not only that but outside sources such as this and this both support that as well with statements like The first three to find their way will return to the house. The last to return is banished for good and their game will be over and Of those four, three would make their way back into the house during the Battle Back, while another would be first to be sent home. This was somewhat addressed in edit summaries but I see no reason why it can't be addressed here as well but for we should provide the most accurate depiction of what happened not change it because it's too complicated for others. That's technically not even a problem because the notes and episode summaries explain it all. Saying it's too complicated is also a WP:IDONTLIKEIT-type argument which is invalid. There should be a valid argument as to why the current table is no good for the game. Finally, I would support possibly using a different color for the banished HouseGuests if and only if it would be applied consistently across the table, NOT "banished" then "evicted" in the next column over as you are trying to do as that's not even close to what happened under any circumstances. The nomination color should not be used at all for the banished HouseGuests as there was no nomination process like we normally have.  The Doctor Who  (talk) 20:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Option 2 - I think the most sensible option is the second option. I think we should look at the function of the twist rather than a few words by Julie (words that I think were used to make the power more dramatic & set up the premise of the comp - in which they had to find the Camp BB Room). Being evicted has a sense of being permanent (even if half the time there is a battle back - even in a Battle Back, there is only a 1/4 or 1/5 probability of returning, establishing a relative sense of permanence to being evicted). Here, all HouseGuest was told that 4 will compete, and 3 will stay/return. That high probability of not losing doesn't have the same sense of being permanent. Hence being picked to compete in this competition is in no way like being evicted. Rather losing the competition is what is equal to being evicted. Also, it looks extremely silly to have 3 people listed as being evicted on Day 1, only to return on Day 1 (both in the HouseGuest table & voting table). - Helloman124
 * The function of the twist was that the Camp Director banished four people from the house who were immediately out of the game and had to battle to re-enter. Just as Julie said it's that simple. It doesn't matter if it's "in no way like being evicted" because the HouseGuests were officially "evicted" (or "banished" in this case). How is "you are out of the game" not the same sense of being evicted??? As for the "extremely silly" again it's WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The Doctor Who  (talk) 06:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think me saying that it looks "extremely silly" is a fair critique (if worded in a silly way). It looks messy and we should be aiming for clarity in providing information. Having the table list 4 people as evicted only to have 3 people return almost immediately could lead to confusion from over-complicating a simple game mechanic - the game mechanic being "pick 4 to compete, 3 will stay'. Having the table list David as the sole evictee makes logical sense, particularly if we are aiming for clarity (with the note explaining the twist).
 * I'm not saying it's not a fair critique (even though I disagree with it) I'm just saying it's not applicable in this discussion, it's a personal opinion. The leading to confusion is a valid concern but the note explains it all so that it un-complicates thing. Listing the HouseGuests that were banished in the same color as those that were nominated actually leads to more confusion because the HouseGuests were not nominated. Listing all four banished as out of the game actually makes more logical sense because that's what happened. It shouldn't be listed any other way. The Doctor Who  (talk) 01:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Option 2: If they were evicted then Julie would have said they were evicted. It is clear that producers wanted to establish they were not being evicted, otherwise they would have called it that. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 07:09, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the term evicted not being used Julie said and I quote that the HouseGuests "were out of the game" so the nominated colors should not be used because you can't be nominated if you're out of the game. Am I wrong? The Doctor Who  (talk) 07:35, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Also by your logic the producers wanted to establish that the banished HouseGuests were not nominated otherwise they would've just said that which is further reason why the nominated color should not be used. That's why I suggested an alternative to the two colors. The Doctor Who  (talk) 07:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Option 1: Julie Chen Moonves specifically stated the four banished houseguests were out of the game for now. This is the same thing as a regular eviction (or banishment from the inaugural season). 9March2019 (talk) 12:30, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Option 3: Jumping on the non-existent Option 3 bandwagon simply because I think there has to be some way of differentiating between evicted and banished. I think they purposely used banished to show that David was eliminated but not evicted per se as he's still living in the house via camp comeback. After camp comeback ends, I believe that's when "evictions" begin. Jr0929 (talk) 14:47, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Canadian ratings
There's no reason why this season of Big Brother should have Canadian ratings when none of the past 20 seasons do. These Canadians ratings are by no means "particularily notable" (per MOS:TVRECEPTION) to be included. - Brojam (talk) 03:16, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well none of the past 20 seasons have them but that doesn't mean anything. We didn't start adding episode tables until the either BB19 or CBB1 (can't remember for sure) but prior to that the seasons before didn't have them and it didn't stop us. They actually didn't have them until a year later when I went back and added them. But we started including the Canadian ratings on CBB2 so the last broadcast season actually does in fact have them and have had them since January if you wanna go check it out. Each episode in Canada so far broadcast that we have data for has been seen by over a million viewers and has ranked within the top 6 out of 30 programs broadcast. I'd call that notable? The Doctor Who  (talk) 03:22, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Even the most popular American television shows in Canada like The Big Bang Theory (#1) and The Good Doctor (#2), with close to triple the viewers of Big Brother, don't include separate ratings tables because at the end of the day, it's still not really notable. It's just adding a huge additional table for no reason. If the ratings as a whole of the season are that notable, then a couple sentences noting this fact and their overall season ranking in Canada will do. - Brojam (talk) 03:30, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * According to Numeris (example), the most watched TV shows in Canada only get a couple hundred thousand more viewers, not triple the amount like you claim. Jayab314  03:36, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * During the season . - Brojam (talk) 03:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There's two differences in the example you provided and now, one is the time, it's summer and television ratings are always lower in the summer vs. the main broadcast season because not as many series produce new content. Secondly I'm gonna point out the network difference, the two shows you mentioned are broadcast on CTV while Big Brother is broadcast on Gloabal. If you look at this past weeks ratings again the three Big Brother episodes broadcast were the top three programs on Global for the entire week (in other words, from rank number 6 and up only three of the programs broadcast are from Global all of which are Big Brother). I'd call that notable but I guess it's a difference of opinion.  The Doctor Who  (talk) 04:08, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * When I see an article from country A that has ratings and viewership information from country B that always seems strange to me. To me, we either follow what MOS:TVRECEPTION says and keep it to the primary country, or allow ratings for all countries. The problem is when we start to pick and choose which countries have the right to appear, which is completely biased (even if the selection is "English speaking countries"). Now while this scenario has I'm sure less countries that actually broadcast this show, the same argument holds in my opinion. --Gonnym (talk) 06:45, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Once again I see no problem with it, MOS:TVRECEPTION clearly says ratings from another country should not be included UNLESS they're notable. I suppose it's just a difference of opinion on what is or isn't notable but I personally consider the series being the top three programs broadcast on a singular network in one week notable. The Doctor Who  (talk) 07:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I could be mistaken but I think for things like this it comes down to local consensus on the page right? If you look through the various Amazing Race season pages people used to track the Canadian ratings but stopped doing it after Season 28(We're on 31 now). If Canadian ratings were tracked anywhere but season pages for shows I would object to them too. But if people want to make the effort to update them weekly for the Big Brother page I don't see the harm. It's also worth remembering that Canadian ratings are Live+7, they're not Live + Same Day. Which is why they come out much later. Esuka (talk) 13:39, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

House Photo
Just a heads up the House photo is up for deletion. I've contested the deletion so hopefully we don't lose it. The Doctor Who (talk) 20:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Files for discussion/2019 July 18
You are invited to join the discussion at. The Doctor Who (talk) 02:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Post-Camp Comeback
Multiple times on the show, Julie said that the losers would officially be evicted, meaning that they were all evicted on Day 30. We can discuss that, but keep David's row saying Evicted since Julie said they were all evicted. Jayab314 02:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * They've all been officially evicted since their original eviction. I think a better way to phrase it is that those who didn't win their way back in "remained evicted" so I still think the original days should be used since there was no re-eviction process. I could make a compromise and would be fine with keeping David's row as Evicted but only post-camp comeback, it should still stay banished pre-camp comeback. The Doctor Who  (talk) 02:13, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, "Remained evicted" sounds good, and I'm all for David's row saying Banished before the Camp Comeback. I'll go ahead and do it. Jayab314  02:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds good!  The Doctor Who  (talk) 02:17, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Under the "Houseguests" part of the article, should it say that David is Evicted or Banished? HelpfulHondaPerson (talk) 04:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Since he didn't re-enter the house it should remain as banished? Day 1 is still shown as his exit day so the result should be what happened to him on Day 1. The Doctor Who  (talk) 04:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Alright cool, just wanted to bring it up as it seemed relevant. Thanks! HelpfulHondaPerson (talk) 04:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It was, thanks for bringing it up! (wow I use that tl way too much)  The Doctor Who  (talk) 04:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

In regards to Cliff with week 3
The final result for the week is him being nominated, not entering camp comeback. He did not enter Camp Comeback the same week as Kemi. For reference, look at Ovi, Kemi, and David. It does not have them entering Camp Comeback the weeks they were nominated. The final results were them being nominated. Even looking at past seasons, when a house guest was evicted and immediately brought back into the game (bb17 John and bb18 Victor), there results were left as nominated, not evicted. It should not be different in this case. Nationalweatherman (talk) 06:23, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * He entered Camp Comeback prior to the HoH comp though which means as far a Week 3 goes he was still in Camp Comeback even if it was for less than half an hour. Therefore his final result for the week would be Camp Comeback. If someone gets nominated but then removed via veto we remove the nomination because they're no longer nominated. So just as that is updated this should be too. The Doctor Who  (talk) 06:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Doesn't the week end with the eviction? As opposed to the start of the next HOH? I would think that's why we put their results as nominated as opposed to evicted under the week they were evicted.Nationalweatherman (talk) 06:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this is a gray area and that arguments could be made both ways. For example, with a Double Eviction. After the first eviction a new week doesn't start, it's still the same week through the second HoH's run. The Doctor Who  (talk) 06:38, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay but it's still the same concept with a double eviction. A better word would've been cycle. The previous cycle (I believe) ends at the eviction. Everything after that is the start of the next cycle.Nationalweatherman (talk) 06:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Let me try rephrasing myself, it often takes me a bit to get my point across lol. The biggest thing I want to illustrate here is that he was in Camp Comeback at one point. I tried this version earlier but it got reverted. I think the thing that would most satisfy everyone is that if we illustrate that he was both Nominated and in Camp Comeback as I tried to do there. Thoughts? The Doctor Who  (talk) 06:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That would be better than the way it is now, cause right now just putting the camp comeback tag has the implication that he wasn't a participant in week three. Although I would perfer to see it just say nominated because I hold the belief that the moment he entered camp comeback was the start of week 4.Nationalweatherman (talk) 07:19, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem with that is that I believe Camp Comeback at some point for Cliff needs to be represented and as Cliff is the HoH in Week 4 we can't add it there. The Doctor Who  (talk) 07:27, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

How is this table? It shows Cliff was nominated and evicted, entered Camp Comeback, and immediately won re-entry. I prefer this over the previous split, but we could run into trouble trying to fit the entire table on the page like in BB19.

Also the placement for the other HouseGuests (“like Kemi's is for week 3 and Ovi's and David's is for week 2“) is because they were evicted the week prior. (Kemi in Week 2, Ovi and David’s in Week 1). There was no room for a Camp Comeback cell in Week 4, since the competition was in Week 3, so the table either has to stay like it is now, or eliminate the Nominated cell and keep the Camp Comeback cell there, combining the Day 24 and Day 30 columns. Jayab314 19:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that additional column is necessary since the Camp Comeback competition was a short post-eviction event within the same HOH reign. 9March2019 (talk) 16:57, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That's what I said before, but people have been saying there should be a way to show Cliff was nominated, evicted, then re-enter (not in the eviction row). This is the best way to do it, but I still think leaving Cliff's box as saying "Camp Comeback" with no box saying "Nominated" is the best option. Jayab314  16:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think that Cliff really needs to be represented as in camp comeback. I honestly think it's unnessecary to put him on the table. We could make a note at the bottom saying that when he was evicted he was in camp comeback and won reentry. Putting it on the table is just confusing.Nationalweatherman (talk) 18:45, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it’s good to mention him being in Camp Comeback since everyone else was, too. There is already a note for the table saying he re-entered, too. Jayab314  18:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Like I said before, the final result for the week was him being nominated. Regardless of whether or not he was in camp comeback, that was the final result. So if we're putting a thing that says he was in camp comeback (which I don't agree with doing), at the very least it should be put in week four, just like Kemi's is for week 3 and Ovi's and David's is for week 2.Nationalweatherman (talk) 18:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There’s no refuting that Camp Comeback should be in the voting table, but there are pleas to add the Nominated cell in (which I went ahead and did). As for which week it’s in, it was done before the HoH competition, so it falls under Week 3. Jayab314  19:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree about the week Camp Comeback was in, but I do like it better the way it is now than it was before, because (to me) it more accurately reflects what happened.Nationalweatherman (talk) 20:49, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed it looks best now than either of the other ways and that it most accurately reflects what happened. Although I also agree the extra column is unnecessary I think this is going to be the version that most satisfies everyone unless someone has a better way to represent both nomination and Camp Comeback? The Doctor Who  (talk) 21:03, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There's already a separate table for the Camp Comeback houseguests and the notes summarize that information, so no need to have that extra column. 9March2019 (talk) 18:16, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Both Nominated and Camp Comeback need to be represented for Cliff in Week 3. The Doctor Who  (talk) 21:04, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * But Nominated and Evicted weren't represented for Johnny Mac's return in BB17 and Victor's 2nd return in BB18, so either those need to change or this one needs to change.68.114.61.15 (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Adding to Jackson's derogatory actions sub-section
According to, which is the 83rd source on the main article, there could have been another side of the story (which I personally thought of as well, even before reading the section and its articles), regarding the fact that the four banished houseguests might have been picked for certain reasons other than race, ethnicity or age; Kemi was picked due to her lack of conversation with Jackson, and the other three (Ovi, Cliff and David) were picked because they competed against him for the role of Camp Director. Can we possibly add this to the article? Because right now, the story seems a little one-sided. Honestly, I could probably do it myself, but I wanted others' opinion first. BenevolentBeast (talk) 17:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and add that. I remember Kemi or someone saying that Kemi actually did go and talk to him, but CBS wanted to make it not seem racist. I also don’t remember Ovi or Cliff competing for votes to be Camp Counselor. When I find sources for that, I will add them. For now, you can add how there might’ve been another side to the banishment decision. Jayab314  17:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll add it. For the Kemi thing: there was a diary room scene where she said that "she didn't feel the need to talk to him" or something like that on episode 1/2, but I'm not completely sure if they edited anything out, because the live feeds started after the 2-night premiere. As for Ovi and Cliff, during the part where all 16 were asked if they wanted to volunteer to become Camp Director, they stood up, along with David and Jackson. But yea, I'll try to find some source for that as well. BenevolentBeast (talk) 21:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Am I the only one who thinks it’s unnecessary to mention these particular contestants names in the subsection title? The controversial instances would be mentioned regardless (I do think it would appear to any viewer or non-viewer as somewhat biased against both players. I’m not a fan of either of them to be honest, but this whole section feels a bit like a personal attack. I haven’t changed anything, and I understand how difficult it is to make content for wiki pages, but I just don’t know if this is the appropriate route to go down. Thoughts? MickPhil (talk) 17:07, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Since it is a controversy section, it’s there to explain why certain actions by specific HouseGuests could be considered racist, sexist, etc. by fans and viewers of the show. I don’t see it as a “personal attack” since it never actually talks about the HouseGuests in a bad way; it explains the actions and statements of certain HouseGuests and offers a reason why they said those things (of course with sources to support those claims). Jayab314  17:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand. My only point was I didn’t think it was necessary to mention their names and single them out by name IN the subtitle. Their actions and statements would be mentioned under “Controversies” so the wording of the subtitle itself shows bias in my opinion. In addition to that, the season isn’t even over yet, so we have no clue if other houseguests will make controversial statements going forward. If that is the case, would their names be added and it would be subtitled “Jackson, Jack, and X’s Controversial and Derogatory Statements...” If in the text one were to write something along the lines of “they said this and this, which many found derogatory, sexist, racist, etc,” and then obviously with the provided source. Instead, the subtitle itself is declaring these statements to be derogatory therefore showing bias. (They we’re derogatory, I’m just saying from an editorial standpoint). I also think there should be a greater distinction and less lumping of the 2 (Jack and Jackson/Michie) together. Jack made comments that are clearly racist whether that was his intention or not. But Michie picking 4 players (1 older white male, 3 minority players) and people seeing that as discriminatory is a different scenario. To me, that is a matter of perception. I see that it is stated many “saw this as racist...” which is good because it shows that it’s just how some view it. My point in regards to Jackson is how that scenario is being lumped together as being equivalent to Jack’s comments with the current subtitle. I hope I haven’t come off as rude, I just wanted to provide some constructive criticism and give my opinion on the matter. MickPhil (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I get your point; to me, though it doesn't attack anyone personally, it emphasizes the actions of two houseguests when others have made other controversies themselves, which in a way shows some bias. My solutions would be: to rename the section "possible derogatory actions" (or something along those lines, so that we don't mention any HouseGuest name on the title); or the 2nd option is to have no subsections, and to leave all controversies under one full section. But, I guess we can just go back to this after the show is done and make final changes as we best see fit. BenevolentBeast (talk) 20:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Promotional photo
User:Drmies removed the. He explained in his summary that the photo is unimportant, does not pertain to anything in the article, and is purely trivial. I undid his revision and explained in my summary that it was used for interviews and card prompts during the season. Since the section it's located in describes the development of the season, I believe the photo should still be included in the article. Drmies undid my revision. I wanted to open up a discussion about the photo instead of entering a potential edit-warring scenario. Jayab314 02:28, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Glad you didn't revert. We use images to illustrate what is being said or explained in the text; they are to help the reader understand the text. So if there's nothing in the text that relates to that logo, the logo has no function. Drmies (talk) 02:30, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , that's not very mature behavior. Drmies (talk) 02:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Reinstating a bold edit that someone else already reverted isn't very mature behavior** but that's beside the point. WP:BRD is actually a thing you know. ;) Anyways I don't have a problem with it I like it in the development section as it was used during the development of the season. It's been here for a while and no one else seems to have a problem with it. The Doctor Who  (talk) 02:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


 * It's an essay. You may like that picture; that's fine--Wikia is more lax. It is not in line with our guidelines, and that no one has noticed that yet is sad. I hope that the GAs in this area have been more carefully scrutinized. Drmies (talk) 02:56, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Who said anything about Wikia? We're discussing the images inclusion in this article, it has nothing to do with Wikia. Considering a number of sources about the development are from press releases I think the photo fits there perfect. By your logic of saying that we use images to illustrate what is being said or explained in the text you could say that the HG photo doesn't belong on that page because the text in that article doesn't describe what the HouseGuests look like. The Doctor Who  (talk) 03:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Please stick to one form of indenting, to ease access for screen readers--thank you. I meantioned Wikia because that is a site for fans, and that seems to be what we have here. That a logo would be appropriate because there were press releases is no logic at all. Pictures of house guests illustrate the house guests (I'm sorry, but that seems kind of obvious); a logo illustrates the visual means with which a company or product is identified--which has nothing to do whatsoever with news about an upcoming show. Looking at the text makes this even weaker. There are no press releases cited or linked to; the only primary thing for CBS is this, which has a different logo. There's a few links to Kassting--and perhaps this is a good moment to point you to WP:SECONDARY. If you can't source it to a secondary source it probably shouldn't be in the article, and on that note, you may want to consider that if you have to source information to things like this, it's information for fans only. Finally, while you're reconsidering the paragraph as a whole, please change "featured an initial time slot change" to something different, something less verbose with a more correct verb. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 14:55, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Talk page guidelines actually suggests removing bullet points from discussions that aren't consensus polls or RfC's and also says that colons are the generally used form of indention so if you wanna use bullet points by all means go for it but I don't really like them in a discussion like this. Back to the discussion... I can keep making arguments off of your logic pictures of house guests illustrate the house guests, well this image illustrate the development of the season? If you must know this is an official press release (which uses the image in question) and all of these, , , , use the press release (or other official releases) as the basis for their information. As for the source that you said makes important to fans only, that website has proven itself reliable and has been used in at least the last two celebrity seasons and last three main edition seasons that I know of, (and as a side note it also uses base information from official CBS sources) so I don't necessarily see a problem with the way it's being used. WP:PRIMARY says Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. so the Kassting source should be fine as no interpretations are made here, it explicitly says everything that is written in the article. Thanks  The Doctor Who  (talk) 07:12, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Week sequence order?
The title probably doesn't make sense, but according to this video, which was posted by the official Big Brother account (at 0:07), it says that Kathryn was evicted on Week 8. On the article, it says that she was evicted on the 7th week. Maybe we should change how the first week is organized? Cuz it does make sense that she was evicted on the 8th week (Day 58 divided by 7 ≈ 8). Thoughts? BenevolentBeast (talk) 23:04, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Edit: This video with Jack (at 0:07) also says that he was evicted on Week 8. I'm not sure which video has a typo now, but I'm pretty sure we should still change it, as there are 99 days, which when divided by 7, makes 14 weeks (and 1 extra day), not 13. BenevolentBeast (talk) 23:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Weeks are defined as the Eviction/Head of Household competition to next Eviction (except for double and triple evictions) and don't always equal seven days. For the past few seasons, the first official week has lasted over fourteen days. This shouldn't be changed. Jayab314  23:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks for the feedback. BenevolentBeast (talk) 00:10, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

America's Prankster
Regarding the voting history table, I think removing the America's Prankster box on Nick's voting line is unecessary and makes the table look funky. Everything can be easily explained in the notes section below the table. Thoughts? NintendoGeek (talk) 07:08, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, everything can be easily explained in the notes section. Adding the box in Nick's section makes the table look off. The prankster also has nothing to do with voting so I don't know why it was ever added. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 07:09, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I did add the background prematurely as it might or might not have affected the voting, but since it now doesn't, I agree with the above. I don't think the America's Prankster box is necessary. Jayab314  16:02, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It can be removed if needed. I originally added as it is now because it was added to the HoH column where it definitely doesn't belong. Not necessarily sure that because it makes the table make funky is a valid reason to remove it because if it was needed in the table that'd be where it belongs. The reason to remove would be because it doesn't affect voting which I'm fine with. The Doctor Who  (talk) 16:42, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Majority consensus seem to be against it, sorry. Miss HollyJ (talk) 23:56, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Removal of Have-Nots table
Since this season only included Have-Nots for two weeks and there were barely any mentions of it on air, I believe there is no point in having the table for this season. Instead, the names should be listed within the Episodes section for the corresponding weeks. 9March2019 (talk) 00:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you please explain how the Have-Nots would be listed in the episodes table? Jayab314  00:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The names of the Have-Nots would be listed after the Head of Household list item, as previously done in Celebrity Big Brother. 9March2019 (talk) 01:29, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅. Jayab314  02:22, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Switching Jackson to Michie
Since Episode 2, in all promotional material, Jackson is referred to as Michie, including confessionals, competition tags, and even on his jury vote keys. Should this be reflected in the voting history and everywhere else on the page? We did a similar thing for Sam Bledsoe when she became referred to as Sam over Samanatha by production. Thoughts? 71.13.46.52 (talk) 15:16, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Michie is his last name, not just a nickname, so no. Even it was was just a nickname, we go by what the chyron says, but sometimes we make exceptions (for example Samantha being called Sam). Jayab314  15:42, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * His chyron was Michie then, no? Ever since Episode 2, he's been referred to as Michie in every on-screen text, whether as his tag in diary room sessions, in competitions, and in jury keys. 71.13.46.52 (talk) 06:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As stated before, Michie is his last name, not a nickname. There have been instances before where the HouseGuests called someone a different name (the most recent one I remember is Kiera to Kiki and Estefania to Este in Big Brother Canada (season 7)), but those were never changed to their nicknames because they were never used in the chyron. The same thing goes here, yeah the HouseGuests called his name Michie, but the cast list, the voting website, and even the keys the jury used to vote for who to win all said Jackson on it. Julie only used Michie (sometimes) as to not confuse the HouseGuests. Jayab314  10:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * https://www.instagram.com/p/B24xt6ggsKt/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link https://mk0bigbrotherne6mq1r.kinstacdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/bb21-finale-votes-03.jpg https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/bigbrother/images/4/45/Jackson_New_Chyron.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20190627071325 https://www.cbs.com/shows/big_brother/video/FYI8nIE0yXIlnxdiUYZAmm__NYP_8Ols/big-brother-episode-39/ (3:45 Timestamp) His DR chyron has referred to him as Michie since Episode 2, the jury keys 100% referred to him as Michie, and in competitions, his name on the front of his booths and even on the screens where they reveal each houseguests' time for the competitions referred to him as Michie. I completely understand that Michie is his last name, and that we don't edit in people's nicknames (such as referring to Kathryn as Kat or Analyse as Sis), but I believe this is a different case. I mean no disrespect in this, but much of the evidence you provided were not accurate whatsoever; I've provided photographic proof above. 131.212.128.116 (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What the IP editor is saying is that Michie was used as Jackson's chyron. His jury votes also said "Michie" instead of "Jackson". { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 15:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand, but players who have had their names in the chyron, like Kiera and Estefania previously mentioned, didn’t have their nicknames added and their names changed. Also, I must reiterate that Michie is simply Jackson’s last name and is not a nickname per say. If it were to be added, his name would be shown as Jackson “Michie” Michie which doesn’t make sense. Since Wikipedia usually uses last names when talking about people (outside of the episode summaries), then this isn’t really an issue. The Big Brother audience knows that Jackson is Michie and that Michie is Jackson, so I don’t see if it makes a difference anyway. Pinging, , , and just to get more opinions.


 * Support The reason behind this is to avoid confusion with another houseguest with a similar name. Given that the name "Michie" was used throughout the season within narration, competitions, diary room sessions, and the Jury's keys, we should make the switch. 9March2019 (talk) 19:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * How would you go about changing the name in the HouseGuest table? Keep it as it is or change it to Jackson “Michie” Michie? Jayab314  20:47, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep it as it is; quoted names are reserved for nicknames/alternate names. Here, Jackson was referred to by his last name so as not to be confused with another houseguest with a similar name. 9March2019 (talk) 01:04, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

✅. Jayab314  23:10, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Format
So when are we going to "merge" Alucard 16's sandbox into this article? I would prefer as soon as possible. Jayab 314  00:11, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it's fine to go ahead with it now. — Bilorv ( talk ) 00:17, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅. If I missed anything, please fix it. Also, I will start working on making the Controversies section more consice once I have time (probably tomorrow evening or Saturday). Jayab  314  01:17, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for these changes. — Bilorv ( talk ) 11:29, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I just cut down the controversies section and was wondering if you could take a look at it to see if it's good or if it needs to be cut down more. I tried to keep only the relevant information, but it is a lot since many of these controversies were brought up during live shows, especially the finale where the affected HouseGuests got a chance to speak about them. Jayab  314  14:28, 12 October 2019 (UTC)