Talk:Big Brother 21 (American season)/Archive 1

Logo
Would it be possible to use the new logo for BB21 instead of a promotional image? Jayab314 17:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Which logo are you referring to? The Doctor Who  (talk) 19:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Pinging to above response.  The Doctor Who  (talk) 20:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't know how to link to an image but this is the link: https://i.imgur.com/KqANbGq.png
 * Not sure whether it's an official logo or just another promotional image for the season since it's generally included in primarily releases. Although if we think it's a better suited image for the article I don't really have a problem with it being in the infobox instead. Pinging a few other editors who generally have good input on things like this for their opinion.  The Doctor Who  (talk) 23:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The official logo of 21 is the pink house, located here: https://wwwimage-secure.cbsstatic.com/base/files/blog/29f446c0fb0ce865_bb21_logo_hed.jpg.  P37307 (talk) 01:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Can we use that as the image in the infobox instead of the promotional image? Jayab314  1:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I have no objections. The Doctor Who (talk) 01:29, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no objections. I was merely pointing out what they were going with this year. :) P37307 (talk) 02:23, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * For now, we can use the promotional image; then we can use the official digital art. 9March2019 (talk) 02:21, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Can we go ahead and change it? I would, but honestly I wouldn't know how to do it without getting it deleted for copyright reasons. Jayab314  14:06, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I for that. The image I linked earlier is from their official artwork. https://wwwimage-secure.cbsstatic.com/base/files/blog/29f446c0fb0ce865_bb21_logo_hed.jpg P37307 (talk) 14:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep I'll take care of it in a bit. I also noticed that the logo was on the question card Jeff was holding during interviews. The Doctor Who  (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Uploading it now. It's also the official logo per CBS Press Express which is the version I downloaded.  The Doctor Who  (talk) 23:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ The Doctor Who  (talk) 23:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Jessica's age
Jessica is approximately 38 years old. She was in the Lane Tech High School class of 1999. Scroll down this page a little bit and there's a picture of her and she's tagged in a post. https://b-m.facebook.com/Lane-Tech-High-School-Class-of-1999-10-Year-Reunion-60314896107/ 216.67.8.23 (talk) 08:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't change it until a reputable and reliable source says her age, or until she says it on the show/live feeds. Jayab314  13:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * She was in a half-marathon in February (https://www.instagram.com/p/BuQmU8Eh_DH/). By looking up her bib number she has in that photo, you can find that she listed her age as 37 for the race (https://www.trackshackresults.com/disneysports/results/pr/pr19/hm_results.php?Link=92&Type=1&Bib=13949). She has said that October is her birthday month so she should still be 37. (https://www.facebook.com/JessicaMilagrosPlus/photos/its-my-birthday-month-im-excited-because-im-learning-to-love-myself-more-and-mor/1197506480325101/) 65.74.61.174 (talk) 18:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Be careful about using social media for research as people can provide false information (like Jaelynn Watterson did a few years ago). 9March2019 (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * None of this info was meant to public though. A high school classmate revealed her graduating year and school, and she probably didn't expect that people would be able to look up her age through her race bib number; the combination of the two items is pretty convincing. If her saying her age on the live feeds would be accepted as reliable, then I don't see why her listed age for the race wouldn't be just as reliable to at least list her as ~37, but I'm no expert on Wikipedia Big Brother standards. 216.67.30.106 (talk) 05:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

House Image
I was considering uploading an image from the house, just having trouble deciding which would be the best image. I was mostly thinking either this one or this one but if anyone thinks a different one would be better suited there are more images here and here. Thoughts. The Doctor Who (talk) 20:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If I were to choose between the two, I would say the second one. However, I do also like this one. Jayab314  01:00, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Sidebar House Guests
Will we not be having the house guests and their color coded status in the sidebar at the top of the page like previous years? Andrewc248 (talk) 22:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No, the templates for that were deleted and replaced with Template:Infobox reality competition season. (See the full discussion here) Jayab314  00:09, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * For an additional discussion this link here is the discussion that took place at WP:TFD. The Doctor Who  (talk) 00:12, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That's really disappointing to see that 20+ seasons of tradition being undone by non-bigbrother wikipedia people. Andrewc248 (talk) 00:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It's important to note that many people who participated in the discussions are active contributors to Big Brother articles or are members of the Big Brother WikiProject. I myself supported to get rid of the old sidebar which in my opinion had long outlived its purpose. The Doctor Who  (talk) 00:25, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Day 1 Eviction
If we get news of an eviction on Day 1 or 2 on the premiere tonight, but don't actually know who is evicted until tomorrow, would it be safe to put David down as evicted tonight? Jayab314 14:12, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it's only speculation for now. 9March2019 (talk) 15:28, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I concur with it likely won't be confirmed until the second night if it did happen. The Doctor Who  (talk) 18:54, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Well there's going to be a sneak peak on the feeds at 5PM ET (in half an hour), so we'll see if they say anything about it. Jayab314  20:33, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I missed that information. It'll be interesting to see, I always love sneak peeks. Where did you find that out? The Doctor Who  (talk) 20:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I found it here. Jayab314  20:44, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Alright thanks, hopefully it turns out to be true! The Doctor Who  (talk) 20:46, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Big Brother just tweeted about the feed leak here. Jayab314 20:49, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * David seems to be missing. Jayab314  21:11, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm still gonna say to hold off on adding him as evicted. Although it seems safe to assume he's gone they still haven't showed the memory wall or other rooms in the house (HoH, third bedroom, downstairs lounge, backyard, etc.) to prove that he's nowhere in the house. He could also be in the DR or move rooms in the time they change cameras. So unless they show the memory wall I'd say wait. The Doctor Who  (talk) 21:17, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll create a sandbox of the voting table if David was evicted, so if it is confirmed on tonight's episode that a night one eviction will take place, use my sandbox for the voting table. Jayab314  21:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Click here to see the voting history tables if David was evicted from a vote, evicted from a competition, or expelled. Jayab314  21:45, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks good!  The Doctor Who  (talk) 21:54, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Following episode 1
So although not an eviction four people are going out by a sole vote to banish, we'll probably need to discuss an voting history table to represent this. I'll draft something up real quick and drop it here to see what people think. The Doctor Who (talk) 01:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Based on the nature of the Camp Director twist, this will end with an eviction by competition. 9March2019 (talk) 01:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Was there something else I missed? We haven't confirmed David as gone? The Doctor Who  (talk) 01:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * As per the feed leak, David was the only one not seen during the leak. Jayab314  01:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * As I said before he could've been in a room not shown or in the diary room? The Doctor Who  (talk) 01:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * But since the premiere was filmed during move in on Day 1, and the feed leak showed the house on Day 7, then with everyone else accounted for, it is guarenteed that David lost the competition. Jayab314  01:14, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I am also open to discussing the voting history more if need be. Jayab314  01:14, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm still drafting up my proposed table I'll put it up here when I'm done and changes can be made if needed. The Doctor Who  (talk) 01:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Should his status in the HouseGuest table read "Evicted" or "Banished" Jayab314  04:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposed voting history chart
Alright, sorry it took me so long. Please note the names in the table below are just an example because we don't know for sure who was banished. Assuming it was David is WP:OR This is what I propose as the voting history table:

Discussion on above table
Thoughts? The Doctor Who (talk) 02:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "Banished" does not mean "Evicted" We clearly hear Julie say that a players' game comes to in end once they are evicted. Banished players don't even leave the house; they go to compete in a competition. The Second proposal is better. Ugla'a —Preceding undated comment added 17:43, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Please discuss your changes first then we can adjust the table above if agreed on. The Doctor Who  (talk) 02:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * David should not be listed as evicted under Christie's HoH. Jayab314  02:14, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * In that case this should work? The Doctor Who  (talk) 02:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. Jayab314  02:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There's no need to list the names David has banished as the four houseguests already have been assigned that status within the table. Just say he was the Camp Director. 9March2019 (talk) 02:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * How's that look? The Doctor Who  (talk) 02:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks great. 9March2019 (talk) 02:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * IMO, the voting table should look clean and appealing to the eye. Is there any way we can make the evicted row look better? Jayab314  02:27, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I made it look semi-better. Jayab314  02:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm gonna respectfully disagree. I set up the row based similar to a battle back because that's basically what it is. The Doctor Who  (talk) 02:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Honestly, this table is the best of the three, but where it says "Camp Director" for Jackson, it should be changed with the votes. He voted for them to be banish, even if he was the sole vote. It is the voting history table, not the status history. Jayab314  03:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I concur with the above. The Doctor Who  (talk) 05:02, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on table above

 * Opposing the above for now. As before banished people have officially left the house, they shouldn't use the same color as evicted. The fact they left and re-entered should be added in my opinion. The Doctor Who  (talk) 03:14, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * However, you could make the argument that this is a very differently formatted game compared to BB1, and since they never leave the house lot (I'm assuming), then a case could be made how this banishment is identical to the final four competition in BBOTT. Jayab314  03:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I support this table, where the "Banished" houseguests are treated like nominees. They're not "returning" to the game — they were never eliminated from it in the first place, and only the competition loser is denoted in the "Evicted" competition, because they are the only person evicted from the game. - Katanin (talk) 17:13, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I support this table is the most appealing to the eye and makes the most sense logically, as "banished" does not mean "evicted".

Discussion on table above
Here's another alternative, specifically to this caters to your concern of a cluttered evicted column. The Doctor Who (talk) 03:22, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Just seems very cluttered at the bottom in my opinion. Just because the houseguests were banished, doesn't mean they were sent out of the game. It's kinda like in BB18 when Corey, Glenn, Nicole, and Tiffany all competed to not get evicted. That was in my head when creating my chart. NintendoGeek (talk) 03:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Banished and evicted mean the same thing, though the former was only used in BB1: a houseguest officially left the house either by a vote or a competition. In this case, it's a vote by Jackson (the Camp Director) who chose four houseguests to banish and three of them would win re-entry by competition, while the fourth is out of the game. 9March2019 (talk) 03:40, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with, I don't think "banished" should be considered the same thing as "evicted". Yes, that was the word used in season one, but it makes no sense for them to suddenly return to that term --- they specifically knew that this was a different case from being outwardly evicted, otherwise they would've just said they were evicted. I don't think Cliff, Jessica, or Tommy should be stated as "returning" at all. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 03:43, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * So would the second proposed chart be a good option at this point? Perhaps episode 2 may change some thoughts on some things. NintendoGeek (talk) 03:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I support the second proposed chart, but as you said, who knows what episode 2 may change. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 03:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * For now, I have updated the chart on the page to the second proposed chart. After tomorrow we can come back and discuss further things. NintendoGeek (talk) 03:57, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I still disagree. A two person agreement by the way does NOT make this a consensus. So we can still keep discussing this, the phrase "choose to banish" was used not "choose to compete" Although they're not technically leaving the house they are out of the game and have to fight their way back in. Similar to a battle back. After viewing all three tables I personally agree with Jayab314 and think the first one in the best suited for the time being. The Doctor Who  (talk) 04:57, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Update
For now, I have added the first chart which has more support based on logical arguments, the only disagreers on that only had WP:IDONTLIKEIT-type arguments: I don't think "banished" should be considered the same thing as "evicted". Yes, that was the word used in season one, but it makes no sense for them to suddenly return to that term and Just seems very cluttered at the bottom in my opinion., etc. So until a wider more-official consensus can be reached the one with wider support at the time was added. I'll leave a message on the Wikiproject talk page in hope to get more discussion. The Doctor Who (talk) 05:15, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Also left notes at MOS:TV and WP:TV in hope to get more participants to the discussion. The Doctor Who (talk) 05:19, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I still believe David should be added as gone as there is literally no other HouseGuest that could've been gone. What I mean by that is if someone 100% got evicted from the house on Day 1 or 2, and there was only one person who wasn't seen on the live feed leak on Day SEVEN, then that one person would logically be the one who left the game. That person was David. Jayab314  11:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Final Thoughts

 * I support the second table, where the "Banished" houseguests are treated like nominees. They're not "returning" to the game — they were never eliminated from it in the first place, and only the competition loser is denoted in the "Evicted" competition, because they are the only person evicted from the game. - Katanin (talk) 17:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I am changing my vote to support the second table because I think "banished" does not mean "evicted" in this case. "Banished" was last used in season 1, which was a completely different game that season 2 and on. Banished should just mean nominated as they are not out of the game until they lose the competition. Jayab314  17:27, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I support the second table because those that are banished are still in the game until they lose the competion. The second table displays this information in a neat and organized way. Ugla'a (talk) 17:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Second table: If the four were considered the same as being evicted, then they would have said they were evicted. Being banished is clearly not the same as being evicted. There is no reason for them to revert to a BB1 word unless they did so to purposefully make it distinct from being evicted. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 18:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't care which table is used per se, just make sure to add that David's eviction (unless the 0.0001% chance of a magical apparent possible twist that adds him back into the house happens for whatever reason) was on Day 2 and not day 1. Aside from that, which table to use is all technicality based on both sides of the argument. I do see both sides in that the HG's banished that win the comp were never really evicted, though I recall Julie saying something about them fighting to get back into the game, so it's kinda vague and open for interpretation. I do think that it would be confusing to show all the banished people in the same color as the ultimately evicted houseguest unless we're treating it like a full on quad-eviction and battle back though. Also should probably mark the ultimately evicted houseguest as evicted rather than banished considering they'll be using "evicted" the rest of the season. In those facets, I like the second table but I'm still fuzzy on the "fighting to get back in the game"Jr0929 (talk) 19:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm waiting on the second episode to see how this plays out before making any concrete decision. However all the proposals are using too much color I made a an alternate version to the second proposal in my sandbox which for this twist reduces the number of colors down to one which looks a lot better and less cluttered.   Alucard 16  ❯❯❯ chat?    20:06, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm still going on the technicality that Julie said "get back into the game" not "compete to stay in the game" or something similar. But this seems like it's becoming a bigger issue than it needs to be so I took 's proposal and edited it a bit. It reduces the concern of too many colors (although still having some extra), it cleans up the bottom, and addresses very other issues. I think that it should be important to note that the HGs were not nominated but the term "banished" was used so the nominated color should not be used. Thoughts? The Doctor Who  (talk) 21:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)


 * It's all semantics at this point because of the whole banished vs evicted issue lol. I like it for the most part, though it'd be weird to have David be banished and everyone else for the rest of the game evicted. Thinking about the whole thing more, I think we could also interpret Julie's statement to mean that they're secluded from the others and are fighting to get back to them rather than evicted and fighting to get back into the house. I do think banished should definitely have a different color than nominated, but I also think there should be a clear distinction made between banished and evicted and that there should be a column marking all of the banished as banished and then the normal "Evicted (day 2)" thing that spans the rest of the table for David from the Christie HOH column to the end. In other words, the distinction to me is banished meaning secluded from the game vs evicted from the house if you get what I'm saying. End of the day, people are going to refer to David as the first person evicted from the house, not the first person banished. Big Brother could've made this a lot easier if they just stuck to common terms tbh. Jr0929 (talk) 21:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll go ahead and make that change as I agree, too. Jayab314  22:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with the above changes however if banished is used as he leaves instead of evicted it should say "Banished (Day 2)" instead of "Evicted (Day 2)" and the color should be orange. The Doctor Who  (talk) 23:47, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Since the camp director is immune for the entire first week why does Jackson need a separate color during the third round? Wouldn't the simplest thing to do is extend his camp director color over to the next cell as the notes explain what is going on? The yellow immune color should only be used for an instance where another color wouldn't fill a similar role.   Alucard 16  ❯❯❯ chat?    00:20, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Also based on how this twist is now playing out we don't need any extra colors the blue color normally used for "Nominated" can be used here but say "Banished" instead with the loser of the competition saying "Evicted" (Day 2)" with the normal red cell.   Alucard 16  ❯❯❯ chat?    00:24, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Well at the point Christie becomes HoH isn't the camp director twist over but extended immunity is given? I think yellow color should be used for immunity I don't care if red is used for banished it might actually look better? The Doctor Who  (talk) 00:34, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Part of the Camp Director power is the holder has this extended immunity. It is a similar circumstance to when the Coup d'État power is used the HoH has no influence but are immune from being nominated by the Coup d'État holder. The yellow color should be used when someone gets immunity not relating to any power or twist already identified by a color.   Alucard 16  ❯❯❯ chat?    00:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

After Episode 2
I'm starting to think again on my choice here. Julie said as soon as he makes his decision the competitors will be "out of the game"... The Doctor Who (talk) 00:09, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

See again, she said "fight to get back in". It's my understanding that once a houseguest is banished they're officially out until they win their way back in. I'm starting to lean back towards the first table? The Doctor Who (talk) 00:15, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I still lean towards the second table as I think she's only saying that to build suspense, but technically they aren't out of the game until they lose the competition. Jayab314  00:17, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

"You four have been banished from the Big Brother house and ARE NO LONGER IN THE GAME" - Julie Chen The Doctor Who  (talk) 00:18, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

well to be specific they are. Are you saying that with a battle back when a HouseGuest they are still in the game until they battle their way back five episodes later? This is no different The Doctor Who  (talk) 00:19, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Well what I'm saying is they never left the lot, or left the house even. They just moved to the backyard and immediately competed. But I do agree with changing it to the first table now since the competition aspect is almost the same thing as Kaitlyn's competition last year. Jayab314  00:25, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Alright let's just leave as is and edit the already existing table? The Doctor Who  (talk) 00:26, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I would say yes because the Camp Director twist is a whole new twist and format, so basing it off of other seasons is semi-irrelevant. Jayab314  00:28, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thoughts on the current table? The Doctor Who  (talk) 00:32, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I do think the four people leave, three people return is kinda cluttering the table. Simply saying David was evicted because he lost the competition would simplify that. Jayab314  00:36, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I do think that we've had more cluttered in the past and I also think that if there's any other re-entry later in the season it'll look fine? The Doctor Who  (talk) 00:41, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That is true... another re-enty is almost guarenteed this season with only 15 HouseGuests and 98 days. Jayab314  00:48, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Well Julie did tell David he is out... for now lol. I think this configuration for the table is the best however I would omit the "Day 2" until we can confirm this all happened on Day 2. If I'm not mistaken wasn't there two shows recorded on the first day they entered?   Alucard 16  ❯❯❯ chat?    00:52, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, both episodes were filmed on the same day. Per this it was on June 19 at 8 am and 4:30 pm, respectively. So in that case it should be changed to Day 1? The Doctor Who  (talk) 01:56, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes if it occurred on Day 1 it should be marked as Day 1. I know the Sunday episode should confirm the day.   Alucard 16  ❯❯❯ chat?    02:15, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I just thought about it some more and you're right. Another re-entry is almost grunted because not only are we at 15 HG's already but we usually also have one or two double evictions in a season. The Doctor Who  (talk) 05:30, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

The first table looks stupid - the players know that they can re-enter the game (as opposed to a regular eviction), so it essentially like being nominated. It's not evicted and re-entered. The second table looks less stupid.
 * Julie said multiple times during the premiere that the banished HouseGuests were banished from the game. Therefore, they were eliminated. Jayab314  02:10, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I can agree now that they can be considered out of the game, though it still sort of troubles me having banished and evicted being the same color and kinda being used interchangeably. Idk, I just feel like in the future when a houseguest gets evicted and we have banished and evicted in the same table, with the same essential purpose (in David's case at least), and same color, it will look weird and confuse the heck out of non-viewers. Definitely need to see what all these twists are to clarify some things.Jr0929 (talk) 03:42, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't it be Day 1, Day 2, and Day 7 under Week 1? For the last box, it's the day that the nominees were selected which was Day 7. NintendoGeek (talk) 14:30, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I also believe that the banishment competition probably occurred on day two, mostly because even though the premiere was filmed in two parts, they highly likely wouldn't do a black box and an endurance comp in front of a live audience, but it's kinda hard to say for sure without actual proof. Anyway, I just had a thought that maybe they used "Banished" instead of evicted for a reason due to some future twist, so maybe it was proper to have David labeled as Banished (Day __) rather than evicted for now? Really need to see what his involvement in next Wednesday's show entails to make an accurate judgement.Jr0929 (talk) 15:00, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I still think we should use the second option for several reasons: 1) light-blue background for non-elimination votes, a la season 14's coach vote and season 19's "vote to compete". 2) "Banishment" is not straight-up elimination. They weren't eliminated from the game, they were tapped to compete in a challenge to be eliminated. Move past the semantics and theatrics of the show — they weren't eliminated and this wasn't a battle-back. They were nominated for elimination and competed to not be eliminated. And even still, we don't know if David is for sure eliminated, or if it's a "fake eviction" like from Big Brother Canada (season 4), which didn't warrant the "salmon color with date". - Katanin (talk) 16:24, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * In regards to Big Brother 14 the color was justified as it was part of an America's Vote to allow the coaches to to accept or decline the offer. With Big Brother 19 there is no reason for the color as the note and lack of HoH, Veto, Nominations at the top are enough to differentiate the vote. The tables in recent years are becoming overtly cluttered and the use of colors are being used at the slightest possible twist. The original guidelines for these tables already allow for flexibility with existing colors in relation to this twist. The color for Nominated should be used for the 4 houseguests that were banished but with the text "Banished" instead of "Nominated" while David's status should be changed to "Evicted". Only Jackson, as Camp Director, should have a unique color for this twist to highlight his power was different than normal game mechanics.   Alucard 16  ❯❯❯ chat?    21:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I was also thinking there could be a BBCan4 type twist which would then give us the clear difference between banished and evicted. If/when that rolls around, banished should definitely be changed to a different color than the salmon color used for evictees(the orange was a fine choice). There's definitely something brewing. Jr0929 (talk) 18:27, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Big Brother Canada (season 4) is following an established consensus in relation to similar twists that were implemented in UK adaption (i.e. Series 5's Secret Bedsit and Series 7's House Next Door). The only difference was the public in the UK adapation was aware they were voting to move the Housemates to these secret areas while in BB Canada's case the Houseguests were unaware of the "Secret Suite" which is why in the evicted row it uses the color designated for fake evictions. This is not a twist like that in any way as there was no indication that David was moved to a secret area.   Alucard 16  ❯❯❯ chat?    21:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean, we have no idea where David was moved to or what's going to happen to him at the moment, it was simply speculation that it could possibly happen to be a similar style twist and that if it does happen, the colors should be changed. That's all. Jr0929 (talk) 22:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this format should be applied as it would be the one to best represent what occurred during the two-night season premiere. Most recaps or articles about the premiere are treating David as evicted with the Banishments essentially as they were nominated.   Alucard 16  ❯❯❯ chat?    21:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * My only problem with that is most recap articles are going to apply their own interpretation as to what went down. Shouldn't we use what officially happened and what was said? The Doctor Who  (talk) 23:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe the "banishment" being sounding as an "eviction" was just production playing it up to sound more serious. Jayab314  00:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think that matters though. They said what they said and that's what matters. If someone jumps out of a tree onto a trampoline they still jumped out of a tree, they didn't "just jump on a trampoline because the trampoline was there the whole time and the tree was just for dramatics" The Doctor Who  (talk) 00:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure what trampolines and trees have to do with it, but I think that we should not conflate banishment with eviction. The four contestants were not eliminated from the competition, and should not be treated as such. - Katanin (talk) 00:09, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It was an example. But Julie Chen specifically said the banished HouseGuests were "out of the game" so therefore they were eliminated. The Doctor Who  (talk) 00:11, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it's better to look at the funciton of the twist, rather than a couple of choice words from Julie. The funciton was "chose 4 to compete in a Sudden-Death Comp". It was worded as "your banished from Camp BB" to set up the competition, where the premiess was to return to "Camp BB". Not to mention how messy and overally complicated the current format of the tables are.
 * It's not overly complicated. It shows exactly what happened. But Julie said the houseguests were officially out of the game when they were banished. In both episodes 1 and 2 actually. It's important to represent that and this is the best way to do it. The Doctor Who  (talk) 02:10, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Cast pictures
I believe this discussion is necessary now that Template:Infobox reality competition season has replaced the traditional Big Brother sidebar on articles. This change thus altered the HouseGuests table that is featured on each article, adding more information and thus taking up more space. Previously, the cast picture would feature on the right of the table, and this was no issue because the table did not have enough information where they would conflict. However, now that the table has a lot more information and takes up a lot of room, this constricts the table and does not look pleasant. I propose moving the cast photo to the bottom of the table, both on the 21st season's article and all other Big Brother season articles where a cast photo and HGs table are featured. Big Brother 20 shows what the cast photo on the bottom would look like. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 20:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, in looks better under the HouseGuest table, but it doesn't necessarily have to be in that section. I think it would look better than both other options if it was placed under the sidebar where the old information was located before the infobox was changed. Jayab314  20:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Personally, I do believe the image should remain in the HouseGuests section. It is a picture of the HGs, and is used to illustrate who they are, so I don't know why it would be in a different section. However, I do believe that your suggestion is superior to keeping it where it is currently. That is the one option I just do not support at all. <b style="color: #AB2B2B;">{ [ ( jjj</b> <b style="color: #000000;">1238 ) ] }</b> 20:33, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm also going to bring up the idea of placing it in the center next to the contents. There's blank space there so it would be logical to fill it with a simple picture of the cast. Although, if the general consensus is that it should stay in the HG section, then I'm also fine with that. Jayab314  20:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Would it even be possible to place it next to the contents? Jayab314  20:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Let me suggest an alternative. Has anyone ever thought about moving the cast image to the main houseguest article? In otherwords hosting the image on List of Big Brother 21 (American season) houseguests rather than this article? The Doctor Who  (talk) 20:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I like TheDoctorWho's option the most as it would stop future conflicts about it. Jayab314  20:46, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I am 100% okay with that idea. <b style="color: #AB2B2B;">{ [ ( jjj</b> <b style="color: #000000;">1238 ) ] }</b> 22:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where this issue has come from the table auto scales depending on display. When viewing the article in fullscreen on a regular 1920x1080 display the table and image look just fine. Putting the image under the table causes a huge gap between the HouseGuest table and Episode section with a lot of unused white space that looks awful. I agree with TheDoctorWho's compromise as it seems like a better solution.   Alucard 16  ❯❯❯ chat?    05:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Public service announcement
While I don't believe a valid, long standing consensus can be established in less than 3 hours by 3 editors I'm not reverting this change unless there is a wider consensus to do so although I just had every right to do so because the fair use rationales for each image did not match the article they were being used on which caused a bot to remove them all. Even though I am against moving these images to the list of houseguest pages I went back and cleaned up the issue.

In general when moving a copyrighted image that requires a non-free use rationale aka FUR from one article to another it is paramount to update the respective FUR on the image in accordance with WP:NFCC. English Wikipedia currently has measures in place to ensure that implementation and enforcement of this policy is adhered to. One of the measures is which is tasked with checking the FUR on each image matches its corresponding article. If the bot finds an image where the FUR does not match the name of the article it is intended to be used on (WP:NFCC) or has an invalid rationale that doesn't meet WP:NFCC and WP:NFCC it will remove the image from the article and leave the reason why in the edit summary.

Once has removed an image another bot  will tag orphan non-free images for deletion. Once this tag is applied to an image an admin can delete the image anytime after a period of 7 days in accordance with policy. B-bot only notifies the original up loader that the (now-orphaned) image will be deleted not the editor who move the image to another page.

I managed to catch this in time and fixed the FURs on all 20 images (BB14 cast doesn't have an image) and restored the respective images back to their respective "List of Big Brother # (American season) houseguests" pages. B-bot at this point only tagged 2 images which would have been deleted after July 6th. In theory if I had wanted to I could have just restored all the cast photos back to the main articles and used the reasoning for invalid FUR as justification. I'm not sure who went ahead and moved all the images as I wasn't paying attention but please in general, in the future when you move a copyrighted image with a FUR from one article to another update its FUR otherwise the image could possibly be deleted.   Alucard 16  ❯❯❯ chat?    20:28, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Infobox image
Stop reverting the image used in the infobox. This image CBS is using everywhere except in the broadcast episodes is not the official logo. It is a logo their advertising department creates to market the show. The logo that is used on the episodes themselves is the official logo. In any case this image you keep insisting on using does not adhere to MOS:TVIMAGE which clearly states "For season articles, a season-specific promotional poster or home media cover should be used, or possibly a season-specific title card if one exists." Since a season specific title card exists and is not a duplicate of the title card used for Seasons 16-20 as per guidelines it should be used instead. If you feel the image from the press release should be used and there is a valid reason to override MOS:TVIMAGE then discuss it here.   Alucard 16  ❯❯❯ chat?    02:36, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Jackson Michie
Should we start a Controversy section? Multiple news sites have written about Jackson's "racist and ageist" banishment selections and Jack's racist remarks. (see here, here, and here) Jayab314  02:02, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's discuss the validity of the sources claiming Jackson's controversial banishment selections and then decide whether to include the info in the section. 9March2019 (talk) 04:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

More articles have been written (see here, here, and here) Jayab314  23:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Remember, not all articles are from reliable sources; we must be careful about that. 9March2019 (talk) 01:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, but with the notable ammount of articles, I believe it should at least be mentioned. I'll try to find a notable source. Are Newsweek and Yahoo News notable at all? Jayab314  01:07, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yahoo articles tend to be unreliable sometimes. 9March2019 (talk) 02:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * So many of these articles seem to be just about Twitter outrage which I'm not sure is necessarily important enough. <b style="color: #AB2B2B;">{ [ ( jjj</b> <b style="color: #000000;">1238 ) ] }</b> 03:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * At most this would be notable as part of a "Reception" section and the viewing figures can be subsections of the Reception section. However it should remain neutral in tone and in this instance it shouldn't be very big for this particular topic.   Alucard 16  ❯❯❯ chat?    12:13, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Another thing to point out is the allegations could turn out to be completely false (innocent verdict) or just insufficient to prove them true (not guilty verdict). The former was the case in BB17, when Jeff was accused of sexually harassing Julia when that was revealed to be false, while the latter may end up being the case for alleged discriminatory banishments by Jackson. Point is, don't be so quick to believe every source out there. 9March2019 (talk) 14:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to note that I do not believe that the banishment decisions were based on race or age, but just to bring up that there are some minor news sites talking about it. Jayab314  01:05, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I know, it's like accusing someone for racial profiling and it's hard to prove. 9March2019 (talk) 02:29, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * With the way the sources are written, at most we'd be able to write about how he was accused of racial profiling not that he actually profiled based on race unless there's a direct statement from him. So without that it's just all accusations at this point and we'd need to be careful writing about direct accusations for something so large with and little proof since it's directly related to a WP:BLP. The Doctor Who  (talk) 03:25, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That's why I suggested this be mentioned as part of "Reception" rather than a "Controversy". Using the term "Controversy" would give this undue weight, further sensationalize it and not make it neutral. Placing it under "Reception" would be better as it is pretty much pieces recapping fan reception so far. Controversy shouldn't be used unless one of them does something actually controversial during the live feeds (a la Celebrity Big Brother (British series 5) or Big Brother 15 (American season).   Alucard 16  ❯❯❯ chat?    19:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅. The Doctor Who  (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Jack Matthews
Although now that I'm looking at it, thoughts on this:, , ??? The Doctor Who (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Any incident where safety is compromised should definitely warrant inclusion, especially when it is of sexual nature. Here, Jack exhibits aggressive behavior towards Kemi, leading viewers to question whether this violent behavior also counts as racism. 9March2019 (talk) 23:46, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅. The Doctor Who  (talk) 21:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * (or others) Do you think the Matthews incident should stay in the critical response section or since it occurred on the live feeds does it warrant a move to a controversy section? The Doctor Who  (talk) 21:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Controversy and critical response sections should be within the reception section as bizarre events may explain the viewing figures data. 9March2019 (talk) 00:40, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * My question was what should be the header, critical response or controversy? The Doctor Who  (talk) 00:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I prefer critical response as the name sounds more neutral/balanced than controversy. 9March2019 (talk) 01:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Alright since that was the original header that was agreed on here on the talk page and it was changed without discussion I'll change it back for the time being. The Doctor Who  (talk) 01:48, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Whacktivity Comp
Are we going to include the whacktivity comp winner in the voting history table? NintendoGeek (talk) 01:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There's no reason to unless the power is played and has something to do with nominations, powers, votes, etc. Jayab314  01:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Ovi has the power to cancel out the two current nominees for the week within the next 6 nomination ceremonies.
 * When and if Ovi uses that power, there will be a note to report the event. Otherwise, keep that in a separate table for now (pending the reveal of the other two powers). 9March2019 (talk) 01:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)