Talk:Big Brother 9 (American season)/Archive 3

Voting History Table
Okay, due to Neil's departure the table was split back to normal. But when they evict one of the pairs I think we should have evicted couples like this (note this example reflects who I think will go it is just an example):

Example 1: In the event that Big Brother decides to bring back a past evictee that was evicted in a pair we could always split them back up if that were to happen. But by combining evicted pairs it eliminates double rows like this

Example 2: So which one do you guys think we should go with Example 1 or Example 2. I like Example 1 because it is simple. Example 2 makes it look like a double eviction. Example 1 fits with the couples idea better as well.  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  07:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I like Example 1.  Tommy/DippyDawg1932  08:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I like example 1. Atlantics88 (talk) 22:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Consistency matters; I prefer example two. If some of the housemates are going to be non-paired, all should be non-paired. It's easier to follow. Geoking 66 talk 23:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually I think the first one is easier to follow as it represents how the couples thing works. The second one looks like a double eviction happened. People who haven't been following this season would wonder why there are two people evicted on Day 14. The first example shows that a couple was evicted as one.  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  23:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I still like the second one. It just looks weird having some individually and some combined.  I like the fact that the names are colored.  can we think of any other way to show the pairs? - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * How about something like the example in my sandbox. I think that this way the couples can be easily identified while also maintaining the encyclopedic feel with black text. - zachinthebox (User • Talk) 00:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I like that! Easily identifiable.  - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Can't you just rowspan over the couple evicted? That way it is clear to the reader that they acted as a couple and allows for any splitting up that may happen down the line. Sea serpent 85 00:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's an option, but I think that it would be better to have everyone look the same, not some as couples with rowspans, and then some as indididuals - zachinthebox (User • Talk) 00:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and applied the table Zackinthebox suggested. When the eviction is revealed on the CBS broadcast I will keep the two evictees seperate.  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  00:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * When I posted the table on the main page I made a small adjustment to Neil and Jacob so it would look like they weren't a couple.  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  01:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ryan and Jen's Bathroom Sex
Should we mention Ryan and Jen's bathroom sex, since we felt it was groundbreaking enough to talk about Matt and Natalie's encounter?  Tommy/DippyDawg1932  08:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * A quick mention should be fine. Echoing the words of someone that sex is a rare thing on BBUSA. Plus I think you can even source it since it was shown during Tuesday's dismal episode.  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  21:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Rating updates
If you're going to put in ratings for a specific episode, please update the weekly, running, and series averages accordingly. It's confusing otherwise. Geoking 66 talk 23:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to update the ratings part so when I add the ratings I will comment out the section until it can be updated. (It is the x.x/x.x part I don't get)  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  06:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Voting History/Eviction
The live broadcast did not show how which couple voted. All we know is that three couples voted for Jen & Parker and one voted for Allison & Ryan. If we find out who voted for who we will update the table.  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  01:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Until we get a source about the votes I removed on the table that Adam & Shelia, Chelsia & James and Joshuah & Sharon voted for Jen & Parker. And that Matt & Natalie voted for Allison & Ryan until we have a source. (If I missed something during the broadcast please tell me.)  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  02:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Disregard this, Big Brother: After Dark's scroll update confirmed Matt & Natalie voted for Allison & Ryan.  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  06:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Slight reformation of couple listing
I was thinking about this, but instead of having a labyrinth of ampersands and sparsely written names, would it be better for the voting history table to have the votes in break and comma format, similar to the nominations look in BBUK and BBAU. For example: Whether or not putting in a comma after the first person in each box is debatable (I'm against it because it screws up centring). Geoking 66 talk 02:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I like that above. How do we know who voted for Allison & Ryan and Jen & Parker?  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  02:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I fixed it to look like BBUK and BBAU (no comma)  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  06:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Zachariah?
Could we have a citation for this?

"Zachariah Winters (born June 18, 1981) is a sales associate for a textile factory. He grew up in a suburb of Detroit, MI. He is supposedly sequestered from the rest of the houseguests. His Myspace hints that he will be a twist in the game." - Puck35 (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed it. It is probably a hoax. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I figured as much. Puck35 (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Supplying reliable sources with feed information
Okay, since we now have things like this and this, we need to do more to meet requests regarding sourcing the live feed information. Despite what is being said, the live feeds can always be verified, with a reliable source. We just need to do the work, find the source, and include it in the article as a inline citation.

We need to discuss which sites we can consider to be reliable sources. We cannot use Youtube videos of the live feeds, as CBS has copyrights on the live feeds, and they technically aren't allowed to be recorded in the first place. Don't ignore this thread; we have a problem here, as I said elsewhere, the major problem seems to be that people do not add sources when they add information coming from the feeds. Note: Template:cite episode and Template:cite web. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * We need to get a list of fan sites and other sites that are appropriate. Also if something happened during an episode of Big Brother: After Dark that can be properly sourced with Template:cite episode.  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  17:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point about After Dark. Actually, if during After Dark there is talk of something that happened, that should be acceptable. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * How are you going to use After Dark as a source. I just went over there ShowTime After Dark and it nothing more than a scrolling online chat. There is no way that can be cited. -- pete 17:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't say the website, I said the show. TV episodes are commonly cited (we even have a template, which I said above Template:cite episode). - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You guys are too technical... YT vids are perfectly fine, they show what the fuck happened. The Anti-Vandalism King (talk) 21:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I just want to remind everyone about being civil and Wikiquette  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  22:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That is incorrect. I am referring to videos of the live feeds on Youtube.  As far as I know, we cannot link to those.  See Copyrights (specifically the part that says: "However, if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work").  I am almost certain that the feeds are copyrighted. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What I don't get though, is - if we CAN use and cite an episode of After Dark, why can't we use and cite the live feeds? We don't have to link to anything with the After Dark feeds, do we?  Why can't we cite the live feeds and say "blah blah blah occurred on the live feeds on Tuesday, February 19, 2008 at 3:09 PM"?  Wouldn't this be the same as citing After Dark, according to Template:cite episode?  Tommy/DippyDawg1932  23:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * All sources must be available for fact- and counter-checking to guarantee encyclopedic accuracy. In this respect, an ordinary TV series episode can be considered a proper release. However, citing a live feed is nothing but a first-person account, and not suitable as a source because the editor himself effectively becomes the primary source. User:Dorftroffel 18:44, February 20, 2008

Okay so for now any information from the live feeds shouldn't be posted in the article unless you have a valid source but information from Big Brother: After Dark and the regular highlight episodes on CBS are fine just use Template:cite episode. (That is my understanding).  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  21:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that as long as some people realize that if we have a source, it is acceptable. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * People, Big Brother: After Dark, should not be allowed as a reliable source. It is the exact same thing as the live feeds. It is not an ordinary TV series episode. It is cable/satellite (subscription based) show. I do not have cable/satellite TV. So I would not be able to verify the accuracy of such information if added. Or other editors that do not have cable/satellite also. Yes, regular highlight episodes on CBS can be used as a reliable source because it can be cited. -- pete 22:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * They absolutely can be. Some people don't have cable; does that mean we can't use shows on cable as a source?  They are episodes of a TV show, thus Template:cite episode can be used. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * By that logic, we shouldn't be able to cite anything, because there are some people who don't own televisions. That's ridiculous.  It's no one's fault but your own that you choose not to watch After Dark.
 * Big Brother never repeats any episodes on CBS. Once it's aired, it's done, and we'll never see it again.  In that light, it's as good as a live feed when it comes to how anyone else will be able to see it or not once it's aired.  Once it's aired, if you didn't catch it, you're not going to see it again.  Yet, we can cite that.  If we can cite that, why can't we cite After Dark, which is exactly the same thing (it only airs once, it's on TV, etc), only it's on another channel.  And from there, I still think the live feeds should be cited when needed, because that's essentially a TV episode being aired online.  Either way (Big Brother, Big Brother: After Dark, or the live feeds), once it's aired, it's aired, and there's no going back for the people who missed it.  This is a huge hole in your logic that the CBS airings are the only "fair game", and it's clearly your backdoor attempt to get us to not update the article in realtime.  Tommy/DippyDawg1932  23:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I was only agreeing to what Dorftrottel stated above. And DippyDawg1932 it is not a backdoor attempt at anything. In fact I took that whole thing you stated above as an insult directed towards me. -- pete 23:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "It's no one's fault but your own that you choose not to watch After Dark." — Weird statement and logic, if I may say so. User:Dorftroffel 16:09, February 21, 2008

Again, I just want to remind everyone about being civil and Wikiquette. This is meant towards everyone here and not just specific people.  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  23:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * My understanding on the matter, the live feeds shouldn't be posted here without a verifiable source. So this means that the Veto winners, nominations, etc can't be posted in advance due to the live feeds unless there is a verifiable source with it. Second Big Brother: After Dark is a television show on a premium cable network, referencing a TV show is perfectly acceptable. Remember not all network post their shows online or posts recaps online like CBS does with the highlight/eviction episodes on their main network. Dorftroffel, is correct with the live feeds to me. So my understanding is live feeds need a verifiable source to be posted, Big Brother: After Dark can be cited by Template:cite episode, and the broadcast episodes on CBS can be cited by their website since they post recaps on their webiste or Template:cite episode can be used as well.  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  23:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope that Dorftroffel comes back and states what they actually meant. Because my understanding (interpertation) of Dorftroffels comments and yours (♪♫Alucard 16♫♪) does not seem to be the same. pete 00:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

My understanding and opinion is that each and all sources used in an article must be available for others to check them. This means that anything that is not officially released on any storage medium or online must not be used as a source, as citing it would constitute original research and can therefore not be fact-checked for accuracy by the reader (which of course includes other users) at any later point in time, as is required for anything used as an encyclopedic source. User:Dorftroffel 16:09, February 21, 2008


 * Dorftrottel makes a good point. But I must also add the following: (the original can be found here)

"The defining moment for Sergey, however, was when he met future co-president of Google, Larry Page. Sergey was assigned to show Larry around the university on a weekend tour. Reportedly, they did not get on well to begin with, arguing about every topic they discussed, and even throwing a few pies at each other."

Is that true? Is it not true? As a reader of Wikipedia, I have no easy way to know. If it is true, it should be easy to supply a reference. If it is not true, it should be removed.

I really want to encourage a much stronger culture which says: it is better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources. Any editor who removes such things, and refuses to allow it back without an actual and appropriate source, should be the recipient of a barnstar.

--Jimbo


 * So if no actual and appropriate source is cited it should be removed. Citing Live feeds or After Dark constitutes original research WP:OR. Using sources as CNN, CBS, ABC all could be used as an actual or appropriate source. -- pete 21:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It is this simple, and I am not going to keep repeating myself, because I've done that several times: After Dark is a TV show on Showtime 2 (which is parented by CBS anyways), and can be sourced like any other TV show, using Template:cite episode.   - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a borderline case, to say the least. The chances for a rerun or a proper release are virtually zero. Also, consider that those 3 hours worth of broadcast live feed are not in fact produced as episodes in any way. User:Dorftroffel 23:38, February 21, 2008
 * According to Big_Brother:_After_Dark, the show has a producer.  Tommy/DippyDawg1932  03:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, I reiterate, that by that very same logic, we would be unable to cite an episode of Big Brother that aired on CBS, because they never rerun, have announced no plans to show reruns, and there is currently no released DVD of the CBS-aired episodes for this season. Tommy/DippyDawg1932  03:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This needs to be clarified by an outside person/group (neutral party) as to if After Dark constitutes a valid source as you say using Template:cite episode or as I have stated that After Dark is not an appropriate source because of WP:OR and that After Dark is the same as the 24/7 feeds. So as an Administrator, where do we take this? And I will continue to dispute the addition of After Dark until an outside source tells me that you are correct and After Dark can be used as a source. Are you ignoring Dorftroffel's comments on this subject? -- pete 23:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You're welcome to invite others to comment. Do not accuse people of attempting to "own" the article  for stating their opinions.  - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * And arguing that Showtime/Showtime 2 has a limited reach won't work in my opinion. Showtime 2 is included in the main Showtime subscription package by DirecTV, Dish Network, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Cox, Charter, Cablevision, Bright House Networks, Suddenlink, Mediacom, Insight, and various smaller cable companies nationally. The only thing that makes Showtime different from CNN, CBS, ABC is the fact customers have to pay an additial fee to access the Showtime channels. Whereas CNN, CBS, ABC are included in your base package. (CNN is typically in the expanded basic package for cable subscribers.)  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  22:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

That is your opinion. So why does my opinion not count? This discussion started because a few editors seemed to force their opinions on what should and should not be used. The excuse that was used was that is the consensus we came up with the the last article. That was the last article not the current article. This clearly needs to be clarified by a neutral party and not by a couple of editors. -- pete 23:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I never said your opinion didn't count. And no one here forces their opinions on what and can't be used everyone has the right to express their opinion and what they think on the subject in question. And I think saying that because Showtime is a premium cable package it can't be used is not acceptable because then no one can use HBO, Showtime or Starz as sources for their original programs like Big Love (HBO), The Tudors (Showtime) and Head Case (Starz). And the consensus was and if I recall in a recent discussion for the current article that is was acceptable. Recent spoiler/live feed discussions were fine with Zackinthebox, Sjasper, Geoking66 and Tommy.  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  23:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * pete this isn't ment towards you but I am just sick and tired of editors getting mad at me saying that I am claiming article ownership. Saying that I push for spoilers/live feed information to be posted. Have we forgot that I helped RMThompson come up with the compromise of having "the top infobox and highlight box will only contain information that has been aired on CBS, after that show date, and will be verified using various websites and the CBS website. The "voting history" table may still contain any information found on the feeds, with the notation that the information is about an upcoming or unaired episode and may be changed." I personally am just tired of being accused of article ownership to the point I regret even working on Big Brother articles. I should have just stuck with WP:ANIME and articles relating to broadcast networks and cable/satellite companies.  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  23:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the earlier suggestion of getting some outside help on this is a good idea. I personally don't think After Dark should be considered a reliable source because it's nothing more than the live feeds... and they cannot be sourced. The difference between After Dark and the main CBS show is that the main CBS show has many people that write about it the day after, and confirm the happenings on it. RMThompson (talk) 14:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've asked several people about this, and they all seem to agree. You're welcome to get an outside opinion, in a formal way, WP:DISPUTE.  However, I am not going to change my personal opinion, based on fact, that After Dark is a TV show, thus it can be sourced using Template:Cite episode.  Many, many people watch it.  You're just arguing this because of the spoilers, and that is a guideline that exists off of this page, so this isn't the proper place to discuss the banning of spoilers.  - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please don't assume to know why I am posting something. This has nothing to do with spoilers, it has to with verifiable sources one of the main themes of Wikipedia. People attached to this article seem to forget these rules based on the fact that they saw something. My issue here is with the possibility of someone seeing something, posting it on Wikipedia where it is treated as fact, when in fact it may not be. For instance when the person walked there were reports that he walked out of the show, when in fact he left for a family emergency... assumptions can be made from live feeds, and we all know that because CBS limits what is seen during the live feeds (they do not ever show a competition on the live feeds) assuming you know who won HoH or POV is just that, an assumption. That being said the crawl on the bottom of Big Brother After Dark does give some information, but I don't see how to verify that information. Even if it's true, it's not verifiable. RMThompson (talk) 15:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Showtime lies now? Do as you will.  - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No Showtime doesn't lie, but it doesn't make it VERIFIABLE. Can you verify everything you've seen on an episode of After Dark? No. You CAN verify the happenings of the regular show because many many websites that are reputable post "recaps" of the show online once its aired. Find a source that does the same for the After Dark and I'll agree. Until then, I argue that the cite:episode gimmick doesn't work on After Dark.
 * http://www.fansofrealitytv.com/forums/big-brother-9-live-feeds/ contains a daily transcript and activity log of the live feeds, including the After Dark broadcast. Tommy/DippyDawg1932  16:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Now you're calling something "fact" that is remains to be unknown. Neil's departure is not confirmed as having been due to a "family emergency".  According to the CBS broadcast, which you, yourself, claim is the only thing we can properly cite, Neil left for an undisclosed "urgent personal matter".  So, unless I'm missing something, it's an assumption on your part to say that Neil left for a family emergency.  Also, I continue to maintain that After Dark is a television show which can be cited, just as much as the CBS broadcast.  I have yet to hear a response from you, or anyone else, as to why Big Brother can be cited, but After Dark cannot, since they both have no reruns, and it's a one shot deal - you see it, and then you'll never see it on TV again.  Furthermore, I also continue to maintain that the live feeds are Internet_television and a series of webisodes (or one big long webisode, if you insist), and because of this, are just as much qualified to be cited as an episode of Big Brother, or an episode of After Dark.  I fail to see any logical difference between the three, based on any arguments I've seen so far. Please do fill me in as to how you view CBS broadcasts, After Dark, and the live feeds as any different from each other, as far as citability is concerned, since all three of them are a "one-time shot". I do truly want to understand your side of this matter, but I'm failing to do so, so far. Tommy/DippyDawg1932  15:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually I read that family emergency bit on a website that had linked it to his official Myspace, but regardless. I've already made my claim as to why i think After Dark and BB are different; the amount of verifiable sources that carry the information. You linked to a place above that carries transcripts and whatnot, so that's a good start. i think as long as the editors of this article make sure they place a citation next to EVERYTHING, including nominations/voting/contest that link to at least one third party that can verify the information... there should be no problem citing anything on After DArk. However the live feeds should remain unverifiable sources. RMThompson (talk) 17:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * They are unverifiable, all in your opinion, of course. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That is the point of discussing it here, yes? To see how we all decipher the rules and how the consensus feels. I think you should take a step back and stop making it personal. RMThompson (talk) 19:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * We know how the consensus feels. You just don't agree with it.  In fact, yes, I think I will take a step back from this discussion, because I've said everything that I have to say on the matter, several times over.  Feel free to read it above. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Section break
Here's how I see this. I'm totally uninvolved, and have never edited this article or talk before (nor even heard of this subject :P). Just because not everyone can view the subscription-based AD, doesn't make it a non-reliable source. I neither have a library card, nor much of a budget for books, that does not make most items cited with non-reliable, now does it? However, if you are citing an event that occurred in AD, if it were truly notable enough, to be included in the article, I would expect that multiple reliable sources, from different places, would be fairly easy to find. SQL Query me! 15:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * See I think that's the issue. Outsiders are going to assume that people are making commentary based on what they've seen happen on the After Dark show, but that's not the case. Neither during the Live Feeds nor the After Dark show will their EVER be a competition. So, what happens is viewers who view both the live feeds or After Dark gather the information on who won a competition from listening to the houseguests. While that might be accurate, and might NOT be, that is nowhere NEAR verifiable. I would suggest that only activities seen on the After Dark show, like late night fights, should be added. For instance, just because someone is lying on the HoH bed, doesn't mean that they are the Heads of Household. Now, that being said, the After Dark show, if we allow it as a source, does a crawl with certain information that says who won what competition. Personally I don't like using it, but I can at least see the reasoning behind it. RMThompson (talk) 15:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * RMThompson, I read your comment about Neil's departure and as guidelines set up by WP:BIGBRO plus rules of the show there are only three ways of leaving the House, being evicted, leaving voluntary or being removed. Neil left due to "urgent personal matters" according to the CBS broadcast. And as part of WP:BIGBRO we have three ways to classify an exit in voting history/nomination tables and the infobox and they are "Evicted", "Walked" or "Expelled" (Ejected for BB UK articles). Neil's reason for leaving falls under "Walked" or "voluntary exit" because he left due to an urgent personal matter (as stated by the CBS broadcast). He did not go through the eviction process so we can't use "Evicted", he was not removed by Big Brother or the producers so "Expelled" is not acceptable either. Now if you don't like how the project is set up please visit the talk page of WP:BIGBRO.  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  20:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you SQL that is what I have been saying all along about After Dark. Just because everyone doesn't have access to it doesn't make it a non-reliable source.  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  21:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Something's really screwy in concept here. Given three different sources: the TV show, After Dark cable TV, and Live Feed Internet feed, how are they different? Why should one CBS source be more valid than another CBS source! BB9 TV, After Dark and Live Feeds are all part of the Big Brother CBS cross-advertised broadcast package and all worthy of being reported. In my opinion. 72.199.4.13 (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * TV show: source CBS cameras, broadcast via free TV and paid cable mostly after the fact and never repeated, how is this verifiable? Yet episode references are considered a good citation.
 * After Dark: source CBS cameras, broadcast live via paid cable feed and never repeated, how is this verifiable? Yet date and time index are considered a good citation.
 * Live Feeds: source CBS cameras, broadcast live via paid internet feed and repeated during the off-season -- this seems MORE verifiable than the other two. Seems like a quote of time, date, and feed number (1-4) would be a good citation.
 * Personally I don't see how any of them are verifiable, seeing as I cannot go back and check to see if the information is accurate. However, as discussed below, internet postings of the feeds and T.V. shows are verifiable, as long as the editors agree that they are legitimate sources. RMThompson (talk) 22:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * To some people only the episode are verifiable because CBS posts episode recaps on their website plus they post the episode online for US residents only. Big Brother: After Dark isn't repeated unless you have a DVR/TiVo in your home or your provider carries both the east and west feed of Showtime 2. With the Live Feeds, despite being repeated during the off season you still need a Superpass subscription to access them. So that is why some people feel that both After Dark and the Live Feeds shouldn't be used. However just like RMThompson said internet postings of the feeds and T.V. shows are verifiable, as long as the editors agree that they are legitimate sources.  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  22:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Archived Discussions
I have went ahead and archived discussions beginning with "Evicted Together" and ending with "Added Controversy section at the bottom". Both Archive 1 and Archive 2 are now full as they are 30-40kb in size. Archive 3 should be started if there is a need to archive more discussions.  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  21:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, not sure what was wrong with the auto archiving here. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources
This discussion is so we can gather sites that are reliable sources. This discussion was lost in supplying reliable sources with feed information discussion. If you dispute whether the spin-off show Big Brother: After Dark or the live feeds are not acceptable then please do not discuss this here. Discuss that in supplying reliable sources with feed information. This discussion is so we can gather a place of reliable sources.

Current reliable sources:
 * CBS Official BB site via Template:cite web
 * Global Official BB site via Template:cite web
 * CBS/Global "Big Brother" broadcasts via Template:cite episode
 * Showtime 2 "After Dark" broadcasts via Template:cite episode
 * Live feeds with proper sources. (Questionable, see this discussion.)
 * News sits like Variety, Multichannel News, TMZ.com, Adweek, Entertainment Tonight, Entertainment Weekly, Zap2It.com, etc. via Template:cite web

Not reliable sources:
 * Showtime 2 "After Dark" broadcasts without a proper source
 * Live feeds without proper sources
 * Unreliable and biased fansites.
 * YouTube/Dailymotion videos of the live feeds. (Copyright issues)

Above is a list of what generally is accepted and what is not accepted. In order to include live feed information reliable sources are needed. If information is posted from the live feeds without proper sources then the information maybe removed. I am also going to say this part again. This is a discussion about sources for the live feeds and additional sources for Big Brother: After Dark not a discussion on whether they should be allowed or not there is a discussion in progress for that. Currently the live feeds are listed as reliable sources as long as they have a reliable source. This is due to a prior consensus at the start of this season. Big Brother: After Dark is acceptable as long as the episode is properly cited but more sources for After Dark are welcome. And again if you want to discuss why the live feeds are acceptable or not please visit supplying reliable sources with feed information discussion. This discussion is about more third party sources for Big Brother that are acceptable.  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  22:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * http://www.realitybbqforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=33 and http://www.fansofrealitytv.com/forums/big-brother-9-live-feeds/ both contain transcripts and/or activity logs from the Live Feeds and After Dark. I feel that these sites are reliable and we should be able to cite them. Tommy/DippyDawg1932  22:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * So did we decide that websites like "realitybbqforums" and "fansofrealitytv" are considered viable sources? RMThompson (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a discussion so we as editors can discuss whether certain sites are good sources or not. Tommy suggested the sites Reality BBQ and Fans Of Reality TV and to my knowledge Reality BBQ is pretty accurate and with most news articles they have a link to the source.  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  21:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Since there have been no objections, can we add these sites to the list? DippyDawg1932  06:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I say wait a tad bit longer. In my opinion some editors could still be cooling off from the last debate. I say give it another week so editors will have a chance. I am currently in favor of Reality BBQ but this is the first time I have heard of Fans of Reality TV. ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  07:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

About Bb9 logo.gif
Can it be reverted back to the one dated February 6th? I'm not exactly a big fan of the contrast on the new one. Does anybody else agree? MadMagFreak (talk) 08:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The current logo is the one that is used on the show. The one on February 6th was a temporary logo that was on the Big Brother 9 website. In order to provide consistency with past seasons I think the current logo is best. Plus this one has the subtitle for the season.  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  08:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't mean that one at all. Haha, I meant the one uploaded on the 13th. Why the change from that one? MadMagFreak (talk) 08:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You mean the 12th? I brightened up the image a little because it looked too dark when it is in the infobox.  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  09:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that one looked just fine. This one's kinda light. Eh, we'll need other people's opinions, though. MadMagFreak (talk) 16:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the logo version uploaded on the 12th is too dark. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that's all I needed. MadMagFreak (talk) 17:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think that the Feb. 12th version is better because the current, Feb. 14th, version looks more faded than lightened. It doesn't really matter to me which one we use though. - zachinthebox (User • Talk) 18:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Not that it really matters much, but I like the darker version from Feb 12. The current version is a bit washed out. RMThompson (talk) 20:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Opinions on this subject are going to be all over the board, as typical user-adjusted monitor settings are far from consistent. There are standards, but only graphic artists who have their monitors carefully calibrated are likely to meet those standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.199.4.13 (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Not that it matters I reverted the logo back to the Feb. 12 version.  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  07:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)