Talk:Big Brother Australia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
The Big Brother WikiProject aims to improve articles relating to Big Brother, and Big Brother Australia has been identified as one of these articles. Anybody can help the WikiProject by trying to improve existing articles. Please add your name to the list of participants, if you are committed to helping out.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Flag
Portal
 Big Brother Australia is maintained by WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B Quality: B-Class
??? Not yet rated on the importance scale
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian television.
Assessment comments

This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
Peer review Big Brother Australia has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Peer review Big Brother Australia has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Contents

[edit] Information table

I think this article should have the same table for the show information as in the Big Brother UK what does everybody think? any suggestions?? is there a template?? --ChrisW 03:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

What, the big horrid one on the side that squashes up the article and displays unnecessary information? --JD[don't talk|email] 09:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Total surveilance?

Housemates are filmed 24 hours per day, their only private time in the house being when they use the toilet.

Doesn't the screenshot feature someone in a bathroom? Is it "ok" because the person isn't using it at the time the video was screening? Andjam 00:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

There are various multicamera areas in the house. Because of switching between cameras not everything that happens is always recorded. Sometimes they might be recording from another camera when something happens and it is missed. A camera is always running in the toilet and presumably it can be switched-to whenever something broadcastable happens in that room. The times when housemates are actually using the toilet are not broadcast. When people have locked themselves in the toilet for other reasons such as to be away from the other HMs these moments have sometimes been broadcast. Housemates are allowed to speak via telephone to a psychologist for one, one-hour session each week or more if required. These sessions take place in the diary room and are not recorded. Asa01 02:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
That being the case, and providing that the broadcaster's view of what's "broadcastable" is sufficient to ensure the site is family-friendly, I can't see any need to exclude the link. Waggers 20:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] why bitch about 'product placement'

the article features reference to Product Placement as being a bad thing. For the 2 million people who watch the show it's obviously not that much of a turn-off and let's not forget the show costs money to produce so if they can't raise revenue we'll be stuck with re-runs of "Everybody Loves whats-his-name"

The only people complaining about it regularly are those on one particular unofficial 'fan' site that seems incapable of finding anything nice to say about the program, the producers, the housemates or the hosts. Makes you wonder why they expend so much effort. And they seem to have brought their little campaign of hate here.

Also... what proof is there that the link to the unofficial site mentioned in the entry is "the most popular"? I suspect that certain portions of this entry have been corrupted by their negativity and would question it's impartiality —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.26.10.138 (talk • contribs) .

1. Some people think product placement is deceptive and dishonest.
that's just personal opinion, and probably the view of those who also buy stuff from spam. it's a fact of life that just about every show or movie features product placement. BB is less guilty in this respect that many other shows. It helps to pay for the show, just as the 'BB proudly brought to you by' bumpers and commercials in between the segments. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.26.10.138 (talk • contribs) .
Opinions and criticisms are fine as long as they are properly identified - then people can choose whether they want to read, agree or disagree with it. The article would be impartial if these criticisms were scattered through the descriptive text of the article - but in this case they have their own section which is clearly marked away from the rest
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was don't move. —Nightstallion (?) 12:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Big Brother (Australia) → Big Brother Australia … Rationale: The name of the show is Big Brother Australia, and the brackets separates part of the title from the more known and more used form … --JDtalkemail 02:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
  • Oppose - see comment below (but keep the redirect). -- I@n ≡ talk 04:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As part of the wikiproject a standard naming scheme is trying to be devised - currently it stands at "Big Brother (country)" and there has been no opposition to it as it stands. -- 9cds(talk) 16:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments
  • Comment. The website refers to it as Big Brother Australia only once as I can see - in the footer and I suspect (but admittedly don't know) that's more to do with it's licensing with Endemol to differentiate it from other countries shows. The website is clearly named Big Brother. Other parts of the website say BB or Big Brother 2006[1] or Australian Big Brother[2]. The televison show never mentions the term Big Brother Australia. Southern Star (the producers of the show) refers to it as Big Brother[3]. -- I@n ≡ talk 04:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I know, but it does say Big Brother Australia more than it says Big Brother (Australia), doesn't it..? I don't know, maybe I just think it reads better without the brackets. --JDtalkemail 07:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Agreed, it does read better without the brackets. No question. -- I@n ≡ talk 07:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
        • So is that a Support then? --JDtalkemail 07:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
          • No. It reads better, but it's innacurate. I@n ≡ talk 16:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
            • Should be moved to Big Brother (Australian TV Series) so as not to be confused with The Australian Big Brother Awards hosted by the Australian Privacy Foundation ---User:E!
              • Wasn't the page called that before? I don't really mind if people think it should be changed to something else, but I don't think they should be called Big Brother (country--series number). It just makes no sense to me. Well, it does, but it doesn't... :S --JDtalkemail 19:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
            • Great, well all good reasons for renaming it are gone now. --JDtalkemail 07:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Official Name

I sent Endemol Southern Star an e-mail asking the official name of the show, suggesting Big Brother (Australia) and Big Brother Australia. In the reply they confirmed that the latter is in fact the correct name. --JDtalkemail 07:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Nobody want to comment? --JDtalkemail 13:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Whichever is the "official name" is largely irrelevant when it comes to Wikipedia. It all comes down to Wikipedia's manual of style and naming conventions, not what the official name is. For example, David James' official name is not "David James (footballer)" is it? — FireFox 19:16, 19 June '06
Is there a policy or something that says shows should be titled show name (country name--series)? btw I'm genuinely asking, I'm not being sarky or anything. --JDtalkemail 19:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Big_Brother#Structure and WP:TV-NC -- 9cds(talk) 19:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay then. But will anyone start on me if I refer to the show as Big Brother Australia in an article? --JDtalkemail 19:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
9cds beat me to it. Well I won't start on you, it's just naming conventions for articles. — FireFox 19:32, 19 June '06
So what, you're saying you'd rather I wrote Big Brother (Australia)? --JDtalkemail 19:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Please don't disrupt wikipedia to make a point. -- 9cds(talk) 19:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
No, I meant it's only policy for naming articles, as in their title. — FireFox 19:35, 19 June '06
Oh, yeah I understood that. I meant when I'm referring to the show in an article. Would people mind if I used Big Brother Australia in that context? --JDtalkemail 19:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
No I wouldn't mind personally, that's what I've been trying to say all along. — FireFox 19:40, 19 June '06
Okay then. If anyone does have a problem with it, hopefully they will tell me. --JDtalkemail 19:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Live Opening Night

Have any Opening Nights been broadcast live? --JDtalkemail 18:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge, I could be wrong though. But I'm pretty sure that they haven't shown an Opening night live-- User:Vicer

Not even BB04's? That's the one I was unsure about when I put on the article that at least one had been broadcast live. --JD[don't talk|email] 14:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smoking Policy

Is it worth mentioning under a Trivia section perhaps that Australia's version has a "no-smoking" policy,(and smokers on the show are forced to quit) this is particulary noticeable to someone like myself who having just recently moved to the UK, and in the UK version people are often seen smoking (dare I say it chain-smoking) even.

Just one of those "cultural" differences I suppose.--86.142.27.81 12:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Lucas

I'm pretty sure the Quitline was one of the series past major sponsors, with Sara-Marie Fedele being their main BB promoter. It's possible they supplied Nicorette patches to housemates. -- Longhair 03:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
What?? They let them smoke on the UK edition? That's f***ed up. They'll fix that problem in a couple of years, I'm sure. — Gulliver ✉ 05:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeppers, and if, when you have no cigarettes, you beg Big Brother enough, he might just give you one. Out of the goodness of his heart. Or just get them hell drunk off non-alcoholic wine and have them root the bottles in the garden. --JD[don't talk|email] 05:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A note on Fines inclusion into Article

It says Big Brother hands out fines, but it is not stated how much fines is given out. It is $5000, but the person who wrote about this should have included it. --ChrisW 03:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup tag

In what way does the article need to be cleaned up? --JD[don't talk|email] 00:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2006 Sexual Assault Controversy

user 9cds had removed this article due to lack of sources. I have managed to locate some sources so now it is put back in the BB(AU) page. A few more sources should be located for some of the information there. --Vicer 01:29am July 4 2006 GMT+10

Some general info about the incident remains on this page, but note that more spcific details are given in a special section on the Big Brother (Australia series 6) article - check there before adding stuff here. Asa01 20:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Captions under Title / Pictures

I changed one caption (on Uncut) before realising that many pics now have new captions. Is it really necessary to describe the colour of the title graphic pictured, when that graphic is pictured? Explaining that "The above title, is blue", and "The above title, is darker blue" seems redundant when we can see it for ourselves. I also think it is wrong to say that "The theme of Friday Night Live, is orange". Just because the makers of the show switch the colours around occasionally, to claim that the colours used form a theme, and that they are symbolic, is a real stretch. Maybe they just change the colours for variety, and to look pretty? Sure purple often represents passion, and that might be why it was chosen for Adults Only, but then to also infer that green is symbolic of nominations and that orange represents Friday Night Live seems pretty questionable. Asa01 05:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow whoever did that's totally messed up the layout, and changed the spelling of UpLate so it's in sentence case. Change it back? --JD[don't talk|email] 10:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I just reverted it all. I know I probably shouldn't have, but if anybody has any problems with that they can bring it up here. --JD[don't talk|email] 10:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for changing it. Good work; general layout looks much better now. Asa01 11:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Insipid

I wish I could find more references to the stupidity of this show. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I know you're joking but the Big Brother (Australia series 6) article, and especially that article's Controversy section aren't too badly referenced as these things go: the external reports cited on that page contain all manner of criticisms of the show. Asa01 05:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Some good commentary on the stupidity and sociology of various aspects of the show are at the site http://www.eyeonbigbrother.com site. Comments are both insightful and to be commended. Particularly appreciated by the older watchers of the show. Could this be added as an external link on the page please? The site is equally as valuable as the Behind Big Brother Australia site, if not more so. As well as the commentary, there are links to a Chat Room and Feedback from Readers of the site.

I would have actually thought adding that site was a good idea, but after reading this:
Oh, and do feel free to tell them you think we should be added to their external links. They refused on the basis that we can't 'advertise' through their site - despite the fact that we sell nothing. Source: Eye on Big Brother
I'm starting to think that perhaps this is an attempt at self-advertising. --JD[don't talk|email] 11:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I'm connected with eyeonbigbrother.com (not my site, but I help out occasionally). I appreciate the consideration of including the link. I actually attempted to get the site included, for the very reason of giving a resource for users seeking criticism of the show. The response was apathetic, and eventually shot down by barrylb. You can read my request for re-inclusion on his talk page [4]. Obviously, the season is almost over for this year but it would be nice for wikipedia to recognise the value of the site as a resource of the criticism that the show has garnered over the course of this series. I can also assure you that the request above was entirely independent of eyeonbigbrother, and the quote that you suggest is "an attempt at self-advertising" was infact a legitimate comment based on the experience from my previous attempt to include the link. Of course, it would be appreciated if you would reconsider this decision; which after all was removed as a result of only one users actions, and the ensuing silence of all others. Hopefully the site, which has received attention and interviews from other media outlets such as syn fm and Sydney Morning Herald (with an article published by the author of the site featured this week) will now have proven itself worthy for inclusion into wikipedia. --Dust77 00:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Eventually there will be seventh season next year.Is that right?

[edit] Series vs. Seasons

There seems to be a mini edit war going on about the wording 'seasons' vs. 'series'. If you want to be consistent, this needs to be shown in the article titles as well. In that light, to me it seems the best idea to be consistent with what the production company itself uses on their website, which is 'series', as can be seen on their own website. This is also consistent with the other article titles that are already existent. --JoanneB 20:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The word season is used on the website as well. —JD[don't talk|email] 20:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
The word occurs there, yes, a couple of times. But if you compare this: http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=series+site%3Abigbrother.3mobile.com.au&btnG=Search&meta= to this http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=season+site%3Abigbrother.3mobile.com.au&btnG=Search&meta= (especially if you discount the 'forum' hits - as those are not from ESS themselves) I think it's pretty clear that they use 'series' most of the time. Also, take a look at the 'rules' that they set up (linked in my previous comment here): the word season is used, once, but most of the time they use 'series'. --JoanneB 21:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
That's not really all that fair - most instances of the word series are used in references to a particular series - Series 6, Series 5, Series 4. The way the word season is used on the website is exactly the same way I'm saying it should be used on the article; and its usage in that context shouldn't be changed. If something in Wikipedia articles says series X, it should really be changed to Big Brother 200X. But I'm not suggesting that everything be changed; I think the word season should be used when it's used in a way similar to the way it is used on the website. —JD[don't talk|email] 21:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Here we go, what I meant to post in the first place: http://www.southernstargroup.com/productionhome.aspx?cid=31&d=8 This is from the Endemol Southern Star website, and they themselves use the word season. —JD[don't talk|email] 22:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
They use 'previous series' on their own website themselves, as well, so I guess we're not getting anywhere this way :) Anyway, I already regret getting involved with this, I'll stay out of it now. Kind regards, --JoanneB 09:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BB04 criticism

Part of the criticism section says:

* During Big Brother 2004, the entire backyard of the house was filled with snow, to tie in with a special viewing of the film The Day After Tomorrow.

Isn't the backyard filled with snow anyway, for "Christmas in July"? Was the yard filled with snow specifically for The Day After Tomorrow, or did they both just happen at the same time? —JD[don't talk|email] 14:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] House of Big Brother As External Link

Hi all, today I've added an external link to our site Big Brother Australia Unofficial Forum and it got removed with a reason that it was spam. I think that our site is as valuable as behindbigbrother. Let me give you an example this year there was an incident on the show and the official forum was closed because people started discussing the issue and the officials didn't wanted them. We were the once that provided that opportunity to viewers to share their opinion with others. We've been out there since BB 06 started and already our page ranking is higher than behindbigbrother (fluctuating between 4 and 5). We've been interviewed about the incident and how people reacted. We've been giving information on chat with evicted bb members (Dino for example). Also for the period of 4 months we got 12000 members contributing on our forum. If that's not enough what else do we have to do to prove that the site should be added as an external link? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SolitaryBG 01:28 UTC, 7 August 2006 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Random thoughts

Should the fact that Big Brother 2002 have the first companion Celebrity edition be included in Facts?

Should there be a mention that in the first 3 series, there was charity side and psychological side to the show? (i.e. evicted housemates had items auctioned for charities on ebay, and there was the mastercard challenges for the HMs to win money for themselves and charities, and then on Uncut, they had guests to explain the behaviour) These were lost in later series.

I don't think Celebrity Big Brother should be put in the facts section, but I think everything else should go in the relevant seasons' articles. J Ditalk 10:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Facts section

I don't think the Facts section needs to be here. I know it is there to summarise information, which makes this sound even more odd (to me), but information in the Facts section is in the rest of the article. Other information should be on the articles of the individual seasons. Some of the information there is non-notable as well. I'm not saying that it needs to go, but I'd like to know what other people think about this. jd || talk || 15:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It should go, and the facts can be added to the appropriate seasons. --Alex (Talk) 15:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/i/g/Talk%7EBig_Brother_Australia_1090.html"