Misplaced Pages

Talk:Big Brother (Australian TV series) season 6: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:02, 20 June 2006 editJ Di (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users23,687 edits Definitions← Previous edit Latest revision as of 13:37, 30 March 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,012,087 editsm Qwerfjkl (bot) moved page Talk:Big Brother (Australian season 6) to Talk:Big Brother (Australian TV series) season 6: Implementing RfC on TV season article titles (Task 28)Tag: paws [2.2] 
(290 intermediate revisions by 64 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1=
{{Big Brother project}}
{{WikiProject Television |importance=Low |reality-tv=yes |episode-coverage=Yes |auto=Inherit |episode-coverage-importance=low |reality-tv-importance=low}}
==Merge ]==
{{WikiProject Australia|importance=Low|television=yes|tv-importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Big Brother |importance=High }}
}}
{{archives}}


== Dinner with Big Brother (Kris Noble) ==
Yes, please do. Anything is better than a standalone Elise article. -- ] 01:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
A sentence under the Week 14 heading reads "She was then told that she, and three friends in the house, would later that day dine with Big Brother". I added that it was BB producer Kris Noble who they actually dined with. It was removed by ] as "irrelevant". I think the sentence makes more sense by including ''whom'', exactly, they dined with, rather than just stating it was "Big Brother". Can we get some discussion on this? ] 23:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
:Unless the housemates saw, or were told who the voice of Big Brother is or was at the time, it's irrelevant. We don't need to know what the housemates didn't. —<span style="font-family:tahoma;"><small>]</small><nowiki>]</sup>|<sub>]</sub></span>] 10:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
::Also, saying that they dined with Kris Noble if they dined with Big Brother could make some people think they dined with the man himself. —<span style="font-family:tahoma;"><small>]</small><nowiki>]</sup>|<sub>]</sub></span>] 10:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


^^^ JD is correct in leaving it as Big Brother. However, it was for the wrong reasons. Kris Noble DOES NOT do any voiceovers as Big Brother even though many assume he does. There are three other people who do it. Peter Abbot, back when he was Exec Producer, decided to do the voices. Kris has no obligation to do so.
Agree also. -- ] &equiv; ] 02:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
:The IMDb says that Kris Noble is the voice of Big Brother from 2004 onwards, but another page does say that there is another voice for the most recent Big Brother seasons. I guess I trust the IMDb a little too much if that is incorrect. '''<sub>]</sub> ] <sup>]</sup>''' 20:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
::Even back in the Peter Abbott days, there were different voices of Big Brother; Abbott did not voice ''all'' of the Big Brother commands. There was even a female voice in season one. ] 21:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


== Prize Summary ==
:I've changed ] to a redirect as she is clearly non-notable and it appears this may be being used as an attack page only. -- ] &equiv; ] 04:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Can anyone help with providing a summary of prizes for contestants ?
:Which ones? All of them? —<span style="font-family:tahoma;"><small>]</small><nowiki>]</sup>|<sub>]</sub></span>] 10:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


Well - all, as this would give some idea of the level of reward that each contestant experienced...
== Remove right housemate box? ==
:Most of the contestants got the same prize - $2500, $5000, or $10,000; a car or scooter; and a holiday. I'd certainly help, but I dunno if people think it should go in; me not being people and all. —<span style="font-family:tahoma;"><small>]</small><nowiki>]</sup>|<sub>]</sub></span>] 12:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


==Approval Voting==
I don't see the need for two lists of housemates. Anyone object to removing one? -- ] 14:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I removed the claim that ''Big Brother'' votes follow the ] method. They don't. Anyone may vote both evict or save and ''multiple times'' for any nominated housemate. Approval voting allows only one approval for any or multiple candidates, but not multiple approvals which is what ''Big Brother'' allows. Approval voting also does not feature a disapproval vote (''evict''), so the inclusion of "Approval voting" is pretty meaningless. ] 04:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
:Barry, I've done it (I did it before I saw your post - I hope you hadn't started on it!) It was annoying me too. -- ] &equiv; ] 00:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


== Article name ==
No idea how to edit-


I just noticed this article in my watchlist - ] states "Articles about a Big Brother series are named '''Big Brother ( series )'''". I suggest the recent name changes to the Australian BB articles should be reversed. -- ] 05:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I have absolutely no idea how to edit, so ill just say that 'John' has a myspace www.myspace.com/micbric and if anyone could put that in for me that would be awsome


== BB06 Taped? == == Fair use of images ==


Although each individual use of each copyrighted image on this page would qualify as "fair use" in U.S. law, as a whole, having 28 copyrighted images would not qualify as fair use. In the U.S., the quantity of the copied work is of principal importance in determining whether the use is acceptable or not. I have removed all but the most important copyrighted images. Note that an article on the each individual person could include that person's image without problems, if anyone wants to do that. All the best, – ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 13:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Is BB06 taped (as in weeks into the future)? It's a rumour, but subtle suspicions have aroused my curiosity..
:Just a question, I am not disagreeing with you (it actually makes good sense), just curious for your imput, but since most individual constestant pages are not allowed anyway to have a photo of them on (since they are not considered famous/worthy enough), isn't what you just suggested a bit of a Catch-22 situation? Can't have their photos here, can't have them there. Eh, I am new(ish) and am just intrested in the advice of people like yourself. Hope that is okay. ] 01:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages's Fair Use Policy states that the use of film and television screenshots for critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television is generally approved on Misplaced Pages. Seeing as there is no mention of the number the images which can be used, I don't think it was necessary to remove the images from this article.


I understand that the number of images may be important in the case that they were all of the same person. However, these images where all of different people, and there was only one image of each of them. They were also in seperate sections of the article, each detailing the individual people. Therefore I believe that the use of these images is protected under Misplaced Pages's Fair Use Policy. ] 05:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
:No. -- ] 13:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


:Well reasonable people can disagree on this. I think we're both reasonable. And we disagree. – ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 06:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
::Seems live a difficult scam to pull given live evictions with large audiences and subsequent appearances of evicted HMs in nightclubs, at Dreamworld, and on TV. Why would they bother faking it like that? What makes you suspect otherwise. ] 21:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


==Lauren==
==Who owns copyright ownership?==
Does anyone know if Ten (Fox) has exclusive rights on the housemates photos and related media? It stands to reason, but do they have the rights on images/recordings etc of housemates during the period they are in the house, or on all images in perpetuis? May be feasible to include some photos in the article...
] 12:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
:Regardless of Ten's rights, probably the only housemate photos we can put up are ones you have taken yourself. -- ] 22:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
::Or screenshots from the TV series. -- <span style="color: blue; border: 1px; border-style:solid">]</span> <sup>]]</sup>/<sub>]]</sub> ] 03:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


There are two major mistakes in Lauren's profile - it says that she spent the shortest amount of time in the house and was the only housemate ever to have no fines.
==Expand==
I've begun to majorly expand the housemates section. The table needs to be broken down as Notes keep getting added. I've modelled it on BBUK pages and has included they're template table at the top (and expanded that too). Essentially all the info on the table, including the Note and where the housemates are from, can be incorporated into their own section and thus elimating the need for the table. Also, I suggest that days be referred to as the number Day (eg, Day 1) instead of the actual date as this can change depending on where you live and to make it simpler. -- <span style="color: blue; border: 1px; border-style:solid">]</span> <sup>]]</sup>/<sub>]]</sub> ] 06:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


These are both wrong.
:Are you planning to reformat all the other seasons as well? Can you point me to where there has been a discussion of the template table? -- ] 08:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


Both Violetta (BB4) and Rachel Corbett (BB1) spent two days in the house (I think Rachel might of only been 24 hours). The misinfomation of Lauren being the shortest ever staying housemate was I believe an off-the-cuff comment made by Rove McManus.
I say that's good work. New layout with housemate sections and without the homemade table will work better. -- ] &equiv; ] 02:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC) I do like our weekly highlights section though. -- ] &equiv; ] 02:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


And I am also positive Rob Ridgley recieved no fines during his stay in the house. I remember he was acting rather smary about it after his eviction.
== Rename ==


] 13:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Is there anyone who's against renaming the article "Big Brother (Australia series 6)"? This would make it in line with the other Big Brother articles. -- ]]<sup>]</sup> 07:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
:Rob did get at least one, he spoke without his microphone when he got his first. Lauren mentioned the two records herself, perhaps she was wrong about the shortest stay one? According to the ] article, Rachel was in the House for four days, and the ] article doesn't even say when Violetta entered the House. <sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 14:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
:Me. There was no need to rename the others in the first place. Unless you have a good reason. --<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 09:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
::It would be inline with the other pages. These were renamed because "Big Brother" is the name of the show, not "Big Brother Australia series 6". -- ]]<sup>]</sup> 09:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
:::Isn't the name of the show Big Brother Australia? --<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 10:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
::::No. -- ]]<sup>]</sup> 10:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::Well that's written on the BB06 website. It also says Big Brother UK on the UK website. --<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 10:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::Well, it was on the UK site... --<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 10:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::It does appear on the UK site, but only when you use the site's search. --<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 10:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


::Well even if Rachel did stay 4 days, she ties with Lauren and thus that info is somewhat wrong. Granted it was 6 years ago, the memory barely exists since it wasn't exactly something I bother to retain first time around. I'm positive though that Violetta was barely in the house for more then a couple of days. Still all in all take it as you may. Grand statements made by housemates on the stage are not neccessarily gospel (hey, look at me and the Rob/fine thing! I did that very thing!)
== Housemates template. ==


::I remember at the BehindBigBrother.com forum there was a thread about this. Just as much hearsay as my post here, but I am pretty positive Lauren wasn't the shortest staying housemate.
I've rewritten the template almost entirely using wikisyntax rather than a mixture. This makes it futureproof, and less likely to break the page. Let me know if anyone sees any bugs. -- ]]<sup>]</sup> 16:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


::Thanks for the info on Rob though. I wish the offical website was still up (damn BB for being cheap and piggy backing off a phone company) because I am addicted to checking past facts and info off such places.
== Tables thing ==


::] 01:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
The page may look better now without the tables, but what about when there's a picture of each housemate on there? --<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 21:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
:Well, I'm trying to keep the thing looking good - a little like the UK article. Tables aren't really for layout, they're for content. -- ]]<sup>]</sup> 21:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
::It doesn't need to be like the UK article, in case you hadn't noticed this isn't the UK article. --<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 21:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
:::Having a picture of each housemate won't be a problem, as long as there's something written about them too. There's no reason why it can't look like the UK article. The UK article has a good layout and this article should have too. ] 22:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
::::Something's going to have to be written about Elise and Tilli then, but that would be a bit difficult for me as I felt both of them being in the house was pretty pointless. --<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 22:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


== Gaelan's photo ==


:::Yeah, Rob got one fine and Lauren was there from Wednesday to Sunday. <br>In 2001 Rachel entered on Monday - Day 36 and was evicted on friday - Day 40<br>
Gaelan pre-electrocution: ], or ]? I don't know which one should go on the article, if any. I prefer the last one myself... --<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 22:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
In 2004 Violeta entered on Friday - Day 57, and was evicted on Tuesday - Day 61 - ] 20:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
:The last one shows more emotion - I say go for that one :) -- ]]<sup>]</sup> 22:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
::You call that emotion? Looks like it bloodly well hurts. --<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 22:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
How about I just put caps of all of them getting electrocuted? --<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 22:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


::::I'm pretty sure that Michael (from season 5, 2005), did not get any fines. I remember a fine tally board that the official website made towards the end of the show (well after Michael had been evicted), and his name was the only one not on there.
== Screen Caps ==


== Should those "calls for cancelation" really count as "calls for cancelation"? ==
Okay, I am now all out of pics for people without pics. All I can do now, is replace the photos already there. Anybody want me to do that? --<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 23:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


Somebody asked for their opinion and they provided it. There wan't really any vendettas going on here.--] 04:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


==Just a thought== == Intruders ==
Just out of curiosity - the housemates aren't allowed to sing commercial songs - have they ever sung 'happy birthday'? The song is copyrighted as well...
] 09:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


Rachel (2001), Nicole (2002), Jaime (2003), Violeta (2004) were all evicted through existing housemates voting for which intruder they wanted to stay. Each year, these specials were advertised as "Housemate's Revenge". Only Jaime from 2003 is quoted as being evicted in this way. Due to no public involvement, this is significant and thus I have added these to the respective years' HM tables.
== Elise's Photo ==


This would also include Lauren for this year as Big Brother asked the HMs to vote which Intruder they wanted to keep.
]
]
Which one's better? --<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 11:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
:Difficult. I like her face in the bedroom better, but prefer seeing more of her in the other pic. Do you have any others?] 11:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
::She didn't really get much airtime while she was there, so they are the only decent ones I could get. --<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 11:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


] 11:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:::The second one is better lit and more exclusive...
] 12:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
::::It feels as though there are too many photos from that task though, that's why I asked. But if the people prefer that one and don't mind the fact that I have already used quite a few, then I guess that one will get used. --<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 12:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


==Irrelevant ''Big Mother'' ]==
] I've put it on the article for now, but if anyone thinks it should be changed or can get a better pic, then please feel free to do that or comment. --<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 15:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


The following seems irrelevant:
== How can the Housemates have entered on Day 0? ==


'''Despite publicity using the term "World First", international seasons of ] have previously used similar concepts. The fourth Greek season had a series called ''Big Mother'' where nine houseguests participated in the game with their mothers, with whom they had to co-exist during the contest. The houseguests' mothers were not eligible to win the prize, but had to stay with their sons and daughters until their eviction. Another Big Brother series had housemates enter the House with their mothers, but the mothers did not stay.'''
Who's the idiot who changed everything to indicate the Housemates entered on Day 0? How could they, by definition the first day in the House is the FIRST DAY IN THE HOUSE and that is obviously Day 1! Can I remind you that, for instance, Christ wasn't born in Year 0, he was born in 1 AD - and that is because there is no Year 0! Obviously! Who did this and why? Can you explain your bizarre, strange and frankly WRONG reasoning? ] 16:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
:It was me, and it is correct. Day 1 is counted as the day the Launch show was shown. Day 0 is the day they entered. It's also like that on the BB06 website. --<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 16:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


To me it seems like ] to decide that this is somehow similar to or is in any way connected to or comparable with the Krystal/Karen mother/daughter secret relationship task. Their's was a secret relationship. Their challenge was to not be detected. Other housemates had the challenge to discover the secret relationship in the house. The fact that it was a mother and a child is the ''only'' similarity with ''Big Mother''. Presumably in ''Big Mother'' the mother child teams were not secret. Their were no challenges to keep the secret, or for others to uncover it. Also, in ''Big Mother'', all the housemates had their mothers, not just one. And in the case of Krystal/Karen, if successful (which they were), both would be considered normal housemates. They could be evicted separately, and were not required to stay together, and were both eligble to win. It seems to me someone included this as they were miffed at the "world first" advertising ]. That seems pretty silly, and in any event, the editor has ''not'' successfully proven that the Krystal/Karen situation wasn't a word first, because ''Big Mother'' was a way different thing all together. Anyway, who really takes these advertising slogans seriously anyway? ] 08:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
::Ok, my apologies. You are correct, I should be venting my spleen at the producers of the show then because their decision is completely nonsensical, not the first strange decision these guys have made. Whatever happened to the Insider role and why on Earth wasn't the house informed of Jade's role as the Insider? Anyway, sorry about tht JD.] 12:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
:::No worries. --<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 19:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


==Fair use rationale for Image:BB06-DS.JPG==
=="World first"==
]
''']''' is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under ] but there is no ] as to why its use in '''this''' Misplaced Pages article constitutes fair use. In addition to the ], you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with ].


Please go to ] and edit it to include a ]. Using one of the templates at ] is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
The term "world first" was intended to mean world first in the context of the BB series, not every single TV game show out there.
] 14:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
:And even in this context, it was not. -- ] 14:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
:It was meant to be a Big Brother World First, nobody said the word World referred only to BB AU episodes. And that's the way it's being used in the article, isn't it? --<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 14:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on ]. If you have any questions please ask them at the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Missing rationale2 -->
Not really:
"Despite publicity using the term "World First", this is clearly a lie given international versions of the series have previously used similar concepts. The fourth Greek season had a series called Big Mother where nine houseguests participated in the game with their mothers, with whom they had to coexist during the contest. The housemates' mothers were not able to win the prize, but had to stay with their sons and daughters until their eviction. Another Big Brother series had houseguests enter the house with their mothers, but the mothers did not stay".


] (]) 06:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
--> this is referring to another TV show, not BB, australian, or other. Unless 'Big Mother' is part of the BB programme... in which case it would be good to get a reference to info on this.


==Fair use rationale for Image:BB06.JPG==
] 15:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
]
:There's no article about Big Mother, but there's no article about Big Brother Greece either. Big Mother is a Big Brother spin-off I guess, but it is a BB programme. It's on the main Big Brother article. --<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 15:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
''']''' is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under ] but there is no ] as to why its use in '''this''' Misplaced Pages article constitutes fair use. In addition to the ], you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with ].
:Here's the website: But unless you can read Greek, good luck. Apparently it either already has, or it will be broadcasted on a Foxtel channel. --<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 15:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


Please go to ] and edit it to include a ]. Using one of the templates at ] is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
::It was just publicity hyperhole and do many viewers really take this sort of thing seriously? Really the term was used in such a vague loose way in adverts the BB producers could practically argue that it honestly was "the first time in the world a mother and daughter were secretly original housemates with a challenge to remain undetected". ] 20:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on ]. If you have any questions please ask them at the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Missing rationale2 -->
== Katie's Eviction Percentage ==


] (]) 06:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
While most believe ] said sixty-four percent, the number on-screen clearly said 54%.


== External links modified ==
Does anybody know which one is correct? {{unsigned|203.164.109.59}}
:The website says 64%. --<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 10:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
::Okay, thank you~ ] 10:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
== Summary of fines ==


I have just modified {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
I've removed it because it's fancrufty, and not encyclopedic. -- ]]<sup>]</sup> 13:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060615163216/http://au.yahoo.com/it-takes-two/ to http://au.yahoo.com/it-takes-two/


When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}).
== Housemates table ==


{{sourcecheck|checked=reviewedname=Big Brother Australia series 6}}
Is it _really_ needed? Everything there can be put elsewhere in the article, and it only makes the article look confusing. -- ]]<sup>]</sup> 13:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
:I've went and been ] and removed it, since it was massive, and messed up the layout. -- ]]<sup>]</sup> 14:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
::The layout was fine, and there's no consensus to remove the table, let alone any other comment at all. Why must it not be there? --<font face="verdana"><small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></font> 19:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
:::Because the article is way over the size limit. -- ]]<sup>]</sup> 19:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
::::It's far smaller than the BB7 UK article - why don't you do something about the size of that? The table is relevant, and having the article a bit over the limit isn't something to worry about, is it. --<font face="verdana"><small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></font> 19:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::I plan to. If there is relevant information, then put it in the housemates' section. -- ]]<sup>]</sup> 19:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::The information is only relevant in the table, and it is doing absolutely no harm being there. --<font face="verdana"><small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></font> 19:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Why is it only relevant in the table? -- ]]<sup>]</sup> 19:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::::It's information about current nominations and evictions, and it is easier to get information from the table than by searching through the article. Why must it be removed? --<font face="verdana"><small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></font> 19:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::I then suggest what is done in BB UK. -- ]]<sup>]</sup> 19:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::I suggest leave it - it was fine where it was, and it better serves its purpouse on the main page. Can't you even at least leave it until more people are involved in the conversation and have had their opinions? --<font face="verdana"><small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></font> 19:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::::More important than breaking the recommended article size? -- ]]<sup>]</sup> 19:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::::It's recommended, not set in stone. --<font face="verdana"><small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></font> 19:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::::While I agree with JD that the article limit is just a guideline, the table seems to just repeat what the article says in outline form, and is thus redundant; it is maybe even confusing. -- ] 19:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::::::It may repeat information, but information like who is currently nominated will take a long time to find if a person is searching through the whole article. The table was there first, and I don't see a major problem with it being there. --<font face="verdana"><small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></font> 19:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Yes; the eviction info can be helpful. Could that information go into the existing table to the right of the text though? -- ] 21:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
:I'm gonna have a sook and chuck a major tantie, I just want the table... *cries* --<font face="verdana"><small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></font> 21:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I reckon that the table '''is''' needed. This is an encyclopedia - a website full of information. This is information. Therefore - it should stay in... ] 10:11 UTC 20 June 06
:My dog's name is information. Shall we include that too? -- ]]<sup>]</sup> 11:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
::Your dog isn't notable. --<font face="verdana"><small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></font> 11:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


Cheers.—]<small><sub style="color: green; font-family: Comic Sans MS; margin-left: -14.9ex;">]:Online</sub></small> 03:49, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
This table is not pertinent to the Housmates, but rather a depiction of the current status of the contest. It should be given it's own section, and/or moved closer to the weekly summary and highlights with which it is more closely related. Perhaps "Current Status" would be correct here. ] 14:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
:I myself think that while the series is in progress, it should be near the top; then when the series is finished I plan on having a different table on a separate page, and the current one can be deleted. If you feel it might look or function better further down the article, you should check it out, and if you think it's better, save it. If somebody doesn't like it, they can always undo it and discuss it on here.
:Actually, is it possible to change the colours of the rows on the minitable at the top of the article? --<font face="verdana"><small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></font> 14:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


== Reliable Sources == == External links modified ==
* The data in this page sources a site which speaks of third party individuals as hearsay. Please review ] regarding the reliable sources of data. Thanks. ] 12:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
:If you're referring to the link I added to The Daily Telegraph website, I thought it was pretty reliable. It won't be needed after tomorrow anyway, if there's a problem with it being there. If you were on about something else, then you can kinda read around this... --<font face="verdana"><small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></font> 12:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
* Thank you for a speedy reply. I am referencing the entire article here. Per ]:
: '''Personal websites as primary sources'''
A personal website (either operated by one individual or a group of individuals) or blog may be used only as a primary source, i.e., when we are writing about the owner of the website or the website itself. ] 12:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
::Personal websites haven't been used as sources for this article; nor have blogs, as far as I can tell. I know you said you're referencing the whole article, but is there something specific you could point out, as an example? It may help me better understand. --<font face="verdana"><small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></font> 12:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


I have just modified {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Again, thank you for the speedy reply. How do you classify your sources if not "personal web sites"? Your second request cannot be logically answered until this point is agreed to. They appear to be sites which speak about the primary topic of the article, "the show", but the article does not address how much the show has earned, the companies involved in producing it, the viewing area or channels where it is available, the estimated viewing demographic, or other facts about the show itself. The article does appear to contain a replay of the content of the show, rather than discussing the show itself. The data presented as content specifically speaks of various third party individuals whom are neither authors of the source web sites, nor stock holders in the show. It is therefore pertinent how you define the classification of these sources in regards to their reliability. Thanks, and by the way, the graphic arrangement is very evenly balanced. ] 13:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060705060832/http://www.behindbigbrother.com:80/showarticle.php?articleID=934 to http://www.behindbigbrother.com/showarticle.php?articleID=934
::Wow. They are things I haven't even thought about where a Big Brother article is concerned, or even when watching the programme. I would have to do a bit of research on the subject, but if I found some information from reputable websites, I would definitely try to find a way to include it in the article. Some of that information is already on the main ] article, but it focuses more on Big Brother in general, rather than individual series. --<font face="verdana"><small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></font> 13:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}).
*I agree with you that research on a subject is advisable before undertaking an article. I would like to ask you to further review ], please. I do not doubt the reliability of the sources themselves, however, if these sources are not considered to be personal web sites, then they appear to be self published sources. As discussed earlier, it is pertinent how you classify the sources in regard to their reliability. As self published sources they may not involve claims about third parties, which would be considered to be hearsay. Please let me know after review of ] how you find the sources to be classified. Thanks! ] 13:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
:Some of the information comes from the housemates themselves, but as it's unlikely that many of these things have been documented by reliable sources, I'm not quite sure how those sources would be classified. A lot of the information also comes from broadcasted shows, and is published on the Big Brother Australia website. It doesn't fit enough criteria to be classified as a published source, but it could, in some interpretations, be seen as a fact or coming from a primary source. --<font face="verdana"><small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></font> 13:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}
*The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable by referring to reliable, published sources. The page should be written as historically accurate. How will this page be viewed as informational ten years from now? The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references. If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third party sources, Misplaced Pages should not have an article on that topic. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it ]. I think that my chief concern here is that there are statements made in the article which are about third party individuals and made by sources which have a financial interest in the show. The hearsay then looks to be factual to the general public. Rewording or removal in areas which are clearly only POV of the sources is warranted. I hope you can understand this perspective clearly. Regarding house mates themselves as reliable sources, quoting should be used, but their opinions are only hearsay and quite likely to be arguable among themselves on the program. To say "John said that Jane was pretty", does not mean that Jane is pretty. For a specific example, a statement such as "Anna seemed to form a tighter bond with the men in the house." might use some rewording or explanation. For another example, I checked the sources regarding "David Graham Goondiwindi, Qld 22 April Came out as gay on Day 4.", and there is no relevance to the show here. This may be relative to the plot of the show, to the sales of the show, or other factors, but that relationship is not stated in the article. The actual reference for day four quotes David rather than making any sort of opinion about his statement. These are only two examples picked at random. I hope this helps make my earlier points clearer. ] 15:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


Cheers.—] <span style="color: green; font-family: Rockwell;">(])</span> 23:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


== Move discussion in progress ==


There is a move discussion in progress on ] which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. <!-- Talk:Celebrity Big Brother 1 (U.S.) crosspost --> —] 05:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
== Definitions ==
* Please add definitions of "intruder" and describe relevence to the show.
:The word Intruder is used on the show itself, and refers to a housemate that enters the house after the series has started. --<font face="verdana"><small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></font> 13:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
:Please add that to the content of this page. Thanks! ] 13:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
::I've added it to the ] section that I just made, as I can't see any other well-suited place to put the information. I know it would be more ideal to place it nearer the top, but I couldn't find a good place. Sorry. --<font face="verdana"><small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></font> 14:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
:Looks fine to me! Please keep in mind that this article should strive to educate a person about the show whom may not have access to this program either now or in the future. Thanks! ] 17:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
::I got rid of the definition I put on the page when I noticed you had put it on near the top. I was considering adding a Big Brother AU Lingo section, but I don't know if there would be enough terms. Maybe there are... I dunno. --<font face="verdana"><small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></font> 17:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
:JMHO, keep adding them until they look ugly, then you will have enough for the lingo section. I'll be happy to read it more carefully for you and place more like the one here below (hint hint) ] 18:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


== Move discussion in progress ==
* Please add definition of "insider" and describe relevence to the show. ] 13:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
:Oh shame, I thought that said Intruder as well. An Insider is a housemate nominated by the public, from a pre-selected group, to work under Big Brother's command, normally to sabotage daily activities or find out another housemate's secret, without being discovered. Big Brother normally grants them exemption from the Nominations process for a week if they succeed. --<font face="verdana"><small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></font> 18:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


There is a move discussion in progress on ] which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. <!-- Talk:Big Brother 1 (Australia) crosspost --> —] 07:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
* Nominations, in the top section, what kind of nominations? Save? Evict? Both?
* Fake double eviction - I haven't a clue; fake?
* enacted revenge - how is this done in general? I am picturing maybe nerf-balls.
* "game on moles!" - is this a colloquialism?
* three-point twist
* clown task


== Move discussion in progress ==
Please feel free to add those to content, I'll cleanup later. It's really coming together imho. Thanks! ] 18:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
----
:Okey doke, here I goes...
* Nominations, in the top section, what kind of nominations? Save? Evict? Both?
:I think I got this one now, but correct me if I got it wrong. When housemates are up for eviction, in BB06 the public can vote to save a housemate, or to evict one; or as many as they like, as many times as they like (or can afford). The votes are then merged, and the final results are used to decide who's evicted.
* Fake double eviction - I haven't a clue; fake?
:The eviction plays out like a normal one, but instead of exiting the house the "evictees" are taken to a secret room. The evictees won't know it's a fake eviction until they are taken to the secret room, and the other housemates won't know until they are told when the evictees return.
* enacted revenge - how is this done in general? I am picturing maybe nerf-balls.
:lmao nerf balls would probably end up with the housemate given a strike. I'm not quite sure about this one myself, as when this happened in BB06 I missed it, and when it happened in BB5 UK, I missed it...
* "game on moles!" - is this a colloquialism?
:It's just a term Anna coined while in the house. The word mole is derogatory towards women in Australia.
* three-point twist
:The winner of Friday Night Live gets to take three ] points off any housemate of their choice. I put a good-ish explanation of the nominations process on Misplaced Pages, if you follow that link in the previous sentence.
* clown task
:Just a task given by Big Brother, where the housemates had to act like clowns.


There is a move discussion in progress on ] which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. <!-- Talk:Big Brother (Australia season 1) crosspost --> —] 21:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
If you got more, bring them on. --<font face="verdana"><small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></font> 19:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
----

Latest revision as of 13:37, 30 March 2024

This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconTelevision: Episode coverage / Reality Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Misplaced Pages articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force (assessed as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Reality television task force (assessed as Low-importance).
Note icon
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
WikiProject iconAustralia: Television Low‑importance
WikiProject iconBig Brother (Australian TV series) season 6 is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian television (assessed as Low-importance).
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian at the National Library of Australia.
Note icon
The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to help@wikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.
WikiProject iconBig Brother High‑importance
WikiProject iconThe Big Brother WikiProject aims to improve articles relating to Big Brother, and Big Brother (Australian TV series) season 6 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.Big BrotherWikipedia:WikiProject Big BrotherTemplate:WikiProject Big BrotherBig Brother
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives
Archive 1Archive 2

Dinner with Big Brother (Kris Noble)

A sentence under the Week 14 heading reads "She was then told that she, and three friends in the house, would later that day dine with Big Brother". I added that it was BB producer Kris Noble who they actually dined with. It was removed by User:JD UK as "irrelevant". I think the sentence makes more sense by including whom, exactly, they dined with, rather than just stating it was "Big Brother". Can we get some discussion on this? Cnwb 23:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Unless the housemates saw, or were told who the voice of Big Brother is or was at the time, it's irrelevant. We don't need to know what the housemates didn't. —JD 10:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Also, saying that they dined with Kris Noble if they dined with Big Brother could make some people think they dined with the man himself. —JD 10:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

^^^ JD is correct in leaving it as Big Brother. However, it was for the wrong reasons. Kris Noble DOES NOT do any voiceovers as Big Brother even though many assume he does. There are three other people who do it. Peter Abbot, back when he was Exec Producer, decided to do the voices. Kris has no obligation to do so.

The IMDb says here that Kris Noble is the voice of Big Brother from 2004 onwards, but another page does say that there is another voice for the most recent Big Brother seasons. I guess I trust the IMDb a little too much if that is incorrect. talk to JD 20:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Even back in the Peter Abbott days, there were different voices of Big Brother; Abbott did not voice all of the Big Brother commands. There was even a female voice in season one. Asa01 21:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Prize Summary

Can anyone help with providing a summary of prizes for contestants ?

Which ones? All of them? —JD 10:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Well - all, as this would give some idea of the level of reward that each contestant experienced...

Most of the contestants got the same prize - $2500, $5000, or $10,000; a car or scooter; and a holiday. I'd certainly help, but I dunno if people think it should go in; me not being people and all. —JD 12:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Approval Voting

I removed the claim that Big Brother votes follow the Approval vote method. They don't. Anyone may vote both evict or save and multiple times for any nominated housemate. Approval voting allows only one approval for any or multiple candidates, but not multiple approvals which is what Big Brother allows. Approval voting also does not feature a disapproval vote (evict), so the inclusion of "Approval voting" is pretty meaningless. Asa01 04:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Article name

I just noticed this article in my watchlist - Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Big Brother#Naming articles states "Articles about a Big Brother series are named Big Brother ( series )". I suggest the recent name changes to the Australian BB articles should be reversed. -- Chuq 05:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use of images

Although each individual use of each copyrighted image on this page would qualify as "fair use" in U.S. law, as a whole, having 28 copyrighted images would not qualify as fair use. In the U.S., the quantity of the copied work is of principal importance in determining whether the use is acceptable or not. I have removed all but the most important copyrighted images. Note that an article on the each individual person could include that person's image without problems, if anyone wants to do that. All the best, – Quadell 13:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a question, I am not disagreeing with you (it actually makes good sense), just curious for your imput, but since most individual constestant pages are not allowed anyway to have a photo of them on (since they are not considered famous/worthy enough), isn't what you just suggested a bit of a Catch-22 situation? Can't have their photos here, can't have them there. Eh, I am new(ish) and am just intrested in the advice of people like yourself. Hope that is okay. ChenBot 01:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages's Fair Use Policy states that the use of film and television screenshots for critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television is generally approved on Misplaced Pages. Seeing as there is no mention of the number the images which can be used, I don't think it was necessary to remove the images from this article.

I understand that the number of images may be important in the case that they were all of the same person. However, these images where all of different people, and there was only one image of each of them. They were also in seperate sections of the article, each detailing the individual people. Therefore I believe that the use of these images is protected under Misplaced Pages's Fair Use Policy. Amazonis 05:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Well reasonable people can disagree on this. I think we're both reasonable. And we disagree. – Quadell 06:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Lauren

There are two major mistakes in Lauren's profile - it says that she spent the shortest amount of time in the house and was the only housemate ever to have no fines.

These are both wrong.

Both Violetta (BB4) and Rachel Corbett (BB1) spent two days in the house (I think Rachel might of only been 24 hours). The misinfomation of Lauren being the shortest ever staying housemate was I believe an off-the-cuff comment made by Rove McManus.

And I am also positive Rob Ridgley recieved no fines during his stay in the house. I remember he was acting rather smary about it after his eviction.

ChenBot 13:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Rob did get at least one, he spoke without his microphone when he got his first. Lauren mentioned the two records herself, perhaps she was wrong about the shortest stay one? According to the BB01 article, Rachel was in the House for four days, and the BB04 article doesn't even say when Violetta entered the House. J Di 14:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Well even if Rachel did stay 4 days, she ties with Lauren and thus that info is somewhat wrong. Granted it was 6 years ago, the memory barely exists since it wasn't exactly something I bother to retain first time around. I'm positive though that Violetta was barely in the house for more then a couple of days. Still all in all take it as you may. Grand statements made by housemates on the stage are not neccessarily gospel (hey, look at me and the Rob/fine thing! I did that very thing!)
I remember at the BehindBigBrother.com forum there was a thread about this. Just as much hearsay as my post here, but I am pretty positive Lauren wasn't the shortest staying housemate.
Thanks for the info on Rob though. I wish the offical website was still up (damn BB for being cheap and piggy backing off a phone company) because I am addicted to checking past facts and info off such places.
ChenBot 01:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


Yeah, Rob got one fine and Lauren was there from Wednesday to Sunday.
In 2001 Rachel entered on Monday - Day 36 and was evicted on friday - Day 40

In 2004 Violeta entered on Friday - Day 57, and was evicted on Tuesday - Day 61 - 203.51.88.113 20:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that Michael (from season 5, 2005), did not get any fines. I remember a fine tally board that the official website made towards the end of the show (well after Michael had been evicted), and his name was the only one not on there.

Should those "calls for cancelation" really count as "calls for cancelation"?

Somebody asked for their opinion and they provided it. There wan't really any vendettas going on here.--58.104.111.29 04:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Intruders

Rachel (2001), Nicole (2002), Jaime (2003), Violeta (2004) were all evicted through existing housemates voting for which intruder they wanted to stay. Each year, these specials were advertised as "Housemate's Revenge". Only Jaime from 2003 is quoted as being evicted in this way. Due to no public involvement, this is significant and thus I have added these to the respective years' HM tables.

This would also include Lauren for this year as Big Brother asked the HMs to vote which Intruder they wanted to keep.

121.45.231.227 11:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant Big Mother original research

The following seems irrelevant:

Despite publicity using the term "World First", international seasons of Big Brother have previously used similar concepts. The fourth Greek season had a series called Big Mother where nine houseguests participated in the game with their mothers, with whom they had to co-exist during the contest. The houseguests' mothers were not eligible to win the prize, but had to stay with their sons and daughters until their eviction. Another Big Brother series had housemates enter the House with their mothers, but the mothers did not stay.

To me it seems like original research to decide that this is somehow similar to or is in any way connected to or comparable with the Krystal/Karen mother/daughter secret relationship task. Their's was a secret relationship. Their challenge was to not be detected. Other housemates had the challenge to discover the secret relationship in the house. The fact that it was a mother and a child is the only similarity with Big Mother. Presumably in Big Mother the mother child teams were not secret. Their were no challenges to keep the secret, or for others to uncover it. Also, in Big Mother, all the housemates had their mothers, not just one. And in the case of Krystal/Karen, if successful (which they were), both would be considered normal housemates. They could be evicted separately, and were not required to stay together, and were both eligble to win. It seems to me someone included this as they were miffed at the "world first" advertising hyperbole. That seems pretty silly, and in any event, the editor has not successfully proven that the Krystal/Karen situation wasn't a word first, because Big Mother was a way different thing all together. Anyway, who really takes these advertising slogans seriously anyway? Format 08:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:BB06-DS.JPG

Image:BB06-DS.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Misplaced Pages article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:BB06.JPG

Image:BB06.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Misplaced Pages article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Big Brother 6 (Australia). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).


  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—Talk to my owner:Online 03:49, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Big Brother 6 (Australia). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Celebrity Big Brother 1 (U.S.) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Big Brother 1 (Australia) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 07:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Big Brother (Australia season 1) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Categories: