Talk:Big Day Out

message: Violent Femmes were the headliners, not Nirvana. At the time they were booked to play at the BDO, Nevermind had only just been released and wasn't expected to be such a big hit. BrianFG 02:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1992 BDO 

message: Should we just wikilink every band, or will that make it look distracting?--ZZ 13:35, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Link them. -- Nickj 07:16, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I added those past line-ups and they were sourced from the Big Day Out 2004 website (Google cache), so they are accurate. The big question is whether there should be a seperate listing for each city including all the local acts, or whether just to list the bands that played two or more cities. Galaga88 13:30, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I was planning on alphabetising; then putting them in small paragraphs - All venues, Oz Only, NZ only, East Coast only, cities only (in order of city acts). My computer however is giving me a bitch of a time loading wikis at the moment "page cannot be found" message 50% of the time, Anyone else?--ZayZayEM 01:22, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikilink every band / Past line ups

message: This is rubbish. Lees and West have confirmed this in the January edition of Rollingstone. They do not have enough interest in the event for it to travel to the Northern Territory. Also major cost issues are a major factor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.126.97.233 (talk) 10:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Northern Territory BDO?? 

message: Given the short length of the Jessica Michalik article, it sounds like a good idea to merge it with the Big Day Out article.
I disagree.  While I would say that more could be added to the Jessica Michalik article, such as the public/media reaction to her death, details of the circumstances and changes resulting from it, I think that the accident was significant enough to justify a separate article.  Having a separate article isn't confusing to me.  Besides, just merging on the basis of an articles' current size is strange; it doesn't give an opportunity for others to expand on it.  Sera 03:43, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree - yes, the death was a significant moment in BDO history, which is why a short synopsis of it is under the history section. All that really needs to happen is for someone to expand the separate article out a little. --Dom 23:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jessica Michalik merge 

message: As of 31st October 2005, there has been no second annoucement for 2006. Could someone with sufficient privileges please remove the second annoucement. Galaga88 08:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have both removed it, and unprotected the page (I reckon it was a bunch of bored kids in a classroom somewhere) -- Chuq 10:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  There has been no second annoucement 

message: Where's a reference for this info on the RHCPs playing in 2007? I searched the Chili's website but found no reference to the 2007 BDO in flea's blogs "fleamail?" The claim seems a bid dodgy. --LeakeyJee 12:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 2007 BDO

message: The BDO Forum is an entirely different entity to the Big Day Out, and as a result should not be merged. More information is soon to come, and apologies must be made for the nonsense that was edited into the article by others, however the plan was to expand on the information.
BDO Forum is a community, that despite being owned by the Big Day Out festival, is used for other purposes and has many, many types of subject matter that have absolutely no relevance to the festival. People involved, achievements, events of note, they are all specific to the forum.
Also with your problems or verifiability and notability, do you want each comment referenced? The reference links at the bottom should provide most, if not all, the information needed to verify any comments made.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henry winkler (talk • contribs) 05:42, 14 June 2006 
:I realize this, however you should be made aware that these forums are not notable enough by wikipedia's standards to warrant an article of its own.  Instead, if you would like in the info maintained, it has a better chance within this article instead.  There are certain guidelines that we follow in terms of notability.  -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 05:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I should have been more specific.  Please take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (web) instead.  It should better explain how I fear that this particular forum does not meet the requirements of notability.  Hence, in my opinion, it is very likely to be deleted.  Also if you could, please sign your comments on talk pages with ~~~~.  Thanks -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 06:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: wanting to merge Big Day Out Forum with Big Day Out

message: There have been a lot of anon edits in the last few days.  Any editors working on this page may want to keep an eye on people inserting random bands into the list of 2007 bands. -- Chuq 23:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to be getting a bit out of hand, every second edit is an unsourced anon edit saying that The Veronicas or Creed are playing.  Does anyone else think semi-protection is a suitable option here? -- Chuq 13:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been going on for over a week now - I have semi-protected the page. -- Chuq 10:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: That is not a confirmation. Dwayne Kirkwood 23:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: That's still not confirmation though.  I don't think anyone disagrees with you, everything points to them playing, but until the organisers actually confirm it, I don't think it should be posted on this site. hellboy 02:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anonymous edits

message: Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball. I am going to remove all of the unverified confirmations now, feel free to add them with verification (eg links). "They said in an interview" is not a confirmation unless you can cite the interview with a transcript. Dwayne Kirkwood 23:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do.... hellboy 06:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: BDO 2007

message: I find the lineups for each year completely unreadable.
The layout for the lineups for each year are inconsistent. Reading the band names all in one line and in one paragraph is hard to read. Though a bulleted list will make the article too long, maybe have a neatly structured table, from headline act to "lesser" acts.
: I agree with both these remarks. I will reorganise these to make them easier. I'm not good with tables though, so I'll just do it as a list. Maybe someone else could turn it into a table later. BrianFG 23:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you aren't familiar with wiki-formatting, using templates as described at Template:Col-begin/doc may make it easier. -- Chuq (talk) 00:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lineup readability

message: The third announcement for 2007 is expected soon. When it does come out, do you think we can clean up the 2007 list a little? The way it is layed out makes it a little confusing, with the nz only and aus only things so close to each other JayKeaton 22:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Third announcement

message: Should there be some mention of the fact australian flags are being banned as gang colours at the Sydney Big day out and that racism fears have led to the event being moved away from the usual date of January 26th (Australia day) Matt Cranley
:Yes, but there's no need to be in any particular hurry about it; a few days often lends itself to a bit of perspective. --Robert Merkel 05:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay...I've made a few, nay, several changes to the paragraph.  What currently exists ignores the fact that the flag ban was opposed by a large section of the community, not a few stuff shirt pollies and their ilk.  Nobody said that the BDO should be "banned"; rather they said if organisers could not guarantee the safety of attendees then perhaps it should be cancelled.   Kransky 11:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Myth? -- Ianiceboy 00:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Before you get too carried away, you do actually realise they didn't actually ban the flag?  Just another case of the media trumping up a news story.... hellboy 01:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Australian Flag Ban

message: Speculation on the 2008 lineup has been removed in line with policy WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL.  Please refrain from post unconfirmed info on this page.  As an aside, from memory the headline acts for the Big Day Out's are actually booked about 2 years in advance.  Based on this I'd consider the possibility of The Smashing Pumpkins and Rage Against the Machine perform in 2008 to be somewhat unlikey.  hellboy 10:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed that speculation on the 2008 lineup (especially at this ridiculously early stage in the proceedings) should not be on the page, but are you sure that the headliners are booked that early? This year's lineup had many bands that released popular albums in 2006. I'm a bit skeptical that Lees and West would know that Tool, Muse, My Chemical Romance, The Killers, Eskimo Joe, etc etc were all going to release albums in 2006, way back at the start of 2005. Aside from that, I just REALLY want RATM to be on the 2008 line-up ;). Demonofthefall 13:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd love RATM to play as well!  Considering I can't even remember where I heard this, take it with a grain of salt!  Anything could happen!! hellboy 00:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2008 Speculation 

message: :Image:Bdo2006.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 Wikipedia articles 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 Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Bdo2006.jpg

message: :Image:Bdo2003.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 Wikipedia articles 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 Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Bdo2003.jpg

message: :Image:Bdo-disrespective.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 Wikipedia articles 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 Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Bdo-disrespective.jpg

message: I've just split out the lineups section because the majority of the page was here as a result of that. I've put a little blurb in there as well as a  template linking to it, but I'm posting this because I think it'd be appropriate to have a better explanation of the lineups in there. Also, the lineups page is almost directly dumped from how it was here, except with cats, refs etc, but not much else. If anyone wants to go and improve that page, feel free. Maybe we could move some of the images from this page to that? --lincalinca 04:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Artist lineups 

message: Please note that Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball WP:NOT#CBALL, and that until I see confirmation of bands on the 2008 lineup, I will continue to keep deleting rumours.  Wikipedia is for facts, not speculation and rumours.  Thanks for your cooperation! hellboy 01:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This goes for 2009 speculation too.... hellboy (talk) 11:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  2008 Rumours and Speculation 

message: I'll leave the edit there for now, but I still disagree that it should be included on the page.  In my opinion details regarding upcoming Big Day Outs shouldn't be included on this page until there is an offical announcement from the organisers.  In the past this is how it's been done on this page.  And besides, despite the confirmation on radio/video, I can think off the top of my head at least two occasions where bands have said they'll be playing, and in fact have turned out not to be.  Anyone else have any thoughts on this?  hellboy (talk) 10:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it should be removed. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 11:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  2009 Speculation 

message: Just a heads up to any wikipedians. The Claremont council here in Western Australia has refused to allow Big Day Out to be held at the showgrounds. Despite meeting the deadline for booking, Claremont council has proceded to deny the event the land because they "are only allowed to book two large concerts a year". Vfest has replaced BDO as this years event. Now, this is quite ridiculous in itself, as Claremont has never stated this before and despite this, the criteria for size, alcohol, venders and gigs was slightly above what BDO was expecting and thus it was denied. Of course its still being denied despite BDO suggesting they lower alcohol consumption, gigs and the amount of venders to meet the criteria, clearly showing the Claremont council has no regard for any guidelines they set out and just simply wished to remove Big Day Out from this years lineup.
Now hopefully, as its being discussed with State Government, Big Day Out will just tell Claremont to "get fucked" and have the State Government intervene as it is a State economic and tourism issue. Hopefully. Until then, I suggest wiki editors on this page keep a lookout for news (it was a half page spread on the second page of The West Australia here in WA, as well as a variety of other news and media, so theres no lack of sources) regarding this issue, and whether Big Day Out is actually going to be cancelled or moved to another ground for Western Australia. Especially the latter, as it will come up when addressing BDO in the article for this year state and nation wide. 121.221.219.164 (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claremont Council Refuses Big Day Out 

message: Seems to me as though the artist lineup section is slowly getting larger and larger as fans of respective acts add their to the list.  Not sure if there's a precedent in place to look at these, but my immediate though was that the list should perhaps be limited to headlining acts, in particular those from the main stages and the boiler room.  Thoughts?  hellboy (talk) 13:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Artist Lineup Bloat 

message: Does every piece of negative crowd interaction artists have had at Big Day Out's really need to be documented here?hellboy (talk) 02:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is notable and reliably sourced (I just removed some unsourced original research), then yes. Wikipedia is not censored and should not read as an advertisement for the festival, perhaps it is a tad negatively slanted, but if that is what has been reported on by the media, then that is what we include. kiac. (talk-contrib) 03:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Controversy" 

message: I propose removing the  template.  The lead appears pretty complete to me, at least meeting Wikipedia's minimal requirements.  None of the controversies appear prominent enough to included in the lead.  Thoughts?  --Pmsyyz (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: The "History" section sounds like it has been written by the organisers of the event - more sources (and less quotes from the promoter!) are needed to build a more full picture of things as they are now. You wouldn't know from reading this that Perth and Adelaide failed to sell out last year, Auckland has had to be cancelled due to low numbers, and the event has had to be restructured in the face of stronger competition from Soundwave / Future Music / other festivals. This particular POV problem is unique to this section - in the "Controversy" section, it goes almost the other way, giving the 2001 incident far too much prominence (the prominence would have been justified if the legal cases had actually succeeded). The detail would be fine for a separate article, but in this one probably needs to be summarised. Orderinchaos 16:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Perhaps it's just me, but 'controversy' sections always seem to place so much emphasis on random little media stories which, while prominent in the public eye for about 2 days, don't add much to a full picture of any article when each incident takes up four paragraphs. If we step back a bit, we can ask ourselves: does a flag ban controversy deserve as much attention as the whole history of the festival? Of course not. I support Bensuthers' restructuring proposal. EryZ (talk) 23:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section 

message: I have edited the section formerly named "Drug usage and death", as it is more accurate and in keeping with an encyclopedic tone if drugs are referred to without the use of judgmental language/tone (for example, the Wiki linking of "drug abuse", implying that all drug use at music festivals is "abusive"). The section was also remiss in omitting alcohol from the section, as alcohol is the world's most widely used drug and has played an indispensable role at all music festivals.--Soulparadox (talk) 06:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed with the revisions. I personally think the whole drug issue is a feature of festival culture generally rather than specifically BDO, although of course it's made the news with BDO because of it being bigger and more commercial.  Orderinchaos 10:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think this is a fair point.--Soulparadox (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drug use 

message: Can anyone shed light on the July 2012 neutrality dispute that has taken place?--Soulparadox (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Same. I'm a bit confused as to what's being disputed... EryZ (talk) 03:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: See "History section" above. Orderinchaos 06:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality dispute 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Big Day Out. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080616172326/http://www.news.com.au:80/entertainment/story/0,23663,21096947-10388,00.html to http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/story/0,23663,21096947-10388,00.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090514120844/http://www.dassa.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=138 to http://www.dassa.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=138
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:36, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hbdbddhdhhbdhcbhdhdbhcdh 112.141.51.233 (talk) 05:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fun food to fat you poop