This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Festivals This article is within the scope of WikiProject Festivals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Festivals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FestivalsWikipedia:WikiProject FestivalsTemplate:WikiProject FestivalsFestivals ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. Metal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of heavy metal music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MetalWikipedia:WikiProject MetalTemplate:WikiProject MetalHeavy Metal Rock music This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Australia: Queensland / Music Low‑importance Big Day Out is within the scope of 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.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Queensland (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Australian music (assessed as Mid-importance). Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Queensland. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance. New Zealand: Music Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the New Zealand music task force (assessed as High-importance). Auckland Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Auckland, which aims to improve the coverage of Auckland, New Zealand, on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.AucklandWikipedia:WikiProject AucklandTemplate:WikiProject AucklandWikiProject Auckland Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

Should we just wikilink every band, or will that make it look distracting?--ZZ 13:35, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC) Also slightly confused about "the" at the beginning of some band titles (eg. The Hoodoo Gurus). Is there a source for all these line ups & is it reliable? And are the appropriate wiki-entries correct?

Link them. -- Nickj 07:16, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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)

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)

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

Merge the Jessica Michalik article with the BDO article. The death was a significant moment in BDO history and should therefore be included in the main article.

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)[reply]

• Disagree also - keep as separate article per Dom. -- Ian ≡ talk 08:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with the disagreements :P Keep it separate. There has been quite a time to discuss, so I'm going to be bold and remove the merge tags. -- Chuq 09:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just a general question, should it be noted that At the Drive-In stormed off stage earlier that day due to moshing and people in the crowd just generally going too far? Just to like, note that the constant risk during the day. Something in the air maybe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.130.89.208 (talk) 08:56, 23 December 2005

I don't intend to merge the whole Jessica Michalik article, but the incident must be mentioned here, and because Jessica Michalik is a BIO and not explicitly about the incident, I haven't added {{main|Jessica Michalik}} even though it does contain extra information.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Chili Peppers arent playing BDO2007. Theyre doing seperate tour in April.

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)[reply]

I see what you are saying, but I still do not see the problems you may have. I understand you moderators are allowed to display subjectivity, however, if you could give a basic suggestion as to what may be grounds for "notability" in the opinions of yourself and your colleagues. I have read through the page provided in your message, but it is not clear at all where the dispute is between you and the wikipedia entry that was created.

I don't wish to create an argument, rather to receive a simple answer or suggestion as to what would be approved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henry winkler (talk • contribs) 06:13, 14 June 2006

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)[reply]

Should this be included here? Line-up was: Kerrang stage - Mercyful Fate, Queens of the Stone Age, Symposium, Pitchshifter, Monster Magnet and Terrorvision headling. Main stage - Creed, Sepultura, Ministry, Ben Harper, Placebo, Marilyn Manson and Metallica headling -- Lugnuts 18:16, 3 August 2006

Hmmm. This was the Big Day Out that had no association with the Australian BDO.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

It's been going on for over a week now - I have semi-protected the page. -- Chuq 10:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following line is incorrect "Lead singer of Tool, Mark Stevenson is rumoured to be entering the big day out by helicopter." Maynard James Keenan is the lead singer of Tool, not Mark Stevenson. I do not know whether MJK or Mark Stevenson did indeed arrive by helicopter.130.36.62.141 08:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)I am a user, but I do not remember my username, sorry! But you can verify this information at the Maynard James Keenan or Tool articles on Wikipedia.[reply]

CONFIRMED BDO BAND

TOOL are coming to the 2007 bdo... they have confirmed a show at Melbourne's Sidney Myer Music Bowl on January 31... about the same time as some other music festival.....

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

RE: CONFIRMED BDO BAND

They are the headliners since they are being bought out to Australia by Lee's and West's touring company

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please do.... hellboy 06:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Am I the only one who finds this "flag ban" concept to be utterly offensive? If they wanted to prevent any "racial" (I totally object to this description) tensions, then banning the NATIONAL flag might just be the worst thing you could do after banning particular ethno-religious groups from attending. Sorry I just had to get that off my chest, this "race-riots" myth has gone way to far in this country. Spoonman.au 23:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Myth? -- Ianiceboy 00:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 {{main}} 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? --linca^linca 04:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

This goes for 2009 speculation too.... hellboy (talk) 11:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone keeps removing Bjork from the statement The main international acts of Rage Against the Machine and Björk combined with the increasing popularity of the event ensured this depletion of tickets.. I'm not sure what the reasoning behind removing Bjork is (though is suspect it's cause the user dislikes her), but please elaborate or I will continue reverting the change. Anyone else want to comment on whether or not this statement should even exist? hellboy (talk) 08:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop re-inserting Bjork. Bjork is not the reason the Big Day Out tickets sold out so quickly. Whether or not you or I like her is irrelevant. Simple searches on Google easily reveal that Rage Against the Machine were the main reason BDO tickets sold out so quickly. I mean, be honest, Bjork is not a well known artists in Australia, and of those who know her, a lot don't like the music. Insisting on keeping Bjork in that sentence is a joke, and seems like nothing more than a POV-pushing attempt at heightening her profile. I will continue to remove Bjork from this statement, as it is clearly false. 121.223.87.143 (talk) 11:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find an article that supports your claim, then why aren't you citing it? If you can do that then I'll happily leave it alone

Claiming Bjork isn't well known in australia is a super weird claim. The woman has 5 top ten albums in australia , a huge number of charting hits, and yeah.... She was one of the biggest stars of the 90s. She wasn't exactly underground. I dig RATM, but come on. Purely on the data alone its not hard to work out who where the bigger drawcard in australia , at least in the 90s and early 2000s. 2001:44B8:6117:B100:B9C1:9993:CE7E:D3DF (talk)

hellboy (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC) So basically, what you're saying is, you do not want someone removing something from an article that is blatantly false and has no sources? That's not the way it works. Bjork can stay if you find a source saying she was a big part of the tickets selling out - you won't find one because everybody knows it's false. BDO tickets would not have sold out anywhere near as fast had RATM not been playing. RATM also had other shows in Sydney and Melbourne that aren't part of the BDO, and they also sold out in record time, [1] [2] so it's no coincidence that RATM were the single biggest factor influencing BDO ticket sales. Bjork must have such a low profile here, that site such as this only note RATM as the headliner and leave her (and the others) out. There is even an article from the Sydney Morning Herald titled "No Bjork, but no one seemed to give a toss" - and that title says it all; no one knew her, and of those that did, no one cared. It's crazy to insist on keeping Bjork in that sentence when she clearly had no impact on ticket sales, except maybe for Austrlia's grand total of two Bjork fans. ~~[reply]

You're saying that like you can find articles saying that RATM are responsible for the sell out. I can't find any.... hellboy (talk) 00:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look harder. And find one saying Bjork contributed. You won't. And unverified shit that is blatantly false and an attempt at POV-pushing, is supposed to be removed from Wikipedia - and that is what I'm doing. 121.223.87.143 (talk) 00:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, you've found some sources, now cite them in the main article. I'm not trying to say you're wrong, just that you're going about it the wrong way. hellboy (talk) 00:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I have no idea how to do that awesome cite thingy where the source goes down to the bottom of the page.121.223.87.143 (talk) 00:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Citing_sources hellboy (talk) 00:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I agree that it should be removed. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, leave it off. Note the band never said they were playing BDO, just said they were touring around then and rosie jumped in and said BDO. Until they have a press release/list of tour dates saying they are playing, leave it off Cereal killer (talk) 06:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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) Harlequin[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I propose removing the {{lead too short}} 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)[reply]

agreed! bensuthers 15:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Perhaps a reorganisation of the entire article is required. I agree that the history section sounds like it's been written by fans, and it should perhaps be replaced entirely; maybe 'Origins' and mentioning 1992, the development of the festival 'tour' and the expansion from 1999-2010. Also Controversy seems a little overblown; not only as you suggest 2001 being too prominent, but discussions of drug use at music festivals are hardly controversial. The flag ban is hardly worthy of four paragraphs. Information regarding the rebirth of the festival could be linked to discussion of the new partnership. Bensuthers 15:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I think this is a fair point.--Soulparadox (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone shed light on the July 2012 neutrality dispute that has taken place?--Soulparadox (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Same. I'm a bit confused as to what's being disputed... EryZ (talk) 03:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See "History section" above. Orderinchaos 06:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links 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 {{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) 00:36, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]