Talk:Big Brother 2006 nominations table (UK)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Big Brother 2006 nominations table (UK). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Colours and formatting

To follow suit with previous nominations tables, the following colour codes should be used:

Banned: #959FFD
Evicted: #FA8072
Finalists: #FBF373
Removed: #FFCCCC
Walked: #FFCCFF

Any major changes to the colours used on the table without discussion will be reverted on sight. — Fire Fox 21:31, 12 June '06

Just a thought, would Evicted be better if it was #FECOFF

Pink? Nah. -- 9 cds^(talk) 20:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Colours

I don't like the colour for the walked, it is too bright and i would expect it to be over powering. i realise that this is following previous series tables, but in previous cases there has not been such a section. I feel that it should be changed, what do people think to #ffccff (shown below)

×	Week 1	Week 2	Week 3	Week 4	Week 5	Week 6	Week 7	Week 8	Week 9	Week 10	Week 11	Week 12	Week 13
Bonnie
Dawn
George
Glyn
Grace	In Big Brotherhood
Imogen
Lea	In Big Brotherhood
Lisa	In Big Brotherhood
Mikey
Nikki
Pete	In Big Brotherhood
Richard	In Big Brotherhood
Sezer	In Big Brotherhood
Shahbaz	Walked
Nomination twist	See note 1
Against Public Vote
Evicted

Joss 21:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I was about to suggest exactly the same thing. I agree the current colour is too bright. — FireFox (U T C) 21:28, 23 May '06

Shahbaz's Brotherhood

I will put Shahbaz as a “walked/big brotherhood member” just for future reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.6.104 (talk • contribs)

There is no need to - it's already stated at the bottom of the page. -- 9cds^(talk) 18:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. dalejenkins.

I don't. And also, Nikki and Imogen are in the Big Brotherhood - this should not be removed and will only be re-added back if it is taken off. — FireFox (U T C) 18:32, 24 May '06

Merge?

Could this be merged with the main article when the series has finished and the information on the talk page is no longer needed? JD 20:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand. When the information on the talk page is no longer needed? The article should stay separate. — FireFox (U T C) 20:53, 24 May '06

Wow that reply was hell fast. I mean, all other Big Brother series that I have looked at so far have the nomination table in the article relevant to the series. I just thought that maybe this one could follow suit. JD 20:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Not series 4 or 5 or 6. All the series before 4 had incomplete or simple tables compared to the one for this year. — FireFox (U T C) 20:59, 24 May '06

Oh yeah, BB 6 just has the small one on the side. BB06 Australia has a proper nomination table at the bottom, but it doesn't matter. Forget I said anything. JD 21:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad we're getting ideas and input, so your comments are very welcome anyway :) Cheers, — FireFox (U T C) 21:11, 24 May '06

I agree with JD, this page should be merged with the main page at the end of the series, and the series 4, 5 & 6 tables should be merged with their main pages ASAP. Unclefester 23:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm gonna go for no, keep it separate. -- 9cds^(talk) 00:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

No nominations

Since there are no nominations in the first week, I suggest we make the column for week 1 grey or something along those lines, so it is clear. Maybe #999999. Thoughts? — FireFox (U T C) 10:20, 25 May '06

Sounds good to me. -- 9cds^(talk) 10:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok well I'll get on with it and anyone who doesn't like it can revert and/or leave their opinion here. — FireFox (U T C) 10:31, 25 May '06

Edit summary

Just to let people know, I wasn't thinking properly when I made this edit summary - I meant simple, not accurate :) — FireFox (U T C) 15:13, 27 May '06

I think it's a good idea though; just small pieces of information like with what %age each housemate was evicted with. No need to write that Dawn was ejected for rule-breaking, just eviction %ages... Ellisjm 29 May 16:15 UTC

Personally I don't. The nomination table should be kept as simple and easy to read as possible, without lots of cluttered information. Stats like percentages can go in the main article in my opinion. — Fire Fox 16:18, 29 May '06

I agree with FireFox here - it's not especially interesting unless it's particularly close/wide, and it only going to clutter the page. If it's interesting, then it should go on the main page. -- 9cds^(talk) 16:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Who nominated who??

Where do you find the information about who nominated who> Ellisjm 19:02 UTC 31 May 06

On the show tonight ;) -- cds^(talk) 19:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Dawn

Should we put Dawn as up for nomination in week 1 as she was up for nomination for 6 hours and people could vote for her in that time? Ellisjm 20:54 UTC 31 May 06

She wasn't facing eviction, so I say no. — FireFox ^user_talk 20:53, 31 May '06

She was for 6 hours though... Ellisjm 20:57 UTC 31 May 06

She was not up for eviction on eviction night. — FireFox ^user_talk 14:50, 01 June '06

And as an extra note, her phone number was never opened, iirc. -- cds^(talk) 15:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Colours (cont'd)

Should there be a colour for "Not in House"?? Ellisjm 20:56 UTC 31 May 06

There is. White. — FireFox ^user_talk 20:54, 31 May '06

Ha,ha, I mean a proper colour. White is every colour in the spectrum... Ellisjm 20:58 UTC 31 May 06

Then no. White is sufficient as it's not used elsewhere in the table. (I wasn't joking by the way) — FireFox ^user_talk 20:56, 31 May '06

It is though - for who people nominated Ellisjm 21:01 UTC 31 May 06

That's not white. — FireFox ^user_talk 20:59, 31 May '06

White is used in the table until the gaps are filled in. The "not in house" boxes need to be a different colour. Alex9891 21:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

No it's not. It's #F9F9F9, the same as when the 'gaps are filled in'. — Fire Fox 21:28, 12 June '06

It is nearly white then. It's too similar, but I guess it doesn't matter overall because it will all be filled at some stage. Alex9891 21:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there a list of colour codes - then I'll show you what I mean Ellisjm 21:07 UTC 31 May 06

A list of colour codes used where? — FireFox ^user_talk 21:06, 31 May '06

As in the colour for walked is #FFCCFF Ellisjm 21:10 UTC 31 May 06

Well they're at the top of this page. — FireFox ^user_talk 21:08, 31 May '06

I know, but like, what's the colour code for a light green or something... Ellisjm 21:13 UTC 31 May 06

Why would we need a light green unless they re-discover the secret garden? It would be #73fb76 or something though. — FireFox ^user_talk 21:12, 31 May '06

Have a look what I mean now... Ellisjm 21:18 UTC 31 May 06

I appreciate your changes, Ellisjm, but I'm not sure we can change it without it looking too bright. -- cds^(talk) 21:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh wow, it's turning into an episode of The Tweenies. Wouldn't more neutral colours be better? Just a suggestion. JD 21:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Please bring up any ideas here first. And no, in my opinion it looks horrible, sorry. I think it's fine how it is =] — FireFox ^user_talk 21:18, 31 May '06

Oh, for gawds sake - all I'm trying to say is that there should be a colour light(not bright) colour for Not In House Ellisjm 21:21 UTC 31 May 06

There is a colour which keeps it different from normal nomination colours. White. — FireFox ^user_talk 21:20, 31 May '06

The colour for normal nominations is white as well. e.g. In week 2, Glyn nominated Grace and Richard. That is a white box... So is Not in House... They're the same colour - white. Ellisjm 21:27 UTC 31 May 06

I've already said. It is not white. Do you use Mozilla Firefox? If so, download Colorzilla and see for yourself. Otherwise I'm happy to do it for you. — FireFox ^user_talk 21:26, 31 May '06

I see it as white. Why? what do you see it as? Ellisjm 21:30 UTC 31 May 06

I see white in two boxes, and two boxes only. They are both the "Not in House" boxes. JD 21:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It's actually #f8fcff. ;) Some WP:TEA for you all! -- cds^(talk) 21:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I see it as #F9F9F9 actually, according to Colorzilla, but neither are white, so there is a difference. =] — FireFox ^user_talk 21:31, 31 May '06

So what colour is #f8fcff or #F9F9F9 in normal non-Internet language colours? Ellisjm 21:35 UTC 31 May 06

#f8fcff is nothing much, forget about it. #F9F9F9 is the colour used in the nomination squares, and is a very light grey. #FFFFFF is white, and is used in the not-in-house squares. — FireFox ^user_talk 21:35, 31 May '06

Ok, cos I see #FFFFFF and #F9F9F9 as the same colour - white... Could we make Not In House squares a creamy colour? Ellisjm 21:40 UTC 31 May 06

There really is no need. The "not in house" squares are italicised anyway, and they're white, and we don't want too many different colours in the table anyway. The page is going to be protected for a little bit - nothing is likely to happen overnight anyway - to prevent any potential edit wars or drastic changes. So any proposals should be brought up here for discussion first. Thanks, and goodnight :) — FireFox ^user_talk 21:42, 31 May '06

Oops - I made a mistake there. Ignore me. -- cds^(talk) 21:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Can't we just leave it? How much does it really matter how many colours of the rainbow you manage to get in the table at the end of the series? It's all about what's written in them more than anything. JD 21:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It just looks kinda neater if there are two seperate colours. Obviously, not everyone can see the two different colours as you can. Ellisjm 21:47 UTC 31 May 06

If that was directed at me, it would appear that the only person that can't see the two differences in colour is you. JD 21:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

So why not make a colour that everyone can see - even me?? Ellisjm 21:50 UTC 31 May 06

How about a really light shade of green or blue? JD 21:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

That's what I tried to do, but I don't know the colourcode for it. Firefox has blocked it anyway, so we can't change it... Ellisjm 22:02 UTC 31 May 06

Nah, green is too bright, and blue is used for banned. Different shades of red have been used for evicted and such, so maybe a red? -- cds^(talk) 22:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Not every shade of really light green is bright you know. JD 23:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

There are clear differences between 'nomination boxes' and 'not in house boxes'. For a start, they're a different colour, and if you can't see that, the 'not in house boxes' are italicised as well so what's the problem? We're turning this table into a rainbow, which is unneccessary. The more colour that we have which stand out, the more confusing the table gets, and less people will stay and look at the table. Think about it for a second - people don't come to this page to look at the pretty colours, they come for the information contained in the table. So if they were actually interested in reading the table, they'd read every box individually, so colours are really not a necessity. The only reason we use colours is to make the table slightly easier to read, and slightly more pleasable to the eye, but there is a line regarding the amount of [bright] colour we use in this table, and we're crossing it. — FireFox ^user_talk 10:14, 01 June '06

Well said - I think most of us are in agreement here. Lets leave the damn colours alone, or I'm replacing them all with shades of grey! ;) -- cds^(talk) 10:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Most of us?? who?? you and firefox! that's it. maybe we could put it grey... Ellisjm 11:06 UTC 1 June 06

That certainly makes it 50/50 - that's nowhere near consencus. -- cds^(talk) 15:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

EXACTLY!!! then we're not mostly agreed are we??? Ellisjm 16:38 UTC 1 June 06

Current tag

Is there any point in having a tag at the top of the page? We can just have a note at the top saying the table is incomplete if necessary, but in my opinion, neither {{In-progress tvshow}} or {{current}} seem appropriate. Comments? — FireFox ^user_talk 21:08, 31 May '06

Yeah, OK, whatever... sounds good... Ellisjm 21:12 UTC 31 May 06

Would seem strange that the actual BB page has the {{In-progress tvshow}} tag while this one doesn't. Especially if the info on this page can become available before the evening shows - should we have a spoiler here?! Budgiekiller 21:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

But this page isn't actually about the show is it? Not in the same sense as the main article. — FireFox ^user_talk 21:11, 31 May '06

How can it not be about the show if it's still live, happening, and subject to change? What if one of the nominees walks right now? This table changes on a daily basis, doesn't it? Budgiekiller 21:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I didn't say it's not about the show, I said it isn't in the same sense. It's not documenting a television show, it's not documenting a current event, it's documenting specific events (nominations) on the show. — FireFox ^user_talk 21:15, 31 May '06

Fair enough, I thought you said "...this page isn't actually about the show..." but I could have mis-read. It is most definitely current events, so it should be tagged thus. Can't see a reason otherwise. But my life is short and frankly, tagged or not, I'll survive! Budgiekiller 21:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

You could argue that Queen Elizabeth II is a current event, because she is living and ruling. — FireFox ^user_talk 21:23, 31 May '06

Hmm, you could, but her lifespan isn't 120-odd days and doesn't change dramatically on a day-by-day basis. If it did, her page would be tagged as Current Event (wouldn't it?), so I don't think your argument holds water. But then again, is it that imporant?! Budgiekiller 21:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so you've locked the page... what about the tag?! Budgiekiller 21:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, although the tag isn't perfect, the main gist is the text in boldface: "This article or section contains information about an in-progress television show(s)." This article does. It takes information from the website, so people who just watch the TV show will come here and find information about stuff that's not aired yet. Perhaps a {{spoiler}} tag is more appropriate. Plus, it's certainly a current event, that changes at the drop of a hat. --Cel es tianpower ^háblame 09:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

We should add the {{bbSpoiler}} to this page. It should be unlocked and the tag added. Budgiekiller 09:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You know it wouldn't be hard to create a custom tag for the page. As for the spoiler tag, wait for more discussion and consensus please. — FireFox ^user_talk 10:16, 01 June '06

I'm gonna have to agree with FireFox here - we don't really need a tag or spoiler tag. We shouldn't have the spoiler tag solely for the reason it's not a spoiler. It never will be a spoiler, they get filled in live after they get announced on TV. -- cds^(talk) 10:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

They get filled in as soon as someone hears something, maybe on the web or on the digital streaming coverage. It's the same as putting a spoiler on the actual BB7 page, which it was agreed upon because info was appearing in the chronology before the evening transmissions. We should be consistent. Budgiekiller 11:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

But that never happens. -- cds^(talk) 11:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

But in the words of the latest Volvo advert.... "To dream the impossible dream..."! The logic is unquestionable, though, isn't it? Budgiekiller 11:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

In fact, Mr cds said this: "I agree there ought to be a spoiler note if it contains information not yet shown in the evening shows. The default should suffice. -- 9cds(talk) 20:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)" about the BB7 page and no-one disputed him (rightly so), so I can't see the difference at all here. Budgiekiller 11:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Stop misquoting me! :p That's a different page entirely. -- cds^(talk) 12:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

How so?! It's updated as soon as possible like this page, it contains information not yet shown on mainstream TV, like this page, and, dare I say it, it's about Big Brother UK Series 7, like this page!!! Not entirely different!! Budgiekiller 12:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't contain information not yet shown on mainstream TV at all. If you can point any out, I'll gladly put the spoiler warning on there myself :) -- cds^(talk) 12:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree sometimes it would be possible to find unwanted information. For example, the fact that George walk. Yes it doesn't currently give any information that is not on mainstrem tv but it has done in the past and would expect it to again soon. Joss 13:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a simple way of getting round this - don't look at the page if you're that worried about seeing something you don't know about yet. That's what Wikipedia is for though, isn't it? To find out about information that you don't know about yet. That's what an encylopedia is for. — FireFox ^user_talk 13:03, 01 June '06

Nonsense, I'm afraid. If that were the case we wouldn't have a spoiler template at all on anything and caveat emptor. This page has, in the past, contained information that hadn't been on mainstream television. Hence it should have the spoiler in the same way that main BB7 page does. If this page doesn't have the spoiler, neither should the BB7 page. And, by the way, I am aware of "what an encyclopedia is for." and don't appreciate the patronising tone! Budgiekiller 13:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how you can pick a patronising tone out of what is written down on a computer. Anyway, the page is unprotected, so you can do what you want with it. I'm not saying you won't get reverted if not enough discussion has taken place though. — FireFox ^user_talk 13:51, 01 June '06

There were adverts showing George asking to leave, as they always do. They like to tease us with things like that. It's common knowledge he had left. It was on the front page of BBC News! -- cds^(talk) 15:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

"no undiscussed changes please"

Do you expect everybody who comes here to see an edit summary before editing?
Not even minor wording tweaks?

Anyway....

"As Aisleyne and Sam were new to the house, they were exempt from both nominating, and being nominated."

Firstly, nothing that I can find states that a general rule of BB is that new housemates are banned from nominating. True, they sometimes do twists to the nominations when a new housemate has arrived, but that's an aside. Secondly, I'm not sure if "exempt" is the right word. Is nominating a burden or a privilege? I was about to change it to

"New housemates Aisleyne and Sam were not allowed to nominate or be nominated."

but now I'm not sure if "not allowed" is much better. Can anyone think of a better way to put it? -- Smjg 13:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

How bout "New housemates Aisleyne and Sam could not nominate or be nominated" Ellisjm 14:37 UTC 1 June 06

"New housemates Sam and Aisleyne were exempt from the nomination process." --JD^talk_email 14:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You know perfectly well that I mean changes regarding colours to the table or spoiler/current tags. — FireFox ^user_talk 14:49, 01 June '06

Will everybody please calm down? -- cds^(talk) 15:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The only person that's not calm is you. --JD^talk_email 16:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not calm, I'm totally insane. But you all knew that. Come on everyone, chill out! Budgiekiller 20:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Imogen / Sources

Anyone have a source for Imogen being banned next week? -- cds^(talk) 20:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It was on BBLB News tonight on E4. Ellisjm 20:47 UTC 1 June 06

Well, I don't know either way - but is there no online source? -- cds^(talk) 20:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Dunno - try googling it Ellisjm 20:56 UTC 1 June 06

I'll leave it on - assuming good faith and such - but we really could do with some sources. -- cds^(talk) 20:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I've added various sources from DS:BB, but I can't find a good one for the second time that Imogen was banned. I've found this one, but it talks about when she told Lisa she was banned, rather than the ban itself. Adw2000 14:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Good job :) -- 9 cds^(talk) 16:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Current nominations

It was brought up that it's hard to tell what the current nominations are - making them bold just makes the table look even more cluttered. Anyone any ideas how to solve this? -- cds^(talk) 11:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Add a border to the box? — FireFox ^user_talk 14:45, 02 June '06

That could work.. -- cds^(talk) 14:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Except I don't actually know how to =) ... I would suggest just a black border round current nominations or something. — FireFox ^user_talk 14:54, 02 June '06

Template?

I was thinking of templating this table. I think it would save a lot of time if anyone wanted to keep up to date as they could put the template on their userpage and then not have to check the article. Then again on the other hand it may be a complete waste of time. What does everyone else think? -- JAB^[T]_[C] 21:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It can already be done: {{Big Brother 7 nominations table (section)}}. -- 9 cds^(talk) 21:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok thanks! -- JAB^[T]_[C] 22:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, seems not. It may have to be copied to your user space.. -- 9 cds^(talk) 22:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Adding of percentages

Read the piece about %'s - sorry. 81.111.218.26 18:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Though personally I agree with Ellisjm above, it’s a good piece of information to have within the table - and for me it doesn't look really that cluttered and the way it was done looked tidy and (imo) still is easy to read. The percentages could go in the main article, but (again imo) they are pieces of information which are too specific to belong there – and as they are figures I think they'd be perfect in the table. But as you've been around longer than me and have been one of the main contributors’ to the page I'm happy to concede.81.111.218.26 20:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Which looks better?

1. Individual

×	Week 1	Week 2	Week 3	Week 4	Week 5	Week 6	Week 7	Week 8	Week 9	Week 10	Week 11	Week 12	Week 13
Imogen	In Big Brotherhood	Banned	Banned

2. 'Merged'

×	Week 1	Week 2	Week 3	Week 4	Week 5	Week 6	Week 7	Week 8	Week 9	Week 10	Week 11	Week 12	Week 13
Imogen	In Big Brotherhood	Banned

— FireFox ^user_talk 12:40, 06 June '06

The first one. The second one looks as though she was banned for the two weeks together. --JD^talk_email 12:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - the first one's clearer what happened. -- 9 cds^(talk) 12:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The first one. It's so amazing! :) Sweetie Petie 13:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Or?

×	Week 1	Week 2	Week 3	Week 4	Week 5	Week 6	Week 7	Week 8	Week 9	Week 10	Week 11	Week 12	Week 13
Imogen	In Big Brotherhood	Banned in both weeks

Hmmm, maybe not. Worth a try! Joss 18:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Times Nominated

I have added an extra feild for times nominated which contains how many times the housemate has been nominated by others. This is what is looks like:

×	Week 1	Week 2	Week 3	Week 4	Week 5	Week 6	Week 7	Week 8	Week 9	Week 10	Week 11	Week 12	Week 13	Times Nominated
Housemate														-Number goes here-

It may make more sense if viewed from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.81.172.231 (talk • contribs)

We don't need this, so I've reverted. Let me explain. The number of times a housemate has been nominated is largely irrelevant. This is because if a housemate is evicted in the second week for example, it's going to look like they were more 'popular' than, quite possibly, the eventual winner. Secondly, we need to keep the table as small as possible - with an extra (wide) column, the 15-column table will not fit in most browser windows at the end of the series. — Fire Fox 09:50, 13 June '06

What about about having a separate Nomination Totals section like BB4 and BB6? Adw2000 15:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

We don't need it. It means nothing, as I explained above. — Fire Fox 15:29, 29 June '06

Edit

I would just like to point out that I made a minor change, just to make it clear for future reference. In the last note (note 4 I believe ), I made a small change. I hope this is ok with everyone, I know it is a bit picky.

They're the best edits ;) -- 9 cds^(talk) 19:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Current nominations box

Perhaps we could fill the box #D1E8EF instead of giving it a border? What do people think? — Fire Fox 18:50, 20 June '06

We might hit colour overload, then. -- 9 cds^(talk) 22:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Against Public Vote

Are those who are up against the public vote listed in alphabetical order?? Ellisjm 10:30 UTC 21 June 06

They should be, if they're not, feel free to fix. -- 9 cds^(talk) 10:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

<br> in "See note x"

Why do you think having <br> between "See note" and "x"? It seems completely unnecessary to me, and looks worse... --Lorian^T_C 18:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

See these:

WITHOUT <br>: Image:Prtscrnbb1.JPG

WITH <br>: Image:Prtscrnbb2.JPG

Trampikey 19:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Trust Internet Explorer to screw it up, looks fine in Firefox. --Lorian^T_C 19:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It's fine for me without. I use Internet Explorer. But if I change my screen resolution, it screws up. Perhaps your screen is too small. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Exempt

Hi I did put this earlier but I think it got a bit lost. Basically I don't think the 'Exempt' boxes should be gold because looking the BB6 Nominations Table, the gold colour is used for the finalists' boxes. Therefore we should use gold for this year's finalists' boxes as well, and 'Exempt' should really be different?

Column Width

The column width on the Nomination twist row of the table needs correcting, "see note 3", "see note 4" and "see note 5" all go too far to the right. Digifiend 08:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

"The word Exempt"

I don't like the word 'exempt'.

Exempt implies that they couldn't be nominated. And although that is the case, the box is for who they nominated. I would be much happier with "Unable to nominate" or something along those lines.

What do people think? Ellisjm 16:21 UTC 22 June 06

Nah, I think "exempt" implies pefectly that they were excluded from the whole nominations process and that that's why there are no nominations in the box.

Exempt in the dictionary means free from a liability imposed on by others. Nominating is not a liability... Ellisjm 17:20 UTC 22 June 06

We want to keep the table as simple as possible. Everyone can understand the word "exempt" and it's context in the table, and for people who can't, there is a note explaining at the bottom of the page anyway. — Fire Fox 17:30, 23 June '06

Border around this weeks nominations

So are we having a border around the current weeks nominations or not? It keeps getting reverted without any discussion. Personally I think we should have no border, it looks ugly and isn't necessary. --Lorian^T_C 19:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it's not needed, people can see which week we're on by the blank boxes... Trampikey 19:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

There is discussion here. :) -- 9 cds^(talk) 19:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but this is a separate issue, to see whether to get rid of the border... Trampikey 19:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Does it really matter that much? It's certainly not worth the reverts. —Cel es tianpower ^háblame 19:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we should make clear the current nominations but perhaps with a different colour rather than a border. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The state of colours is already insane, we shouldn't make another. -- 9 cds^(talk) 20:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

How about, just get rid of the border and never speak of it again? --JD[^talk|_email] 20:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I like the sound of that. --Lorian^T_C 20:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This nominations page is a nightmare, along with the table on the BB7 page. Too much overediting means that none of the information is clear. So, in my (lack of) wisdom, I suggested a while ago that the most useful, up-to-date, pertinent information was (somehow) highlighted to the reader. Please consider that besides all of you lot (and me) who visit and edit this page on an hourly basis, some new visitors may spot it and, believe you me, this page is a minefield of info, and it's pretty unclear what on earth is going on. Fine, it might not meet everyone's idea of how to present a page (and I've done a few years of this sort of thing, so I understand that EVERYONE has an opinion), but as it is, it takes ages (on first sight) to work out what is going on here. Bring back something (borders?) that points to the most relevant section of this page. Budgiekiller 20:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed! :) -- 9 cds^(talk) 20:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You make a good point. Go and look at the Big Brother 6 nominations table, it is very confusing at first. --Lorian^T_C 20:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Somehow highlight the whole column then, so the single box doesn't stick out like one of those things that stick out in those places where they normally wouldn't if they were like the other things... --JD[^talk|_email] 20:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Wild, sounds like you're heading into the direction my mind was working (not quite 100% sure...!) but somehow we have to (have to) make this page accessible to the 'Average Joe', and not just to those who seem to spend their entire lives consumed with how this page looks. I think if people visit the nominations page, most of the time their concern is with who is currently nominated. That's by far the most important piece of information on this page. So we should highlight it somehow. Or is my attitude unique (besides cds of course!)....?? Budgiekiller 20:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Highlight the row of people up for the public vote one colour, and then the column of the current week in another colour, or perhaps even the same one. Then, where they meet would be where current public vote-ees would be. --JD[^talk|_email] 20:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Now we're talking! I like the idea. I was also a shade confused that the page was called "...Nominations..." and the ultimate row was deemed as "...Against public vote..." so, really, this page is missing a trick. Ultimately, while it records who votes against whom, it ignores that and simply heads to who faces the phone vote. Just a minor point. Heading back the main point, let's really try to work on making it clearer to the non-editor. Budgiekiller 20:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Can the outermost cells (ie the ones that have housemates' names and Week numbers in them) be highlighted as well, so it's a bit clearer what the point of the highlighting would be? --JD[^talk|_email] 21:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure they could be. We need a wiki-mark-up-pro to help...! Budgiekiller 21:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering from the lack of activity if anything's happening... --JD[^talk|_email] 21:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

New house...

Right, well, I think it's about time we got some discussion and ideas going for how we're going to structure the table for the secret new housemates before everyone starts their frantic editing later tonight? Nobody knows as of yet if nominations with the 5 new housemates (and Aisleyne/Susie) will take place in the new house but we have to accomodate this if it happens. I was thinking a light sky blue colour or something, to distinguish the new housemates (plus Aisleyne/Susie) whilst staying in the house next door... comments? — Fire Fox 17:11, 30 June '06

Sounds good to me. Perhaps put them in a new table underneath until they become real housemates? —Cel es tianpower ^háblame 17:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with including them in the group, as long as they're distinguishable... that's what we did when last series' housemates were in the secret garden... — Fire Fox 17:13, 30 June '06

Hmm - but they're not housemates, either officially or unofficially. They might never go into the house. Unlike the secret garden (which was at least part of the house), this is a separate house altogether. As such, a separate table, in my opinion, would show what's actually going on the best. —Cel es tianpower ^háblame 17:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't something like this do?

	Week 1	Week 2	Week 3	Week 4	Week 5	Week 6	Week 7	Week 8	Week 9	Week 10	Week 11	Week 12	Week 13
New housemate	Not in house						In secret house
Aisleyne/Susie	Not in house	Exempt	Nikki, Sam	No nominations	Lisa, Mikey	Lea, Nikki	In secret house

— Fire Fox 17:20, 30 June '06

Oh, and by the way, the 5 new people entering tonight are being referred to as housemates, both by Davina and by Channel 4 themselves. Even though they're not in the main house, they're still in the Big Brother house, and are housemates. — Fire Fox 17:24, 30 June '06

Oh, okay. Never mind then. Your way works if they're referred to as housemates. —Cel es tianpower ^háblame 17:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I like that... means any nominations made in the secret house can have a blue background also. -- 9 cds^(talk) 17:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah they can. We'll have to work round any more unforseen twists but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it ;) — Fire Fox 17:30, 30 June '06

Can I just ask what the asterix is for after Aisleyne's name on her eviction cell? Alex 20:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Click it and see. — Fire Fox 20:39, 30 June '06

Is it meant to go to note 6? If so, it doesn't very well :S Alex 20:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It does, but as the page is not long enough the link is not effective yet. It will become more effective nearing the end of the series. — Fire Fox 20:42, 30 June '06

I hope so. Another thing, has Aisleyne actually been evicted or has she just temporarily left? Should the table make this clearer, or is the note sufficient do you think? Alex 20:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Moving to the new house temporarily. All will become more clear on the table as the series progresses. Currently, the note is sufficient. — Fire Fox 20:47, 30 June '06

Green

Something in the table needs to be green. Please make something green. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Why? — Fire Fox 20:47, 30 June '06

Because it does :) AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Well we could do with another colour for "in secret house", maybe it's too similar to 'banned'... comments? — Fire Fox 20:55, 30 June '06

I think they're not as similar as some other colours in the table. I like the nice light blue. If there's another new kind of box, can that one be green? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

We'll see. — Fire Fox 21:03, 30 June '06

Hehe thank you. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I know it's a bit different to last year's secret garden, but I think the secret house squares should be green, because they were green last year.

I agree, something does need to be green! Trampik e y ^{(talk to me)}^(contribs) 22:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. -- 9 cds^(talk) 22:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Susie's name should be gold! AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

But she's not the Golden Housemate anymore, so there's no point. Trampik e y ^{(talk to me)}^(contribs) 15:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this looks better:

	Week 1	Week 2	Week 3	Week 4	Week 5	Week 6	Week 7	Week 8	Week 9	Week 10	Week 11	Week 12	Week 13
Aisleyne	Not in house	Exempt	Nikki, Sam	No nominations	Lisa, Mikey	Lea, Nikki	In secret house

Trampik e y ^{(talk to me)}^(contribs) 15:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Title ambiguity

If there were to be a Big Brother series 7 in another country that was to have an article of the nominations table, then this one would be over-generalised. Mark272 22:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Any ideas for a new name? -- 9 cds^(talk) 22:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Big Brother 7 UK Nominations Table. --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 22:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Big Brother (UK series 7) nominations table, as the main article is Big Brother (UK series 7). — Fire Fox 11:10, 01 July '06

I agree with FireFox, it should be consistent with the main article. --Lorian^T_C 11:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that also. Other nominations table articles should be moved accordingly too. Mark272 11:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Moved this page. -- 9 cds^(talk) 12:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)