Talk:Big Brother (British TV series) series 16

Nominations table Day 1
I think it looks good as it is now except maybe the colour of "Appeared in Task" needs to be changed. If there's a new housemate further in the series, then "Not in House" will be the same colour. ThisIsDanny (talk) 19:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * We can just have them all grey and change "Not eligible" to "No nominations" because there were not any MSalmon (talk) 19:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Reverted edits but I didn't see this, so sorry about that. I don't think it's vital that it should have its own column, but if we were to, all cells should contain "no nominations". — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 22:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually now I've looked back at BB13, although it says Conor walked, he left as part of a twist and there was no public vote, and there's no separate column for this so there shouldn't be for Simon. Although if it is decided that there should be an extra column then they should all contain "No nominations" ThisIsDanny (talk) 22:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Changed it to match BB13's page as Week 1 is Tuesday-Friday with an eviction, and Week 2 is the next round of nominations. It also matches the ratings table as well for both series. 4+ days is a separate week, anything less than that is merged with another. ThisIsDanny (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

When does Week 2 start?
I know that the eviction next Friday will be Week 2, but as its a nominations table, the weeks should replicate when the nominations happened. Does a new week begin on Saturday following Friday's eviction, on Monday at the start of the week, or on Tuesday, a week after the launch? Nick nominated on a Friday night, so does this count as Week 2 or was it still Week 1? — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 00:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Although Nick nominated on Friday (technically Week 1), it is part of the nominations in Week 2. Week 2 starts tomorrow/today/Saturday so all nominations this week should be in the Week 2 column. ThisIsDanny (talk) 00:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Like Chris as secret power housemate last year, he made his first nomination minutes after Tamara was evicted, so although he technically made that nomination in Week 1, it went in the Week 2 column cause it was for Week 2. Confusing I know. ThisIsDanny (talk) 00:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh right, thanks. I don't think they use the term "weeks" in Big Brother so I was quite confused as to what we were supposed to go by. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 16:38, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

"None" or "all housemates"?
It says that nobody faced the public vote in the column for week one (Simon's eviction), but surely it should say that all housemates faced the public vote (or at least the five that were picked), as they all faced the poll? I know that "none" was similarly used in this section for Marlon's eviction, but that didn't involve a public vote whatsoever, whereas Simon and the four others were selected by a public vote. --StigOfTheKrump (talk) 14:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It should say none because the public were not voting to evict, they were voting for the 5 to face the task. --MSalmon (talk) 15:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The row states those who are "against public vote". Nobody was against the public vote, thus it should say none. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 16:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Isn't that what I said? MSalmon (talk) 19:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No. Also please don't change the indent, I was replying to the poster above you and you made it look like I was replying to you. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 19:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Sam and Simon's nominations
I think Eileen, Jack and Joel should be shown in both Sam and Simon's nomination boxes, as the nominations were "joint nominations". Simon merely relayed the nomination for Eileen, Sam for Jack, etc. --SnowyNight1234 (talk) 22:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't watch the show last night but how exactly was it played out? --MSalmon (talk) 22:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree because they were joint they should go in both Sam and Simon. Simon chose Eileen, Sam chose Jack, then they both chose Joel, but when they were in the Diary Room individually themselves, Big Brother and Marcus made it clear that their decisions were joint. ThisIsDanny (talk) 23:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The only time this has happened before was when John renominated in Ultimate Big Brother. Is this the same type of scenario? I didn't watch either. I thought it was weird that Sam and Simon appeared to have chosen different people. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 23:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how John's UBB nominations relate to this? ThisIsDanny (talk) 23:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That's what I'm saying, I was wondering if it was a similar situation. John replaced his nomination for Josie with Brian, and Sam and Simon replaced their nominations for Jack with Joel. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 23:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh I see, no they chose three between them, Simon went into the DR first, then Sam, then both together. Jack used his immunity pass though so just Eileen and Joel are nominated. ThisIsDanny (talk) 23:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Ratings table should Channel 5+1 figures be included?
Just looking at the ratings table and of the 20 episodes than now have an official rating from BARB 12 of them do not have an official +1 rating so I was thinking should the +1 figure of the 8 that do be removed and the table just keeps to the first airing of the episodes on Channel 5, it does look a bit odd with the Channel 5 and Channel 5+1 ratings together when both are unavailable on some dates. Superdry19 (talk) 12:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I was just about to request the exact same thing. Since a lot of the episodes haven't included +1 figures, it means that when we are calculating an average rating, it is taking into account a mix of 5 and 5+1 figures and it will be very inaccurate. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 12:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Unless we just take out the +1 rating and have the table as the Channel 5 episodes only, I mean for those 8 episodes that have the +1 figure available they add an extra 1.12 million viewers to the table which as you say is very inaccurate when calculating the final series rating. Superdry19 (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Also looking at other series tables that dont have a +1 rating available: Big Brother 14 (31 of 69 episodes) and Big Brother 15 (34 of 73 episodes) really makes me think that from the BB14 page the ratings should ONLY include Channel 5's first showing and changes should be made to reflect this. Superdry19 (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Whilst precedent is important it is not binding. If there is more, reliable information available for use on this article then we should use it. It not being on other articles is not a valid reason to exclude it from this one. GimliDotNet (talk) 16:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * But whilst we have information, we also have missing information, which doesn't look good on this site. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 16:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look great, but there is no deadline to getting enough sources together. GimliDotNet (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point though, as RachelRice and I have said it is very inaccurate and odd to have nearly half a series episodes with a +1 rating and the other half without a +1 rating, ok the +1 ratings are good for information purposes but with the ratings declining for Big Brother the way they are they should not be included in the final series rating or tables if they aren't available for ALL episodes. Superdry19 (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * please refrain from personal insults and argue the point, not the person. I do understand the position, I disagree with it though. The figures are out there, someone just needs to dig them up GimliDotNet (talk) 17:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't understand what I have said to personally insult you like, however the +1 figures are NOT available anywhere apart from Channel 5 who will NEVER release them. The BARB website only shows the Top 10 most watched programmes on Channel 5+1 which is why I'm saying it is inaccurate to include those small few that are released into the tables. Surely we could just have a note above the table saying "These ratings are for the Channel 5 broadcast and do not include +1 or +24". Superdry19 (talk) 20:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

telling someone they do not understand the point is insulting. As for BARB there should be more sources than just their website. If they are not available a note can be added saying +1 figures not available. GimliDotNet (talk) 20:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That was not a personal insult. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 21:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't realise you were in a position to speak for me? GimliDotNet (talk) 21:32, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Editors should not comment on another editors position. Argue the point, not your view of the other editors position. GimliDotNet (talk) 21:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I was just saying that what the above user said does not count as a personal attack on Wikipedia. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 21:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:AVOIDYOU is very clear. You don't tell another editor they are failing to comprehend an argument. That you don't see that as insulting is irrelevant, because it's not aimed at you. I was insulted, asked the editor to refrain which they have since. Please move on now and address the issues on the above question GimliDotNet (talk) 05:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thing is though there are NO other websites apart from BARB who provide such data meaning that the tables are inaccurate and show the wrong ratings information, personally I think that ALL +1 figures from the BB14, BB15 and BB16 tables need removing ASAP and a note saying that the figures don't include +1, the tables look a mess with all the 1's and [a]'s by the ratings, it should be all or nothing, if we don't have all the figures for +1 none should be included on the table until every episode has a verified +1 rating. Superdry19 (talk) 22:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thats not a valid reason for excluding the data. You need a reason for deleting well sourced, verifable data. GimliDotNet (talk) 04:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * We should wait for others to have their say on this matter before this turns into a disagreement. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 11:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I see both sides of this but I think it should be left how it is now. If we have the data it should be included (despite not having it for all episodes) The source is reliable, and like GimliDotNet said, the figures will be out there somewhere. Although the other series have ratings where many episodes don't include +1, the series average at the end always goes off the official one given by Channel 5 which includes both channels, and it's mentioned in the notes that it takes into account any missing figures. ThisIsDanny (talk) 12:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Ex-housemates confirmed?
According to this article, it's "confirmed" that Gina Rio, Helen Wood and Nikki Grahame will be entering the Timebomb Bunker on Friday. Shall we wait until Friday for Channel 5 confirmation? — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 18:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I would wait. The Daily Star is a rag of the worst kind and not really a reliable source. Until C5 confirm them it's pure WP:CRYSTAL GimliDotNet (talk) 20:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The Daily Star is far from a reliable source. ThisIsDanny (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

10 or 11 weeks?
The nominations table says 10, but the ratings table says 11. Has it been confirmed how many weeks/days this series will go on for? — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 22:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It should be 11, just cause the first week was short it counts as a separate one since it was 4 days. ThisIsDanny (talk) 23:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Its because for some mad, weird and strange reason Days 1-4 are classed as a whole "week" and Day 5 starts Week 2 (which is wrong as a week should be a minimum of 7 days) if you look on BBSpy both their tables are correct and show that instead of being 11 weeks like on here BB16 is still a 10 week series finishing on Day 74 (24 July 2015), with Day 1-11 classed as Week 1. I did change the article to reflect BBSpy's table and the "normal" way of formatting tables but RachelRice reverted it. Superdry19 (talk) 11:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Nominations tag
How will this work on the table? Marc is obviously immune so can't be nominated, so therefore won't nominate either. But how will the rest be shown on the table? Cristian is nominated and will choose another to face eviction with him, that housemate will then choose another, and so on. ThisIsDanny (talk) 21:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * We'd just put the person they tagged, surely? I was going to suggest "no nominations" but it kind of is nominations. Whatever we decide, there is a note to explain in detail what happened. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 23:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Put the person they nominated/tagged, but the ones left over should be Not Eligible in grey? ThisIsDanny (talk) 23:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The thing is, Not eligible suggests that they weren't allowed to nominate. They would have been allowed to nominate, they just weren't given the chance to. The only other thing I can think of is Did not participate. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 00:33, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't, it would say "Banned" if they weren't allowed to nominate. "Not eligible" should be used when at least one other housemate can nominate that week. ThisIsDanny (talk) 17:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Just put not eligible then. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 08:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It will just continue until all the nominees have been chosen MSalmon (talk) 10:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * But if everyone nominated, then everyone would be up. Obviously some people wouldn't be required to nominate and that's what we are discussing. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 10:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Then just put Not eligible in the grey background --MSalmon (talk) 10:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * But they were eligible - they simply didn't get a turn. Not Eligible indicates a decision by BB to exclude them. This was not the case as they might have been chosen ealier and would have been eligible to nominate. Surely "not required to nominate" or "nomination not required" is clearer. 77.94.225.33 (talk) 14:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If Big Brother decided to exclude them it would say "Banned". If you look at WikiProject Big Brother, Not eligible means "The housemate cannot nominate for a miscellaneous reason" and "This should be used when at least one other housemate can nominate that week." which is true. ThisIsDanny (talk) 14:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Petty, pre-historic rules for observance by BB fanatics following rules written when male and female HMs slept in separate bedrooms. How sad. WP is meant to inform readers, not expect them to refer to extinct rules pages to make sense of our articles. Leaky  Caldron  16:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Though I agree that WikiProject Big Brother is out of date, please refrain from personal attacks. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 21:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Harry Amelia?
Someone please let me know why we are using 'Harry Amelia' when there is no other Harry in the house? It's so unnecessary and every time she gets a nomination it seems like someone nominated two housemates namely Harry and some irrelevant Amelia girl. If the Amelia part is there because we had Harriet lately then shouldn't it be like Harry A and Harry J? Even during the highlights show or the live show Big Brother uses Harry as her name. I've never heard Emma read out 'To Evict Harry Amelia Dial 090'. It's ridiculous. --LulzWhateven (talk) 14:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Harry Amelia is her first name. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 14:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * As above, Harry Amelia is her first name, plus on her profile on the official website it says "Harry Amelia" rather than just Harry, and every article on the website whenever she's mentioned it's Harry Amelia. It doesn't seem like they nominated someone called Harry and someone called Amelia as every series it is listed vertically, and has a comma afterwards to show it's their next nomination. And her name isn't Harriet either, so why would they say Harry A and Harry J? ThisIsDanny (talk) 16:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * And on their VTs as they the newbies went in, it only showed "Marc" or "Sam" as their names, whereas for hers it showed "Harry Amelia" showing it's her first name. ThisIsDanny (talk) 16:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that it seems a bit odd especially if you only watch the TV coverage, as the housemates never use the Amelia part, nor does Marcus, nor Emma, nor Rylan, and she is just Harry when they list the numbers for the eviction pbone numbers. But as above, it is her name. Poltair (talk) 16:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If it's her first name than why isn't it shown as such in the Highlights show or the live shows and why do Marcus, housemates, Emma, Rylan, BBBOTS panelists EVER use it. Even when the numbers are being flashed on the screen it is shown as Harry only. --LulzWhateven (talk) 23:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Nominations Table - Jade Reply Comment Suggestion
The nominations table has existed for 15 years. Its purpose is to show who was nominated by who. It also shows presence in the house and various notable events, but primarily it is a table showing who was nominated in a very simple tabular form so that it is easy to see how nominated who in each week.

Why is Jade a special case? The fact that she nominated from outside the house is neither here nor there. It is no different to nominating from elsewhere other than the diary room, such as face to face or from some silly bunker or other. Or is this just a straightforward omission? Leaky Caldron  15:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I for one think it's worth mentioning Jade's nomination for Cristian. As you said, it is a nominations table. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 19:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm changing this. It is completely erroneous and based on nothing but a personal point of view. Leave the colour to indicate she was out of the house but do not rewrite history by indicating that no nomination was made when it was done in front of 1.3m live viewers. This is a NOMINATIONS table. It covers any NOMINATION eventuality and is crucial to the tagging twist this week to see where it started. A lone footnote is no where near good enough. Leaky  Caldron  20:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Isn't that like saying we should include Brian, Helen and Nikki as they technically nominated with Marc? Or adding Michael in BB14, he/the public nominated. ThisIsDanny (talk) 21:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * No. It's like recording the FACT that she just stood up and said "I nominate Christian" in front of 1.3m viewers. This is Time warp Big Brother - everything is different and the article needs to reflect reality. Otherwise stop calling it a Nomination Table and call it a "Official HM at the time of Nomination" table. Leaky  Caldron  21:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * ThisIsDanny, Brian, Helen, Michael and Nikki aren't housemates. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 21:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Votes to evict
Hi, should we include votes to evict in the nominations table on any UK series because they are voting to EVICT someone and not who to nominated for eviction? MSalmon (talk) 19:16, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * They are voting (nominating) ostensibly to evict and give reasons based on that premise but in fact the are nominating to get the nominee up for a public vote. Usually the PV is to evict (or save). However, twists can result in the PV being for other purposes, such as special room occupation, readmission, etc. Surely the table just records the choices of the HMs, regardless of twists, locations and subsequent events? Notes add necessary clarification. Leaky  Caldron  19:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * So does that mean we should include them i.e. Pav and Zoe's choice to evict Danielle last year? --MSalmon (talk) 19:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No idea, I do not recall the situation. If someone (Jade) is asked on live television to nominate a HM and says "I nominate xxxx" that is unambiguously a recordable nomination. Each case on its merits, rather than inflexible rules that were made before BB began introducing nomination related twists. Leaky  Caldron  20:11, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it would be best to leave out any votes other than nominations on the tables --MSalmon (talk) 20:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * By your logic, we should also remove the Big Brotherhood task and the Housemate/Non-Housemate twist, et al. We shouldn't be strict on limiting the table to just nominations if the information has been given to us and is relevant. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 21:20, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It depends on the situation, so BB6 Makosi's vote for Kinga and Vanessa's 6 votes to evict, BB7 Aisleyne's vote for Jonathan and BB15 Pav and Zoe's vote for Danielle are the only ones that should be removed, everything else can stay the same MSalmon (talk) 21:26, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * But what makes those situations different to others? In all situations someone is evicted at the end of it, and we should include in the table why they ended up being evicted, as we do when there's a task instead. We don't need to stick to rules that aren't there. It doesn't even need to be called a nominations table, if we give it a new name then we can include those things that you don't want to include. We need to think about all the possibilities; that's what discussions are for. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 21:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * On BB6 the extra columns for those instances were removed, why do you think that was? MSalmon (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The only reason they were there in the first place was to display the information that you removed. Without the information, the column is pointless. Please stick to the point of this discussion, though. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 22:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Adding to the confusion, what about Gerry's eviction from BB8? ThisIsDanny (talk) 02:19, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * And actually, CBB6 Week 1? Saving Ben from eviction, surely they don't count as nominations either? ThisIsDanny (talk) 02:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That is also relevant information. We can't just get rid of it and stick it on a note because people are more visual than others. I don't understand how this rule is suddenly coming into play now when it's been the same as it has been for almost a decade. I don't see any rule like this in the WikiProject. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 10:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Aisleyne's nominations
Where will they go? — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 12:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think it should be in the table because just like Michael in BB14, he was just a guest. Just put something in a note? I'm not sure, I didn't think she'd get to nominate, I know they're only guests but being referred to as Time Warp Housemates makes me think they should be included, but then what's the point if they're only guests at the end of the day? I'm just so confused as what's right and wrong now with all these nomination table changes from the other series as well. ThisIsDanny (talk) 12:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * We could add a separate section like this:

Or this:

But it's just a little too messy for my liking. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 13:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't have much to do with adding content to this page, but I am a frequent visitor. You have all been doing a fantastic job trying to keep the nominations table together. It has certainly been a challenging year! It is particularly difficult because people come to the page more frequently for this information when the show is current, than when all is wrapped up and the article becomes more stable. Just wanted to thank you for your efforts.Poltair (talk) 14:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 17:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Go with it, looks good, fits the bill. No BB rule that says only HMs nominate, no WP rule that says a Noms table can only comprise "genuine" HM's noms. Leaky  Caldron  18:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Michael from BB14 wasn't a housemate, he made nominations. He's not in the table. Family and friends nominations, they aren't housemates. ThisIsDanny (talk) 20:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That's where we start to contradict ourselves. It's a nominations table so we have to include the nominations, but they weren't housemates so we can't include the nominations. That's two rules that contradict each other, so which one do we choose? — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 20:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Michael from BB14 didn't make the nominations, the public chose them for him and he just read them out. --MSalmon (talk) 21:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * So should Time Warp nominations be included or not? — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 22:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * BBspy has included Aisleyne in their table but not the others, so it is up to you if you want to do the same --MSalmon (talk) 19:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * To be fair BBspy said Adjoa, Jack, Jade, Nick and Simon were nominated in the first week, usually I'd go off what they say but this years nominations twists has made this complicated. ThisIsDanny (talk) 23:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think, the fact that it's a nominations table, there's no reason that we shouldn't include nominations in it. Even if they aren't proper housemates. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 08:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Ratings
BBSpy have just posted "official" ratings here, and some of the figures that they have are different to what we have. Which ones are correct? I'm also not sure if that series average is the actual average provided by Channel 5 or they're just going off the ratings from the table. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 14:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ours are official, BBSpy clearly can't round up or add up correctly. And it's not the official average, it's the average of the figures they have in the table so far, so obviously it doesn't include the final week Monday to Thursday. ThisIsDanny (talk) 15:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Why even?
Can someone please let me know why the 'br' template is being used for the "Not in house" for late entries. We clearly have space to fit the whole thing in one line so what's the reason to break it unnecessarily into "Not in" and "House". It's not a vote and has no comma in it even. Don't tell me it's for decorative purposes because that's not what wikipedia is for and I strongly believe, in order to ease comprehension, "Not in house" in one single line should be used where ever possible.

Suggested Nominations table
--LulzWhateven (talk) 13:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * We follow WikiProject Big Brother. It's always been like this ever since BB1. It doesn't matter what it is, usually if it's two or more words it goes on two lines. "Not eligible", "No nominations" "Next Door" "Passed Task" even "Evicted (Day ??)" it always has been. Plus in some series the housemate entered late and have only missed one week so there wouldn't be enough space for it to all be on one line. ThisIsDanny (talk) 16:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * In the example above it reads so much better to my eyes when all the text is on one line. The nominations table is a complex beast that I find myself coming to regularly while the series is being broadcast; anything that makes it more legible is surely worth consideration. Poltair (talk) 17:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * People read things differently. Personally, I think it reads better on one line. Like ThisIsDanny said, this is how it's been done since I can remember; anything including two words or more has been on separate lines as it usually doesn't fit on one (Not eligible, No nominations etc.) — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 18:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but "This is just how it's done." does not deem as an appropriate answer to me. WikiProject Big Brother is a wikipedia page-ish pseudo-rulebook. If I can discuss a point, which a few people here might agree with, why not actually take it up to the project and try to easy comprehension instead of using barbaric methods of table construction as a cop-out. Like I said if it is making the comprehension of the table better, which it certainly is, it is worth fighting for and since you guys are regular Big Brother article editors and members of the project I thought I would actually get a more constrcutive response out of this rather than "We follow a pseudo Project God and His glory shall not be messed with." There is a reason why I took this up on the talkpage rather than having an Ahme-geddon (See BBUK 5) on the article.


 * Rachel, I am NOT in favor of deliberately putting everything on one line but we can at the very least do it where it can be implemented.
 * Example:

--LulzWhateven (talk) 19:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC) So is everyone going to pretend like I haven't replied to this or are you lot literally speechless? --LulzWhateven (talk) 14:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If I felt strongly about it I would be bold and change it to see how it looked, if it was then reverted it could be discussed here to reach some consensus. I couldn't find anywhere at WikiProject Big Brother where it says it must be done one way or the other, though there might have been some discussion on one or more of the many BB article talk pages. Poltair (talk) 14:20, 7 August 2015 (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 05:22, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Big Brother 1 (UK) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 12:31, 22 December 2018 (UTC)