Talk:Big Brother (British TV series) series 5

Colours
Please could someone add the colours for Not in House, No nominations, a colour for privates task possibly etc... I am unsure of how to... Thanks Ellisjm 12:52 UTC 22 June 06
 * Changed the colours of No Nominations and Privates/Sergeants to match Series 7's table (Brotherhood colours same as Private/Sergeants). Squidward2602 18:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

TOC
Just wondering, why is there no TOC?? godgoddingham333 11:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I removed it because I thought it looked better. If you disagree, you can put it back on.  — JD [ don't talk|email ] 11:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

This Daniel guy and him being gay
There's good reason to remove this from where it was, but there's nowhere else to put it, as his section is so short. Did he speak a lot about it, was it a part of his personality, or anything like this? Did he fit the "gay stereotype" at all? --JD don't talk email me 00:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well kinda. He kept obsessing with Jason's bum etc. and was talking about men all the time... Does that help?? godgoddingham333 00:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds as though it warrants re-inclusion... --JD  don't talk email me 00:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, but it should be written like it's not his occupation or something! -- Alex 9891 00:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's written as Rob's occupation. Funny how he's also a "gay hairdresser"...  Any ideas on how to change this one?  I already know how we can change the Rob one.  --JD  don't talk email me 00:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Leave out gay, and add some info about it in a new paragraph -- Alex 9891 00:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's Rob done, but I've created an ultra-long sentence in the process. Think you could pad out Dan's section and do something similar? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JD UK (talk • contribs)
 * No can do, I don't remember much about it! -- Alex 9891 00:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Oh... Anybody else? --JD don't talk email me 00:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

He pulled my mate at Spiders in Hull. My mate is a faggot.


 * I wouldn't say he fitted with the gay stereotype but I wouldn't call him straight acting In23065 (talk) 17:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Michelle Bass
This contestant has since become a glamour model and regular on Television X, a porn channel on British television. She now deserves her own entry. There is plenty of information about her on the internet and she has been in the papers and on the TV lots. A project for someone?


 * Yes I might create a page for her if I get a chance. The filthy mare is getting fairly famous now --SandyDancer 09:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Vanessa
Vannessa hasn't been going out with Ben Fogle for YONKS... that should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.214.100 (talk • contribs)
 * Have you got a source on that, e.g. a website or magazine saying this? If so, you can update the article yourself with the new information. Tra (Talk) 22:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, when Ben Fogle done the Atlantic thing, they showed his partner on screen, and that was no Vanessa Nimmo. Also, I found this on Sky News Showbiz website: http://showbiz.sky.com/showbiz/article/0,,50001-1167235,00.html it states that "he dated Big Brother contestant Vanessa for a few months after the show".


 * OK, thanks, I've edited her section to include that. Tra (Talk) 22:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, me again, I've just been looking at the main article, and it remains how it was before, however, looking at the "history" tab, it shows that it has been edited to include the Vanessa/Ben Fogle thing, so I don't know whats going on there!!


 * That's strange, I've edited it to say After being on Big Brother, she dated Ben Fogle for a few months. If you can't see that, you could try refreshing the page or clearing your browser cache. Tra (Talk) 15:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Big Brother UK 5 logo.gif
Image:Big Brother UK 5 logo.gif 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 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 01:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Chronology etc.
Can someone with enough time do the chronology section with the seperate boxes, and do the nominations table colours, as I don't know how? Thanks  godgoddingham  333 11:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Fresh meat - fresh mess?
Uh-Oh, somebody messed up the Eviction percentages. it's really bad. Just on a side note, I changed First Note that says : Kitten was evicted BY BIG BROTHER. --BigOz22 (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Contradictions and other issues with Chronology and Prize fund sections
I have noticed a few contradictions between these two secions:
 * Week 2.
 * C: The housemates lost £5,000 during the task. / During the task on Day 9, Big Brother decided that Ahmed had not abided by the task rules, and Big Brother decided to take £1,000 away from the prize fund. (If there is a £5,000 involved, it also isn't clear whether this includes the later-mentioned £1,000 or not.)
 * PF: During the weekly task, the housemates lost £10,000. The total after week two was £81,000.
 * Week 4.
 * C: On Day 25, housemates were given a paper-maché task, and they had to create a unique housemate sculpture. Later, Ahmed tore it down.
 * PF: Task was cancelled due to the removal of Emma over Fight Night.
 * (I definitely remember the sculpture task taking place. Was there another task in the same week that was cancelled?  Or have the weeks been mixed up?  That isn't clear.)

I'd just undertaken to improve the Prize Fund section, but before I do, I'd like these issues to be cleaned up. And while I'm at it, here are a few more issues: -- Smjg (talk) 23:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) "As a result of the fight on Day 20, Emma was moved back to the bedsit" - Day 20 was in Week 3.  My recollection was that Emma was moved back to the bedsit on the night of the fight, if not then the day after, IWC this is out of place in week 4.
 * 2) "Becki entered the house on Day 31 as Emma's replacement."  What evidence is there that Becki was anybody's replacement?  The eviction in week 3 was dropped because of Emma's ejection, and the ejection of Kitten was done in place of the week 1 eviction.  So unless the series was made a week longer than originally planned or there were already planned gaps in the evictions, Becki can't have been a replacement for anybody.  My impression at the time was that Becki was put in just for the random sake of adding an extra one.
 * 3) Week 3, "Prize money dropped to £77,000."  What was the circumstance?  No task is mentioned for week 3.

Kitten: evicted or ejected?
How come Kitten was evicted for daubing writing on the wall, when Vanessa Feltz was not for daubing writing on the table?--Darrelljon 20:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * She wasn't actually ejected by BB; she was up against the public vote and evicted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellisjm (talk • contribs)
 * She was threw out for rulebreaking. Several times. -- cds(talk) 16:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Firstly it's thrown, and secondly NO - she was evicted!! Big Brother told her that it was her third warning and that she would be automatically put up for the public vote. She was evicted that Friday with a great number of the votes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.209.217.221 (talk • contribs)
 * See here -- cds(talk) 00:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * So was Vanessa Feltz ever warned?--Darrelljon 12:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. But remember, it's a celebrity show for charity. -- cds(talk) 12:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Kitten was never up for the public vote; she broke so many rules that ultimatley Kitten was told that if she broke one more of the Big Brother rules A housemate would be evicted. She did so and they were told that on Friday A housemate would be evicted. Ultimatley Kitten was chosen as the housemate to be evicted and left the house through the main doors; there was no crowd as Kitten has explicitly mentioned she did not want a crowd there and Davina walked her out of the house. There was NO PUBLIC VOTE Kitten was thrown out for rulebreaking but was told A housemate would be evicted in order to punish her further by turning her fellow housemates against her - Jezabelda 01:48, 20 July 2006

Hello, Its really frustrating to find things disagreeing with each other in the same page. In the info box it has a red box beside her name which indiactes she was evicted. Also in the Event table it says she was Evicted by Big Brother. However in the Nominations table is states she was ejected as it does in the Housemate bit about Kitten. She was Evicted by Big Brother and Channel 4 and Davina counted her as the first Evicted. There for She was First Evicted. So can someone change the Nomination Box so that it states she was Evicted and under her name you could put "Evicted By Big Brother" instead of "to evict". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.84.142 (talk) 14:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to think that technically it was an ejection and they merely called it an eviction. But let's see what others think.... -- Smjg (talk) 01:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

On BBLB today 15/6/08 It showed that Kitten Was Evicted first as it was showing all the housemates from each series that were Evcited & for BB5 it was Kitten. As BBLB is an official Big Brother show and that alongside the fact that the Channel 4 website at the time of Kittens departure called it an Evicted confirms it as Official that Kitten WAS Evicted. So could someone please change the nomination table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.84.142 (talk) 14:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It won't be changed as she was technically Ejected and that's all there is to it. In23065 (talk) 15:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

She wasnt Techinically Ejected. Its Official she was Evicted! If you want wikipedia to have false Info then keep it the way it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.84.142 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 15 June 2008
 * Such remarks are of no help to anybody without an explanation of how you have come to the conclusion or a link to a reliable source that gives this explanation.
 * Here's my explanation. An ejection is the removal of a housemate due to misconduct.  An eviction is a removal of a housemate that forms part of the normal progress of the series, and which is decided by public vote (or in occasional exceptions, by other housemates).  That Kitten's removal was called an eviction in the eyes/ears of the public makes no difference.  The BBLB programme was, by the sound of it, pandering to this (mis)labelling.  And besides, the words "technically" and "officially" aren't synonyms as you seem to think. -- Smjg (talk) 20:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

She WAS evicted. It has been posted on the official site at the time of her eviction. http://www.channel4.com/entertainment/tv/microsites/B/bb5/news/newsstory90a2.html

Also if you watch this vid for Vanessa's Eviction, Davina CLEARLY Calls it the SECOND eviction. Meaning that Kitten WAS evicted first and counted by the official show as First Evicted. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzhYD07og8o —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.84.142 (talk) 18:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Nobody but you is arguing over whether Kitten was officially evicted or ejected. In23065 and I are merely trying to point out that she was technically ejected.


 * Seriously, when technical fact contradicts official statements, we need to make the article address the contradiction, rather than fight for our views on which is correct. This also brings us back to WP:NPOV.  But still, what can we do with the housemates box that would make it NPOV?  Maybe use a custom status for Kitten?  What could we call it? -- Smjg (talk) 14:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Also may I just point out for anyone arguing that Davina said it was an eviction so it must of been an eviction, Davina also said at the start of Vanessa Eviction show the "we are yet to have a proper eviction". The reason why it was referred to as a eviction is simply down to the fact that the word Ejection was not used in terms of Big Brother UK until Dawn was Ejected in BB7 In23065 (talk) 16:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Then why on BBLB for all the First Evicted housemates they had Kitten for BB5? Maybe because she was fisrt Evicted? Yes thats why! Also Nasty Nick was not classed as Evicted and he was taken out before Dawn was Ejected and they said he was DisQualified. They could have used the same term for Kitten if she had been Ejected/Disqualified however Big Brother decided to Evict a Housemate and they chose Kitten. Davina used the word Proper Evicted as it was the second eviction that the Public got to deicde. However Big Brother Evicted someone for the first one, Kitten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.84.142 (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Another thing on the Official Sites Quiz one of the questions is "Which Big Brother 5 housemate refused to leave after BB ejected them for rule-breaking?" and the answer is Kitten In23065 (talk) 08:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Link to the Quiz Please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.84.142 (talk) 22:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * http://www.channel4.com/bigbrother/fun-and-games/quizme/quiz_init.jsp. In23065 (talk) 11:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

She was Evicted, it has been stateon the OFFICIAL site and on BBLB the official Spin Off Show. You obviously want false information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andybigbro2 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * On the OFFICIAL site quiz it states that she was the first person to be ejected. please don't let Arneldo brain wash you. In23065 (talk) 20:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

OMG Davina just said the Jen was ejected from the house i think we better change it. In23065 (talk) 22:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

For Kitten it was counted as an Eviction by the show which is Official. So therefore it SHOULD be counted as an Eviction here. It they were "Ejecting" Kitten they would have said Removed as the did with Nasty Nick, but they said Evicted. Just because there was no public vote, does not mean that it was not an eviction as in BB7 Aisleyne's choice to evict someone was Jonathan and that was Counted as an Eviction. Also on BBLB this series (2008) it had pictures of all the First Evictee's from each series. If you want to see it watch this video http://youtube.com/watch?v=K5U2hOJQ4a8&feature=related around the 6.00 - 8.00. Andybigbro2 (talk)17:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I shall point out to everyone that Andybigbro2 hasn't gone away - he took his trollery to User talk:In23065 and has since moved onto User talk:EyeSerene. -- Smjg (talk) 13:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Also I the majority of Big Brother fans on the Internet class Kitten as "evicted" not true as there are many see this as being removed. Channel 4 appears to contradict itself saying in certain parts she was evicted while in certain parts saying she was ejected. Also sometimes presenters get their terms mixed up like Davina calling Jennifer's eviction an "ejection" in BB9 UK. Also this goes back to standardizing Big Brother articles. Kitten did not voluntarily leave the house so she can't be classed as "walked", she was evicted via the eviction process (pubic or housemate vote), but after three formal warnings she left the house which is classed as "ejected" for the UK series.  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  19:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Week 1 suitcase nominations
Why have you removed week 1 suitcase nominations. just because they weren't for eviction doesn't mean they were not nominations. the suitcase nominations have been there for years and the person who got rid of it has wrecked it. this subject was discussed years ago and it was agreed to have them put on. and now u have blocked me from editing which is a cheak. wot gives u the right to do that. you are the one who is vandalising it.
 * Suitcase nominations had nothing to do with the eviction and that table gives the impression that they are especially when the person who got the most nominations is ejected from the house, a person reading this who hasn't seen it before would think that the 2 are connected. In23065 (talk) 11:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

They were still voting, therefore it should be showed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andybigbro2 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but not in that table, which has the specific purpose of showing nominations for eviction. -- Smjg (talk) 01:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not just for evictions though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.65.78 (talk) 17:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? -- Smjg (talk) 18:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

why do u think there are notes underneath saying there for suitcases. people are not stupid you know —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.110.17 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 6 July 2008


 * "Suitcase Nominations" aren't the same as "Nomination" one is to evicted and one is to deprive one housemate of their suitcase, you do understand that don't you. In23065 (talk) 18:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

i understand that but they should be in the table cause they are nominations.

Again the nomination tables/voting history tables are a record of votes/nominations throughout the series/season. The tables contain mostly eviction related information but should also document special twists like the public voting for who to nominate and the housemates vote to evict (BB3 UK), anything that requires a housemate to move houses (BB7), voting for a housemate to return (BB3 USA/BB9 USA). Anything that requires housemates to vote/nominate should be documented these tables are not restricted to just eviction related votes.  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  20:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou, somebody understands and knows what they are talking about.


 * OK then shall I add who the housemates voted the strongest and smartest in the next Saturday night live or should I add who Michelle and Emma chose to get punished when they were in the bedsit or maybe even I should add how the housemates split into group in the second weekly task. Oh I forgot i had a brain for a second there, sorry. In23065 (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

you're just being silly now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.65.78 (talk) 00:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The table documents twists, evictions along those lines you know that. A housemate not receiving his or her suitcase during their entire stay is a twist in the game and as such should be documented. By having the votes in the table provides an easier way to keep track of the information and shows who voted for who not to get their suitcase. If you want to call it irrelevant then lets call Emma and Michelle irrelevant because they weren't being evicted and this was public knowledge, Charley's fake eviction in BB8 UK is irrelevant because she wasn't evicted, Allison & Ryan's couple eviction paring in BB9 USA is irrelevant because only one of the pair was evicted. If you are going to include one major twist you include all no being choosy. The suitcase nominations was a major twist that affected the housemates.  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  04:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * But it wasn't a major twist that directly affected either who was up for the public vote or who was in the house or not at any time. Emma, Michelle, Charley and others may have been fake evicted, but the housemates nominated on the basis that they were nominating for eviction.  Suitcase nominations, OTOH, are not part of the purpose of a Big Brother nominations table.  Hence my earlier comment.  Moreover, it seems that whoever put these in the nominations table in the first place was merely making use of available space, a generally bad practice in contexts such as this.  There could have been, and indeed were, nominations for something unrelated to evictions in a week when there were also nominations for eviction.  And so it would be inconsistent to single out suitcase nominations as something extra to put in this table, when this cannot be done with the other instances In23065 mentioned.  Therefore, if we're going to list these suitcase nominations, we should do it somewhere separate from the table. -- Smjg (talk) 17:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If they were nominating for eviction they would probably choose the same person as they were nominating not to have there suitcases. If you look at it on youtube, there reasons are exactly the same as if they were nominating to evict, so the suitcase nominations should remain on the table.--Mikopale (talk) 19:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreement
Hello In23065. do u want to call an end to this little tiff. and just agree on something? please right back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.156.12 (talk) 13:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes I am happy to come to an agreement. I think the Suitcase nominations should be kept away from the nominations table. Maybe we could put them in the weekly summary section. In23065 (talk) 14:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want to put them in a separate table. why cant they be put in with the other nominations like before. It would be silly to have two separate nominations tables. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.197.197 (talk) 18:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not in another table in the weekly summary table.In23065 (talk) 18:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No need for another table, just a mention in the weekly summary section like how Kitten received the majority and list that she refused to vote and any votes cast against any other housemates. Just as long as a record of the votes from this task/twist is somewhere.  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  20:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't need a new table when they can be put on the nominations table. I thought Alucard you agreed with me. Plus Suitcase Nominations show who they might nominate in the future. It all links, that is why they should stay on the table like it has always been.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.197.197 (talk) 00:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We need a consensus both In23065 and Smjg seem to be in an agreement about the suitcase nominations, after a while I thought that the suitcase nominations would be better suited for the Weekly Summary rather than the Nomination Table. With this consensus this would make the article more stable and stop the edit war going on. As much as I want those suitcase nominations in the Nominations Table there are times where a different route may be possible. In23065 and myself have been involved in several disputes over the way we think Big Brother articles are handles and maybe in this case those nominations don't belong.  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  00:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * General consensus can't just be between 3 people. I say the nominations for the suitcases should be put on. that now makes it even. we need more people to have a say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.197.197 (talk) 00:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Your not even giving the idea a chance here, the way it sounds if it isn't your way then its nothing and that is not what Wikipedia is about. Now I have been nice and I am on your side but at least I am trying to work with editors on this issue.  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  04:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't hust give up then. why should we agree to them when they don't agree to us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.115.146 (talk) 18:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought you wanted to "end to this little tiff. and just agree on something" doesn't seem that way. In23065 (talk) 18:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So lets just leave the nominations table how it was, with the suitcase nominations on them then. Yeah. Agreed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.115.146 (talk) 19:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Leave the suitcase nominations on the table like before.--Upperhand (talk) 19:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I say we should just delete Week 1 or comment it out while this whole dispute is ongoing and have the page protected so no one can edit it, this is becoming ridiculous and the article is now unstable. While I think the suitcase nominations should stay in the nominations table I am also trying to work out a consensus so the article can become stable one more and we can focus on getting the article back up to B-Class.  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  19:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We can't delete Week 1 Because Kitten was Ejected in that week. In23065 (talk) 19:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not deleted I commented it out and technically Kitten was ejected in Week 2, Week 1 is only 7 days long (except in BBUSA). I just commented out until the dispute is resolved I have no more patience with this. ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  19:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Kitten was ejected on the friday therefore making it week one. In23065 (talk) 19:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Add it back then I just thought while this whole dispute was going on it would be better not to have Week 1 in the table at all. 19:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have been following this feud for ages now and I haven't said anything. But now I want my say. The suitcase nominations should stay on the table because they have been on there for donkey's years. They shouldn't be removed after all this time. Leave them on.--Mikopale (talk) 19:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I hardly call "they have been there for donkey's years" a reason to keep something. In23065 (talk) 20:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well it has been there for years and more people have said that they want them on, so they should be put back on.--Mikopale (talk) 23:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry but you should of spoken earlier we have already agreed what we are doing. In23065 (talk) 08:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You're just saying that because you have noticed that the consensus now is not going your way In23065 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.157.110 (talk) 13:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Im really bored of you. Go away. In23065 (talk) 15:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring
OK, this ridiculous behaviour stops now. Protecting the article was not an excuse for you to move the revert war to this page. In23065 and 92.9.157.110 have resumed their edit-war, and I should by rights block you both, but I'll try one final warning instead. Stop reverting each other's edits. There will be no further warnings - blocks will follow.

I have also removed the notice placed here. In23065, there is nothing wrong with noting at the end of a discussion what the consensus was. However, be aware that consensus can change, and do not threaten other users with banning. IP editor, if you wish to reopen a discussion, do not do it by trying to change some else's comments. I suggest the two of you consider Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes if you can't come to a compromise. EyeSerene talk 17:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Consensus
In an effort to reach a consensus I am listing the two proposals by both In23065 and 92.9.157.110 here. Each editor will pick one and can state a reason why they chose this option or not. The proposal with the majority by Saturday will be taken into affect. If this continues after Saturday I am suggesting the entire article be reverted before the edit war and be fully protected until the dispute is resolved because this is ridiculous.

Proposal #1 In23065 feels the suitcase nominations are better suited for the weekly summary table because the suitcase nominations had really no impact, the housemates knew they were nominating for who shouldn't receive their suitcase unlike in Week 2 when they thought they were nominating for eviction but really it was the bedsit. He feels the suitcase nominations shouldn't be included in the table as they have no relevance to evictions.

Proposal #2 92.9.157.110 feels the suitcase nominations should remain in the table due to the fact that they played an important role in the game and was a twist to the game. Important twists are noted in the nomination tables/voting histories so the suitcase nominations are no exception.  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  19:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Proposal #2 I think the suitcase nominations should remain in the table. I however was willing to compromise and move the nominations to the weekly summary in order to resolve the edit war. Since it has continued I am going back to my original opinion and saying the nominations should remain.  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  19:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Proposal #1 The suitcase nominations do not relate to nominations on single bit as the housemates where choosing who they didn't want to receive their suitcase not who they wanted to be evicted. If there would of been nominations that week then we wouldn't have this problem as people only want to but the suitcase nominations in because there is space there. At the end of the day it was a task and Big Brother made that perfectly clear and when has a task ever been included in any nominations table. If this task is put in the nominations table then we might as well add who the housemates voted the strongest and smartest in the next Saturday night live or who Michelle and Emma chose to get punished when they were in the bedsit or even the housemates split into group in the second weekly task. It is that simple. In23065 (talk) 22:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I go for proposal 2. The suitcase nominations should remain. At the end of the day, it is a nominations table, not just for evictions but for suitcases aswell.--92.21.163.125 (talk) 22:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * proposal 1. nominations arent the same as suitcase nominations.23:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)208.89.211.168 (talk)
 * Deffiently Proposal #1 - i remember the suitcase nominations and werent they a saturday night challenge i dont think a small task affects the whole game and there for i dont think they should be in the nominations table - 208.43.113.147 (talk) 23:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Proposal 2 definately. At the end of the day, they are nominations so that is why they should be put onto the nominations table.--Mikopale (talk) 23:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Proposal 1 never seen the series but ive seen other tables and they all seem to put "no Nominations" when there isnt any nominations for eviction that week. 81.0.237.34 (talk) 23:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's because in those weeks there really weren't nominations. But there were nomination in week 1.--Mikopale (talk) 23:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Proposal 2. They are classed as nominations so they should be put back on.--Upperhand (talk) 23:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Proposal 1. As already said, they are no more "nominations" than those of the strongest and smartest housemate in one of the tasks, among other things.  Hence my previous point of it being a mere case of making use of available space.  May I make another proposal while at it?  That if proposal 2 wins, the information be formatted (such as with a different background colour) to make it more prominent that these are not eviction nominations? -- Smjg (talk) 01:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would agree that the suitcase nominations can have a different colour background, just as long as those names really are on there.--92.22.96.225 (talk) 17:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

— Mavis789 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. In23065 (talk) 12:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Proposal 2. They are nominations, just because they are not for evictions doesn't mean they are not nominations. Suitcase nominations should be put back. I aslo know Marco from this series and he mentioned to me once about these nominations and he refered to them as nominations.--Mavis789 (talk) 12:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe this to be 92.21.163.125 due to the fact that that is Mavis789 first contribution. I am going to check his IP and if they are found to match then I think the right thing to do is to delete this comment and 92.21.163.125's for fool play. In23065 (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I can confirm that i am not that person. My number is 78.33.189.376. I only opened an account a few days ago.--Mavis789 (talk) 16:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Lies. Just checked your Account was set up on 12:29, 10 July 2008 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Mavis789) and 4 minutes later you posted here. Also your IP is fake as "78.33.189.376" no number in your ip can be above 255. We now cannot count your comment and I am in the right mind to delete your other coment added by 92.21.163.125 for fool play. Unlucky. In23065 (talk) 22:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not that other person. Yes I have only just opened an account and yes this is the only thing i've commented on since i have had my new account. How dare you say I am somebody else.--Mavis789 (talk) 23:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * why did you lie then? In23065 (talk) 23:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you mean lie.--Mavis789 (talk) 23:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * These "My number is 78.33.189.376. I only opened an account a few days". In23065 (talk) 23:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I did open an account recently. I opened one a few days ago. There was a problem so i had to do it again yesterday night. As for the number, i couldn't really remember what the exact number was so i typed something close to what i could remember of it. Why are you so picky, is it because you're afraid of loosing a battle. Get a grip of yourself. How old are you. My 2 year old daughter behaves better than you.--Mavis789 (talk) 23:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * All i can say is the rat has been caught and now the dirty little thing is trying to escape before I put my rat posion down. I DO NOT BELIEVE A WORD YOU SAY!!!!!!! In23065 (talk) 23:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You're disgusting. Calling somebody names and threatening them. Believe what you want. You should be ashamed of yourself.--Mavis789 (talk) 23:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Whats the matter with you man. I agree with mavis789. thats foul and disgusting. in23065 should be reported.--Mikopale (talk) 23:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry if i dont agree with riging votes. you said in the following convasation to EyeSerene " He has called me a rat and has said he is going to lay rat poison down to get rid of me." as i was talking to Mavis789 this seems strange, Ohh i forgot you are Mavis789 silly me. You are worse than Robert Mugabe, you make me feel sick. In23065 (talk) 00:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * your the sick one. calling people names and threatening other users. So what if Mavis789 is pretending to be someone else. That is no reason to her or anyone else what you just said.Threatening a young woman who has a child. you should be ashamed of yourself.--Mikopale (talk) 00:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as im concern its not a young woman with a child. If Davis789 is not the same person as the IP then i will apologise but im 99% sure it is.
 * Even if she isn't saying who she is, you dont say that to anyone. would you say that to your mum.--Mikopale (talk) 00:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes I would call my mum a rat if she was trying to sawy a vote through being a Cheat and Lier to be those kind of people are rats. Wikipedia is a democracy and thats what it comes down to. In23065 (talk) 00:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * just find it funny that

All adds up really. In23065 (talk) 00:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * your both on at the same time
 * Davis is a new member that added there comment to the discussion less that 4 minutes after there registration
 * Davis has exactly the same views as the IP
 * Davis lied about her/his IP address
 * Davis lied about the registration date
 * the IP is defending Davis

People have the same view points as you. They even say 'I agree with in23065'. Maybe thats you pretending to be someone else. I also cant believe how rude you are. dont you have respect for people.--Mikopale (talk) 00:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have respect for a lot of people but they lose all the respect when they cheat. In23065 (talk) 00:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * you cant be sure of others cheating. why would people want to cheat. its only an internet article. and wikipedia is not always the best source of info. why are you making such a big deal.--Mikopale (talk) 00:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It is pretty pathetic but then i wasnt the one that cheated. In23065 (talk) 00:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * you cant be 100% or 99% sure though. why dont you just let it go. what does it matter. as you said its pretty pathetic so just let it go.--Mikopale (talk) 01:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would like to know though. In23065 (talk) 01:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well even if she is lying, you should still appologise to her for what you called her. Are you happy we had this chat. i'm trying to see this from both sides or 3 in your case. Oh its confusing.--Mikopale (talk) 01:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am only going to appologise if it turns out im wrong anyway im going to bed now good night. In23065 (talk) 01:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sweet Dreams.--Mikopale (talk) 01:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's because they are nominations, informally speaking. Doesn't sound like a convincing argument to me. -- Smjg (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Proposal 1. Same reasons as smjg really. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.145.192.75 (talk) 14:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Prposal 2. I was the one who put the suitcase nominations on there years ago. We had a discussion and it was agreed that they would be put on. This was discussed before and it was agreed that the suitcase nominations were to be put. This discussion has since been deleted from wikipedia. But I can promise everyone that a decision was made and I don't know why this discussion has reopened many years later after the agreemant.--SimonPeter (talk) 16:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Lies? Well you don't seem to of been the person who put them there User195.93.21.8 did, also there didn't seem to of been much discussion about it, in fact it was revert 6 times and then the article was deleted because it was on a separate page from the main 2004 page and then when it finally made its way on there it came with the suitcase nominations and hasn't been changed since (seem like people just ignored it) and on top of all that this only happened last year not 3 years ago. In23065 (talk) 19:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That was my number on my old computer, plus i never said i edited it 3 years ago. At the end of the day. There was a discussion and it was agreed that suitcase nominations were to be added. --SimonPeter (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry miss read there as three anyway 1 year ago is less that years ago. Also the agreement didn't go down very well then. Also its funny how if that was you why was the next edit on that page you again but this time it was you under the name SimonPeter. In23065 (talk) 19:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What?--SimonPeter (talk) 23:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Guys, this is a thread about trying to resolve the issue not bickering. And just for the record when the tables were being placed on articles they were on seperate pages with a summarized version on the main article. When he mentions that the discussion was deleted from Wikipedia he is referring to the articles which contained the table in the first place was deleted. If you look at this revision this one is the first time the table was placed on the article. I have no clue where you seen that but that is the first time the whole entire table as on the article page and it had the suitcase nominations intact. Meaning there could have been discussion on the other page where the table was at.  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  19:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * First edit here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Big_Brother_2004_nominations_table_%28UK%29&diff=70643785&oldid=68885287. In23065 (talk) 19:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * propsal 1 i agree with in23054 they are not nominations and it is as simple as that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.145.192.75 (talk) 19:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You can't count this vote as he has already voted.--Mikopale (talk) 19:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Proposal 1. I agree with the first statement at the top. 81.146.29.44 (talk) 21:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Whoever closes this might like to make sure they've read WP:SPA - per the guidelines, the fact that some votes are from accounts that have no or few edits other than to this discussion should be taken into account when deciding consensus. EyeSerene talk 11:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Does that include IP or just accounts. In23065 (talk) 12:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Both. EyeSerene talk 12:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Its just if you have a dynamic IP then you will lose all your records everytime it changes but whereas an account we can know for deffinate that they have never made any contributions, and that seem to be the way WP:SPA article is leaning. In23065 (talk) 12:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Currently the consensus is leading towards Proposal #1 with seven editors (six editors that have few to none edits on this article) and Proposal #2 has six editors (four editors that have few to none edits on this article). If there is no more constructive input regarding this situation then I will close this tomorrow.  ♪♫Al  ucard   16♫♪  19:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Saturday has come, and with a vote of 8 to 5 Proposal #1 has won. In23065 (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Saturday isn't over yet. there is still time for people to vote. plus, its 7 to 6 not 8 to 5.--Mikopale (talk) 02:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Mavis789 doesn't count look here for more information WP:SPA and it said at the top "The proposal with the majority by Saturday will be taken into affect". In23065 (talk) 09:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Mavis789's vote does count because you have absoloutly no proof that she cheated. Plus you can tell that somebody has voted twice for proposal 1 because the number ip's are the same.--Mikopale (talk) 16:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Plus Saturday isn't over yet. So people can still vote. Also this discussion has been extended till Monday.--Mikopale (talk) 16:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Who says its been extended? Also look here to find out more why Mavis789 vote doesnt count WP:SPA. In23065 (talk) 17:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't know if Mavis789 was cheating so the vote will be counted. eyeserene said that it had been extended to monday.--Mikopale (talk) 21:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No he/she never, I think your getting confused between "I will be offline for the weekend ... I'll get to it on Monday" with, Im extending the time. If you want to know why Mavis789 vote is not counted READ THIS WP:SPA and seen as the reasons why Mavis789 vote isnt counted are the same as yours I have the right to take your vote away. In23065 (talk) 21:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In23065, you have no right to take any vote away. The account is also a new account, I have been reviewing the votes and the users to make sure that it complies with WP:SPA. But if this whole debate was over to see who will win I will be very mad.  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  22:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The result of the discussion was Proposal #1  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  22:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Article assessment
I just wanted to make clear why I have downgraded this article from B-Class to C-Class. The criteria for B-Class articles were tightened and some articles are now C-Class. Here is the reason why Big Brother 2004 (UK) was downgraded: These are the reasons and why many B-Class articles in WikiProject: Big Brother were downgraded to C-Class and why I am bumping up some Start-Class articles to C-Class.  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  20:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Article has an issue on front. The article appears to contradict itself in certain sections.
 * The article could use some more information like Big Brother 2005 (UK).
 * The article is lacking in reliable sources.

Article protected
I have protected this article for three days from being edited by new or unregistered users, due to disruptive IP editing. Hopefully this will allow the other editors here to continue their good-faith discussion without the unnecessary distractions. All the best, EyeSerene talk 19:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * How can i become an official editor.--Mikopale (talk) 00:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Logo
I was wondering why the red logo has been changed to the black logo. --Andybigbro2 (talk) 02:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The black logo is the official Logo. In23065 (talk) 14:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No it wasn't, the opening credits had the red one and all the advertisments with it.--Mikopale (talk) 19:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thats whati thought Mikopale. The red one is the Official one, the black one is the template. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andybigbro2 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope the one realised by the creator is the real one go here to find out more info http://www.danieleatock.com/. Plus the eye in the titles is both Black, red and white at different point of the titles. In23065 (talk) 22:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Andy please stop changing the images any thing you do change gets reverted ASAP. In23065 (talk) 22:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Full protection
Due to continued reversions on the article, I have extended its protection to expire at midnight on Monday 14th July, and fully-protected the article. Only administrators may now edit the article. I sincerely hope that this encourages all parties to reach a consensus on this page; once consensus has been reached, you can paste at the top of this talk page to request that an admin makes the requested changes to the article. If no consensus is reached over the weekend, I will extend the article protection for as long as necessary. EyeSerene talk 11:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Page protection extended for 1 week due to continued reverting. EyeSerene talk 16:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Weekly summary and the prize fund picture, infobox
Whenver you expand the InfoBox, the Info lays on both Weekly Summary and the Prize Fund Balance Picture. --BigOz22 (talk) 14:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Fight night
I know about the whole "Be Bold" thing, but I never like changing things before discussing first so: I think Fight Night should have a completely separate sectioin rather than just being in the Highlights table. Big Brother 2003 has the bomb scare as a separate section because it's a notable and significant event in BB UK history. So is Fight Night, so why not?Stjimmy61892 (talk) 00:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Stuart
Stuart was evicted, the table should be changed back to reflect that. I'm having a problem editing it at the moment, so I thought I'd add the suggestion here. SnowyNight1234 (talk) 13:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Week 1 - nominations
Week 1 WAS NOT nominations. It was to decide who shouldn't have their suitcase. And if you watch the episode (here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tf6wr-YmRxY), Davina doesn't mention the word "nomination" at all, and neither does Big Brother when asking the housemates to vote. This was simply the first live Saturday challenge, which coincidentally happened every Saturday. Not nominations, so please stop changing this. ThisIsDanny (talk) 22:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Big Brother 5 (UK). 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/20150203053428/http://www.smeggys.co.uk/big_brother_housemate.php?series=7&id_tag=emg to http://www.smeggys.co.uk/big_brother_housemate.php?series=7&id_tag=emg
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051123085913/http://bigbrother.digitalspy.co.uk:80/article/ds6686.html to http://bigbrother.digitalspy.co.uk/article/ds6686.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150203053853/http://www.smeggys.co.uk/big_brother_housemate.php?series=7&id_tag=bck to http://www.smeggys.co.uk/big_brother_housemate.php?series=7&id_tag=bck

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Big Brother 5 (UK). 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/20120702120939/http://www.bigbrother2003.fsnet.co.uk/home.htm to http://www.bigbrother2003.fsnet.co.uk/home.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://bigbrother.digitalspy.co.uk/article/ds6686.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:19, 19 July 2017 (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)

Nominations Table
Is the week 1 column really necessary? Technically, there was no eviction that week, just like Big Brother 1 and 2 and they have no mention of Week 1, and the tables look a lot cleaner. Also the Week 4 column seems unnecessary too, as Week 3 was rolled over to Week 4. The Notes section explain everything that is needed to know for Weeks 1 & 4. Obviously it makes sense to have the Week 7 & 9 columns as actual evictions happened in those weeks. But what confuses me is why this table has so much non-information when articles such as Celebrity Big Brother 19 don't include a column for Austin's eviction as the votes were not nominations, yet they still contributed to his exit. The table would be better suited without Weeks 1 & 4.

Reli source (talk) 01:03, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Imo Week 4 should stay because it shows the eviction happened then rather than 3. It's better to include the fact that an eviction was cancelled/postponed (Week 3), and the actual eviction (Week 4) than to just merge them into one week I think. Though that's just my opinion, I just think to include as much information as possible for the reader. Week 1 is more difficult though, it shows Kitten was ejected in Week 1. And iirc there would have been an eviction if Kitten hadn't have behaved like she did - hence why she left live to a full audience and had a proper interview with Davina. I may be wrong, I haven't seen the series for a while. ThisIsDanny (talk) 08:28, 23 September 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 12:30, 22 December 2018 (UTC)