Talk:Big Brother (British TV series) series 5

message: 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)
thread_title:  Colours 

message: Just wondering, why is there no TOC?? godgoddingham333 11:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  TOC 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Michelle Bass 

message: :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 Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 01:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Big Brother UK 5 logo.gif

message: 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)
thread_title:  Chronology etc. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Fresh meat - fresh mess? 

message: 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:
# "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.
# "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.
# Week 3, "Prize money dropped to £77,000."  What was the circumstance?  No task is mentioned for week 3.
-- Smjg (talk) 23:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictions and other issues with Chronology and Prize fund sections 

message: 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)
replies: text: Maybe, but not in that table, which has the specific purpose of showing nominations for eviction. -- Smjg (talk) 01:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

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

text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 04:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Week 1 suitcase nominations 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Not in another table in the weekly summary table.In23065 (talk) 18:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

text: 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. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 20:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 00:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 04:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I agree. Leave the suitcase nominations on the table like before.--Upperhand (talk) 19:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

text: We can't delete Week 1 Because Kitten was Ejected in that week. In23065 (talk) 19:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

text: 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.♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 19:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Kitten was ejected on the friday therefore making it week one. In23065 (talk) 19:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Sorry but you should of spoken earlier we have already agreed what we are doing. In23065 (talk) 08:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Im really bored of you. Go away. In23065 (talk) 15:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agreement 

message: 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. EyeSerenetalk 17:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit warring

message: 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:
*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.
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. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 20:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article assessment 

message: 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, EyeSerenetalk 19:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How can i become an official editor.--Mikopale (talk) 00:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article protected 

message: I was wondering why the red logo has been changed to the black logo .
--Andybigbro2 (talk) 02:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The black logo is the official Logo. In23065 (talk) 14:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Logo 

message: 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. EyeSerenetalk 11:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Page protection extended for 1 week due to continued reverting. EyeSerenetalk 16:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Full protection

message: 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)
thread_title:  Weekly summary and the prize fund picture, infobox 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Fight night 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Stuart 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Week 1 - nominations 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: 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.
        	Week 2        	Week 3/4      	Week 5         	Week 6         	Week 7         	Week 8         	Week 9         	Week 10Final        	Week 10Final        	Nominationsreceived		
        	              	              	               	               	               	               	               	                    	                    	                   		
Nadia   	Ahmed,Daniel  	Daniel,Vanessa	Jason,Victor   	Jason,Victor   	Privatein task 	Jason,Victor   	Nonominations  	Winner(Day 71)      	Winner(Day 71)      	13                 		
Jason   	Marco,Emma    	Nadia,Marco   	Nadia,Marco    	Banned         	Sergeantin task	Nadia,Daniel   	Nonominations  	Runner-up(Day 71)   	Runner-up(Day 71)   	13                 		
Daniel  	Ahmed,Michelle	Nadia,Ahmed   	Marco,Jason    	Victor,Becki   	Privatein task 	Victor,Shell   	Nonominations  	Third place(Day 71) 	Third place(Day 71) 	13                 		
Shell   	Ahmed,Michelle	Ahmed,Daniel  	Marco,Nadia    	Becki,Jason    	Privatein task 	Jason,Victor   	Nonominations  	Fourth place(Day 71)	Fourth place(Day 71)	2                  		
Stuart  	Ahmed,Vanessa 	Daniel,Vanessa	Shell,Nadia    	Ahmed,Becki    	Privatein task 	Daniel,Nadia   	Nonominations  	Evicted(Day 69)     	Evicted(Day 69)     	0                  		
Michelle	Ahmed,Jason   	Victor,Jason  	Jason,Ahmed    	Ahmed,Becki    	Sergeantin task	Jason,Daniel   	Nonominations  	Evicted(Day 64)     	Evicted(Day 64)     	4                  		
Victor  	Emma,Nadia    	Daniel,Vanessa	Marco,Nadia    	Banned         	Privatein task 	Daniel,Nadia   	Evicted(Day 57)	Evicted(Day 57)     	Evicted(Day 57)     	10                 		
Ahmed   	Marco,Emma    	Vanessa,Marco 	Marco,Nadia    	Nadia,Daniel   	Privatein task 	Evicted(Day 50)	Evicted(Day 50)	Evicted(Day 50)     	Evicted(Day 50)     	14                 		
Becki   	Not inHouse   	Not inHouse   	Michelle       	Daniel,Ahmed   	Evicted(Day 43)	Evicted(Day 43)	Evicted(Day 43)	Evicted(Day 43)     	Evicted(Day 43)     	4                  		
Marco   	Jason,Ahmed   	Daniel,Vanessa	Jason,Victor   	Evicted(Day 36)	Evicted(Day 36)	Evicted(Day 36)	Evicted(Day 36)	Evicted(Day 36)     	Evicted(Day 36)     	9                  		
Vanessa 	Ahmed,Michelle	Ahmed,Nadia   	Evicted(Day 29)	Evicted(Day 29)	Evicted(Day 29)	Evicted(Day 29)	Evicted(Day 29)	Evicted(Day 29)     	Evicted(Day 29)     	6                  		
Emma    	Victor,Daniel 	Victor,Jason  	Ejected(Day 23)	Ejected(Day 23)	Ejected(Day 23)	Ejected(Day 23)	Ejected(Day 23)	Ejected(Day 23)     	Ejected(Day 23)     	3                  		
Kitten  	Ejected(Day 8)	Ejected(Day 8)	Ejected(Day 8) 	Ejected(Day 8) 	Ejected(Day 8) 	Ejected(Day 8) 	Ejected(Day 8) 	Ejected(Day 8)      	Ejected(Day 8)      	N/A                		
        	              	              	               	               	               	               	               	                    	                    	                   		
Reli source (talk) 01:03, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nominations Table 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress