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

message: Just to let people know, I wasn't thinking properly when I made this edit summary - I meant simple, not accurate :) — FireFox (U T C) 15:13, 27 May '06
:I think it's a good idea though; just small pieces of information like with what %age each housemate was evicted with. No need to write that Dawn was ejected for rule-breaking, just eviction %ages... Ellisjm 29 May 16:15 UTC
::Personally I don't. The nomination table should be kept as simple and easy to read as possible, without lots of cluttered information. Stats like percentages can go in the main article in my opinion. — FireFox 16:18, 29 May '06
:::I agree with FireFox here - it's not especially interesting unless it's particularly close/wide, and it only going to clutter the page. If it's interesting, then it should go on the main page. -- 9cds(talk) 16:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit summary 

message: Where do you find the information about who nominated who> Ellisjm 19:02 UTC 31 May 06
:On the show tonight ;) -- cds(talk) 19:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who nominated who?? 

message: Should we put Dawn as up for nomination in week 1 as she was up for nomination for 6 hours and people could vote for her in that time? Ellisjm 20:54 UTC 31 May 06
:She wasn't facing eviction, so I say no. — FireFox usertalk 20:53, 31 May '06
::She was for 6 hours though... Ellisjm 20:57 UTC 31 May 06
:::She was not up for eviction on eviction night. — FireFox usertalk 14:50, 01 June '06
::::And as an extra note, her phone number was never opened, iirc. -- cds(talk) 15:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dawn 

message: I was thinking of templating this table. I think it would save a lot of time if anyone wanted to keep up to date as they could put the template on their userpage and then not have to check the article. Then again on the other hand it may be a complete waste of time. What does everyone else think? -- JAB[T][C] 21:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It can already be done: . -- 9cds(talk) 21:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok thanks! -- JAB[T][C] 22:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, seems not. It may have to be copied to your user space.. -- 9cds(talk) 22:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Template?

message: Read the piece about %'s - sorry. 81.111.218.26 18:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Though personally I agree with Ellisjm above, it’s a good piece of information to have within the table - and for me it doesn't look really that cluttered and the way it was done looked tidy and (imo) still is easy to read. The percentages could go in the main article, but (again imo) they are pieces of information which are too specific to belong there – and as they are figures I think they'd be perfect in the table. But as you've been around longer than me and have been one of the main contributors’ to the page I'm happy to concede.81.111.218.26 20:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding of percentages 

message: I would just like to point out that I made a minor change, just to make it clear for future reference. In the last note (note 4 I believe ), I made a small change. I hope this is ok with everyone, I know it is a bit picky.
:They're the best edits ;) -- 9cds(talk) 19:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit

message: Perhaps we could fill the box #D1E8EF instead of giving it a border? What do people think? — FireFox 18:50, 20 June '06
:We might hit colour overload, then. -- 9cds(talk) 22:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current nominations box 

message: Are those who are up against the public vote listed in alphabetical order?? Ellisjm 10:30 UTC 21 June 06
:They should be, if they're not, feel free to fix. -- 9cds(talk) 10:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Against Public Vote 

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

message: So are we having a border around the current weeks nominations or not? It keeps getting reverted without any discussion. Personally I think we should have no border, it looks ugly and isn't necessary. --LorianTC 19:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it's not needed, people can see which week we're on by the blank boxes... Trampikey 19:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

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

text: I think we should make clear the current nominations but perhaps with a different colour rather than a border. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The state of colours is already insane, we shouldn't make another. -- 9cds(talk) 20:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about, just get rid of the border and never speak of it again?  --JD[talk|email] 20:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the sound of that. --LorianTC 20:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This nominations page is a nightmare, along with the table on the BB7 page.  Too much overediting means that none of the information is clear.  So, in my (lack of) wisdom, I suggested a while ago that the most useful, up-to-date, pertinent information was (somehow) highlighted to the reader.  Please consider that besides all of you lot (and me) who visit and edit this page on an hourly basis, some new visitors may spot it and, believe you me, this page is a minefield of info, and it's pretty unclear what on earth is going on.  Fine, it might not meet everyone's idea of how to present a page (and I've done a few years of this sort of thing, so I understand that EVERYONE has an opinion), but as it is, it takes ages (on first sight) to work out what is going on here.  Bring back something (borders?) that points to the most relevant section of this page.  Budgiekiller 20:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed! :) -- 9cds(talk) 20:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

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

text: Wild, sounds like you're heading into the direction my mind was working (not quite 100% sure...!) but somehow we have to (have to) make this page accessible to the 'Average Joe', and not just to those who seem to spend their entire lives consumed with how this page looks.  I think if people visit the nominations page, most of the time their concern is with who is currently nominated.  That's by far the most important piece of information on this page.  So we should highlight it somehow.  Or is my attitude unique (besides cds of course!)....?? Budgiekiller 20:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Highlight the row of people up for the public vote one colour, and then the column of the current week in another colour, or perhaps even the same one.  Then, where they meet would be where current public vote-ees would be.  --JD[talk|email] 20:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now we're talking! I like the idea.  I was also a shade confused that the page was called "...Nominations..." and the ultimate row was deemed as "...Against public vote..." so, really, this page is missing a trick.  Ultimately, while it records who votes against whom, it ignores that and simply heads to who faces the phone vote.  Just a minor point.  Heading back the main point, let's really try to work on making it clearer to the non-editor.  Budgiekiller 20:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can the outermost cells (ie the ones that have housemates' names and Week numbers in them) be highlighted as well, so it's a bit clearer what the point of the highlighting would be?  --JD[talk|email] 21:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm sure they could be.  We need a wiki-mark-up-pro to help...! Budgiekiller 21:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm wondering from the lack of activity if anything's happening...  --JD[talk|email] 21:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Border around this weeks nominations