Talk:American Idol season 10

Judges changes

I removed the rumors of Kara DioGuardi being fired and also removed the rumors of Jennifer Lopez and Steven Tyler being added as new judges. All of these are based on either on the unreliable source TMZ or other sources saying TMZ is reporting it, which does not make those articles reliable sources. There have been no confirmations of any of this information from American Idol, Fox, DioGuardi, Lopez or Tyler.

I removed the unsourced addition that Nigel Lythgoe is coming back as a producer since all of the sources I have seen have said he is close to coming back which is not the same thing as actually coming back.

For all of these, there are also reports that there will be an official announcement from American Idol/Fox on Monday. If these reports are true, then we should wait until this announcement or wait until there are confirmations from any of the players involved. Aspects (talk) 22:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay just a heads up. Jennifer Lopez in negotiations about joining the show is not a rumor. So I don't understand why you keep calling it a rumor. It's just unnecessary for this situation.CloudKade11 (talk) 03:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, we deal with verifiable information. So far all of the information on future judges for this season, except for Ellen DeGeneres, are from non-reliable sources that are speculations, unconfirmed reports or rumors that are not confirmed by any of the participants in the situation. In fact the link you source for Steven Tyler being a judge is "Rumor Alert: Steven Tyler (Aerosmith) To Replace Simon Cowell." Until there are confirmations by these participants, these statements are just rumors and should not be listed. As such, I am again removing this unreliable information. Aspects (talk) 12:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as Jennifer, she said she was interested in Glee, and would do Idol but wasn't as interested in Idol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Core2012 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

So what are reliable sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.154.46.145 (talk) 21:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Something doesn't add up

The article says that Lopez and Tyler weren't announced until September 22, but it also shows that there were 6 auditions held before that date. Who were the judges for these rounds? Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Are the dates in the article wrong? Seacrest's Tweet on October 18(http://twitter.com/RyanSeacrest/status/27554010701) says New Orleans auditions were that weekend. Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The auditions before Sept. 22nd were the first round auditions where contestants perform for the producers. Those given a callback from the producers move on to the second round where they audition for the judges. --Mike12816 (talk) 20:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't aware of this. I thought that everyone's first audition was in front of the judges. So when the program shows a stadium full of people, or a line with 8,000 people, is that from the first audition or the callbacks? How many people do the judges actually see during callbacks? Thanks, Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Those are the first round auditions, the judges see a lot less than 8,000 people per city, I don't know how many get to see the judges, but there's only so many they can see in two days time. The show edits it so that you think it's all one round because otherwise they'd have to openly admit that they let the wacky performers through to the judges round to draw in viewers even though they know they've got no chance.--Mike12816 (talk) 22:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Location of NJ Auditions

While the opening sequence does show the Izod Center, the main auditions (the ones with the 3 top judges) take place at the Liberty house Restaurant located in Jersey city in Liberty State Park. Can someone please add this. (I would do it myself but I don't want to mess up the already neat format. Perhaps, an asterisk can be added to make a note). Umiami09 (talk) 02:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Semifinal Round

There are some inconsistencies among sources describing the process in which the finalists will be chosen. It has been confirmed that the semifinals will take place over the course of one week, where the Top 20 semifinalists will be split into two groups of 10 for America to choose the finalists from. In one source, Ken Warwick states that the places in the finals won't be based on gender and that the number of finalists isn't even determined yet [1]. However, the official website states that indeed five males and five females will advance from the public vote, and the judges will get wildcard picks, though it fails to suggest whether or not these wildcard picks have to retain the gender balance [2]. MarkMc1990 (talk) 08:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Contestant Chart

Should we include one of those contestants charts that are in every page for this season. Just add one section for Semi-Finals and the rest would be Finals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.184.116.38 (talk) 05:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually more details should be included, like age and originating from which city and which state. Consistency with earlier Season pages should apply. The way the Contestant Chart stands now is insufficient. werldwayd (talk) 14:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no need to add more details to the semifinalists contestants, most of them will be eliminated next week, i think we should give more priority to the finalists. So it's ok this format. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.16.95.94 (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Scotty or Scott McCreery

Both Scotty and Scott versions have been used in presentation by contestant and by the jury. What is the standrad in such cases? Which version should be used? werldwayd (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Whichever one that is used by American Idol. At the moment it looks to be Scotty and Tatynisa. Hzh (talk) 15:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Ta-Tynisa or Tatynisa Wilson

I have seen presentations in both these versions. Which one to apply? werldwayd (talk) 14:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It's Ta-Tynisa Wilson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lifeonthemoon (talk • contribs) 16:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Tables and accessibility

Change the tables format proposal, opinions please.

Example:

Contestant	Order	Song	Result
Ta-Tynisa Wilson	1	"Only Girl (In the World)"	Advanced
Naima Adedapo	2	"Summertime"	Eliminated
Kendra Chantelle	3	"Impossible"	Eliminated
Rachel Zevita	4	"Criminal"	Eliminated
Karen Rodriguez	5	"Hero"	Advanced
Lauren Turner	6	"Seven Day Fool"	Eliminated
Ashton Jones	7	"Love All Over Me"	Advanced
Julie Zorrilla	8	"Breakaway"	Eliminated
Haley Reinhart	9	"Fallin'"	Eliminated
Thia Megia	10	"Out Here on My Own"	Eliminated
Lauren Alaina	11	"Turn on the Radio"	Advanced
Pia Toscano	12	"I'll Stand by You"	Advanced

Don't really like this. The order # should always go in front I think, easier to read. That's how it was done previous years, I don't see why you want to change that. Things should be kept consistent. Hzh (talk) 21:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Order	Contestant	Song	Result
1	Ta-Tynisa Wilson	"Only Girl (In the World)"	Advanced
2	Naima Adedapo	"Summertime"	Eliminated
3	Kendra Chantelle	"Impossible"	Eliminated
4	Rachel Zevita	"Criminal"	Eliminated
5	Karen Rodriguez	"Hero"	Advanced
6	Lauren Turner	"Seven Day Fool"	Eliminated
7	Ashton Jones	"Love All Over Me"	Advanced
8	Julie Zorrilla	"Breakaway"	Eliminated
9	Haley Reinhart	"Fallin'"	Eliminated
10	Thia Megia	"Out Here on My Own"	Eliminated
11	Lauren Alaina	"Turn on the Radio"	Advanced
12	Pia Toscano	"I'll Stand by You"	Advanced

Per WP:ACCESS the most significant peices of information will need to be in the first column. See The X Factor (UK series 7) for how they can be effectively implemented. I will personally make the alterations if need be... — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 01:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The point is that it is easier to read with the number first which is what WP:ACCESS indicated to be the aim. In any table which has a number ordering, the number ALWAYS goes first, it's about having a logical structure, otherwise there is no point having that number. You don't see a number-ordered list of items without the number being shown first - see for example Help:List. Hzh (talk) 15:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually per WP:ACCESS the target of the new formatting is partially sighted readers who use screan reading software. The software emphasises whatever is in the first column and hence the name is the most important peice of information not the order. Like I said... go to The X Factor (UK series 7) to see examples of accessible tables. If an article is goign to be so heavily based on tables they need to be accessible. Alternatively numbers can be removed and replace with a sentence: In order of perforformance:. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 12:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

This is not X-Factor, don't mess up what's done here because of what's done in X-Factor page. Millions of pages in wiki are done with number first. If a partially sighted reader can't deal with simple things like numbers, he or she wouldn't be able to read the rest of the table properly, therefore the table would be useless anyway. We can't mess up the whole table just for a few who can't use the table properly. You in any case completely misunderstood the point of WP:ACCESS. See for example Wikipedia:Manual of Style (accessibility)/Data tables tutorial, nothing about numbers not being first, in fact it uses example with year in front. Why years and not numbers? And the page itself have all the numbered-list with the numbers in front. That is the standard way of doing things. Hzh (talk) 12:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Go and read up about screen reading software first before you discuss anything further with me because you obviously don't understand the issues being raised. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 14:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't have to. Even the page that advice on accessibility use numbers like years. Unless they specifically advice against using number first (they even use number first in their numbered-lists in that page), then they don't have problem with it. Don't force something on us that isn't the norm.Hzh (talk) 14:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Will the person who keeps putting number after the name stop doing that? This is a numbered list, and the number always go in front. If you don't understand this simple idea - the list is ordered according to the number, which is why you have the number in the front, otherwise you would order the list in some other way, like alphabetically or chronologically. Hzh (talk) 12:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

@Hzh: We're not discussing the cognitive ability of blind people to understand numbered lists here. Tables must be structured in a specific way, in order to enable screen readers to read it aloud in a useful way for users.

@Lil-unique1: I suppose you are referring to the requirement for the DISCOGS tables, where dates needed to be placed after the name of the song. It's a different case than the tables Hzh showed in this section. Basically, the dates in the DISCOGS tables were not a header specific for the row, in most cases the dates are associated with several rows. More importantly, the dates in DISCOGS are not the subject of the row, the subject is the album. Having the subject in the row header helps users to navigate, they can pick up information related to the album name.

In this case, a table ordered by number, with numbers as row headers is fine too. Because there is a number clearly associated with each contestant. Same for The X Factor (UK series 7): no need to have the contestant's name in the first column. I also fixed an issue with table captions in The X Factor: table captions shouldn't be that long. It's intended to be a header for the table, not a complete sentence. It should remain efficient. Cheers, Dodoïste (talk) 20:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

In fact, a table using number as a key field is not necessarily fine. At present, a blind viewer using a screen reader who navigated down the column 'Result' would hear "1, Result, Eliminated" then "2, Result, Wild Card", and so on. If the name were the row header, they would hear "Clint Jun Gamboa, Result, Eliminated" then "Jovany Barreto, Result, Wild Card", and so on. Now if you really feel that the former audible presentation is better then the second, then the table is fine. If (like me and Lil) you think the latter presentation is much more informative for our visually-impaired readers, then you can reformat the table to make 'Name' the first column and mark it up with !scope="row" as the guidance at MOS:ACCESS#Data tables requires. I should add that tables' accessibility benefits from having captions, and it seems perverse to leave out the caption only to misuse a definition list to add the 'Male'/'Female' titles. Finally, is there any reason why the table isn't sortable? The initial order can be identical to the current version, but offering readers extra functionality doesn't seem to have any disadvantages. --RexxS (talk) 00:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is a bit strange because it seems like we are talking about the deficiencies of some software and we are asked to accommodate that deficiency. I don't see how in this day and age they can't have a software that can automatically identify a numbered list and just say the entry in the second column as well as the first one. Numbered list is normal, it's everywhere, if a software can't identify that and deal with it then that software is faulty. It is wrong to expect us to do something that is not the norm when they should just fix the software. Any problem should be taken up at the developer of software for the blind, and this is not the place for such discussion. Hzh (talk) 10:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

First, read Tables with JAWS and MAGic to get some idea of how the software works. If you're so smart as to be able to write a better screen reader, then go ahead and do it. In the meantime, we have a not insignificant audience of visually impaired readers who use JAWS and similar software. It's not your place to demand that developers change their software, or blind people stop using JAWS, just because you're too uncaring to accommodate the disabilities of some of our users. The norm is defined by the manual of style, not by your personal opinion, and accessibility is part of the manual of style. This page is for discussing improvements to the article and it is indisputable that making a table comply with WP:ACCESS is an improvement to the article. --RexxS (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't demand anything of other people, save that they don't make unreasonable demand of me. Making other people change the way they do things just because the developer of particular software can't do their job properly is not reasonable. There is nothing that would suggest that reading a numbered list a terribly difficult thing to do. If they can't do it, that is their problem, not mine, and it is not for the software developer to demand that everyone change their ways to make up for their own deficiencies. We can make special provisions for blind people, but they cannot demand that we change things are normally done just to suit them when it is the software developer's fault for not doing their job properly. Like I said, take this up with the developer, it's their job. Hzh (talk) 16:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, you're demanding that the table is structured in a particular way which is disadvantageous to those with disabilities. It is perfectly simple to change the table to accommodate them, yet you insist that the software that they use is changed, simply to suit your preferences. The fact that the single most common screen reader does not have the ability to speak multiple row headers ought to tell you that it is more than a trivial exercise, or that it is a feature that users are not asking for. What gives you the right to tell blind users what features they should be using? It's all to easy to shrug off our responsibilities to the whole audience for our encyclopedia, and shuffle off the blame onto someone else. You need to start understanding the consequences of your edits on other people in the real world – not an idealised one that you imagine – and take notice when others are offering you useful advice. --RexxS (talk) 16:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand we will be the one making the effort to accommodate them, we are not making demands of them. We are making demand on the developers, not the blind. Understand this simple difference. I can think of many simple ways of doing this, say, adding special character/tag to the first column that would make it read a numbered list (and that we can easily do for all the tables). I am not telling blind people anything, I am telling the developers to do their job. Your argument is entirely objectionable, saying we are somehow heartless when it is the software that is the problem. Software has changed so much and sophisticated now that I am astonished that anyone would consider writing something that would read a simple numbered list to be some kind of challenge. Hzh (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

And you don't seem to understand that we're in no position to demand that developers of screen readers incorporate particular features because you're not prepared to make a effort to mark up your work in such a way that it complies with internationally agreed standards. WCAG 2.0 is the most recent and websites throughout the world adopt it as a matter of course (or for some sites as a matter of legislation). There is no requirement anywhere that a user agent should have to recognise a table column of numbers and switch the rendered output to the next column – except in your imagination. We can all think of lots of clever ways of marking up our own work, but the difficult part is getting wide acceptance for a standardised way of doing things. You need to understand that no such standard exists for what you are proposing. So in fact you are telling blind people this: "you can't access my work until the developers of your user agent change it to meet the requirements that I'm laying down". That is unacceptable for Wikipedia and you need to heed the consensus documented at MOS (or get ACCESS changed if you feel it's wrong). If you're not prepared to put in the effort to accommodate accessibility, then please step out of the way of those that are. --RexxS (talk) 18:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Do show me where they say a numbered list is not acceptable. Given that this is pretty much the standard way of doing things, you are telling me something that you can apparently deduce but somehow it's something they never bothered to tell us when that is such a big change in practice? Don't keep trying to throw books at me when you have nothing to support your claim. And don't try to distort my position that somehow we are denying access. There is no problem with access, you may argue that it could be less convenient, but it is not denying access.

All someone needs to do is get some kind of collaborative effort between wiki and one of the main software providers, how difficult is that to do? And there are other ways of doing it without wiki involvement, it's not as if it's rocket science. Hzh (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

@Hzh: the screen reader software JAWS is not at fault here. There is not enough semantic structure to allow JAWS to be more efficient with a table like we have here. And in order to allow for more accurate semantics, we need to publish a new standard that everybody will agree on, and that browsers will implement. And ultimately, a new cryptic syntax in the wiki code. Not that easy, really. And I'm not entering into the details.

@RexxS: We're engaging a war over a tiny detail here. Like I said, this case is different from the DISCOGS case. The inconvenience caused by this table is negligible. Worse, there is something wrong in the approach: we're suggesting to reduce usability for sighted readers, in order to improve usability for blind users. And I'm talking about usability because it's clearly an issue over efficiency, and not about accessibility which is the ability to use the said table.

Conclusion: I suppose we all have better things to do than getting angry at each other over such a detail. Cheers, Dodoïste (talk) 21:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, Dodoïste, but I think you may agree that the difference between hearing "2, Result, Wild Card" and "Jovany Barreto, Result, Wild Card" is more than a tiny detail if you happen to have to use a screen reader. --RexxS (talk) 00:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not know where your example comes from. From my understanding, the choice is to have either "Ta-Tynisa Wilson, 1, "Only Girl (In the World)", Advanced" or "1, Ta-Tynisa Wilson, "Only Girl (In the World)", Advanced". Since the number of the row is spoken by default by the screen reader, it is redundant. But not unusual. And in this case, each number is associated with each name, which is part of the contest. I suppose it makes sense. Maybe it's only me, but I still fail to see how it is a grave issue for screen reader users. If we still can't agree, maybe we could ask the input of Graham87 on the matter. Yours, Dodoïste (talk) 21:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

IMO it is considerate to make the change which accommodates the needs of blind users regardless of whether the software developers can be bothered or not. Changing the columns does not make it any more difficult for able-sighted readers to navigate. For able sighted readers it is simply an appearance change. Usability always trumps appearance. Its worked at The X Factor (UK series 7) so I don't see why it shouldn't work here. There's been no major objections there... — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 22:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you the one, or know the one, who put that format in X-Factor 7 page, and now trying to force it on us? Hzh (talk) 21:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

As you can see, the accessibility data tables tutorial does not mention this criteria. I moved it to the internal guidelines that are not meant to be enforced, for two reasons. Its priority is low, and I anticipated that enforcing it will produce such pointless conflicts.

According to your statement "Usability always trumps appearance", you seem mislead about what is usability. Usability is closely tied to appearances, notably with the affordance concept. Thus, I suggest you read a few books about usability, instead of drawing your own conclusions.

However, there is another possibility to make the table completely accessible, without changing the appearances. The numbers are the first row header, and the contestants are a sub row header. I made two examples below. Dodoïste (talk) 11:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Order	Contestant	Song	Result
1	Ta-Tynisa Wilson	"Only Girl (In the World)"	Advanced
2	Naima Adedapo	"Summertime"	Eliminated
3	Kendra Chantelle	"Impossible"	Eliminated
4	Rachel Zevita	"Criminal"	Eliminated
5	Karen Rodriguez	"Hero"	Advanced
6	Lauren Turner	"Seven Day Fool"	Eliminated
7	Ashton Jones	"Love All Over Me"	Advanced
8	Julie Zorrilla	"Breakaway"	Eliminated
9	Haley Reinhart	"Fallin'"	Eliminated
10	Thia Megia	"Out Here on My Own"	Eliminated
11	Lauren Alaina	"Turn on the Radio"	Advanced
12	Pia Toscano	"I'll Stand by You"	Advanced

Alternately, of we want to keep the grey row background colors:

Order	Contestant	Song	Result
1	Ta-Tynisa Wilson	"Only Girl (In the World)"	Advanced
2	Naima Adedapo	"Summertime"	Eliminated
3	Kendra Chantelle	"Impossible"	Eliminated
4	Rachel Zevita	"Criminal"	Eliminated
5	Karen Rodriguez	"Hero"	Advanced
6	Lauren Turner	"Seven Day Fool"	Eliminated
7	Ashton Jones	"Love All Over Me"	Advanced
8	Julie Zorrilla	"Breakaway"	Eliminated
9	Haley Reinhart	"Fallin'"	Eliminated
10	Thia Megia	"Out Here on My Own"	Eliminated
11	Lauren Alaina	"Turn on the Radio"	Advanced
12	Pia Toscano	"I'll Stand by You"	Advanced

Top 13 (March 9/10)

• Theme: Your Personal Idol
• Group performance: "Wanna Be Starting Something" / "Rock with You" / "Black or White" / "Man in the Mirror"

Contestant's performances on the final's first live show along with the results.

Contestant	Order	Song	Personal Idol	Result
Lauren Alaina	1	"Any Man of Mine"	Shania Twain	Safe
Casey Abrams	2	"With a Little Help from My Friends"	Joe Cocker	Safe
Ashthon Jones	3	"When You Tell Me That You Love Me"	Diana Ross	Bottom three
Paul McDonald	4	"Come Pick Me Up"	Ryan Adams	Safe
Pia Toscano	5	"All by Myself"	Celine Dion	Safe
James Durbin	6	"Maybe I'm Amazed"	Paul McCartney	Safe
Haley Reinhart	7	"Blue"	LeAnn Rimes	Bottom three
Jacob Lusk	8	"I Believe I Can Fly"	R. Kelly	Safe
Thia Megia	9	"Smile"	Michael Jackson	Safe
Stefano Langone	10	"Lately"	Stevie Wonder	Safe
Karen Rodriguez	11	"I Could Fall in Love"	Selena	Bottom three
Scotty McCreery	12	"The River"	Garth Brooks	Safe
Naima Adedapo	13	"Umbrella"	Rihanna	Safe

Final showdown details

Contestant	Order	Song	Result
Ashton Jones	1	"When You Tell Me That You Love Me"	Eliminated

What do you guys think of this format?

Contrast issues

I suggest we also consider the contrast between black text (or blue links) and the darker grey background; it seems to me to insufficient to meet accessibility criteria. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I checked with the "Color Contrast Analyser". The contrast between black text and the darker grey background pass, AAA accessibility level (top). The contrast between black text and the darker grey background pass, AA accessibility level (mid level, and AA is what we are aiming at so it's great). Conclusion : contrast are fine here. Dodoïste (talk) 20:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

References

Reception/References/Navigation Template

I fixed the reception but it hides the references/navigation template. I do not have time to fix it now (the reception is fine) but what is hidden is not. Can someone please fix it? Thanks. ATC ^{. Talk} 04:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Aspects (talk) 04:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Change/Edit "Finalists" section

It looks like a gossip section, filled with comments about the contestants's performances or how they lead their life. It would be best to make the finalists's description objective and put in only stone hard facts. Besides, it's not fair that only selected finalists have some background info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boredomps (talk • contribs) 08:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Most seasons only the finalists have background info (only 3 seasons have background info for semifinalists), it just depends on if someone feels like putting the work in to do it for all semifinalists. You are welcome to do it if you feel strongly that they all should have the info. Hzh (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

However people should not be turning it into a prediction section. Someone put that someone had been eliminated before the elimination show and votes have not even been cast yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.71.25.4 (talk) 05:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit "Semi-finalists" section

This section has the statement "The first five were revealed on February 23, 2011, and the remaining 19 were revealed on the following night's episode." Yet we only have the first 5 in table 1 and 6 others in table two. This doesn't add up. Obviously there is something fundamentally wrong in the section probably done by an anonymous editor and nobody else noticed the re-edits. I think someone should look at this section and make the necessary changes to match the opening statement made there. werldwayd (talk) 06:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

That's just a list of semifinalists who didn't make it to the finals. It's a list of 5 females and 6 males, nothing to do with the order they were chosen. The person who made the table probably should make that clearer.Hzh (talk) 06:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Still it looks so misleading to have an opening line like that and what immediately follows doesn't match. I have reinstated the original tables as it contains very vital information on those chosen and those eliminated of the top 24. werldwayd (talk) 07:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem with this one is that it is repeating information that is already in the tables below (who gets voted off) and the finalists section (some background info). People might be wondering why there are 2 sets of tables when they could be merged together (although the table can get too messy if merged). I suspect the intention of the table with the 11 eliminated semifinalists is to provide bio info for them like some previous seasons - see for example season 5 to 7 although they don't do it as tables. I have no opinion which way is better except that I think it is best to avoid duplicating information and have some consistency with previous seasons. Hzh (talk) 11:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

/* Elimination chart */

I contributed heavily to the elimination chart after the finalist were selected, and I see now my color scheme has been replace with various shades of blue. I would prefer not to have blue as the elimination color. Blue is a positive color and therefor elimination should not be associated with this. Palegoldenrod is a better color for the finals and elimination because it isn't associated with positive or negative as strongly as blue is.98.212.108.46 (talk) 08:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

A consensus was reached last season to use blue as it is a dominant color used in the show and the palegoldenrod was too hard to make a gradient for. MarkMc1990 (talk) 09:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

If you don't me asking, why is a gradient necessary? Other color schemes have been established without gradients. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Project_Runway_%28season_1%29 98.212.108.46 (talk) 09:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I would prefer to use the same shade for all events in the finals (bottom 3/bottom 2/eliminated), with the winner getting a special bright green box, but the gradient, too, was the result of a consensus established in Season 7. But if the choice was between using a gradient of the same color or 3 completely different colors, I'd prefer the gradient any day. I would like to keep the chart as simple as possible without it looking like someone threw up lucky charms cereal all over it like Season 8's chart. MarkMc1990 (talk) 09:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Every year we have this debate, and every year always ends up with something different. I think we should just stick to last years table. No matter what we do this year, next year someone will complain and it'll end up changing anyway. There's nothing wrong with last years chart, so I think we should just stick with that. (Kyleofark (talk) 18:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)) :)

Agreed about sticking to last year's table, but I would like to point out that last year's semifinals format was different and therefore we can't handle this year's the same way. The way it currently looks[3] is confusing and doesn't really explain anything. The wildcard round column is not represented well at all. This[4] was my suggestion, but I will concede that using a shaded cell like 98.212.108.46 had it is better than writing "N/A" for those that did not perform in the wildcard round. Either way, the blank cells aren't cutting it. MarkMc1990 (talk) 20:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Stop changing the elimination chart! it is fine NOW! dont change it anymore. There is no need to use Advanced or Top 10, the white color represent that they are SAFE already. Read the legend, it makes sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.16.93.67 (talk) 00:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

In regards to the top 10 Wildcard issue, I think the best solution would be to perhaps have a shade of light gray in the cells of the Top 10 contestants in a Wildcard column, and a note explaining that they did not have to perform. Kind of like how in the Series 8 table, there's a specific color for contestants who had already made it to the Top 12, so didn't have to perform that week. I think the current table which excludes the Wildcard round alltogether is a complete joke. It implies that Kendra, Robbie and Jovany reached the same stage as the other 8 contestants, which they clearly did not. I'd change it, but I always mess tables up when I try to edit them (Kyleofark (talk) 01:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC))

Kyleofark, I agree with that solution and it is the one I should have gone with in the first place based on previous seasons, though the note won't be necessary as long as we indicate the shade's meaning in the legend. As for 186.16.93.67, sorry but that's not how we do the chart with this format. Your way looks completely foolish. First you had a completely blank wildcard column and now you have no wildcard column at all. And do yourself a favor and look at the tables for seasons 1, 2, 3, and 8 -- They all use some form of top placements for the week or "Advanced" to indicate that they made the top 12. Leaving the cells blank is only appropriate for the format used in seasons 4-7 and 9 when the semifinalists had to perform three times instead of just once, as only two of each gender were eliminated at a time (meaning the rest of the contestants were "safe" those rounds, as the legend implies). MarkMc1990 (talk) 07:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily the same point, but someone keeps switching Jovany Baretto and Kendra Chantelle in the table, and after racking my brains, I really can't of a reason why. Both were eliminated at the same time, and as such, it becomes alphabetical. Baretto/Chantelle. It's not rocket science :D (Kyleofark (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC))

Should we really?

Be spoiling the performances? Yes I realize that they are now pre-taping the show but I vividly remember in previous seasons where they pre-taped the semis. We didn't allow a leaked list then. I don't think we should now either. Thoughts? --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 21:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

OK! Leave it like that! YOU write the same thing you erased again then! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.16.93.95 (talk) 22:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

We don't withhold spoilers on Wikipedia (see Wikipedia's policy spoilers here). However, if such a song list were to surface, it would have to be published by a reliable source. Yves (talk) 22:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep I know about the spoiler rule. But you hit it on the head. I think we've never allowed them because the only sources are blogs. Yes MJ's Blog and Rickey.org usually know their stuff but they are still heresay and not reliable. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 00:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you also not say someone has been eliminated before the votes have even been cast? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.71.25.4 (talk) 05:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

How would you even know? No, we cannot post results until events actually happen, i.e. airing of the respective episode. Yves (talk) 05:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, someone posted the results even though they have not happened yet and it is just a guess —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.71.25.4 (talk) 06:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion

A couple of finalists' articles are up for deletion. Please join the discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thia Megia (3rd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naima Adedapo. Aspects (talk) 05:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Final's Format

Please stop changing the format! and the colors of the table. If you want to change it then will debated about it. But dont change it because you want to! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.16.90.99 (talk) 19:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

This was already discussed above and there was a consensus to have a wild card column. You have reverted without any edit summary or talk page explanation. Please join the discussion above instead of continually reverting. 216.43.194.130 (talk) 20:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not talking about the Elimination Chart, i am talking about the the tables! you use the blue colors, they are grey stop changing it. And the titles is missing the dates, your way of doing is so incomplete, you are not even in charge of this page! so please don't change the format of the tables that everyone has agree in the beggining! than you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.16.90.99 (talk) 20:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

That has also kinda being discussed, although it is not about the color (it's up in the table and accessibility section). Some people from the The X Factor (UK series 7) page are trying to force us to adopt their system of moving the numbers after the names, and it appears they want to force us to use their own color scheme as well. They are also nominating American Idol participants' pages for deletion. It looks like some people in the UK and Ireland want to run the way things are done in American Idol pages their way. Hzh (talk) 23:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually no one is forcing anyone into anything. I was trying to involve other editors in discussion since i've been editing this page from the start but didn't want regular AI editors to feel like they'd been bulldozed out of the way. Equally I'm the only editor from the X Factor pages making active or frequent edits to this page. Anyone who is noming the contestants pages for deletion is not affiliated to me nor was it instigated by me. Instead of trying to creat an issue when one doesn't exist and instead of provoking bad faith with contentious comments why not try and find a way forward? Notice how I haven't made any mass changes to the article... i'm discussing to find a way foreward. So instead of provoking the issue try being a little more helpful/contructive in your comments. Its not about doing things in anyone's way its about creating a more ACCESSIBLE and easy to read format. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 23:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, someone who edits X-Factor UK page just did (Stalker4evag4 also edited without logging in and has dynamic IP address and he or she also edits X-Factor UK page) . You didn't notice that the table has changed? That is after the discussion where we have determined that there is no requirement for us to adopt number after names in wiki. That is forcing us to do thing your way. Hzh (talk) 00:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

If you look on the talk pages of any of us you'll see there's been no co-ordination to do so. That user must feel the same way I did. the only changes i've made where to reduce some redundency etc. having noticed that the tables changed, I assumed it was based on what Dodieste had inputted into the above discussions. in its current state the tables do meet WP:ACCESS and are also usable. exactly what issue do you have with the top 13 table based on its current formatting? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 00:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It is not the standard way to do it, it doesn't read easily. You are trying to force us to do something that is not the norm. It hasn't escape our notice that those who are causing the problems here are only the ones who preferred your system (constant reverts, nominating pages for deletion without reasonable ground), and all from UK/Ireland. Why are they here causing problems? Are you happy now you got the table you wanted against the wishes of people here? Hzh (talk) 00:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

You appear to be 'ring leading' an imaginary group of editors because you keep referring to "we". Additionally your citing me and other editors for causing issues when what I'm trying to do (specifically) is solve the access issue. You also keep harping on about not the 'norm' not the 'standard' etc... if your referring to other AI articles... they're not good examples of best practise of WP:ACCESS. You didn't answer my question... I understand changes to the tables were made in a way which you are now not used to the tables but what is your actual issue? Calling something a standard is an arbitary choice as we don't have a guideline saying this is how it should be done. If there are particular aspects of the changes you don't like I'm personally willing to discuss how they can be overdone. but harping on about "not the standard way..." is not an argument for anything tbh. I brought along RexxS who's an expert in this field. He said best practise was putting the name before the number. As a fully-able editor (i.e. no sight issues) it makes no difference to understanding or reading the table. But to a partially sighted JAWS reader it makes a massive difference. What right do we have to object that just because we think the new table doesn't look as pretty as the old one? WP:ACCESS changes are relatively new parts of the MS... its still trickling down through the system. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 00:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

So now you admit to bringing RexxS along who is responsible for nominating pages for deletion without good reasons? And you were trying to convince us that there is no coordination? How is it that the person who kept making the revert is also one who contributes to the page you indicate is a good one, the X-Factor 7 page? People have already indicated that they don't want the color, yet you still insist on changing it. And you want to insist that you are not trying to force us to do things your way? We are trying to achieve some reasonable kind of consistency all seasons here, the changes you and your cohorts have made are messing up things. Hzh (talk) 00:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I asked RexxS if he would comment on the discussion that's all (see his talk page and tp history) with a neutral message. Anything he does from then on is nothing to do with me nor is it coordinated. You're suggesting that there is a troop of people trying to take over or impose some idealistic standards or something. Again you keep referring to consistancye even though the previous seasons are not really accessible. This season's page is becoming accessible. If your objection is "oh the page doesn't match other seasons" then that's actually really lame and has no legs to stand on policy wise. No adherence to MOS for that reason would has no basis for cause. Like I said... I've been working on this page for a while before the shows actually started and always intended to make it accessible. The use of color for the weekly table was simply to reduce the need for an additional table which wasn't present in season 9 anyway. the other changes simplyfy things and reduce the need for redundency. Considering that the Access part of MoS was pretty much in infancy during earlier seasons i'm not surprised the accessible version of this page is inconsistant with pages for previous seasons. I haven't seen a specific objection to color so if there is one I'll apologise for that. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 00:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

And how do you explain Stalker4evag4 who appears never to have edited a single thing here until today when he or she suddenly decided that it's a good thing to come here and mess up things precisely the way you preferred in X-Factor 7? You are trying to convince me that somehow this is completely random? Amazingly enough he or she has edited X-Factor 7. How many pages are there in wiki that something so random can happen? And I'm amazed that anyone could consider RexxS neutral. What you have done is precisely that, bulldozing the regular editors here away to get your way by getting other people involved in this.Hzh (talk) 01:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

People are free to choose and edit articles exactly how they wish. I've openly asked you to look at the talkpages of all the users involved, even check their history (mine included), there's no collusion to have things done a certain way. Certainly not involving me anyway... Like I said there is a growing trend of making things accessible, I worked with user:AnemoneProjectors who upkeeps the X Factor page to make that notable and considering that the changes were considered steps in the right directions in terms of WP:ACCESS I've then started to make similar changes here but i recognise that the competition is different. Thus the ideas need to be adapted to fit the show accordingly. You seem to always mis-read my messages... i said I left rexxs a neutral message. there was no influence or bias, i simply asked him if he wouldn't mind dropping by the conversation. I didn't call him as an editor neutral. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 01:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

So as a regular contributor you can make edits but I can't. Oh right... ok I didn't realise that editing the article since its creation didn't make me a regular contributor. I haven't bulldozed anything. Someone raised the issue of accessible tables and I pointed out the example of X Factor as good practise and good examples of access tables. so far there's been a lot of shouting from your end about none 'conformation' and 'non-standard' styles but you've still yet brought forward any logical reason for rejecting WP:ACCESS. The tables set-up as they are now are the easiest way to conform to Access policy without making things more difficult for fully-sighted readers, yet making it miles easier for partially sighted or blind editors. I don't understand the reason for all the fuss other than a bruised ego perhaps? I'm showing good faith as much as I can... I keep saying if you have a genuine reason for objection please state it and we'll try to find a compromise which satisfies the guideline as well as your concern. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 01:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't try to make it sound like you are trying to do something good. My position has been stated quite clearly but you still pretend not to know. You wanted to do something here that you know you can't get by consensus, so you bring others here to do the job for you. All these people who aren't interested in the good of the American Idol pages suddenly popped up and decided to mess about with them came as a result of your action. Yet you want to pretend that somehow you are not coordinating this and not forcing others to accept things the way you want done. Your action is quite objectionable. Hzh (talk) 01:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

And still you fail to assume WP:Good faith... Your position is just "this is not the standard etc." and i'm trying to explain that the 'standard' as you call it has changed. All I've done is change to a format which we know solves the WP:ACCESS issues but all you've done is rant about taking over blah blah instead of being constructive. To make something comply with MoS one does not need a consensus. However one does need a consensus if there is a reason not to comply. This is simply a display of territorial behaviour from yourself. I've said I am more than willing to listen to your ideas about other ways of making the article accessible but you persist on trying to accuse me of ringleading a revolution or some sort of revolt. This is near enough a one-on-one discussion between me and you about access. I've tried to find out what you don't like about the new layouts but you keep going on about ram-raiding and bull-dozing. Seriously this isn't a building site.., its supposed to be a factual idea. How can an accessible standard for American Idol articles exist, when its only within the last year or so that the guideline has been fully understand and implemented by the community. People were shifting and chopping the article before I brought the issue up on the talk page. You seem to be suggesting that me making the tables accessible goes against the interests of the Idol page when in fact the two are not mutually exclusive. I think your problem appears to be that you hoped this would be your article etc. and then someone else has come along and made a drastic change, but a necessary one for the compliance of MoS. Seriously trying to asset ownership. I am interested in the page hence I've been adding relevant sources and fixing up the article. It would be nice to one day see this as a GA even if I'm not the nominator. All my edits are always done in the mindset of "what you GA reviews expect...". If you feel otherwise well I'm not going to apologise because compliance to MoS Access is for the good of the article and there is nothing shifty or shady about the changes that were made. I accept that some editors behaviour has been questionable but bringing in the opinion of an expert (Rexxs) was not. And certainly its not my fault that other editors have made changes to the article. It is there to be editted after all. Now unless you actually have constructive suggestions this conversation is pointless. I will accept that there might be other ways to meet accessibility and so that could be discussed. but there's no point having a discussion about anything else because you are unable to assume good faith or act without ownership despite me trying my best to show you that I am editing in the interest of the aritlce. My mistake if editing to make something comply to MoS is a bad thing... — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 02:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no new standard, there is no guide line to that effect. Something that is so fundamentally differently would have been mentioned in the guidelines, yet it isn't. You are just making this up to suit yourself, it's not how most people want to use it. The standard has always been number first, this isn't about me, that's just how most people use it. You want people to assume good faith, yet you have said things which have already been shown to be untrue. Nothing would have changed if you didn't bring all these people in, those people are brought in precisely to bulldoze away the regular editors here. Hzh (talk) 02:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

So in your eyes there was no issue before the access changes? I think you should look more into WP:ACCESS, you'll find that in previous years it was a lot less active, its only just recently come to the forefront of editing concerns. what i don't get is the changes made make it no more difficult for you to read or understand the information provided but so much easier for others who are partially sighted. that's the main concern here. the user directly below has left a good comment... read it thoroughly... — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 02:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

That is not the point. I have asked a number of times already to show me where it says in the guideline that numbered list with the number in front is not acceptable, if you can show me that, than I will accept it. So far you have offered nothing but what you thought to be so, and nothing concrete, but then keep repeating that the standard has changed. Why do you want us to accept things just because you said so? Then accuse me of ownership when when what I am trying to do is just conforming to what is the norm. Please don't say the standard has changed unless you can show that it has. Otherwise you are doing exactly why you said you aren't doing, forcing other people to do things the way you want done. I will repeat this, nothing would have changed if you hadn't brought your gang of editors here, so the whole issue is about you and what you wanted. Trying to shift the attention to me is simply dishonest. Hzh (talk) 03:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Name before the number is how is should be done, per WP:ACCESS. It doesn't matter what other articles do; each article should be treated separately and be based on Wikipedia policies, not each other. The scope="row" is on the name. You read it across as "Lauren Alaina: 1", "Lauren Alaina: "Any Man of Mine"", "Lauren Alaina: Shania Twain", etc., and not "1: Lauren Alaina", "1: "Any Man of Mine"", "1: Shania Twain". The song is performed by Alaina and the idol belongs to Alaina, not to 1. Yves (talk) 00:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Because you keep wanting to invoke WP:Good faith, I think the following things should be noted:

You said "didn't want regular AI editors to feel like they'd been bulldozed out of the way." - Untrue. It is hard to bulldoze other editors away when there is no support, and strangely the one who supported you is the one you brought Rexxs here (who then proceeded to try to delete pages here). By inviting other editors here you are in fact doing precisely what you claiming you want to avoid, which is bulldozing regular AI editors away.

You said there have been "no co-ordination" - highly dubious. From from my experience as a regular editor on AI, I know how hard it is to get people to come to the comment page and voice an opinion, and those who visit this page are those who make regular edits. Yet now somehow there is now suddenly an influx of new people who don't edit here supporting your case. Look a the view count of this page, the traffic was sparse until you created the discussion on this issue. How did that happen? How did all those people who don't edit here know to come here? And you have admitted bringing in Rexxs who appears to share the same opinion as you.

You said you are "the only editor from the X Factor pages making active or frequent edits to this page." - Untrue. Looking at the edit history of Stalker4evag4 showed that he or she is an editor of X-Factor page, but never previously edited anything here until you brought this subject up. You still haven't clarify what is the relationship between you and Stalker4evag4 who forced through the changes you wanted.

You said "the 'standard' has changed" - Unsubstantiated - I have asked repeatedly for evidence that wiki recommends that numbered list be re-ordered. So far no one has provided any evidence. Hzh (talk) 13:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Original Artist

I think to not to include the original artist as this is not that important and you can look at the article to find out. And because sometimes we write the wrong original artist, and sometimes there is not an original artist. And also the small> insert text here </small tags we should not do it anymore because it obstructs the accessibility of the table.

The original artist should be listed on the page so people could just see the original artists on the American Idol page and not need to go to the song's page. Cleo20 (talk) 22:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The question would be - "Why"? This is not a song history page, it's an American Idol page. The original artist of the song is completely irrelevant to this page except for theme weeks where a particular singer might be the theme. Why list it at all? Personally I don't really care who is listed, but it is tiring to see the same battle fought over and over again over this particular issue with constant reverts. Hzh (talk) 08:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Elimination chart (again)

I removed the blue gradience system because it uncecessarily adds complications to overall table. First of all it is not verifiable information who was called out first, who second etc. secondly the order in which the contestants are told they are safe is no reflection of the public vote. Ryan Seacrest calls out the contestants in no particular order, thus the order in which they bottom three are told they're safe is completely superficial. Also interms of coloring the chart it is an unecessary addition. Equally I was going to suggest that the wildcard column is intergrated into the previous column. There really is no need for all the additional redudency. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 17:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Song version vs original artist

There seems to be conflicts every year as to what to put in, I think a better way of doing this might be in order. There are arguments for using a different way of doing this:

1. Often the contestants themselves announced what they were going to sing, for example, Stefano Langone said he chose Simply Red's version of "If You Don't Know Me By Now", and that is probably the more appropriate since that is the song that was released in his year of birth.
2. David Cook's version of Billie Jean was clearly inspired by Chris Cornell's arrangement and announced as such in the show, and it would be more appropriate to list that because the arrangement is so radically different from Michael Jackson's original.
3. Sometimes the lyrics may have been modified or extra lines added. For example Chikezie's "All the Woman I Need" was Luther Vandross's version and not "All the Man I need" by Whitney Houston, and Carly Smithson's "I'm Every Woman" was Whitney Houston's and not Chaka Khan's because of one extra line. Using the original artist is therefore misleading as to what the contestants actually sang.
4. These pages should document what happened in the show, not the history the song. Listing the original artist has no meaning here (except where a particular artist is the theme), especially when those interested can just follow the link and read the song's full history.

As I see it, these would be the better options -

1. give the version done by the contestant where it is appropriate,
2. list both original and later version, e.g. Billie Jean (Michael Jackson, arr. Chris Cornell), If You Don't Know Me By Now (Harold Melvin and the Blue Notes, v. Simply Red),
3. not giving any artist at all as suggested by someone above, since having the original artist only in here isn't that meaningful within the context of the show, and only causes unnecessary confusion because they may directly conflict with was announced on the show. Hzh (talk) 12:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I know that The X Factor articles just don't list an artist anymore, unless the theme is something like "personal idol." It saves a hell of a lot of debate, and confusion if for example, the theme week is Michael Jackson, but the artist given as the original is someone completely different. :) (Kyleofark (talk) 00:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC))

• I argued for removal earlier because in some cases people simply cannot agree who the original artist was and it seems to cause issues because some editors claim the the contestant was singing XYZ's version of a particular song. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 01:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• I think it makes more sense for consistency in keeping with the broadcast, to list the artist of each song performed as announced on television, not by original artist. I cite the show from May 4 for example. "Unchained Melody" was made famous by the Righteous Brothers and should be listed as such. Harry Nillson made the song "Without You" a hit, even though Badfinger had the song first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deusamator (talk • contribs) 01:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• I would like to know the consensus for this too because an IP has changed the credit for Alone (Heart song) from Heart to I-Ten on the Allison Iraheta page. My personal opinion is that the artist listed should be the one mentioned in the show. Robman94 (talk) 15:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

What do you suggest be done when no artist is named, as often happens? 99.192.68.133 (talk) 16:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Being preemptive but

We go through this yearly, so... unless Ryan says otherwise, the 2 eliminated tonight finished 10th-11th. Call out order means nothing...again...unless Ryan specifically says so. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 00:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Exactly... call out order cannot be used to specify who finished 10th and 11th. Should the two eleminated constetants should be listed as joint 10th place? As you do when two participants score the same on a leaderboard in sport for example... e.g. 11th place disappears? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 01:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Previous seasons have always done 10-11 as a format. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 04:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Is there any source for who came in 10th and 11th place?

The page said that Thia received the lowest amount of votes on the March 30 performance show and Naima received the second lowest votes. Is there any proof for who had the second lowest and lowest amount of votes? And1987 (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

If there is no source given, you can undo it because there was no mention on the show who was the lowest vote-getter. The elimination table should say 10-11 rather 10 for Naima and 11 for Thia. Hzh (talk) 15:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see where anyone is getting that from. Usually when we have people claiming a difference in ranks for double eliminations it's because they were eliminated separately throughout the night. This time however, both were eliminated at the exact same moment as Paul was declared safe. There is absolutely no way to tell which one had more votes unless the show publishes it somewhere. MarkMc1990 (talk) 20:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Naima's opening the tour, so she should be listed underneath Thia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.42.216.251 (talk) 02:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Deleting unimportant information

I think the following should be deleted:

"New challenges include "contests [having] to make the best music video, to promote themselves, and to work with a band and dancers for an awards show-style performance."[15] Entertainment Weekly reported that the challenges would replace the traditional semi-finals portion of the competition meaning that finalists would go on to compete in the top-twelve for the live shows.[16] However it was later revealed that the music video challenge was only ever an idea but there were no plans to make it part of season ten of Idol.[17]"

Why should an article mention mere ideas that were never implemented? What do you think? 125.163.32.198 (talk) 05:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the specifics should be delete, however, I think it should be replaced with something like "Many changes were suggested, but not all the proposed changes were implemented", and give the changes that they actually made. I think it is useful to know that the producers wanted to make extensive changes although they couldn't carried all the ideas through. This is just to give a historical perspective of what the producers did to try to overhaul the show after the relative failure of season 9, the departure of Simon and preparing for the challenge of X-Factor (but don't give these as reasons for the proposed changes unless there are sources). It is however possible that they might still want to do those suggested changes, the season is far from over yet.Hzh (talk) 08:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Movie? Which movie?

So the theme this week seems to be songs from movies, which raises the question: "Which movie, if any, should be listed on the article page?" Personally, I think there is no need to list any movie just as there is no need to list the "original artist" for songs, but too many people seem to think it matters to hope that such extraneous information would be left off. So the question above needs answering. With artists, the consensus seems to be to name the original artist even if the original artist is not famous and some subsequent artist is (like with "Alone" or "Feeling Good"). But for movies the choice could be (1) The first movie the song appeared in, regardless of popularity, (2) The most famous movie it was in, or (3) The movie that is named in the show's broadcast.

The problem with the first option is people get annoyed by naming non-famous appearances. So while Todd Duncan needs to be named as the original artist for "Unchained Melody", naming the film Unchained, for which the song was written and for which he sang it, rubs some people the wrong way. They want to name Ghost instead. The problem with the second option is "most famous" can be too subjective and a matter of unnecessary debate. "Walking On Sunshine" has appeared in many films including American Psycho, High Fidelity, The Secret of My Success, Daddy Day Care, Bean, Look Who's Talking, and Moon. Good luck settling on a "most famous" from that list! The problem with the third option is that perhaps no movie is named or several are. In those case we could just stick to the policy and either name none or list all, but that seems a bit odd.

As I said, my preference is to not have a "movie" column in the table at all, but if there is to be one then a policy should be chosen for how to decide. The column header (or a footnote to the table) should also be added to indicate which policy was used so as to make the movie selections listed more clear. Thoughts, anyone? 99.192.66.235 (talk) 15:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd prefer to see no movie column at all. That's a lot simpler than trying to narrow a possible list of movies down to one. Any reasonably famous song is going to have an article, anyway, where movies the song was in might be found. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 16:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Like I said before, that's my preference. Could you remove the "movie" column from the table on the page? The page is semi-protected right now. 99.192.95.1 (talk) 19:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

It depends on if the movie is mentioned in the show for any particular song. If it is mentioned, then I don't see any reason to exclude it. Hzh (talk) 22:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. And actually, I believe the iTunes album indicated which film each was from. For Casey's though, it listed "Nature Boy" as being from Moulin Rouge!, which makes sense, considering Casey has chosen a couple other songs used in that film in previous weeks: "Your Song" and "Smells Like Teen Spirit". But I would support sticking with either that or The Boy with Green Hair, its original appearance.--Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 12:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Was Haley, in fact, Bottom 3 this week...?

It'll most likely be determined as relevant to list her B3 by a consensus vote, but it was a curious incident. Ryan never specifically said to her, as he traditionally does to everyone else, that she was in the Bottom 3 this week. He announced Scotty is safe, and then sent Haley to the stools. Around 30 seconds later, he pulls her back to the center of the stage and whispers that she's safe as well, for the comic result effect. Does asking her to sit on the stools count? Or was it one of vague, ambiguous tactics that they've done in the past? (See: AI8 Top 4, Danny vs. Allison; AI7 Top 4, Syesha vs. Jason; AI7 Top 5, Syesha & Brooke; AI6 Top 4, Blake & LaKisha; etc.) It's tough to call, and probably not worth fussing over. But just for facts' sake, I thought it was worth at least mentioning.--Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 12:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Ryan did say that "there is one seat left in the bottom 3" just before announcing Scotty is safe, so that does mean Haley being sent to the stool is that same as saying that she is one of the bottom 3. Hzh (talk) 12:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Top 6 results show, April 28, 2011

Remember. Go with what is SAID on the show. Casey, Scotty and Jacob were not announced as the "bottom 3". They were just sent to the couch and given their fates later. Means squat. :) As a long time viewer of this show, I don't trust that stuff. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 00:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

And he actually said its random this week, so... --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 00:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

There was NO BOTTOM 3 this week. Someone who knows better needs to fix the chart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asale002 (talk • contribs) 06:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

On the elimination grid, people keep marking Scotty and Jacob as being in the bottom 3 on the April 28 results show when this is not correct. No bottom 3 was announced, but since many people didn't pay attention to what Ryan said, they will keep trying to add the bottom 3 indicators. Those of us who understand what happened then delete the bottom 3 marks, and other people just add them back again. To prevent this continuing misunderstanding, maybe we could add something like "see note 1" to the elimination grid for Scotty and Jacob, then add a "note 1" at bottom of the grid explaining that no bottom 3 was announced this week. I was tempted to try adding this myself but I don't know how to do it, or whether such a thing would be proper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garlandk77 (talk • contribs) 07:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

To me, there's no reason to clutter up an already cluttered article on any further. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 12:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

URGENT

Please someone fix the elimination chart, because it is a shame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.16.178.44 (talk) 01:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Gender coloring in elimination chart

I feel the gender coloring should be used in the table since it was a determining factor in which contestants became finalists. The top five female vote getters and the top five male vote getters made the finals and then three female contestants and three male contestants were chosen to sing again for the chance of becoming a wild card. This is also based on the elimination charts from all American Idol seasons, 4-9, that also used gender as a basis for the finalists. Aspects (talk) 15:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm in complete agreement. I never agreed with them being removed in the first place. (Kyleofark (talk) 20:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC))

slow results updating

whats with the slow results updating? Did someone complain again? its not like wikipedia is the only source for immediate results. It should strive to have the most current data the soonest though, if it wants to have any prestige. I'd update the list that jacob got eliminated right now, if I knew how to edit the grid properly. I hope people aren't purposly waiting to post the results. There are plenty of other sources, but wikipedia should strive to be first! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gawdsmak (talk • contribs) 03:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Should wiki be the fastest? Certainly not. Wiki should be accurate, unbiased, reasonably well-written, be a good source of pertinent and useful facts that's free from rubbishy gushing from fans, and thorough on the subject it presents without it being filled with pointless minutiae. Being quick is the least important factor and it's not what gives wiki prestige.Hzh (talk) 10:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Someone keeps removing Lauren's bottom 2 status from the elimination table

Usually we have the opposite problem, where people try to insist that someone was in the bottom two when no such thing was announced. But even though it was made explicitly clear that she was in the bottom two with Jacob (she even mentioned it on her twitter and during her pre-performance video package), someone seems to think that the order was random that week. She was in the bottom two, people! Quit removing it! MarkMc1990 (talk) 01:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

From what I can tell only one IP, User:190.98.48.73, is the one behind the changes. I left a note on their talk page, so hopefully it will put an end to the changes. Aspects (talk) 03:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I too have noticed User:190.98.48.73 continuing to change that information. (S)he's also trying to add Scotty to the bottom 2 for the top 4, even though it wasn't explicitly stated. CraigKostelecky (talk) 19:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

People keep reverting the IP but then it just comes back and does it again. I think it's time to either get the IP blocked or to semi-protect the page. Robman94 (talk) 21:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Apparently someone is STILL keeping doing it. Reverted again, and I left an edit summary to not change the info again. P.R.O.C.K.Y. (Mydoctor93) 00:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

J Lo 'On The Floor' performance, Results show chart

It peaked at 5 when the music video premiered, then peaked again at 3 with a live performance, that means a + of 2 from 5 to 3, not +4, otherwise that would mean #1. I have changed it. calvin999 (talk) 12:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

James Durbin elimination controversy

The following was removed because the source is regarded as unreliable:

"Two voting controversies arose in the top-four week when James Durbin was eliminated. On performance night James Durbin performed in the first spot and the eighth (last) spot, and some viewers mistakenly assumed (based on a convention that had been followed in previous weeks) that this meant that the contestant numbers for James Durbin were 1 and 8, but his assigned numbers were 1 and 5, so their votes for contestant number 8 instead went to Lauren Alaina (who was assigned numbers 4 and 8).[5] As a separate controversy, many voters in the California Bay Area (near Santa Cruz, the home town of James Durbin) reported they had difficulty casting phone votes for James Durbin (but no difficulty casting phone votes for Scotty McCreery."

Does someone have a source that is regarded as reliable? VoteFair (talk) 05:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I found a couple of RS quoting Nigel Lythgoe dismissing the controversy. I don't know if that's enough to get the rest of the piece in though. [6] [7] [8] Robman94 (talk) 13:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Top 2 Format

In the section for the top two (Scotty and Lauren), Scotty's parts of the table are gray. However, in every other listed round, the contestant or contestants who were eliminated are gray. This is an inconsistency that should probably be fixed. Alphius 05:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• I noticed that this is the way most of the American Idol Top 2 rounds are presented in the other seasons as well. Should they all be fixed, or is it okay that this is inconsistent? Alphius 05:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

TMZ.com as an RS

I noticed that part of the description of the Top 2 performance was deleted because the editor decided that TMZ.com was not a reliable source. There is no consensus that TMZ is not an RS, in fact the consensus seems to have gone the other way.[9] [10] [11] So, I am about to restore the sentence. Robman94 (talk) 12:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The thing with Lauren was mentioned in the show, so that is fine, but Haley did not performed, so that should not be added. The question is more whether this is a real story, i.e. was it something serious enough for them to really consider replacing Lauren with Haley, or something planted by the producer to drum up interest. While TMZ is fine as a source if the story turns out to be true, in this case we have no idea whether this is true or not, so it should not be placed in this page. Hzh (talk) 13:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The main point of using sources is verification, so if we accept that TMZ is an RS, then the story is true. Now I accept that TMZ should be used cautiously, it wouldn't be a good source for a controversial BLP item, but the item that it is supporting here is fairly tame, so I don't see any issue with it. Robman94 (talk) 13:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

We are certainly not going put everything in this page. TMZ is just a gossip site, some gossips are true, others are not. It is not a RS for news, and the story in there should only be accepted if there are collaborating evidence, and while sometimes it does publish evidence (therefore acceptable), in this case there isn't any for the Haley story. It is known that TMZ is a place for the producers of American Idol to plant stories, and the show even did a segment on TMZ to give it publicity. We should not accept just anything published there without better evidence, and any story from that site should be evaluated on its own merit and not accepted as a matter of course. Wiki is NOT a gossip site. Hzh (talk) 14:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I think TMZ can be used to source Lauren's performance but should not be used to speculate that Haley was replaced by Lauren. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 18:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Hales.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Hales.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

File:JamesDurbinhomecoming.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:JamesDurbinhomecoming.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on American Idol (season 10). 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2010/08/04/nigel-lythgoes-return-to-american-idol-a-done-deal/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110122071524/http://www.beatweek.com:80/news/7054-american-idol-dumps-theme-weeks-best-move-the-show-has-ever-made/ to http://www.beatweek.com/news/7054-american-idol-dumps-theme-weeks-best-move-the-show-has-ever-made/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2011/02/23/tv-ratings-broadcast-top-25-american-idol-modern-faSmily-two-and-a-half-men-glee-and-ncis-top-week-22-viewing/83483

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:06, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on American Idol (season 10). 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2010/08/04/nigel-lythgoes-return-to-american-idol-a-done-deal/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://articles.cnn.com/2010-01-11/entertainment/cowell.leaving.idol_1_x-factor-simon-cowell-talent-show?_s=PM%3ASHOWBIZ
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.beatweek.com/news/7054-american-idol-dumps-theme-weeks-best-move-the-show-has-ever-made/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/music/la-et-idol-recording-20100804%2C0%2C4222023.story
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110901221904/http://theclicker.today.com/_news/2011/05/27/6730171-idol-feud-brews-between-lee-dewyze-and-nigel-lythgoe to http://theclicker.today.com/_news/2011/05/27/6730171-idol-feud-brews-between-lee-dewyze-and-nigel-lythgoe
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110122084620/http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2011/01/21/thursday-final-ratings-my-dad-says-adjusted-up-bones-adjusted-down/79682 to http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2011/01/21/thursday-final-ratings-my-dad-says-adjusted-up-bones-adjusted-down/79682
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5zQMTxaxd?url=http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2011/01/28/thursday-final-ratings-american-idol-adjusted-up/80640 to http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2011/01/28/thursday-final-ratings-american-idol-adjusted-up/80640
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5zQN25FWt?url=http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2011/05/20/thursday-final-ratings-american-idol-big-bang-the-office-greys-mentalist-adjusted-up/93470 to http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2011/05/20/thursday-final-ratings-american-idol-big-bang-the-office-greys-mentalist-adjusted-up/93470

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)