Template:WikiProject Idol series

Television Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

Anyone who has the ability to capture screenshots from television programs should upload the new 2008 title card, which differs from the current image. I'd do it myself but I can't watch TV on my laptop. I feel this title card is obselete. Agree? Disagree?Tkgd2007 (talk) 21:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think this controversy should be mentioned? It's gotten quite a bit of attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.130.212.136 (talk) 01:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wanna know who redirected the "Jason Castro" article to this article? And who the hell made a spurious revision of the Jason Castro entry in this "American Idol (Season 7)" article? Totally uncalled for and should be corrected by the perpetrator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StyngerSmash (talk • contribs) 15:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made several changes to the article and improved the way it currently looks, the references however aren't pointed to the reference link correctly so hopefully someone will correct that. I also moved a few things around and organized the article. I modified the "2008 Articles" section and renamed it to Facts and Trivia. I also removed the incident with "Daughtry" as it was irrevelant to the main article. I added the reference tag to the main article because the references aren't correctly placed. I also think we should lock this article from new and unregistered viewers so that we can avoid vandalism. -Vlad (talk)

OK, I've further changed it. The items that were in 'reaction' from Lythgoe and Cowell were not reaction, they were things said before the show even aired. That being said, they actually do fit in the 'additions and changes' section, so I moved them there. While the reaction section is small now, as more episodes air there will be more citeable sources and ratings to add.Gwynand (talk) 18:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it not the case that the Top 24 was filmed at The Orpheum in downtown Los Angeles, as opposed to the Pasadena Civic Center, as the article states? I thought that might be the case because of http://www.americanidol.com/videos/?vid=538 that link. Can someone confirm? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.118.75.151 (talk) 09:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the first place, do we need this section? That is because they look like reviews rather than a proper article section. If it must be retained, can someone cleanup this up for everyone? - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 14:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I don't like this section. I see that it is sourced, but it just looks like non-notable comments made in the press. The ratings would have a place, in a reception section, but not here.Gwynand (talk) 16:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per season 5 & 6, we shouldn't have a list of auditioners on here. Unless they make the top 24, they really aren't "notable" except that they appeared on television for 2 minutes. It's a massive waste of space. Let's wait until we get to the top 24 before we add lists of contestants. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I was the one who put them on in the first place. I don't agree with Woohookitty that it is a massive waste of space. As we have seen in the case of William Hung, they can be almost as memorable as those who do well on the show. I am asking for permission to list a limited number of the worst or most unusual auditioners (e.g. Alexis Cohen, Renaldo Lapuz) on this page. It will be clearly marked that these are the failed auditioners. - Desmond Hobson (talk) 07:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I just don't see what the bad auditioners have to do really do with anything though. Do they have a single thing to do with the outcome of the show? They don't. So I don't think they should be here. I think even the show only puts them on for novelty effect. Outside of the finale, they aren't really ever mentioned again. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 04:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Consult WP:Note first. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 11:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bug Hung wasn't notable until after auditions were over and the show was halfway finished. Woohookitty is correct. Wait until after the show to put auditioners up until the smoke clears, there will be plenty of time (and accompanying references) after the show is over. --Hourick (talk) 14:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Thank you. I accept your decision. But some of those people are funny! Did you see Renaldo Lapuz and how the judges (except Simon) had fun with him? - Desmond Hobson (talk) 17:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I believe that there is merit in listing "notable performers" who did not make the semifinals and were not the "horribly untalented". The "notable performers" include Josiah Leming, the "car boy" who has acquired a large following from the show and from his subsequent appearance on talk shows including Ellen DeGeneres where he was given $8,000 worth of electronics equipment to continue increasing his musical experience. Considering that there is already a Wikipage on Leming, with references, it isn't unreasonable. Or, the Season 6, 64-year old guy, Sherman Pore, who pulled on everyone's heartstrings to come out and sing for his recently deceased fiancee (and wasn't horrible). But I agree that this should not include the horrible performers. Tedying (talk) 20:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What defines "horrible"? That's why we go by notability, which is a bit easier to quantify. And you gotta take it outside the context of the show, as most Wikipedia readers are not fans of American Idol. Who is notable outside the context of the show? Really none of the people you mentioned are. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 23:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That I do not agree with. Josiah Leming already has something like 150,000 "friends" on Myspace and his appearance on the Ellen show, and other performance venues has made him somewhat notable. Sherman Pore's story has developed into a record that is selling well on iTunes and through WalMart. Both have used their Idol experience to launch at least a minor music careers. Certainly both have sold more music than Carly Hennessy ever did. Tedying (talk) 05:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Read WP:MUSIC if you haven't. Selling records on WalMart or iTunes or the # of friends on a MySpace page do not necessarily equal notability by our standards. And Carly Smithson has a page because she's a finalist not because of how her CD did. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, there are reports that Josiah Leming has acquired a record deal, therefore distancing himself from an American Idol contestant to a label artist. In fact, many speculate he got on a major label, which should garner him an article of his own. --superorange567^{User talk:superorange567} 06:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.155.195 (talk) [reply]

We should organize the final cut section. It looks so sloppy. Va girl2468 (talk) 02:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I followed the other seasons and started the semi-finals list. We usually don't do a whole lot with it until a week or two has gone by. See here for last year's format. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should add that section untill we know for sure who's on the show. Melbrooksfan101 talk 06:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We do know who is on the show. The semi-finalists were announced last Wednesday night. http://www.americanidol.com/media/top24/meet_top_24.jpg if the official picture. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the Distribution section, and I think it is inappropriate for this section to exist it should only cover the United States. Should I remove the section or not? - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 10:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. It's sort of pointless. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. The global airtimes and channels don't warrant inclusion, and it's an overly long list and hard to maintain anyways. Gwynand (talk) 13:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should we remove the "Noted Contestants" section? I don't think it is also relevant in this article. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 03:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll remove it. Trust me. It'll be back. :) For awhile, "notable auditioners" were listed in the AI articles but they are just not notable beyond their 5 minutes on tv during the auditions. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering if others think that we should ask for semi-protection. I know from previous experience that once we get into the semis (and especially in the finals), we're going to get nailed by vandalism and people wanting to add external links. And almost all of them are going to be from anons. Just in the last day we've been hit by multiple link additions. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 17:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just reverted 2 more sets of vandalism. Sigh. Patrolling these AI pages is harmful to your health. :) And unfortunately, it's going to get worse. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 02:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am for it Krushdiva (talk) 03:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am against it. This article is going to be watchlisted by many people. We should be able to revert all but the most intense vandalism. We'll play it by ear. Remember, protecting a page should not be pre-emptive. When vandalism gets bad enough that the people watching the page can't keep up with it, then we can protect it. I will try to keep an eye on the vandalism level and this talk page and if it gets bad enough, then I will sprotect it.↔NMajdan•talk 14:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am for it, lock it so that unregistered/ new users cannot edit. I just watched this page get pounded by vandals after tonight's announcements. --JD79 (talk) 02:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm reading WP:RS wrong, reality tv websites aren't really considered reliable, especially those which do alot of rumor mongering. The whole section on Carly Smithson bothers me for that reason. Citing votefortheworst makes me queasy. It's not reliable by any measure. Citing Yahoo and Wall Street Journal's site is ok since Yahoo gets info (generally) from reliable sources. But votefortheworst? --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the citations for VFTW. It'd be great if people watchlisting this article also watchlist Carly Smithson, which is having similar issues. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Vote for the Worst has very legitimate sources. They always differentiate when something is a rumor and when it is an utter fact. They were the first to break the news about David Hernandez gay stripper occupation. They find out many valid facts about the contestants' music history as well. For example, they discovered Kristy's music video, which featured a scene of her singing w/ a Confederate flag in the background (lulz). So the Carly debacle is very valid and they substantiate w/ numerous sources. And frankly, especially for the Hernandez/stripper ordeal, they DESERVE to be credited, as multiple sources credited them for being the first to break the news. Give credit where credit is due.

Also, I don't see what's so terrible about mentioning that certain contestants were at one time VFTW picks. Clearly, it NEEDS to be mentioned in Sanjaya's excerpt, as well as for Taylor Hicks, etc.. So, mentioning that Amy and Danny were former VFTWs and Amanda is the current supported contestant seems legit to me, considering it's pop culture significance.--Cinemaniac86

American Idol now states that he is going by just Chikezie [1], so I think in the list he should be listed as Chikezie not Chikezie Eze. Anyone else's opinions? Aspects (talk) 04:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We usually go by the show. See Mandisa and Trenyce. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I thought but I can see an edit war happening because 17 minutes and 27 minutes after I removed his last name it was added back into two different places in the article. Aspects (talk) 06:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if it's an edit war or just typical editing patterns. The AI articles are always heavily edited, so it's really hard to tell what's a war and what's just heavy editing. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also repointed Chikezie here as well, since that would be his article location (Chikezie Eze would be redirected there) if he makes the top 12 or becomes notable post-Idol. CrazyC83 (talk) 01:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is definitely an edit war now, because despite there being hidden notes people keep adding his last name without an edit summary. Not only are they adding his last name back they are deleting the hidden note, so they are obviously reading it but purposefully ignoring it. Aspects (talk) 04:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His last name should be listed SOMEWHERE in the article, not in all circumstances where his name appears, but even with Mandisa and Trenyce, their last names were at least mentioned. Batman2005 (talk) 15:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is absolutely ridiculous. His last name is notable. It needs to be listed somewhere in his short biography, and a mention that he goes by a single name. See Cher, Ronaldo, Madonna and all the other one name people. Even Mandisa on the season page has her entire name listed. His last name is entirely notable and needs to be mentioned. Batman2005 (talk) 04:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given his fanbase (and the fact that he's someone who had a fanbase BEFORE he appeared on American Idol), expect heavy activity and fancruft on David's article. So please watchlist it. It's been a page for just over a day and yet we're over 50 edits already. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should the name behind each song be the name of the writer of the song or the original performer? —BradV 19:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We usually do song performer. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 02:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but WHICH performer--the original one, the one who made the song famous, or the one used in the week's theme? That can be multiple answers. Two examples used this season: "All the Man That I Need" was originally performed by Sister Sledge and made famous by Whitney Houston, but Luther Vandross' version (changed to "All The Woman I Need") inspired Chikezie's version (edit: and is listed here). This week, "Without You" was originally performed by Badfinger and made famous by Harry Nilsson, but since Mariah Carey was the theme, she's listed for Carly's performance. It's also relevant to "Hallelujah", where Leonard Cohen (the original writer & performer) is listed but Jeff Buckley was the main inspiration for Jason's performance. (Edit: And of course, we can't leave out "I Will Always Love You", which for Syesha is listed as Dolly Parton--the originator AND the theme--even though it was Whitney who made it famous outside of country music.) --RBBrittain (talk) 12:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious to know the reasoning behind the items in the Controversy section. The section is a list of prior work the contestants have done, but why is it controversial? Maybe it's just because I'm new to the whole AI thing, but it doesn't make sense (to me) to state the item without saying why it's controversial. (Is there a rule against former professional appearances or something?) Can this section be edited to explain the controversy? Abinidi (talk) 03:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Not necessarily controversial, but certainly noteworthy. Quacks Like a Duck (talk) 04:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no assertion in the article why this is controversial. Now the section has been expanded to list almost every contestant. Perhaps we can rename the section "Contestants" and include some background information for each contestant, including prior work. (Perhaps we can merge David Archuleta into that section as well.) Thoughts? —BradV 19:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, the information should be merged into the current semi-finalist section as background info on the contestants. (see last season's sections on the contestants.) A separate section isn't really needed. MissMJ (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Always good to see ya, MissMJ. Voice of reason. :) Yes that's the way to go. I mean we've done the last 2 seasons basically the same. And it's worked out. Not fantastic articles but adequate. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 23:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Always good to be here, except for when I gotta save the elimination chart from the eager hands of those who don't know how Wikitables work. ;) I suppose I'll see what I can do about that merging business. MissMJ (talk) 02:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it doesn't matter which season it is, we tend to run into the same issues: articles written on non-notable semi-finalists, the table being messed up, false results being added, etc. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 12:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section has been eliminated and its info has been merged into individual contestant bios in the "Semi-finals" section. MissMJ (talk) 03:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good work! --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 12:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

imho that was a good idea to merge. it looks much cleaner and organized now. regarding Kristy Lee Cook, her webpage (kristylee.net) was taken down. However, google still has cached her cv, i have no idea how long it will be available, therefore i did not edit the content page. feel free to include any information to her bio if you see it fit. http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:zm96AiLX-sEJ:www.kristylee.net/images/kristy.pdf+Kristy+opened+for+Glen+Campbell&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us if the link didn't work, the google search is: kristy lee opened for glen campbell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.129.83 (talk) 08:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it was still live, it really shouldn't be cited unless it has news on her or whatever. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should we start the bottom 2 yet, or wait until the finals? ♥LilWikiMaster♥ 21:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no bottom 2 yet. Or bottom 3. Who Seacrest brings out with the person about to be eliminated is never said to be in the "bottom" anything. That doesn't happen until the finals, with a few exceptions (he did say Kevin Covais was in the bottom 3 at one point during the season 5 semis). It's sort of like how Idol doesn't do places until the top 12. So even the order in which people are eliminated is random. They never say "you finished in 20th place". Sort of the same idea. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. ♥Shapiros10WuzHere♥ 14:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone add the info on the songs that are being used regularly -- such as the reggae type one the top 24 were dancing to, and the hollywood one. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that we still only have last week's theme listed. Has this week's theme not yet been announced? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Idol is very hit or miss about announcing themes. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we always find out what it is the day of. ;) Who wants to bet next week's will be Songs of the 80s? MissMJ (talk) 01:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Seacrest said so on his show on the morning of the 28th. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 03:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She did sing "More Today than Yesterday". However, it is not The Spiral Starecase version. It is the Diana Ross version. Can someone please change this. The two versions sound completely different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.74.33.8 (talk) 13:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is Danny Noriega Latino or Asian? His face looks like Latino something. -- 09:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hasn't been said. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does it really matter what his ethnicity is? All that matters is that he can sing. Naruto 2008 (talk) 01:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And honestly, for our purposes, that doesn't matter either. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 03:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity is only relevant if there is some external information that pertains to it. For example, Ramielle Malubay's ethnicity is revelant due to the Jasmine 2.0 reference and because there is a high volume of discussion within Filipino-American and Asian-American groups in the US to vote for her specifically due to her ethnicity. Unfortunately, I have not found "official" references for this so have not cited it. So far, the references that I've found can not be validated as legitimate sources. Tedying (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's been mentioned that he is either Mexican or Filipino. -- 7:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC) TainaAzteca (talk) 13:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this interview he gave for FOX News Seattle, Danny states that he is Mexican, among other ethnicities. http://youtube.com/watch?v=VawoyGUHGaA TainaAztecaTainaAzteca (talk) 01:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's only been mentioned that he is of Filipino descent, but not proven. According to the FOX News Seattle interview, he mentions that he's of Mexican, German and Indian (Native American) descent.TainaAztecaTainaAzteca (talk) 01:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "Btm 3" box was removed from her row with the editor note saying that this isn't the stage of the competition where we start listing the bottom three. However, I don't see the harm in doing so. If we know for a fact that she was in the bottom three, why can't we list it on the chart? The information is completely encyclopedic and relevent to the chart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkMc1990 (talk • contribs) 04:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we can add Bottom 3. Just because it's unusual for the semis doesn't mean we shouldn't have it. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But having said that. :) I don't mean that assume that they order that Seacrest calls people out at this point means a damn thing. It's random. The ONLY exception is with cases like Malloy where he clearly said she was in the bottom 3. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it because it's a non-point. It means nothing at this stage of the competition and will likely only cause confusion at latter stages when the bottom 3 actually means something. That Ryan Seacrest mentioned it in passing was certainly not a huge part of the show, and no big deal was made out of it. This is not the part of the show where we start listing the bottom 3 contestants, as evidenced by the fact that Seacrest has made slip-ups like this in the past and past season elimintation grids don't list those. I say leave the bottom 3 listing for the portion of the show where it actually means something. Batman2005 (talk) 15:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concurr with Batman2005. Us including this in wp is borderline original research, as Kady being in the bottom three was little more than an aside by Seacrest which didn't hold much weight as being official. Although we all saw it, I would atleast like a reliable news source to be cited if we would include it. Either way, I agree with it being non-notable at this point in the game, just a piece of info that may or may not be given based on how Seacrest goes about his hosting. Also--and I know this is being nitpicky--but technically we don't know what "bottom 3" Kady was in. It's 99% likely that Seacrest meant the bottom three votes for girls... but it's never explicitly said. Since there is basically no history for "bottom 3 guys" and "bottom 3 girls" it is not the place of an encylcopedia to start interpreting that as being what AI is doing now. Gwynand (talk) 15:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What other "bottom 3" could he have meant? He explicitly said "[between Alaina and Kady] one of them has the lowest number of votes, one of them is part of the bottom 3 but is safe" and since Alaina was the one that went home, that means she was the one with the lowest and Kady Malloy is the one with the 3rd lowest. I also noticed the bottom 3 for Kevin Covais and Kinnik was removed from the season 5 chart even tho that was clearly and explicitly revealed in the same fashion as they do it in the Finals. MarkMc1990 (talk) 21:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I removed it because it's a non-point. It means nothing at this stage of the competition" -- I don't understand how its any less significant now than it is in the finals. Like WooHooKitty said, just because its unusual for them to say someone is in the bottom 3 in the semis, doesn't mean its a not reliable or significant. Our source is right in the episode when Seacrest says "one of them is part of the bottom 3 but is safe." I say include it in the chart. Anyone else have any input? MarkMc1990 (talk) 21:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one that originally put it in (thank you whoever fixed it from green to pink, by the way, smart move) and I think it should stay. Regardless of whether it means something or not, Seacrest said it, so there's no reason to not include it. That's what the chart is there for, for easy tracking of eliminations and placements. An extra table cell isn't going to bring down Wikipedia. :PMissMJ (talk) 19:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be included. There's no reason for us not to just because its not the Top 12 yet. A-Supreme (talk) 03:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seacrest said flat out bottom three, and it should be listed as so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.140.36 (talk) 05:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well the idea that it isn't "official" is a bit silly. When did he say that this wasn't "official"? This is the show that doesn't give out what it's prize money is or vote totals. I mean, anything they say explicitly is official. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Btm" doesn't officially stand for bottom. In fact, not to go all adult, it stands for "b**t the ...", and the number 3 conspicuously looks private when next to this abbreviation. I corrected it to say "Bottom three" and declare a stop to the offensive material. I don't see a reason to change this any further (unless I'm COMPLETELY wrong, of course). edit: Ok, maybe it does stand for bottom more usually, but still...

That abbreviation has been used in every elimination chart with no problems up until now. I don't even see how one can see it as offensive unless one has a really dirty mind, which seems to be more a problem with you than anyone else. ;) There's no need to stretch the chart this way. MissMJ (talk) 01:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He was not born on December 25, 1989. His birthday is September 29,1989. TainaAzteca (talk) 13:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So change it and source it. :) MissMJ (talk) 19:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard the statement that Jason Castro is in intensive care after a drug overdose. Could someone please verify that and correct it if necessary?

63.236.11.134 (talk) 15:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When the top 12 contestant articles are created, there are two with disambiguated redirects: Michael Johns (singer) and David Cook (American Idol singer) - the latter was necessitated as there are two other singers with that name with articles. CrazyC83 (talk) 02:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the contestants who were eliminated each week (Top 24, 20, 16), how should we order their names on the chart? Consesus for Season 6 was to list them in reverse order of elimination (order they were told they were eliminated in the episode - first person lower, last person higher). Some people think alphabetical. My vote is for (reverse) order they were told they were eliminated. MarkMc1990 (talk) 02:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I put them alphabetical in their group as there is no numerical truth to what they say - just they were in the bottom two in their gender. CrazyC83 (talk) 02:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go with Mark on this one just because previous seasons have done it. No numerical anything is given in that section, so I don't think that's an issue. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with Mark. The order they were eliminated on the shows in the easiest way because we can use the show as the source. Aspects (talk) 19:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I feel it is more chronoligical and practical this way. MarkMc1990 (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do the numbers mean by the contestants names? Cogswobbletalk 05:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers they received when they auditioned. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh...what's the point in including that? Cogswobbletalk 23:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, but it's been included for awhile now. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 02:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, unless someone has a decent reason for leaving them in, I'm going to take them out. They're not very useful, it's not like anybody is using them to identify the contestants. Cogswobbletalk 19:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to say I agree. I went and noticed they are included in every other season, but it is a truly pointless inclusion with a uniqueness to American Idol pages. I'd say go ahead an delete them, and I'd like to see someone argue for their inclusion.Gwynand (talk) 19:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um no. :) It seems like a great but the copyright status on every picture is suspect. And it's way way overuse of non free images. Just not a good idea. If people can find free pictures of the contestants, then we can use them. Otherwise, we really shouldn't. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to this. No sense putting their pictures, then having them deleted due to copyright issues. Monzonda^talk 01:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone added more pics to the article. It looks like their status is ok but I need to double check. I left a message on the user's talkpage. Looks like these are indeed pictures he took so they are probably ok. I will say, though, that they should be kept relatively small. We don't want lots of white space. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 02:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Just to further verify those pics are mine, a few of them are on my myspace page, pre-edited, with me actually in them. If that helps ease concerns. --Brianbarney (talk) 03:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does. Thank you :) --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just me or does that section seem redundant since we already have "Performers on results shows"? The only reason it seems to exist is to list the fact that Abdul's music video was played on the first show. I say we rename "Performers..." to "Results show performances" and stick the video mention under Top 24. The info about elimination songs can go above/below the chart like always. MissMJ (talk) 03:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep I'd say it's redundant. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we make the elimination grid more orderly? There are some columns that are wider that others and it looks unorganized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.97.95.107 (talk) 04:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The column widths will fix themselves as the season goes on; some are just really narrow because the date is only 3 characters, but once "Btm 3" and "Top 3" as well as "Elim" information is put in, they'll stretch out. MissMJ (talk) 16:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did David Hernandez actually work in a male strip cub? What the f*** was he thinking? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.75.143 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At one point, he worked as a bartender in a gay bar (Burn) and then for three years as a stripper at Dick's Cabaret. The owner of Dick's has opined that he thought that Hernandez left in September 2007 specifically to audition for Idol. I assume that it paid the rent and better than many jobs. He would not be the first, and I doubt he will be the last, to have had a questionable past on Idol (see Nikki McKibbon, Frenchie Davis, Antonella Barber, to name a few). Tedying (talk) 20:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, the talk page is not a fan page/fan forum. If people want to discuss this, take it to the many fan sites/forums that exist elsewhere on the Interwebs. MissMJ (talk) 00:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone erased a very large amount of work without being logged in and without any explanation. So I undid it. --Brianbarney (talk) 03:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I semi-protected the page. I know earlier, people were iffy on it because we have lots of people patrolling this page. But we've now had several cases of vandalism being on the page for several hours, mostly revolving around Danny Noriega. With 24 mini-bios on this page, there is just a huge potential for BLP problems. Yes I realized that BLP doesn't strictly cover this page but the principle applies. For now, I just made it until the 14th as a trial. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be a good idea to do a gallery of the pictures. I know I said it was a bad idea up above but those were copyvios. These aren't. :) Without the gallery, it makes the formatting a bit ugly. Too much whitespace. Thoughts? --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty ugly right now, but if we could get the bios to have more information in them (which they undoubtedly will have as the season goes on), it'll even out the spacing? Once everyone has performed more songs, it'll be more balanced as well. The only thing I would suggest is cropping the photos that are really vertical into just head shots; those seem to cause the most trouble with the stretching out of the formatting. MissMJ (talk) 13:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I'm just tickled that we finally have free pictures to use. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 22:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just added a new one. I'm not great at placing them without white space though. But use it as you will if you like.--Brianbarney (talk) 22:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where did the pictures go? :( MissMJ (talk) 14:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I re-added them. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 16:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that doing the Gallery, once we find one for all 24 (or at least 12) contestants is a fantastic idea. I hope we could do it for past seasons, too. Many wonder what some of the lesser-knowns look like and come here, only to be disappointed. So let's try to change that =). Shame BrianBarney couldn't get a picture of every Top 12er.

Also, the pictures used last year when Season 6 was the current season...they were up for quite a long time. If they were a copyright violation, how did they remain on the site for so long?--(Cinemaniac86) 16:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because no one caught it. :) It happens. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 12:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to be having lots of confusion in terms of what's ok and what isn't. What's ok? Brian's pictures. I.e. pictures you actually took of the Idols at some function. Or other pictures of the Idols that have been freely released. What's not ok? Screencaps. Pictures taken from rickey.org or other websites which do not freely release their material. Screencaps are non-free content even if you took the screencaps. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 16:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm sorry that I did cause such a ruckus. Just tell me what defines a picture as freely released if I did a Google Image Search at some point? Or would pictures of contestants prior to Idol be permissible to use?--Cinemaniac86 12:30, 13 March 2008

Photographs are assumed to be the copyright of the photographer or the company that the photographer works for. Unless there is an explicit free-use clause or release from the photographer to use, I would assume that photos on-line are off-limits. If you see the name of the photographer listed with a photo and contact information, you can contact the photographer to see if they would allow you to use it. Otherwise, assume you are not free to use it. Tedying (talk) 19:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't cause a ruckus, Cinemaniac86. We've seen much much worse. :) It's not a problem. Fair use is an ever changing process on here. Even I lose track at times. We aren't far removed from a time when fair use tended to be considered ok rather than not. But that's reversed now.

I was going to add that there are cases on the net of people who take pictures and then release them to the public. But generally, the pictures we get are like the ones on the Jordin Sparks and Sanjaya Malakar pages. They are taken by amateurs at fan events, concerts, etc. If you can find one on the web that has been released by a photographer, feel free to add it. We're thrilled to get any legit AI pictures as they are very sparse. It's difficult when they are so so covered but rarely have pictures taken of them by "regular people" due to how protective the show is over access to them. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 16:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:David Archuleta 2008.JPG is an example of how NOT to do a picture. It was ripped right from rickey.org. here. No idea why people attempt that trick. I deleted the picture already. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sweet, I was waiting for you to get on that! Yeah, Rickey makes amazing screencaps, but they're clearly for his use only. I'm glad he's started to watermark them now.

And thanks, Woohookitty (and Tedying as well) =). I'm learning on how this works now. And to think I almost sent EncyclopediaDramatica some new material XD...but hell, I'd be honored by that. But I'll definitely look around and see what's available. There's gotta be SOME pictures that are free for use, or at least that I'll have permission to upload. This is such a tricky procedure...and you'd think AI would be on board with Wiki, but no. Selfish poofs.

P.S. Clearly we can't, but HOW awesome would it be to make this picture Carly's pic?--Cinemaniac86

Are we all in agreement on the point that we are not going to put in "Bottom 2" unless Seacrest says it's the bottom 2? I think that's the thing that fools people the most. It's like when we get to 9. He always divides the group into 3...and there is always someone who wants to label the one group "the middle three" though he NEVER uses that terminology. This is a very tricky show. They don't reveal their vote totals and they aren't real forthright about bottom or top unless it's explicitly stated. Sometimes they do give bottom 2 but often, they pick the bottom 2 for dramatic effect. They know that Syesha was stronger Tuesday than Kristy Lee was, so they put Kristy Lee together with David to tease people. Everyone agree about not using bottom 2 unless it's stated? --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 16:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Assuming she's bottom 2 if Seacrest doesn't explicitly say so is just speculation on our part. MissMJ (talk) 16:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Just because a bottom-3 performer is "Safe" does not make them third from bottom. In past seasons, sometimes they have said that "these are your bottom-2" and sometimes they've just declared a person safe. I would assume that he has randomly selected one of the two safe performers unless he explicitly says the remaining ones are bottom-2. Tedying (talk) 19:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess so. But in past seasons we've always listed the second safe Bottom 3 person as "Bottom 2" and its very commonly assumed that the last 2 are the bottom 2. I think we should come up with a way to express who was sent back first and second though. Thats sort of why I liked the chart we used for seasons 1-3 better, because we were able to list the bottom 3 in the order they were saved without having to use possible inaccurate info like "Bottom 2", using different shades of gray. Like this

Not saying we should revert back to that chart though. MarkMc1990 (talk) 21:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually looking at the older articles and thinking about removing those because the chart we have now looks clearer. xD We could do maybe do variations of the goldenrod color we currently use while keeping Btm 3, and then put Btm 2 whenever Seacrest states that the two remaining are in the bottom? MissMJ (talk) 23:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually a fantastic idea! I'm not familiar with the codes for the colorbox, but what would you say is the closest approximate color? We can make a color-coded key at the bottom indicating the difference between Syesha's Btm 3 and Kristy's Btm 3. Word? ^_^. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinemaniac86 (talk • contribs) 06:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) I find it hard to suddenly change the way we have been handling the Bottom 2/3 for the past six seasons. I recently copied a note from American Idol (season 6) and put it in the article that I think does a good job of addressing the situation. "Note: Bottom 2 indicates that the contestant was 'saved' last. This may or may not indicate his or her actual vote rank. Sometimes, Seacrest will announce that the contestant is in the bottom 2, sometimes he will not." I know it is not the best argument but the general public believes the last person saved to be in the Bottom 2 and we will be spending a lot of time from editors coming in to change it back to that. I also have a problem with this argument being about making assumptions and User:Woohookitty states, "Sometimes they do give bottom 2 but often, they pick the bottom 2 for dramatic effect." That is a much bigger assumption than thinking the last person saved is in the Bottom 2. Aspects (talk) 13:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have misunderstood what I said. The bottom 3 IS the bottom 3 in terms of votes. And obviously, the one going home is the lowest vote getter. But who they put with the lowest vote getter could very well be sometimes done for dramatic effect. Like this week. Syesha might've actually finished 2nd to last or 3rd to last. Ryan never said. She might've finished 2nd to last but they felt like putting Kristy (3rd to last under this scenario) next to David was better for drama purposes. Or maybe they had some other reason. I don't know. The point is that they never said who the bottom 2 were. They gave the one going home but that was it. That's all I meant. This show is notorious for doing things for dramatic effect. Just look at Idol Gives Back I. Does anyone seriously think that Jordin Sparks got the least amount of votes? But that's how it was presented. I just feel like we should air on the side of not saying who the bottom 2 is unless it's announced. They've never said that the person with the one going home is always in the bottom 2.

As for "handling the bottom 2/3 for the last 6 seasons", that isn't accurate. AI wasn't even created as an article until 2003. The season articles weren't split off until January of 2006 (User:CrazyC83 did the most of the early work). The AI5 article wasn't even created until a full year after it started airing. And I'm pretty certain the current elimination box only goes back about a year and a half (if that). The AI5 article didn't have an elimination box until May of 2006. So this is not changing an ages-old process. It's actually relatively recent (and in fact AI3 on back doesn't even have the elimination chart). And change is not a bad thing on this site at all. The fact is, saying "bottom 2" in the elimination chart is misleading in the weeks that Ryan doesn't specifically mention a bottom 2. The chart is much more visible than any notes we add, so I think it should be the clearest about what was announced. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 15:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I might actually change my mind about this. I think we should list Kristy as being in the bottom 2 because thats what the show WANTED us to believe. I mean, they usually say that the person standing with the eliminee is in the bottom 2 (Ryan will usually say something like "so, the bottom 2...Randy what do you think?"), and at times they probably don't feel the need to say that they are the bottom 2 because it is just assumed. Only time I really disagree with listing "bottom 2" for someone is in the semifinals when they have 2 random (one going home) people stand together. Or like last season in the final 4 when they had Blake and LaKisha stand together when LaKisha went, because it was clear they were saving the contestants in a random order without ever revealing a bottom 2. MarkMc1990 (talk) 18:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's all a bit too much based on supposition for me. I think as an encyclopedia, we should go by what they say and not what they want us to believe or what we perceive what they say to be. It's easiest to just go by what they actually say. If Ryan refers to them as the bottom 2, then let's put them as the bottom 2. Otherwise, let's not. Simple as that. Otherwise, it's going to feel like an episode of Dr. Phil. :) Honestly, I think we should take your example as saying that that person is in the bottom 2. I don't think Ryan has to out and out say "ok. this is your bottom 2". --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I totally disagree that we are to assume someone is bottom 2. But that doesnt matter... if it's not explicitly said a contestant is in the bottom 2 then we shouldn't interpret one way or the other. I removed the disclaimer the article had and changed "btm 2" back to "btm 3" where appropriate. In an encyclopedia, one isn't expected to read something that isn't accurate then have to read a note clarifying it. Totally unneccesary. Gwynand (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad. Seacrest did not explicitly state Bottom 2 during Top 12 week last year, but we labeled Sanjaya as the Bottom 2. It's mostly an understood thing. This is just an indication of how the results occurred during the show. It should not be edited for that reason. At the very least, we should specify which Btm 3-er was sent back to safety first, but that just gets confusing and would take a lot of research to do the same thing in the past (and if we do it to one season, we must edit ALL). If you can't handle a simple headnote or footnote, then why bother at all? It's not that difficult a concept to comprehend. And we can't very well go back in time and edit all of the elimination charts to do things your way. There are NUMEROUS encylcopedia articles with footnotes for special circumstances. American Idol should NOT be an exception, so deal with it.James D. (Cinemaniac86) 21:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinemaniac86 (talk • contribs)

Keep your attitude in check. There is no need to get snippy in what has so far been a civil discussion with general consensus to not include bottom 2 information, since to do so would be speculation on our part. MissMJ (talk) 23:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, Cinemaniac, if I agreed that some overwhelming % of the audience all assumed that the last 2 is the bottom 2, then I'd probably be more willing to ignore all rules and list it as you do. However, I don't think that they are generally thought of as the bottom 2. I don't see people talk that way, but more importantly, I don't see it reported that way on the news, or from anything official from AI, on any blogs, or anywhere. I've just read you claim that "it's mostly an understood thing". It's quite possible (as many have suggested) that it's a producer's decision to add drama. If we had sources on this, we would certainly include that. But we don't. We don't have any info on anything except for what Seacrest says is the bottom 3, and who is obviously kicked out. It is not our duty, and frankly it's wrong within the scope of the encyclopedia, to interpret on our own what the last two standing mean. Gwynand (talk) 00:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have implemented a color-coded solution to this problem. Is everyone happy now? MissMJ (talk) 00:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually keep going back and forth changing my mind about this. This season it seems like they're definately not making the distinction between Bottom 3 and Bottom 2 and who gets sent back first is random, so we should probably just list both survivors as "Bottom 3". In the other seasons I think its acceptable to leave the second safe people as "bottom 2" just because more often then not, Seacrest would say they were the bottom 2. MissMJ, I know I was the one who originally suggested color coding the different levels of Bottom 3, but now I'm thinking making the distinction between first saved and last saved is a bit unnecessary and too trivial to be considered encyclopedic. If other people like it though, I have no objections. =) MarkMc1990 (talk) 01:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, something needs to be done! People on one side saying we shouldn't include any info beyond bottom 3, people on the other side getting ugly about keeping bottom two. Color coding should keep both happy; we get to put bottom three and make the distinction. If only it was possible to lock the elimination chart to administrator only edits completely (is that possible, by the way?). I'll gladly give up chart editing privileges; I'm getting sick and tired of reverting eager beavers trying to stick Btm 2 in there and messing it up every time they to add elimination information without having a clue about how tables work. Asdkjwpfiuhe! Frustration. It's turning into a full out edit war. >_< MissMJ (talk) 02:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! ^_^.James D. (Cinemaniac86) 17:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinemaniac86 (talk • contribs)

I think MissMJ did the best job of dealing with this, but I probably most agree with MarkMc in that clarifying is still unnecesary and sort of a weird in-universe thing to be worrying about. That said, it's not worth further argument over a minor point--that is, thanks to MissMJ--totally accurate at least. Gwynand (talk) 17:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whereas I like MissMJ's color coding on the charts, the designation of Bottom-2 and Bottom-3 in the bio section should all be Bottom-3 since there is no reference to the table header that says "Safe first" or "Safe Second" that comes subsequent to this section. That implies a contradiction between the bio section and the tabular results section. Those in the bio section should remain "Bottom-3" because the bio section is longer and after the first 3-4 entries, any header would scroll up and away and be lost. Tedying (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AAAAAH! Garish red color on the elimination chart!!! Yellow! Blue! Who is responsible for this monstrosity? My eyes bleed... T.T MissMJ (talk) 16:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the grid, I moved the "Bottom" contestants for last week to the bottom of the remaining contestants. Good idea? Bad idea? Cogswobbletalk 22:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no point in doing that. Plus, it makes it look like all the contestants are ranked in specific (voting rank) order. The contestants should all stay alphabetical until they are eliminated. MarkMc1990 (talk) 01:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the point is that contestants who are not doing as well are near the bottom. Cogswobbletalk 02:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't that be considered borderline original research then? MarkMc1990 (talk) 06:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's stick to alphabetical. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like that idea at all, Cogswobble. There'd be way too much shifting around then. Plus, the bottoms next week could be completely different and how could we really even gauge them? Besides...that's just asking for Kristy to get pity votes...and trust me, she needs to go any which way possible =).James D. (Cinemaniac86) 07:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinemaniac86 (talk • contribs)

People did that last season and we had to return the table to alphabetical about a zillion times. It's just too confusing, and rather useless, since it will keep changing. Some weeks they don't even announce a bottom three. I think people can read and get it without having to rearrange the table. MissMJ (talk) 17:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, it was just an idea ;-) Cogswobbletalk 23:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SO did someone make these middle names up? Cause I'm really good friends with Syesha... and her middle name is Racquel (splling?), not Jessica! So if Syesha's is wrong... are the rest of them made up too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.10.177.141 (talk) 16:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know about the whole "I'm best friends with her!" claim, but this raises a valid point. Who added the middle names and where did they get them?... Is there somewhere we can source that information to? Are their middle names even important/need to be included in this article considering Idol never uses them? MissMJ (talk) 17:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the middle names belong. They're not used by American Idol. Also see WP:NAME, which I think is relevant here. Cogswobbletalk 02:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that's what we decide, that's fine. I will say, though, that we'll then need to change some of the other AI season articles as well as many of the individual articles. Actually, many many unless we can find sources. It even goes back to Kelly Clarkson. I'm saying all of this because I'm not sure we have sources for any of those either. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then I guess we better get to changing and/or sourcing. It's kind of embarrassing that for so long we have been just assuming that the names were correct when anybody could've made them up... MissMJ (talk) 18:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've already removed this from this season's page. It's not so much a verifiability issue for me, but rather these are not the names the contestants go by (with the exception of Kristy Lee Cook). We had this whole discussion about Chikezie's 'single' name (which most of us agreed on), then after that go on and include middle names for the rest of the semifinalists. I think it's pretty clear cut to remove here, and whoever wants to take the time to remove them from prior seasons should go ahead and do that as well. Gwynand (talk) 18:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we assume that it's country and that Dolly will be performing? I didn't hear it announced on the show. We might need sources. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 13:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found a source for Parton being the mentor and I added it. I removed the theme as being "country" because I haven't seen that indicated anywhere. Gwynand (talk) 13:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seacrest did announce that Dolly Parton will be the mentor on the results show last night, but I don't know about the theme... Although, I assumed it would be country as well because it would only make sense. MissMJ (talk) 13:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She could do women in music or her own music (which isn't always country) or it could be some random theme. They've done that in the past. For example, Gwen Stefani's week was like that last year. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 16:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some IP address douchebag decided to add Eze and screwed up the spacing in the name column. Just wanted to bring that to attention so it could be corrected (although I removed "Eze").James D. (Cinemaniac86) 21:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Please Assume Good Faith and Don't Bite the Newcomers. Cogswobbletalk 00:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well and this happens every year and every year it gets fixed. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 02:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean stuff like this happens every year. That's the nature of Wikipedia. People add and change things. Sometimes they don't know the reasons that things are the way they are. It seems perfectly plausible that someone browsing this page would see "Chikezie", and think to themselves "Hey, I know his last name, let me help out!". And then to do so and in the process accidentally break some formatting. That's not a reason to call them names. Cogswobbletalk

Eh, big deal, these random IP addresses constantly screw up things. And it's often the only edit they make, whether it be because they are dial-up or on a public computer. Whatever the case, I wasn't actually seriously calling them that. Don't be so PC. It's boring. And besides, no one was ever "AGF" with me when my edits didn't meet their standards. Unbelievable.

I've removed Kady's Bottom 3 result from 2/28 just strictly in the name of consistency. I believe that we should either mention all semi-final Bottom 3s or none of them. Joe dawg 9 (talk) 01:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was the only time they ever announced a semifinal bottom three this season. MarkMc1990 (talk) 03:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Amanda, Chikezie, Kristy, Luke...those were only used in contrast for dramatic effect, due to their criticisms/the producers trying to give favored contestants a push. James D. (Cinemaniac86) 14:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Why do the colours on the chart keep changing? All yellow is just awful. I believe it should be kept the way it was, with red/blue/yellow or such. The yellow's are just too close together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.232.223.94 (talk) 01:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See below, under "Chart colors". MissMJ (talk) 14:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who was eliminated in tonight's show? 75.89.232.135 (talk) 01:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ramielle was eliminated (and I sorta saw that coming to be honest). Joe dawg 9 (talk) 02:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chart colors

To second the above concern there are effectively four shades of yellow and beige and it's quite unhelpful. Colors should contrast more to aid those with color-blind and similar conditions. Banjeboi 02:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the colors back to a value progression of yellow (the way I had originally set it up), but with greater contrast of the colors—the initial yellow is now brighter and of a lower value. Honestly, the blue/red/yellow color combination looked AWFUL. Making it bright yellow, bright blue, and bright red won't help those with color-blindness since those colors are very close in value when greyscaled. All it does is hurt the eyes of those who can see color. The darker yellow for the "Safe first" field should provide enough value contrast with the "Safe second" field to aid distinction. The color of the rest of the fields doesn't matter, really, since they have text labels.MissMJ (talk) 14:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Btm 2/3

I almost didn't notice it, but it's apparently been saying "Btm 2" for Kristy and that one week for Syesha since last night. Can't believe I didn't notice it until just now. Oh well, just issuing a APB, watch out. James D. (Cinemaniac86) 14:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Mariah Carey will be performing on Idol Gives Back April 8-9 and she will be a mentor on April 15-16. Add this information if you see fit to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.132.67.102 (talk) 06:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We need a source before we can add it. And she won't be a "guest judge". They stopped doing that after season 4. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder that Idol Gives Back has its own article, so we don't need a ton of detail in this article once the show airs. This article is plenty long enough. :) Just a short summary and a link to the main page will do. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 00:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing about templates. I'm new on Wikipedia, but i had a thought. I wonder if it would not be good to have a way on the template for Idol season 7 to tell which contestants have been eliminated. Like put the eliminated ones in italic or something or even write eliminated beside them. Just a thought. Æon 14:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently i'm not the only one. I just went on the template dicussion page and someone else has suugested the same thing. Æon 15:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No that's not a good idea. Templates are written to be used permanently. They are not articles and should not be treated as such. The other templates simply put the contestants in their final finishing order. We have lots of American Idol templates and they all follow that format. See Category:American Idol templates. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 15:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where have we heard the themes announced for the next two weeks (April 15 and April 22)? I certainly haven't heard it announced anywhere. Does anyone have a link to a press release (or does anyone have a video of the announcement)? It sais, April 15 is Mariah Carey and April 22 is Andrew Lloyd Webber. But I cannot trust this information unless someone can back it up! So, can someone please either confirm or deny this information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.212.225.121 (talk) 01:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason to start a separate section for eliminated finalists. We didn't do it for the semis and no other season article has done it that way with the season in progress. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 02:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To whomever did it, I applaud you. I think it's a smart idea. It looks really unprofessional and messy when Brooke White is atop Michael Johns in the same sub-section. Besides, we do this for plenty of other shows, such as Top Chef (eliminated chefs are listed in chronological order, followed by a separate sub-section for the ones still in the running. James D. (Cinemaniac86) 07:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinemaniac86 (talk • contribs)

We've never done it for the AI articles. The problem I have with this (as well as the template change mentioned above) is that they are very "in progress" types of changes. And they go against what we've done in the past. We're supposed to be a permanent record, not a guide. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah okay, that's a good argument then. I do wish more were open to some new ideas for the future though @.@;;;. But anyway, just so you know, that wasn't another one of my silly additions xP. James D. (Cinemaniac86) 07:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is no point in having an "Eliminated" section since by the end of the season, all but one of the contestants will be eliminated. I think people can read. (Cinemaniac86, could you please sign your talk page posts with the four squiggly lines, or, if you currently do that, change your signature to include a link to your user and talk pages? That way your posts won't look unsigned. Thanks.) MissMJ (talk) 16:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I, however, find that with as the entries for each finalist gets longer and the number of songs they sing gets longer, that the section is just way too long. I added a fourth-level header of "Eliminated finalists (as of DATE)" to the middle of the finalists section to separate those that are still in competition and those that are eliminated. It makes it easier to read and easier to parse. Tedying (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am issuing this statement to anyone and everyone:

The three upcoming weeks will feature Mariah Carey songs, Andrew Lloyd Webber musical numbers, and apparently Neil Diamond tunes (unverified at the moment), respectively.

I read the same article on two different boards that stated on Mariah Carey night, next week, the contestants will ONLY be performing her 18 (or 17, since one is not original) #1 hit American singles. I am trying to relocate those posts now, but unfortunately, I did not save any link. If anyone could help me locate an official source that confirms this alleged fact, it would be great.

Secondly, if anyone could locate a source that says whether Neil Diamond will be mentoring the singers on his songs or perhaps singer-songwriters or something else unique like that, it would also be appreciated.

Webber is confirmed, thankfully. Woot! ^.^ And...yeah, that's it. James D. (Cinemaniac86) 07:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been a tryin'. Idol is amazingly close to the vest on that stuff. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are quite wankerish when it comes to this sort of "suspense" -_-;. The Mariah thing makes sense to me though, since it's sort of in celebration/blatant, shameless pimpage of her 18th #1 single from this year. And oh, what I would give to see Arch sing that. In a sailor outfit. Sucking on a lollipop. Pedos would flood the stage. And I will fly my roflcopter all night long. James D. (Cinemaniac86) 07:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinemaniac86 (talk • contribs)

This has been heavily discussed on forums (because I'm assuming some contestant leaked information on it) and am wondering if anyone else can support the claims?

Either way, just wanted to stake a claim in the heard-it-first department ^_~. --Cinemaniac86 —Preceding comment was added at 16:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forums aren't exactly bastions of reliable information. =P I really don't understand why people put in unsourced/badly sourced information just in the name of "OMG I HEARD IT FIRST MUST PUT IT ON WIKI!" Either way, in a few weeks, we will find out for sure and it won't matter who heard it/added the information first. However it does matter if there is erroneous information in the article in the meantime; it dilutes the quality of Wikipedia. If people want to find out all of the rumors and exclusive "scoops" they can join the rumor mill forums or keep up with rumor blogs. MissMJ (talk) 17:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly why I wrote it here on the Talk page instead of on the main article. I've learned the error of my past ways xP. Sometimes, the rumors are reliable though. For example, I heard about every single other weekly theme on the same forum. And they usually do a Top theme every year, except last season. My only skepticism now is that the last-minute second Beatles music week may have taken place of this. But we know Neil Diamond's mentoring for one of two unknown theme weeks, so guess we can do nothing but sit back and wait for the news to come! --Cinemaniac86^{^_^} —Preceding comment was added at 00:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So should this be expanded on to include the other people who previously had albums and caused a smaller stir, but a stir nonetheless? (I say nay. What say you?)

Also, regarding David Hernandez: As far as I've read, only incriminating pictures of him working at the bar were released. I have NEVER heard about any nude pics floating around out there on the net. Could anyone find a source to prove this? (And a link to these alleged "nude" pictures. Not even for personal reasons. I'm just pretty certain only clothed pics of him with the name of the bar he works at were at VFTW and that's it.)--Cinemaniac86^Oy_gevalt. 03:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the line about the nude pictures. Without sources it clearly violates WP:BLP. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe someone should take a look at the Danny Noriega section. The last time I checked "planning" wasn't spelled with three n's, nor was "received" spelled "recieved". My formal English isn't perfect (I'm Danish), so I don't feel I'm the right person to rewrite that section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.60.168.23 (talk) 10:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]