Talk:American Idol season 8

Template:WikiProject Idol series

The theme for the final four is rock and roll

Ryan Seacrest confirmed it on Twitter one hour ago. Source: http://twitter.com/RyanSeacrest

Can someone update this info, since I can't updated the Wiki page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.201.22.6 (talk) 03:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Adam Lambert's Sexuality

This article states Adam Lambert as being openly gay without listing a source. Has he ever declared to the media that he is gay? Videos of him kissing guys are not valid sources.Gingerwiki (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Where? I can't find it anywhere. If you're talking about his article, it's been vandalized more times than I can count and is currently semiprotected without that information in it. If it's somewhere and unsourced, remove it per WP:BLP. Hermione1980 16:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep. BLP applies here. But yes that rumor is all over the net, especially on YouTube. That's all it is...a rumor. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 04:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

On Access Hollywood, there is an interview with Adam saying that he has nothing to hide and that he is gay. He says the pictures were taken at "Burning Man" arts festival in the desert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iseriouslyhave6cats (talk • contribs) 00:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Link [1] --71.243.55.75 (talk) 18:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he says he has nothing to hide. But he never specifically says "I'm gay". Cespence17 (talk) 23:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

You know what? I'm not a fan of Adam, but if we are going to mention he's gay we really should mention that everyone else is hetereosexual. :) I mean really. I don't think it matters for the purposes of this specific article. The article on him? Maybe. But not really here. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 01:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Matt G this week

Unless I missed something, Ryan never said that Matt was bottom 2. I have a feeling Scott was "saved" first because it was just easier for him. Otherwise he'd have to be guided all over the place as they shuffle the bottom 2 around quite a bit. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 04:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I had a hard time believing it too, but Ryan did say "These are your bottom two" at some point in the results show last night - I'll have to go back over my DVR later to make sure. But who knows, he could have just said it to create drama, and Matt might have actually been completely safe the whole time - just some poor random finalist put in the hot seat for the sake of good tv. Another thing we'll probably never know for sure...Cespence17 (talk) 13:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC I dont think they will go that far. They will be in deep trouble if they were caught by faking the results just for drama. I think these are the real bottom 3. The actual results might be accidentally leaked out, so I doubt they will take such a risk just for better TV. Dialidol might be wrong this time about Matt. Syjytg (talk) 14:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah the bottom 3 IS the bottom 3. They cannot fudge the results like that. What they do sometimes do is pretend like someone is bottom 2 but isn't...but they are still bottom 3. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 15:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I dont think they would would say "bottom 3" to someone who isnt in the bottom 3. I could only see them doing what they did to Anoop and Megan in Week 1 of the finals and call them to the centre, but then they didnt say anything about a bottom 4. (90.201.176.86 (talk) 21:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC))

Ryan definitely said Matt and Michael were the bottom 2. Same for Michael and Alexis last week. I think as long as Ryan explicitly says 2 contestants are in the bottom 2 after sending the first bottom 3'er back to safety, which he has done for the last 2 weeks now, we should list them as being in the bottom 2. Excuse me for saying, but it is not the job of an encyclopedia to interpret when the show is telling the truth and when they are lying for dramatic effect. We have to go by what they explicitly say MarkMc1990 (talk) 23:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

And having said that, since the show seems content on identifying the bottom 2 within the bottom 3 this season, would it be ok if we went back to using the standard palegolderod color for all Btm and Elim boxes in the finals like in the seasons 1-6 pages? Because the "saved first/last" information isn't really important anymore if we know for sure who the bottom 2 are. There are way to many different shades of yellow in use on the chart as it is anyway. MarkMc1990 (talk) 00:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Jasmine and Jorge's position

I guess I don't quite understand this idea that they "tied for 13th". I highly doubt that they tied for 13th. So they finished 12th or 13th. That's what the 12-13 means. We have ample precedent for this in previous seasons. This is one example. For the past several seasons, they eliminated 4 every week in the semis but they never gave places. So they were listed as 13-16, 17-21, etc. In season 6, we had a similar situation to this year. Phil Stacey and Chris Richardson were both eliminated during the same week. In the chart, they are listed as 5-6. I just don't get the issue I guess. Using 12-13 is entirely accurate. "Tied for 13th" implies that they tied in votes. Well they didn't. The show never gave places and we shouldn't imply places. We'll never know which finished which. But saying 13th is dishonest and simply incorrect. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 11:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, if they were tied it would be at 12th, but I doubt that they got the same amount of votes. I support listing them as "12-13" because that makes the most sense. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 11:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

New Semi final/wild card layout

Hey... I put all the contestants in their respective semi final groups. I put htem in performance order. This is necessary as if you want to see who was in each semi final group you have to look at the elimination chart and be confused by the 'WC' , 'Top 13' tags. The american idol season 3 page has some thing similar to mine with the results for each group at the bottom. I was wondering however if we could make the season 8 semi final lists identic to season 3 coz its a lot to digest... it wud be better without the semi final contestants information. Make another page 'Season 8 semi finalists' and put that information there. this new layout is good as it shows all the finalists in their respective group and it helps analyse the competition... e.g. some1 reviewing it can do them in the appropriate order and it also shows that the contestants who performed 1st didn't make it. Frazzler9 (talk) 13:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I see what you wanted to do, but after cleaning them up a bit, I've noticed that all of the biographies are repeated for those who advanced to the finals. We definitely do not need any of that info more than once. I guess it should appear with each person's first listing on the page. --Mtjaws (talk) 14:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

thx... Im not the best wikipedian so could you sort it out especially the anne marie boskovitch issue. I would much prefer the semi final list with no biography. The season 3 semi list is great... We have the finalist list ... Do we need the semi finalist bios??? Cud u please fix the boldness... Frazzler9 (talk) 18:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

i

Hey, just asking, is you put the semi-final performances like you did in the articles of Seasons 1-4, Can't you also put the Top 13 weeks in the same way with the order of each contestant? Like Top 13 (Michael Jackson) then order each finalist with the song they sang, and at the end put the bottom 3, bottom 2, and eliminated? I liked how you guys did that. JPSinger45 (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I personally like the way the seasons 1-4 articles handle the performances section better too. Its easier to follow, especially when the wildcards have an extra performance listed - that can be confusing. Plus if anyone wanted to see just one contestant's list of performances, they could go to his or her individual article to see that. I would be in complete favor of switching over to the season 1-4 format. MarkMc1990 (talk) 05:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Something to look out for

We apparently have a round of telepathy going on. Let's wait until the show actually airs to put up who is going to do what. Oi. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 00:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

And yes they were right this week but still. If you can find a source, great. Otherwise, it shouldn't be posted. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 01:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Source: [2] (Yes, blogs aren't that reliable...) --71.243.51.45 (talk) 07:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

they have rehearsals right before the actual show, and a lot of people go to see it, so they know what songs they're singing. i've been following mjsbigblog.com and the songs are always right. i still think that it shouldn't be posted though 'cause the performance order is sometimes off.76.197.57.235 (talk) 01:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It was incorrect on the performance order only once. Quit trying to make it seem as if it is unreliable. Gage (talk) 08:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay..sheesh. i'm not trying to make it seem unreliable. all i'm saying is that it's best if the performances are put on after the contestants actually perform, but if people go to the rehearsals and they're sure their information is correct then i'm not stopping them from putting it up.76.197.57.235 (talk) 01:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

elimination chart and top 13

Look at my explanations on the otp 13 performance list coz i have changed megan and jorge to btm 3/4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frazzler9 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but I dont feel that it should go on there unless Ryan specifically said it. For all we know, Megan and Anoop got the top 2 votes. Unless they confirm it, I dont think its encyclopidic. (90.203.39.229 (talk) 17:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC))

LOL for that week Anoop sucked but Megs was awesome but I doubt they got the top 2 votes. Yes I understand that it isn't encyclopidic but Wikipedia isn't just an encyclopedia. IF it was then yeah it wud state that Jazza and Jorge were the lowest but the fact that we can edit it and analyze information to our own conclusion. I have explained why they are on the table as it is most probable that they were the btm 4 based on the points I made. So i'm going to change it baCK. Frazzler9 (talk) 22:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect its your opinion, but I dont see why that means it should automatically go on the article. I gave a reason against your side of it (the unregistered user was me oops), and I think it should go that way because it was like that originally, suggesting that anyone who edited before agreed that this was the case. I dont want you to think im attacking you or anything, but I dont think its a place for an opinion. The facts state that Megan and Anoop were called to the centre of the stage, but were told nothing about being in the bottom 4. I personally agree that it could be likely that they were, but I dont think this is the place for opinions. I personally think the note underneath the table that mentions the two being called to the stages centre is enough. :) (Kyleofark (talk) 23:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC))

Some of the info you have added, specifically about Megan and Anoop being the "bottom 4" and about Von coming in fourth place, is in complete violation of Wikipedia's policy on original research. If something is implied by the show, we need someone else to say so first in a reliable third-party publication. Also, analyzing "facts" and making your own conclusion is blatant original research. I am going to revert these additions. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 00:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you please remove "4th WC" for Von Smith? It's really distracting. Is he really 4th Place? I don't think he was. -- (JPSinger45 (talk) 8:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC))

Done. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 12:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

One more thing, I'm not trying to be noisy and annoying, but since Ryan Seacrest has kept saying the rankings of the Bottom 3, can't we keep the signs in the same old pale goldenrod from Season 1-6? I liked it with only one color. -- (JPSinger45 (talk) 11:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.34.179 (talk)

Lil Rounds Bottom 3 Streak goes April 8: Btm 3 , April 15: Btm 2. Anoop's Bottom 3 Streak goes April 1: Btm 2, April 8: Btm 2, April 15: Btm 3, and Both Elim. I saw it a little messed up. -- (JPSinger45 (talk) 22:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC))

On other articles of Allison Iraheta and Danny Gokey, they say that they were the Top 2, which they definitely would've been since there was a Bottom 3. Should we put the Top 2 symbol like in Season 5? (JPSinger45 (talk) 20:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC))

Please no. With 5 contestants, and three marked "Elim" "Btm-2" and "Btm-3" then it should be obvious who the top-2 are. In articles like this, less is more. The more you clutter up the chart, the LESS readable it gets because you have to sort through the "noise" to get the information. It is not only perfectly fine to leave fields blank, but preferable so that the filled in entries actually stand out. Tedying (talk) 19:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The removal I just made

We can't have the 1-4 format AND the bios of the finalists. It was one big mass of information with lots of repeating. I object to this new format as I think it's a bit too sprawling but if that's what folks want, that's fine. But we can't have both formats. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 07:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I sort of agree. I would propose keeping both sections, but in the bio sections removing the song choices, only leaving the information on the contestants. I think the new format is easier to read and it looks neater too. The old format would have been fine, but the wildcard round does make it a bit confusing why four finalists have more songs than others. (Kyleofark (talk) 17:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC))

I posted this above too, but I like the Season 1-4 articles' finals format better, with listing the week, theme, and performances in order. It flows much easier and looks more organized. If one just wanted to see a list of one particular finalist's performances, they could check his or her individual article for that. And frankly, I think just listing the finals performances in the bios looks sloppy considering the wildcards have one more performance listed than the other finalists without even so much as an explaination, as well as having to scroll down to a different section and count to see what the theme was. MarkMc1990 (talk) 23:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The 1-4 format is way too much like a list. But whatever. I'm losing this one I'm guessing. I do think that at some point, we need some consistency between the articles. Right now we have very little and changing this to this format doesn't help that. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 02:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Btw. I just removed a reference listing from one of the headers. We can't have that. Otherwise we end up with ridiculously long header names. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 02:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so we can't have both a short bio and the current list format? What are we to do about the contestants who don't have articles? (See Alexis Grace) --151.203.215.131 (talk) 18:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion is to put the short bios for the 13 finalists at the start of the Finals section, above the Top 13 week's list of songs. That would introduce the remaining contestants, have links to those with their own articles, and then each week's list of songs will follow. This will give some info about those without their own page. Seems like a reasonable compromise for the two styles that had been in use. --Mtjaws (talk) 02:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I favor the current format (which is like season 1-4) much more than other one. I feel with this one you get a better of idea of how the show went. The other format focuses on the people but that is not what I look for here. Garynine (talk) 19:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a separate List of American Idol contestants (season 8) ? There should be some place to have info on the finalists if they don't have an article. --71.243.55.75 (talk) 18:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I personally don't completely care for this new format (or rather, return to previous formats). I think it should be like the most recent seasons. The Wild Card people will have specific explanations. For example:

Matt Giraud
01. "Viva la Vida" (Coldplay) -- Eliminated
02. "Who's Lovin' You" (The Jackson 5) -- Wild Card Pick
03. "Human Nature" (Michael Jackson)

And so forth. It's really not a big whoop. The only reason I figured this format was resurrected was due to the save. HOWEVER, does anyone else find it as hilariously pointless as I do to say beneath each week's performance list "The judges chose not to save _____." How Sherlockian. It's implied when one scrolls down to the Top 7 anyway that the previous Idols were not saved. Furthermore, it's obvious in the regard that it says "Eliminated: ____" after each week, rather then "Saved: ____". So I move for that to be scrapped, and us to return to the S5-7 format of having brief one or two sentence bios for all the semifinalists, except Jackie and Von as they have their own articles, and for Alexis to have her bio here, while the others have a tiny description and are linked to their own pages.

Another idea:

Semi-Finals Group 1
Semi-Finals Group 2
Semi-Finals Group 3
Wild Card
Ricky Braddy
Tatiana Del Toro
Jesse Langseth
Von Smith

---

Finalists
....

Hopefully you get the point. Basically, because the four WCs who did not advance to the Top 13 had two shows, they'll be described, alphabetically, in that group. This means they won't be listed among the rest of their Group members who did NOT advance. I hope someone takes these ideas into consideration, because I think it'd be a much more appeasing solution.--Cinemaniac86^Oy_gevalt. 05:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

If these ideas don't mesh well or work for you fellow Wikiites, there should be some simple solution we can come up with. Perhaps simply listing the contestants in separate articles like others have said (this show is major enough to do just that) would work after all. Finalists on the first tier, Wild Cards on the second, and Semifinalists on the third. This would echo the Australian Idol page's method, with the sole difference being it'd have its own page so as not to clutter up the main Season 8 article. If we do this, I suggest we do this for at least Seasons 5,6,7 as well.--Cinemaniac86^Oy_gevalt. 05:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

In seperate articles? What do you mean? Honestly, I don't think we need to do anything that radical. There isn't that much dissatisfaction with how the article was before is there? Too many radical changes I think in a short time. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 12:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I really think something like this should really go to the WikiProject don't you? --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 12:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Bottom 3 shading

Since the show is making a point of identifying the bottom 2 within the bottom 3 this season, would it be ok if we went back to using the standard palegoldenrod color for all Btm and Elim boxes in the finals like in the seasons 1-6 pages? Using the different shades of yellow for the bottom 3 began in season 7 as a method for distinguishing the order they were saved, but that information isn't really relevant anymore this season if they tell us who the bottom 2 are. There are way too many different shades of yellow in use on the chart as it is anyway. Surely, this is a reasonable request, no? MarkMc1990 (talk) 19:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

No I like the different btm 3/2 colours as it helps and it easier to mark out contestants who have been in the btm 3 and btm 2 against others and also because being in the btm 2 is different than the btm 3 which I think is important to mark out. Also on the season 5 page it explicitly says that the contestants marked btm 2 are the ones who were saved last. Frazzler9 (talk) 19:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The text labels do a good enough job of distinguishing Btm 2 and Btm 3. And if you don't mind me saying, anyone not reading the chart attentively enough to notice the difference between "2" and "3" probably doesn't care enough anyway. Not to mention, the shades are so close that they look the same on alot of monitors with lower resolutions anyway and that can confuse people. I just feel like the chart would look cleaner if we just used palegoldenrod in the finals and then didn't have 5 different shades of yellow all over the place. MarkMc1990 (talk) 20:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

No. Gage (talk) 08:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You could at least back up your stance with support. MarkMc1990 (talk) 12:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

well being in the btm 3 is different to being in the btm 2... so it should have a different colour... plus it helps compare other contestants. and its better so just leave it!!! !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frazzler9 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Mark on this one. Why? Well basically because I don't trust this show. :) Yes they are saying bottom 2 this season but in the end, we never will know if that is done for purely dramatic reasons or if the person really is bottom 2. The only thing we can count on is bottom 3 really. That they can't really fudge. It's been universal since the beginning of the show. The bottom 2 has not been. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 04:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Well if thats the case then they could be lying about thr btm 3.. Ryan said many occasions... these 2 had the least amount of votes and has also sed ' this is our btm 2' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frazzler9 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Unless you get full consensus to change the colors of these boxes to palegodenrod, then quit adding it. It completely disrupts the entire flow of the chart, the legend, and is completely unnecessary. Quit adding it. Gage (talk) 00:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Well so far me, WoohooKitty, and JPSinger45 above have all agreed that it should not use the shades. Which is 3-2 over you and Frazzler. And you have yet to give any sort of reason why we should continue with the different shades. MarkMc1990 (talk) 01:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not have opinion one way or the other because I could see both sides of the argument, but I would like everyone to fully explain why they feel their "shading" is better here and stop edit warring on the article. People on both sides of the argument are either close or have violated the 3rr and could possibly be blocked. I ask for everyone to cool down for a few days, let debate/discussion take place on the issue and when there is a consensus to act accordingly. Aspects (talk) 02:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I've pretty much stated all my reasons in my first 2 posts. There are 3 of us who agree that it should just be palegoldenrod, one of whom is an admin. There are only two from the opposing side, only one of whom however who actually gave reasons for his opinion. MarkMc1990 (talk) 20:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you please put the pale golden rod shading please? I liked it from Seasons 1-6. It was good for only Season 7 because Ryan Seacrest never announced who was in Btm 3 or Btm 2. The colors are awful for this season. He announces their actual rankings. For example, he stated the Top 11 Btm 2 (Michael and Alexis), Top 10 Bottom 2 (Matt and Michael), Top 9 Bottom 2 (Anoop and Megan), Top 8 Btm 2 (Scott and Anoop), Top 7 Btm 2 (Lil and Matt) and the Top 7 2.0 Btm 3 (Allison , Lil and Anoop). So I don't know why this is still going on. --JPSinger45 (talk) 22:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know either, JP. MarkMc1990 (talk) 20:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Well seeing as there is a 3-2 consensus in favor of changing it, plus the fact that the opposition failed to give any (sufficient) reasoning, I am assuming I can go ahead and make the change and will do so. If consesus changes, the colors can change. MarkMc1990 (talk) 01:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I am against this unicolor racist shading. The basic substantiation for this is that the majority of charts on Wikipedia contain multiple colors, because it is more viscerally effective and visually pleasing. I believe that the separate colors are useful in distinguishing one block from another in people's memories. When something in a chart is all a single color, one could be reflecting upon the Wiki chart the next day but be unable to discern in their minds whether Matt or Scott was in the Bottom 2, or if Michael or Alexis was eliminated first.

It's not so much an intelligence issue, but certain people possess weaknesses in these areas. These visual aids are essential in differentiating one thing from the other. That color becomes synonymous with what it is signifying. (A good example would be the Top Chef or Project Runway charts, where there is a nice contrast between "Win", "High", "Low", and "Out".) Ergo, I fully believe it is wise to retain the separate colors we have for this chart that has been effective in the past, because they represent unique descriptions and it's beneficial to readers in general.--Cinemaniac86^Oy_gevalt. 04:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't really say that I want all one color for the entire chart. I just said that bottom 2/3 should be the same color. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 04:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

That's what I was actually considering, too. That's the one thing I think would be permissible. But I really dig Mark's new aesthetic idea below.--Cinemaniac86^Oy_gevalt. 05:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You present some good arguments. I would, however, suggest at the very least that we reverse the gradient so that it makes more sense with the lightest shade being used for "bottom 3" (as its closest to the white "safe" boxes) and the darkest shade for "eliminated" as its the most "serious", if you will.

This is how it currently is

Safe

Bottom 3

Bottom 2

Eliminated

Judges' Save

This is how I believe it should be

Safe

Bottom 3

Bottom 2

Eliminated

Judges' Save

MarkMc1990 (talk) 05:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Love it! That, I believe, was a very wise idea. I always thought the bold yellow seemed rather obnoxious and dramatic anyway. (It reminded me of those multiple choices on SATs--the "Which of these don't belong?" sort.) Having that more visually potent color represent Elimination is a terrific solution that I think would actually enhance the chart and improve it in the long-run =). Oh, and thank you, btw. You have my complete approval.--Cinemaniac86^Oy_gevalt. 05:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Great. I think it would be appropriate to make this change on the Season 7 article as well. I'll wait a little while though just in case someone opposes for one reason or another. MarkMc1990 (talk) 05:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I was going to suggest that as well. But my paragraph was loquacious enough :P. It's worth doing that though for consistency.--Cinemaniac86^Oy_gevalt. 05:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Elimination tags

ON the wildcard contestants I think it would be more necessary if we put 'ELim' in their respective semi final groups instead of 'WC'.. 'cause they were eliminated Frazzler9 (talk) 12:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

They weren't ultimately eliminated during their first performance during the Top 36 semi-finals, they were eliminated during Wild Card week, and that is already indicated on the chart. Do not change this, or it will be reverted. Gage (talk) 12:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Matt

I have moved Matt on the elimination chart in Lil rounds position as he would technically be the one eliminated and also he did recieve the least amount of votes. Obviously he will be moved if he doesn't get eliminated its just for now lets keep him there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frazzler9 (talk • contribs) 13:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Or not. Quit trying to make changes, so that you can feel relevent. None of these changes to the chart are at all sensical, nor should they ever even be considered, just stop. Gage (talk) 14:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not just making these changes to feel significant. It makes perfect sense. The contestants are put in order of their elimination. Until the next 2 get eliminated, Matt should be next to Scott as he would've been eliminated if the Judges hadn't exercised their elimination veto. Chill out... Frazzler9 (talk) 15:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

He wasn't eliminated, he was saved by the judges, and that should be reflected on the chart. Gage (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Alexis Grace

Why doesn't she have an article!!! All top 12 finalists have one what makes her the exception !!! Frazzler9 (talk) 20:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

There was already a big debate over this one over a month ago, and the deletionists won that one...good luck campaigning for hers to be recreated, as I doubt an 11th place finish for a contestant (whose article was already deleted for alleged lack of notability) would merit enough notability for recreation. If anything, they would probably argue that Jorge and Jasmine were even less notable due to their placement and their articles would be brought up for deletion as well. Yes, it sucks...but I'd just leave it alone...just my opinion.Cespence17 (talk) 18:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Even if Alexis Grace does not have an article, as a finalist, she should have a short bio in this article. Alexis Grace redirects here, but there is no information on her here other than her placing on the show.--Yolgnu (talk) 12:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I concur with this. At least the other finalists, or most of them, have bios on the main AI page. We should take an example from Australian Idol. The ones without individual pages have short bios on the season's main article, while the more popular ones (i.e. Cosima DeVito and Shannon Noll, et al.) are merely linked to their individual articles. Unless/Until Grace manages to do something from her career, such as an album after the contract runs out, where we could consider recreating it, I think she and the semifinalists are worthy of brief synopses.--Cinemaniac86^Oy_gevalt. 04:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Wildcard/advanced

I have changed the abbreviation 'WC' to Wildcard and changed top 13 to 'advanced'. I have done this because up untill the wildcard show they were advancing to the top 12 not top 13 so advanced sounds better and makes more sense Frazzler9 (talk) 13:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Ann Marie On Elimination Chart

Someone has changed it to Ann-Marie which is incorrect. Its ANN MARIE. There is nothing in between the two words lol. I wish people would stop changing it - its been Ann Marie, Anne Marie and Ann-Marie now. ANN MARIE BOSKOVICH ;) I would change it, but I dont have an account at the moment! :) (82.16.171.228 (talk) 22:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC))

Done. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 22:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

elimination chart

Stage:		Semi Finals					Finals
Weeks:		07/20	07/27	08/03	08/10	08/17	08/24	09/01	09/08	09/15	09/22	09/29	10/06	10/13	10/20
Place	Constestant	Result
1	Anke Pietrangeli				1							----			Winner
2	Poseletso Sejosingoe			2							Btm3	----			Runner-up
3	Jacques Terre'Blanche		1								Btm2	----	Btm3	Elim
4-5	Nazneen Leeman			1								----	Elim
	Wafeeq Saffodien				2				Btm3	Btm3		----	Elim
6	Kgomotso Tsatsi				Elim	JURY			Btm2	Btm2	Elim
7	Karen Ferreira		2				Btm3	Btm3		Elim
8	Zama Sithole			Elim		1			Elim
9-10	Petro De Villiers	1						Elim
	Thelma Jansen	2						Elim
11-12	Khwezi Kekana	Elim				Elim	Elim
	Noluthando Meje		Elim			JURY	Elim
13	Francisca Blasich		Elim			2	Quit

I like this table as it's easier to see who the wild card acts are who get selected plus the current table is misleading as it seems like on that night the judges chose the wild card contenders when really they debated over the whole 3 shows. Frazzler9 (talk) 16:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The current table is not misleading, it shows that some contestants were advanced to the wild card round and then some of the those contestants were advanced to the Top 13. I would advise in the future, since it seems all of your changes get quickly reverted by other editors, to not only start a discussion but waiting until other people respond before you change the charts. Aspects (talk) 17:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Definitely Not!!! That is too confusing. -- JPSinger45 (talk) 22:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

How do you know that they debated over all 3 shows? Where's the proof? And besides that, the colors you picked are jarring. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 11:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Something to watch for

This is going to be just like Jorge and Jasmine. There is no "12th" or "13th". It's 6-7 this week no matter what order they are given UNLESS Ryan gives a placing. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 01:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. This is gonna be funny to see people try to justify reasons why Lil or Anoop had more votes when they have no proof. Most likely, whether she had the least or second least, she was eliminated first because it was more obvious, whereas Anoop had the pimp spot and had good feedback, more or less, for the past three weeks.

But again, to any who question the "6-7", "12-13", or even Season 6's "5-6", unless Ryan specifies, it's not fact. You could argue Lil was higher on Dial Idol and is therefore higher in votes. You could argue Anoop had more votes from performing last, and has a bigger fanbase. You could argue Jorge made the finals immediately, whereas Jasmine was thrust in via Wild Card. You could argue Jasmine performed better than he did. There are all sorts of arguments, but basically, the point is: On Wikipedia, they're pretty much all moot.--Cinemaniac86^Oy_gevalt. 15:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep. And you can add to that semi-finals of years past where users were obsessed with putting placings on the eliminated contestants. People read so much into these things. We'll never know who finished 6th or 7th this week. I'm not even sure we can be certain that Allison was bottom 3 given that Ryan never used those terms. He said "in danger of elimination". Well they all are. :) --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 08:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that tricky dicky. I wouldn't be surprised if Matt was actually in the Bottom 3, and they were keeping him as "safe" so his votes wouldn't spike this week, or if Danny was B3, but kept out in order to ensure a "shock elimination" (Jesus, seriously, take that wheel <3). But I digress, haha. And I remember the semi-finalists nonsense (so glad it's impossible to do that this year ^_^). I think I recall specifically people trying to list Danny Noriega as solely 13th, or always listing Kristy/Amanda/Chikezie as B2/B3 in the semis, even though Kady Malloy was the only person ever noted with that stigma. It doesn't really make much sense to rank one gender above another while neither were voted against the other. That was just all kinds of silly.--Cinemaniac86^Oy_gevalt. 05:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Chart error?

I have no idea why the chart is spacing anything that is edited into two rows, which now has isolated itself into Allison Iraheta, Jorge Nunez, and Scott MacIntyre's rows. I have tried multiple times to get the chart to put it onto one row, but I have no idea what caused it. Anyone else know? Gage (talk) 02:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I was able to isolate into only Iraheta's row, but am still unsure on how to fix it. Gage (talk) 02:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I see no problem with Allison's, Jorge's and Scott's rows before you made your edit, nor any problem with Allison's row now. Could you please be a little more specific what the problem is? Aspects (talk) 02:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I think it was just something on my end. I see no problems anymore. Thanks. Gage (talk) 02:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Other performances

Do others think like I do that we should ditch the "Pre-recorded" or "Live performance" part. The sourcing is so spotty and you can't really tell by watching the show. It can look live but could've been taped the night before the performance. We can't know and it's hard to source. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 04:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree totally...I was always kinda baffled as to where people were getting their sources on what was taped and what was live. And really, I don't see how it's significant knowing whether it was pre-taped or live...it all airs at the same time.Cespence17 (talk) 13:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

There are many articles (the best source would be MJs Big Blog, who gets official word from either Ryan's radio show or various press releases from Fox PRs) which stipulate who is taping a performance for a future results show (i.e. Miley Cyrus, Kanye West) and who will be live. Also, the simpler way to determine this is when you see the contestants (as was the case with, among others, Stevie Wonder and David Archuleta) either cheering on the singer in the same frame or, like last night, they engage in conversation with the Idols. (And also, you'll notice that for the taped performances, the judges are not there--because it's done during dress rehearsals. When it's live, the judges are always present--because it would be a poor showing of character for them to be "on break".) I think there's enough proof either way to verify live or taped =).--Cinemaniac86^Oy_gevalt. 15:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Jorge 13th place

On the top 13 results show even though Jazza had been eliminated first Ryan said to Jorge.. u recieved the least amount of votes so jorge is 13th jazza 12th Frazzler9 (talk) 14:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Was it when Jorge was standing there with Anoop? Because the "least amount of votes" could refer to Jorge's total when compared to Anoop's. So, we still don't know for sure who had fewest votes, and speculating isn't the answer. Let's keep it as 12-13 for those two, and avoid changing it every few days. --Mtjaws (talk) 14:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no way to know which of them had the lowest votes overall that night since it was not said. Since Jasmine was eliminated first that night she is in the lower position but listed as 12-13 just as Lil is for 6-7. I have reverted the order back to the way it was. Aspects (talk) 16:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

green elimination chart

On some idol charts the safe boxes are light green instead of white so i'm just gonna try it out and see what I and u guys think.. feel free to change it back Frazzler9 (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I quite like it Frazzler9 (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

You keep adding color to charts just to add color. The light green, or any other color for that matter, is not needed. Not every block in a chart in an elimination grid needs to be filled with color. Once again I ask that you start discussing changes on a talk page and waiting for other users to respond to the changes before you actually make them, since most of these changes get reverted. I have changed the colors back to nothing unless consensus is found here for them to be light green. Aspects (talk) 16:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok fine but I want a favour from you. I will make discussions on the talk page about any of my big edits if you can make an elimination chart for the pop idol page. The pop idol page has seasons 1 and 2 on it. I want a chart for season 2 first. You have all the top 12 information but not the semi finals but if your willing to do it then tell me and i'll send u the semi final information. --Frazzler9 (talk) 17:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I have an idea! How about you just stop editing. Period. Gage (talk) 01:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason to make the blank boxes green. Just like I see no reason to color-code the Btm3/Btm2/Elim when Seacrest has been making those distictions (And btw theres a 3-2 consesus to change them all back to palegoldenrod). MarkMc1990 (talk) 01:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

There's a distinction about this? Because I think it's rather stupid and would like to contribute my vote against this racist practice of removing the varied colors =).--Cinemaniac86^Oy_gevalt. 04:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The discussion is taking place here. MarkMc1990 (talk) 04:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Jasmine 13th pick or megan

http://mjsbigblog.com/2009/03/ here is the url to MJSBIGBLOG which has a radio interview with paula baout the wildcard picks.. she says that anoop and matt and 1 of the girls were first picked which then makes either megan or jasmine the 13th pick... go on this website and go to page 11 in the march archive. it has it there Frazzler9 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC).

I think we need to remove all reference to the "13th pick". it's much like the placings in 2 elimination weeks. I don't think it means much. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 04:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

^Seconded. Every fan will chime in to insist their preferred Idol was more of a sure thing. The only reason it's worth mentioning Anoop is because, on the show, he was the 13th inductee. Hence, it's only worth mentioning for consistency of events....

Even though I'm pretty sure Jasmine was the most disposable =).--Cinemaniac86^Oy_gevalt. 05:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Elimination Chart, Wild Cards

On The elimination chart, the contestants who were the top 3 vote recipients in their respective semi final group advanced. On the chart that contestants semi final performance block is labelled 'Top 13'. For the wild card show the contestants who advanced are still labelled 'Top 13' and in the same colour.. I think this information is misleading as it gives off the false impression that on the wild card show the public voted. I think there must be another colour for the wild card picks who advanced to the top 13. Frazzler9 (talk) 16:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Legend

Did Not Perform

Female

Male

Top 36

Wild Card

Top 13

Winner

Safe

Bottom 3

Bottom 2

Eliminated

Judges' Save

Stage:		Semi-Finals			Wild Card	Finals
Week:		2/18	2/261	3/4	3/5	3/112	3/18	3/263	4/1	4/8	4/154	4/22	4/29	5/6	5/13	5/20
Place	Contestant	Result
	Kris Allen		Top 13
	Matt Giraud		Elim		Top 13			Btm 2			Saved
	Danny Gokey	Top 13
	Allison Iraheta		Top 13				Btm 3		Btm 3			Btm 3
	Adam Lambert		Top 13
6-7	Anoop Desai	Elim			Top 13				Btm 2	Btm 2	Btm 3	Elim
	Lil Rounds			Top 13						Btm 3	Btm 2
8	Scott MacIntyre			Top 13				Btm 3		Elim
9	Megan Joy		Elim		Top 13				Elim
10	Michael Sarver	Top 13					Btm 2	Elim
11	Alexis Grace	Top 13					Elim
12-13	Jorge Núñez			Top 13		Elim
	Jasmine Murray		Elim		Top 13

Frazzler9 (talk) 16:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Now I udnerstand that an argument against this could be the repetition of yellow colours which is why I have replaced the WC blocks with ELim as they were eliminated at that point. They weren't in the top 3 of there groups and they were selected as wildcards on the results show of the 3rd semi final group so I don't see why it says WC Frazzler9 (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that there is nothing saying the WC people were chosen by the public so I don't get the changes. Garynine (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Themes

Please review our standards on sourcing. Twitter is NOT an acceptable reference. Even though I'm an admin, I'm more lax on sourcing here due to the nature of the show. But there are limits. Twitter and fan blogs just aren't going to pass muster. Neither is a report from Slash on his Twitter stating that he's been asked to be a mentor for rock week when it doesn't even say WHEN rock week is. If we used standards this lax, anything would be alright. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 12:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Jamie Foxx Promoting His Movie & Cutoff Controversies

During The Top 5 Results Show Jamie Fox Promoted His New Movie The Soloist Successfully And Then Got Cutoff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bvernon199 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)