Talk:American Idol

Controversies

What about adding the sex tape controversies to the "controversy" section, such as the sex tape of olivia mojica, where samples were released to the public, but a full video was somehow rescinded before distribution... Also isn't there another sex tape of an idol contestant? User:fufufufufufuf 11:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC) WHAT no white people that can entertain people im not racist but all black groups i know they have white people there —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.154.220 (talk) 00:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

million dollar record deal / first option to sign contestants - source?

There's considerable interest in what rights 19 Entertainment (and Sony/BMG) have over the contestants (rumor has been that 19 has a management and recording option on all Top 10 Idols in Season 8). The statement below appears in the article but I didn't see any source or footnote, shouldn't it be verifiable if it's in Wikipedia? Sorry if I haven't done this correctly.

"The winner receives a one million (US) dollar record deal with a major label, and is managed by American Idol-related 19 Management. In some cases, other finalists have also been signed by the show's management company (who has first option to sign contestants) and received record deals with its major label partner."

Hiatus?

How can American Idol be on hiatus? It's currently taking auditions for the next season?

Choose your tables

I just put up some tables to replace the ones that look to be too bulky. They are largely identical in informational content, with the exception that I omitted the number of times the contestants have been on bottom three - they seem to be more confusing than helpful, but if other people like them they can be easily put back. There may be issues with the table not looking right with different browsers (say, the color may not be right) or screen resolution (the table can get scrunched up in low resolution), but those can be fixed, just need to be informed of any problem. If people don't like them, please leave them up for at least a while, the intention is to let people be aware of the different approaches available and get them to come here and choose the kind of tables they prefer (or no table if they so wish).

These are the options -

• 1) The long horizontal ones with bottom 2/3- [1]
• 2) The old ones with bottom 2/3 - [2]
• 3) Single long side table - [3]
• 4) Multiple long side table - [4]
• 5) Single table such as one shown above with other information - [5] , or something very simple with just a list of name of winner, or make your own suggestions.
• 6) Remove all tables from Season Synopsis.

Select the ones you want, we can choose the one most preferred in a few months time. Let's hope that people will take the trouble to choose the one they want rather than just reverting. Make your preference known rather than have something stays there just because they are there. The wish is to get as many responses as possible, however, there is always the problem the few people will respond. A few people have already indicated they prefer to have no table in Season synopsis, so that would be option to go for if others choose not to respond. Personally I would go for multiple side tables or the long horizontal ones if people want bottom 2/3 information. Hzh (talk) 12:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I am reverting back to the seasons' bottom three tables since this has been in discussion for a while with no consensus yet for any type of change. I can see us having a hard time coming to some sort of conclusion when there are so many options, but I hope this will get resolved.

1) Currently this is the worst option. Every elimination table I have seen on Wikipedia has the first eliminations to the last eliminations go from left to right, so this version seems to me the most confusing. I do not like the names being split across multiple lines and I think this table does not handle the unusual circumstances of two people being eliminated and Corey Clark's disqualification very well.

2) In a choice between this and any other table, this should win due to it containing more information than the other ones.

3 & 4) I like the consistency of width in 3 but I like the placement better in 4.

5) I could only see this table working if there were no season synopsis and if some of the tables were eliminated to make the other finalists names bigger. The only Wikipedia article I have seen it list all of the finalists is America's Next Top Model.

6) Probably the way to go since the article keeps longer and longer with each season and all of the elimination information is located in the individual seasons.

So in conclusion, I am for removing the tables from the article, but if I had to make a choice of a table I would choose a combination of #3 and #4 using #4's placement with each of the season's subsections, but having the consistent width of #3 so the finalists names are in one line, which looks like using Constantine's as the longest finalist name. Aspects (talk) 14:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm reverting because that isn't the point of the tables. It is meant to get people interested to come an give an opinion so we CAN have a consensus. At the moment it is impossible to get a consensus, it just a few people giving opinions, and any reasons given for keeping the old table are the wrong reasons. We are stuck with something that no one has actually said they like, isn't that a completely undesirable situation?

The width issue of 4 can be easily fixed, I don't see any difference in width in my browsers, although I suspect other people might see a difference, it's an issue easily fixed when brought to attention.

Objection based on ordering of contestants name seems odd to me because that is something easily fixable. And the reason for keeping #2 option is even odder when I said that any information omitted can be easily put back in.

And I would agree that #6 is the way to way when a few people have already indicated that is what they wanted, but let not that be the chosen route simply because others are not aware of the options available.Hzh (talk) 16:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

You need to stop changing the tables per WP:BRD, the tables are being discussed and they should remain the way they were once the new tables were challenged and should stay that way until there is a consensus. A contested change should not be kept just to get people's opinions of the change because that is not how Wikipedia works.

The tables were kept because of a choice between the two tables, the bottom three tables contained all of the information of the long table plus had additional information, making the long table redundant to the bottom three tables. This is not wrong, but consensus can change to find a better table or no table at all, which is what we are doing here.

If you want more people to join the discussion here, go through the history and send messages to some of the more active editors in the article, start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Idol series or place a Wikipedia:Requests for comment to see what people that do not normally edit this article think. Aspects (talk) 16:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Odd way to go about it, invoking WP:BRD when you were the one who kept deleting the side table without giving reasons, and only giving reasons after someone else mentioned it (and gave the wrong reasons, the multiple table were put in back at least twice duplicating the other table), why not then but now? WP:BRD is not there for you to justify your own wrong decision and left us stuck with that decision.Hzh (talk) 16:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I always gave a reason for removing the side tables, which was the previous, and at this point still current, consensus found earlier in this talk page. Would you please stop saying we were doing things for the wrong reasons? I just explained in my last comment how the consensus was formed and how this consensus was not wrong.

Would you please stop edit warring and let people talk about it? I gave you multiple options to increase the participation in this discussion and instead you decided to revert again without even an explanation this time, basically calling my edit vandalism. Aspects (talk) 16:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Justification after the fact is not consensus. Read back, and see how many actually agreed with your decision. There were probably more people who expressed dislike of those tables. There was no consensus.Hzh (talk) 16:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

For some shows that give all the finalist name - see Australian Idol and The X Factor (UK). These are similar shows, where a finalist may be given a recording contract that will launch their career, and are actually those that are comparable.Hzh (talk) 11:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

A number of people have previously expressed their preference, I think it is now necessary to take stock and give a count of these preferences so we know where we stand -

• 1) For removing all tables -
  • McDoob
  • Aspects
  • Padillah - suggested reducing table to top 2, since the top 2 are already mentioned in the text, it would make the table redundant. I would put him or her down on those for removing all tables for the time being until he indicates otherwise.
• 2) Prefer side tables -
  • Cartoon Boy - clearly expressed a preference here [6], will leave him here unless he has changed his mind.
  • Hzh - this would be my preference if I have to choose, with the long horizontal one as a second choice if bottom 2/3 is deemed necessary by others.
• 3) For the old multiple table -
  • Turian - did not actually state he wanted the multiple table, only did not want duplication of information, but I'll leave him here for the time being.
  • Frazzler9 preferred a modified version of the old table, but indicated that a strong dislike of the old multiple tables here [7]. He or she should really be in another category.

Please let us know if anyone above does not think it's the position they held or they have changed their mind, or add others if I have missed them. Those who haven't stated a preference please do so, we really need more people to express an opinion.

• Note that although I put down two for the old multiple tables, no one has actually said they like it or stated a clear preference for it. Currently there are more people who would prefer removing all tables, while this is not my preference, I would happily switch position if the sitiuation doesn't change in a couple of months time. Then there would give a clear majority in favor of removing all tables, therefore it would be the consensus and that should be the postion to take.
• Note also that we got into this impasse due to some false assertion by Aspects that the removal of the bottom 2/3 tables has been challenged. This is false as it was quite clear that Cartoon Boy had stated a preference for the side table, and refused that say that it was the table that he objected to and was only said he was challenging the rewrite. The use of WP:BRD was completely spurious. A number of other false assertions have also been made by Aspects to support his case, such as that there was a consensus, as we can see [8], there was none, since both McDoob and Cartoon Boy did not state they wanted the multiple tables (neither did Turian if we want to be accurate). This whole argument for keeping the multiple tables is false, and completely wrong when we examine the history of this article. It is unacceptable for people to keep using false rationale and assertions to maintain the status quo, and throwing the rule books at people only when it suits them.Hzh (talk) 13:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Deleting tables

Seems like most people don't care enough about the elimination table for each seasons to make their opinion known. It's not really what I wanted, but I would now change my vote to deleting all tables, and that would give a clear majority for removing. I will do this in a week or so time. If anyone wants to change their vote and keep those tables, please do it now. If others want to keep them or have a different opinion, please air them too, but if no one objects, then those tables will go. I should also say that this is not something permanent - wiki always changes, if there are people who noticed the missing table, miss them and want them back, then they can always cast their vote and the tables can be put back in a few months' time when we reassess the consensus opinion. Hzh (talk) 13:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Tables deleted. I will repeat again that nothing in wiki stays permanent, so if you want the tables back, or something else in their place, please make you choice known. Here are the choices again, and you are free to make you own suggestion -

• 1) The long horizontal ones with bottom 2/3- [9]
• 2) The old ones with bottom 2/3 - [10]
• 3) Single long side table - [11]
• 4) Multiple long side table - [12]
• 5) Single table such as one shown above with other information - [13] , or something very simple with just a list of name of winner, or make your own suggestions.
• 6) Remove all tables from Season Synopsis.

We'll review the situation in a few months' time.Hzh (talk) 13:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

As long as there are elimination tables in the individual season articles, they certainly don't need to be here. Good job! -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 15:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• I actually perfered that the tables be there, as it apparently adds more information to otherwise short summaries for each season. I suppose I can see why this was done, though, and if I'm the only one who objects by the time we review, by all means, keep it the way it is. I'll just have to get used to it. - Cartoon Boy (talk) 00:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I preferred the tables being there as well. I Like Choice #1 because it gives us the info without adding too much verticle length to the article, though I think #2 flows a little nicer. However, should the original tables (Option 2) ever go back into effect, I'd like to suggest that we get rid of the multiple rows that say "Bottom Three/Bottom Two", especially in cases like the Top 11 of Season 6 where we had to add in a new bar for "Bottom Two" and then the following week insert yet another bar for "Bottom Three" again, as they disrupt the flow of the table imo. Instead there should just be one bar at the top that says "Bottom Vote-Getters" or something. I think it's fairly obvious that if there are only two names in a row for a week, then it means only the bottom two were announced, and same with when just the eliminated contestant is announced. MarkMc1990 (talk) 19:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it's 4 for tables and 4 against, excluding me. I don't want to be the tie-breaker, so I'll just leave this going for longer and see if anything changes in 6 months or a year. Hzh (talk) 15:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to create a new page for Idol alums in film, TV, and theater

At the moment the Idols in musical theater section look to be the odd one out in the page. I don't want to delete it without putting it somewhere else first, so I'm proposing to create a new page for American Idol alumni in Films, TV and theater.

I don't know what the support is for such a page, and I don't want to put in the effort to do something that might be deleted, so I'm canvassing opinions for this idea. If there is support for this (or there is no objection), then I might do this in a few months or whenever I have the time, although someone who feels like doing it would be welcome to create this page themselves. Hzh (talk) 15:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

AfD of article interest

American Idol Themes has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Idol Themes, please take time to join the conversation there. Aspects (talk) 20:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

New film, TV and theater page created, the music theater section will be deleted.

Please note that a new page for American Idol alumni in film, television and theater has been created. The "Idols in musical theater" sub-section in the American Idol main page will be deleted soon once the new page has stabalized. Hzh (talk) 16:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Picture Format

I find it hard to believe American Idol is broadcast in 1080i format when Fox only broadcasts HD programming in 720p. There is no source for the assertion Idol is broadcast in 1080i, but it is well known Fox boradcasts HD in 720p. Either source it or remove it. 209.254.200.110 (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)