Talk:American Idol season 7/Archive 1

Archive 1

Analog Heart?

The article says David Cook released an album called "Analog Heart". It was pulled from Amazon during Idol. Many people assumed it was because he wasn't allowed to sell it during Idol, but quite a few of those who bought the album complained that it was not Idol's David Cook, although others said it was. What's going on with this? 75.181.60.225 (talk) 22:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

David Archuleta 2-Song Album

There is an album called "Fear vs. Faith (feat. David Archuleta)" by Merrick Christensen. Apparently, Christensen played the guitar and David sang - should this be mentioned anywhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.181.60.225 (talk) 22:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Image Suggestion

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)

Carly Smithson/Hennessy Situation

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)

Revision

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)

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)

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)

2008 Online Articles

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)

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)

"Notable" auditioners

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)

• 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)

  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)

  • Consult WP:Note first. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 11:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
    • 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)
• 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)
• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
        • 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)

Final cut

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

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)

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)

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)

Delete the Distribution section?

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Semi-protection?

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

Rumors

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)

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)

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

Sorry to reopen a possible old and/or dead topic, but there was not date on the last comment. Just for the record, VFTW has an article of its own on Wikipedia and if anyone really needs information, they have listed all of the semifinalists and finalists that they have supported by season. I don't think that there really needs to be the additional reference to it here in the Season pages since VFTW is really tangential to Idol itself. Tedying (talk) 18:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Chikezie/Chikezie Eze

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Please watchlist David Archuleta as well

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)

Controversy Section

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

bottom 2

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

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)

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

Song info

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)

Themes

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)

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

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)

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

Alaina Whitaker song for Week 1

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)

Danny Noriega's ethnicity

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Kady Malloy in the bottom 3

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

Danny Noriega's Birthday

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

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

Jason Castro?

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)

Article notes

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)

Order of Eliminated Semifinalists

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

What do the numbers mean by the contestants names?

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

Gallery

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

"Elimination night songs"?

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)

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

elimination grid

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

24.16.72.169

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)

Protection

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)

Gallery II

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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

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)

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

Picture primer

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Bottom 2/3

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)

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)

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)

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

Date	Bottom Three
March 12	David Hernandez	Kristy Lee Cook	Syesha Mercado

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

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Putting the "Bottom" contestants at the Bottom

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)

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)

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

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

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

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)

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

Middle Names!

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Next week's theme

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)

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)

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)

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)

Chart.

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

Guest Judges

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)

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)

Idol Gives Back

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)

Template

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)

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)

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)

This is confusing, if the template is listing items and people in other than alphabetical order it should clearly explain why for those whose have no idea who the people are. 71.139.23.81 (talk) 23:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Themes again...

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)

"Eliminated" finalists

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)

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)

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)

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)

Neil Diamond Theme; Mariah Carey = #1s Only -- HELP FIND SOURCES!!

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)

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)

Rumored iTunes Top 100 Theme.

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)

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)

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)

I assumed this wasn't a rumor as much as it was the original plan - because didn't Ryan Seacrest say at the end of week 1 (the first Beatles week) that the following week would be iTunes Top 100? And then because the Lennon/McCartney songbook was such a hit, they switched it? I thought they were going to go with the theme eventually, maybe near the end.--StarsOfLove^{^_^} —Preceding comment was added at 18:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

So far if this rumor has any truth to it, it would have to happen within the next few weeks (and the next 2 are already decided) because once they're down to a couple or so, they start doing 2 or 3 songs a week and it becomes a Judge's Choice/Contestant's Choice/Wild Card theme the last few weeks. Mr mark taylor (talk) 02:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

This theme is originally to plan for the top 11 week and it changed to The Beatles theme during on that week. -- 09:51, April 20, 2008 (UTC)

Controversy?

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)

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)

Danny Noriega part

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)

No worries. I'll take care of it. Pienely (talk) 17:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Just looked. Can't find the part your talking about....Sorry! Pienely (talk) 18:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Song writers

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)

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

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)

Then we also run into the problem of the Idols performing really different versions of songs, most notably David Cook with "Billie Jean". Should we list Michael Jackson as the performer even though the version Cook performed was absolutely nothing like the original and was actually a cover of the song originally performed by someone else? This whole authorship business is getting sticky... =S MissMJ (talk) 14:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Very good points RBB and MissMJ. I was thinking about this the other day. I had a thought about this, but it would consist of mass changes to these pages. Why link or write an artist/singer name at all? We already have links to the articles of the songs, which generally describe the history of the song and explain the writers and performers to an extent we can't do it. Us deciding Whitney vs. Dolly on a song seems on the surface an editorial discretion for simplicity, but if in fact we are incorrectly identifying songs, and doing it without a source or solid consensus, then maybe we shouldn't be doing it at all. Thoughts? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering this myself. It seems the usual consensus is to stick with the original performer of the title of the song. I mean, remember when Archuleta sang "the Stevie Wonder version" of "We Can Work It Out"? But The Beatles were still the original performer. Had it been Stevie Wonder night, The Beatles still would've received credit. We gave Cohen the credit for "Hallelujah", but what do we do with "Without You"? I think Gwynand might be right on this one, actually. It already links to the song title and those that don't have their own page, I've redirected to the artist's page themselves (to avoid red links).

If we give Mariah credit for "Without You", then shouldn't we give Chris Cornell credit, and so forth? I say if we continue listing the artist, let's always list the original performer, whose album the track FIRST appeared on. We did it with "You're the Voice", so let's do it for this song, too. Besides, it's already implied that Mariah did a version--since, ya know, it's her theme night.--Cinemaniac86^Oy_gevalt. 20:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I also feel I should note Jason's "Over the Rainbow", before anyone attempts to make a case for Judy Garland. This is one instance where the original performer CAN'T be credited, since the song's lyrics are significantly altered from the original version. That one is all Israel.--Cinemaniac86^Oy_gevalt. 20:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Considering this issue needed to be dealt with, I've gone ahead and removed the parenthetical mention of writer/performer after the song. This will give the article a consistency, for learning the details (sometimes complicated) of the history of a song, they can click on the link to learn about it. In cases where there isn't a page for the song, then we should use our best judgement as to what performer to link to. I'm not going to sweep through all the AI seasons or AI finalists pages with this change. Let's see how it goes over here. I think it is a definite improval. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 13:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect to the performers of songs, it's the writer and publisher who ultimately (should) get the credit. When Chris Cornell covers "Billie Jean" or Whitney Houston covers "I Will Always Love You" the royalties go to the songwriter(s) and/or publishers not those who perform them (As an example, Elvis once wanted to do a cover of "I Will Always Love You" and Dolly said no, so the King didn't record it). It should be the songwriters and/or publishers listed, not the performers because those that created the work are the ones who get paid and have final say over who performs their song (Which would explain why we never heard the Beatles on AI until this year). Mr mark taylor (talk) 19:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

My 2 cents is that the writer/original performer of the arrangement used should be credited, unless the arrangement is signfiicantly different from the origina. For example, Whitney Houston's cover of the Dolly Parton song was more well-known, but not significantly different and hence Dolly Parton should still be credited. However, in the case of Billy Jean, Chris Cornell's arrangement was significantly different from the original and hence he should be credited. This prevents someone from assuming that the cover was an original cover (the whole point of the controversy, right?) Tedying (talk) 21:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Michael Johns "controversy".

Does anyone feel this is really necessary or appropriate in the Controversy section? Many contestants get eliminated and some are shocks (plenty felt Amanda would be on tour; Melinda last year, etc.).

But if it is valuable to that section--I think someone should reword it. It sounds far too biased. But I figured it was better to ask you all first.--Cinemaniac86^Oy_gevalt. 23:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need it. We go down this road every year. Last year, it was supposedly a "controversy" that LaKisha was eliminated because people saw the Fox van around her hometown. I'm not kidding. It's message board stuff. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 23:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow. That's pretty ridiculous. I completely agree about it being forum talk, though. Vote for the Worst had reported something similar, saying producers had prepared her plane ticket and were planning on doing the same for Blake. Then Howard Stern reported it, and Melinda was eliminated, rumors began, yadda yadda.

I say that it should remain on Michael's contestant page--SOLELY on there. Otherwise, it needs to be edited heavily, removing Ryan's irrelevant "quotes", as well as the whole "angry bloggers/busy signal" portion. And the Nielsen ratings, very erroneous. Everyone gets busy signals at this stage...let's list them all in that section! -_-.--Cinemaniac86^Oy_gevalt. 23:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with Kitty, it's much ado about nothing, but because it is well sourced the content should be integrated within the article somehow (the ratings low, etc.) but as for this being a "controversy", it's not, at this point someones bound to think every week's elimination is going to be controversial (when it's really not) because the consensus is this years group is so good. Mr mark taylor (talk) 00:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes but it's not that well-sourced. One of the sources is a blog site. Another one is the citation of the ratings, which honestly, is very shaky. There are many reasons why ratings are down. The ratings have been down for the entire season. A sharp drop doesn't necessarily mean anything. What I basically saw is angry bloggers and not alot of very good sources. The only really good one is from Reuters and they were citing bloggers, which again, isn't really something you can count. I don't see massive mainstream coverage of it. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Racism in Michael Johns elimination

Surely this comment is an act of vandalism. Ankerson (talk) 08:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

2008 Tour

Just started a page on the summer tour. Where would be a good place in this article to mention it? Lauracs (talk) 18:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Elimination Chart

Hi, I think it would be helpful to link the names in the elimination chart to each of their articles. 71.139.52.181 (talk) 01:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Then do it. icelandic hurricane #12_(talk) 02:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Links in the elimiantion chart are not needed since all of the finalists have links in their mini-biographies up above. Putting links in the elimination chart would be a case of overlinking. Aspects (talk) 02:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with that. Overlinking is about putting the same link too many times in one section. I've never looked at the mini-bios only the elimination chart. 71.139.50.253 (talk) 21:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Syesha this week

She was NOT in the bottom 2. I have a feeling we'll be combating this one for awhile. Ryan never said the words "bottom 2" at all. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 02:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll be on the lookout as well. Some loons over on the IDF boards want Syesha to be listed as Bottom 2, so that she'll hold the official record over Nikki McKibbin.

I'm serious.--Cinemaniac86^Oy_gevalt. 12:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't surprise me. The thing is, most people "fall" for it when Seacrest does this. The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, the biggest newspaper in my state, said she was bottom 2. If DialIdol is accurate (and it usually is), she was the top vote getter this week. It makes sense. She got all of Carly's votes. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 22:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The user at 67.120.35.193, after adding the Bottom 2 to Syesha, commented: "Official website shows that Syehsa was in the bottom. Bottom 2 label should apply." Could you please provide a link to this? Thanks! Lauracs (talk) 18:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

We will see the same problems this week because Syesha was the last safe person to be announced safe and there was no mention of a Bottom 2. Aspects (talk) 02:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep. And per DialIdol, this week was murky. Syesha was well within their margin or error. She could've been 2nd very easily. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 04:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Guys. I dunno why but some people insist to put the 'Btm2's on Syesha's top 5 and top 4 performances while Ryan NEVER mentioned she was a member of the bottom two. I did erase the 'Btm2's but then some other people, again, put the 'Btm2's there. --Azilko88 —Preceding comment was added at 14:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

David Archuleta and Jason Castro

I thought I'd post this here. I've been having a disagreement over identifying these guys as "Honduran-American" and "Colombian-American". I suppose I can go further into my thoughts on those talk pages. I thought I'd mention it here to see if anyone wants to join in the discussion. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Controversies

I tidied the section a bit but it still needs work. It should probably say why all those items are considered controversial. I really didn't know that releasing a prior album was considered a controversy, is that against some rule? 71.139.49.58 (talk) 00:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Viewers took issue when VotefortheWorst broke the news, because they felt as if this season, there were a massive amount of people who had an unfair advantage, having been able to release music, whether their labels failed them or not. Then again, thanks to MySpace, almost everyone has their own music, so it calmed down.--Cinemaniac86^Oy_gevalt. 03:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Then we should say that as neutrally as possible and put in context with past years. I guess that also speaks to the changing nature of music industry and the internet. 71.139.50.253 (talk) 18:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

And the changing nature of the show as well. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 04:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Other performance chart

I think the chart that shows the results of songs that were performed on the show by non-contestants is quite pointless. First of all eight of the thirteen songs failed to chart, and of the five that did, they didn't chart solely based on American Idol. For example: "Bye Bye" by Mariah Carey was performed on Oprah that week as well, meaning all the downloads from that song were not from Idol watchers exclusively. Basically I think the chart is irrelevant and should be removed. Thoughts? Thankyoubaby (talk) 05:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Season 5 and 6 has charts on other performances. See here. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Thankyoubaby. Most of the songs aren't charting anyways, and having that random piece of info seems to imply that this is a result of the song being on AI, (or implying that AI wasn't able to help them if they didn't chart). We have been finding many things have been historically done one way and changing them on AI 7, so just because we used to do it probably shouldn't hold up. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 12:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Small Revision

I think that the link should be taken off the Season 8 at the bottem of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.128.102.34 (talk • contribs)

Conspirecy Theroy

I think American Idol is Scripted. They favor both Davids no matter how crappy they do. Jason gets bashed all the time. Paula never tells the truth also.66.57.12.212 (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

This could be added to the conspiracy section if you have a reliable source for it otherwise it sounds like complaining. Link a reliable source here that others can also see that backs up what your saying please. 71.139.32.227 (talk) 00:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Please don't. This is fodder for fan blogs and not for an encyclopedia. Unless you have a citation from a credible news source that quotes a members of the production staff saying this, it is merely gossip and not encyclopedic fact. Tedying (talk) 14:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Please remember that this page is to discuss the article, not your conspiracy theories. Please leave those to your personal blogs. Joe dawg 9 (talk) 04:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE STOP CHANGING SYESHA TO BOTTOM 2 ON WEEK OF 4/30 AND 5/7

Ryan never stated the words, "America, this is your Bottom 2...", PLEASE PLEASE STOP changing it....... —Preceding unsigned comment added by RatingsGuy (talk • contribs) 16:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Order of performance in chart?

Hi, I think the order of who sang first, second, third, etcetera is rather useless. Does anyone care that much? Do we have anything that shows this makes a difference to anything? It seems fine for a fansite or blog but not here. 71.139.15.189 (talk) 06:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that appropriate listing for any finalists that are still in contention is alphabetical order (last name, first name). Switching based on order of singing has no intrinsic value. Tedying (talk) 14:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

What song did Fantasia sing?

It was good, what's it called? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.83.141 (talk) 01:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

"Bore Me (Yawn)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.181.60.225 (talk) 22:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Finale

How long is the "Winner Reveal" (final episode)? ScottAHudson (talk) 14:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

zap2it has Tuesday's performances as one hour (8-9PM Eastern) and Wednesday's final results as two hours (8-10PM Eastern).Tedying (talk) 15:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Finale songs

Rumors seem to suggest that the current information in the article is incorrect. According to the latest rumors, the three songs will be:
1) Clive Davis' choice
2) Contestants' choice - either something they've previously sung, or a new song
3) Coronation song

Has the current information in the article been confirmed anywhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.60.168.23 (talk) 15:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The "controversy" I've removed twice

I'm not quite sure how the information from Archuleta's vocal coach qualifies as a "controversy". Producer involvement in who does what is very well known. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It's still a show that needs to be exciting for the viewers - changes like this are far from unheard of, and have no evidence of being controversy. I removed it again. Teancum (talk) 14:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Well and it's so common. How often have we heard contestant say that their songs were "changed at the last minute"? --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 15:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. My goodness this article is impossible to patrol. It's NOT a controversy that the producers meddle with song choices. It happens every year and it happens on almost every show of this type. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

margin of 6% = 12 million votes?

With the total number of votes cast being equal to 97 million, how Cook could have defeated Archuletta by a margin of 6% or 12 milion votes? Like, 6% of 97 million is something a bit less than 6 million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.165.95 (talk) 04:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Ryan said the winner had 56% of the vote, the runner up had 44% of the vote. That is a 12% lead, not 6%. --Mjrmtg (talk) 04:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the error, albeit in ignorance of this thread. Joe 05:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I think we need to give the votes or the % but not both. Out of 97 million votes, people can tell what % that is. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 15:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with WHKitty. Further breaking it down is unnecesary. I would say the 12 million should stay, that came right from the horses mouth, so to speak. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Controversies that aren't controversial

There are several items under the "Controversies" section (Some of the finalists had previous record deals) that don't indicate at all why they are controversial, why are they listed there? Cogswobbletalk 20:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Beats me. MissMJ (talk) 22:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I took it out. Cogswobbletalk 00:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Well they were controversial though. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 00:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The sections I removed had no indication of why they were controversial. It looks like someone has added a new section that discusses previous record deals, and explains why this may be controversial, which is fine with me. It just didn't make sense to list something as a "controversy" that without explaining why it's "controversial". Cogswobbletalk 21:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Alaina Whitaker

Someone should take a look at the part about Alaina Whitaker. Right now it's a mess, and the current information, 'looks like Carrie Underwood' and 'says she can sing many genres', doesn't really seem relevant to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EALP (talk • contribs) 15:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

David Cook's photo in the Winner infobox

Is it just me or does it look like one of the official stills AI releases from performance shows? I'm having issues believing that someone in the audience got a shot that good and decided to upload it to Wikipedia. MissMJ (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You could be right. I tried to find the picture via Google but couldn't. Maybe one of us could go through the pictures on AI's site. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 17:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I just went through AI's site, he wore that outfit on Final 7 week. See other pics [here]. I found a bunch of similar pics, but not the pic we are using. Actually... by the angle of it, it does look like it could have been somebody in the crowd. Looks quite professional, though. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I removed it from the page as the pic was deleted as a copyvio. That answers that. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 21:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

deleted by me

How do I...

... look at the list of redirects/add a redirect to this article? Thanks. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:REDIRECT. MissMJ (talk) 00:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Elimination Chart: Bottom 2 in Top 5 and Top 4 Weeks and Bottom 3 in Semifinals

For the bottom 2 in the Top 5 and Top 4 weeks, Seacrest did call out Mercado to the stage and said they were the bottom 2 before eliminating the other finalist - Brooke White in Top 5 and Jason Castro in Top 4.

For the Bottom 3 in the semifinals, it says Kady Malloy was bottom 3. Since four people were eliminated, obviously she wasn't 3rd-last overall. However, she was bottom 3 for females. It would be prudent to say in the cell she was bottom 3 for female, and then put the bottom 3 for the males too.

24.210.94.126 (talk) 01:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Seacrest never mentioned Bottom 2 contestants after the Top 6, therefore, we cannot assume that whoever was on the stage was in the Bottom 2.

Please note that Malloy's Bottom 3 cell is PINK, not the yellows that denote overall Bottom 3/2 status. The color of that cell indicates that she is in the bottom 3 for only females. There is no need to stretch the chart by adding that it's for females; the color already denotes it. No one else was mentioned to be in the bottom during the semifinals, therefore we can't invent any bottom 3 for the males. MissMJ (talk) 06:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll go with you on the bottom 3 for the semifinals. However, Seacrest did say bottom 2, and in any case, why would he call Syesha to the stage if she wasn't in the bottom 2? 24.210.94.126 (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe he doesn't like her? Who knows. Unless he specifically says "Here are your Bottom 2." we cannot note that they are the bottom 2. He did not say so. Here's the Top 4 elimination of Jason Castro: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3ChOJ-uPfY The words "bottom 2" never come from Seacrest's mouth. Here's Brooke White's elimination: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOZbH3XxYiw Again, nowhere does Seacrest say that they are in the bottom 2. He merely says that one of them is safe and the other one of them is gone. For all we know, Castro and White could have been the bottom vote getters that week, but they stuck Mercado in for dramatic effect instead. Either way, if Seacrest doesn't say Bottom 2, we don't put Bottom 2. Please stop changing the chart. MissMJ (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, first in the Top 5, he declared Archuleta, Cook, and Castro safe first. Second, in the top 4, he declared Archuleta safe, then Cook, and then Mercado. Savvy10 (talk) 01:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but just because some are declared safe, does not necessarily mean the remainder are in the bottom 2! They could have stuck Archuleta or Cook next to White/Castro to work the audience into a frenzy if they wanted to, it wouldn't mean either of them were the bottom vote getters. Unless Ryan Seacrest specifically states "America, these are your bottom 2." we do not note bottom 2 Is this so hard to comprehend? MissMJ (talk) 01:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Seacrest has not said "America, this is your bottom 2" multiple times in the past seasons. It doesn't mean at all that the last 2 aren't the bottom 2. Savvy10 (talk) 13:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• <outdent>However, and more importantly, it doesn't mean that they are the bottom 2. Without proof, we shouldn't put it in. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 13:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I think there's a fair compromise here. I was looking at the other elimination charts, and the Season 4 chart was different. Instead of a definite bottom 2 in some weeks, there was a footnote saying that bottom 2 denoted being safe last. So I changed a footnote and re-added the bottom 2 so it would be clear why it said bottom 2 there. If you want to change the color, you can. Savvy10 (talk) 18:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

We're not going back to that. It's very clear that Seacrest never said bottom 2. See the debate above, folks. We put the notes we had on the chart for a reason. If you want some proof, look here. DialIdol is very accurate. They missed once the entire season (and that was mild. They had KLC as 3rd when she was actually going home). And Seacrest even said the next week that 3 of the 4 had been the top vote getter at least one week. This is the week he's referring to regarding Syesha. And yet during this particular week, she was "saved last". We had this debate above. The "saved last" person is picked for reasons other than the results. We can't trust this show. They have never been forthright about results. "Seacrest has not said 'America, this is your bottom 2' multiple times in the past seasons. It doesn't mean at all that the last 2 aren't the bottom 2." Sure it does. This is the show that made it sound like Jordin Sparks was going home during IGB last year but then SURPRISE! No one is going home! :) They do that stuff constantly. That's why we gotta go by what Ryan says. They believe heavily in drama and they will do anything to build it. And anon, please don't claim that Ryan clearly said a bottom 2 when he didn't. I'm not picking you out because others have done it, but with YouTube and such, we can all watch the clip.

Anyway. I've reverted back to the old chart for now. This all irks me a bit because we went through all of this above. I realize that we have new editors involved here, so you might not know how debates are done. But please add to the one above instead of essentially starting over again down here. Now that I look at it, it's actually in 2 sections up above. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at the season 4 chart. After a certain point, bottom 2 denotes being saved last. It's acceptable to put that. I'm not saying that Mercado was bottom 2 in either of those weeks - in fact, in my opinion, she was the best in both of those weeks - but she was still saved last. It's basically the same thing as "safe first" and "safe second" - it's never mentioned that the safe order is the voting order, but it's still in the chart. So the footnote and chart should go back to what I put. Otherwise, no mention of safe first or safe second should be made in the chart. Savvy10 (talk) 15:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you've made a good argument that the season 4 chart needs to be fixed. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 16:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Season 4 is fine. If you don't want to mention anyone saved last, then get rid of the safe first and safe second. Savvy10 (talk) 21:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Now the chart makes no sense at all. It says "bottom 2" but the note clearly states at the bottom that no bottom 2 was mentioned on air. Yeah that makes a lick of sense. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 22:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to de-watchlist the whole lot of AI articles. It's a never ending and pointless battle as the fancruft and really odd logic always wins out. Good riddance. And if you think I'm overreacting, I've been at this for 2 years now with AI articles. So don't take it personally. But this is just silly. She was not bottom 2. I don't care which logic you use, she wasn't bottom 2. So how the heck can an encyclopedia say she was? This is the 3rd time I've fought this battle. And that doesn't include the season 6 battle over whether LaKisha was bottom 2 one week. I say. Ditch any mention of a bottom 2 unless he made it clear that it's bottom 2. Otherwise, it's a fruitless and circular discussion. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 22:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Great going guys, thanks for alienating one of our best editors.

It may come as a surprise to a lot of you, but reality TV isn't actually reality. The producers manipulate things all the time for the sake of drama and increased ratings. Wikipedia should objectively report what actually happened, not what the producers wanted us to think. What actually happened was that bottom two was never mentioned after the Top 6. If it didn't happen, we don't invent it.

I got rid of the 'Btm 2' and left just the color to note that Mercado was the last person declared safe during those eliminations. Is everyone happy now? MissMJ (talk) 22:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that's fine. Savvy10 (talk) 15:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>I've tweaked the chart and the footnote to explicitly indicate (via "S.L." instead of "Btm 2") that the two eliminations in question were not Bottom 2 eliminations. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 16:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

That's good. I think we can let the whole thing go now. Savvy10 (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

For someone who wants to let the whole thing go, you are sure making a lot of malicious edits to the chart... MissMJ (talk) 03:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is a fair compromise. The yellow colors designate the contestant was in the Bottom 2/3 and by using the yellow color for that box even with "S.L." it means Syesha was in the Bottom 2/3. As shown by the videos linked by MissMJ, there were no Bottom 2/3's those two weeks, so we should not say there was. The side saying she was in the Bottom 2 those weeks can provide no evidence that she was in the Bottom 2, so per Wikipedia:Verifiability we should not have it in the article. My opinion is the spaces should be blank in the chart and the footnote should state "From this point forward, there is no longer a bottom 3 or 2 mentioned." This is simple, straight forward and true. The only thing I would compromise on is the footnote saying something to the effect of "From this point forward, there is no longer a bottom 3 or 2 mentioned, although Syesha Mercado was the last contestant to be declared "safe."

I changed back all of the Bottom 2's in the chart back to the Bottom 3's (except for Syesha's in the final 6), since we agreed on here we were going to use different shades of yellow to designate those saved first and those saved last in the Bottom 3.

For the semi-finals, Kady was the only one told she was in the Bottom 3. Therefore I deleted the other five semi-finals Bottom 3's from the chart. Aspects (talk) 22:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this is the same situation as Syesha's being saved last in the Top 5 and Top 4 weeks. The ones I put bottom 3 were saved last. There should at least be a notation that says they were safe last. Savvy10 (talk) 16:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Why? By the start of next season, people really won't care that they were "saved last", they'll care if they were officially bottom-3 or bottom-2 and the show particularly obfuscated this by not revealing that data. The implication is not relevant any longer. I think that we need to limit the chart to official B-3 and B-2 and that's all. Tedying (talk) 15:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The compromise of putting S.L. for Syesha in the top 5 and 4 weeks obviously is not working since Savvy10 agreed to it but has since been putting Btm 2 instead. If the only person who thought S.L. was a good idea, besides the person who put the idea forward, is not using it then it should not be used. With the links MissMJ provided showing she was never said to be in the Btm 2, we should leave them blank. Aspects (talk) 22:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry! When undoing an incorrect edit, somewhere along the way the undo must have included the Btm 2 vs. S.L. so I corrected it now. Savvy10 (talk) 01:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I find it hard to believe that you did not notice you reverted back to Btm 2 eight times since June 25th, starting with this unexplained reversion [2]. Aspects (talk) 02:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This whole "Saved last" business is absolutely ridiculous and does not belong in the chart at all. We should only be including what the show has officially stated, which is who was in the Bottom 2/3. Whatever. I'm getting sick and tired of reverting Savvy10's edits. Since apparently one insistent individual who has no clue what s/he is doing counts more than a majority of people who have agreed to leave the chart as is, and administrators are only willing to follow the letter of 3RR despite the fact that this is obviously an edit war that has been going on for weeks, you people can figure this mess out yourselves. Peace. MissMJ (talk) 02:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this S.L. business is non-encyclopedic as it is supposition of intent, and not fact. It is poorly annotated and not relevent and only one user consistently tries to add it to the encyclopedia. Savvy10, please just leave the S.L. off of the chart. It does not belong. I have removed all S.L. references from the chart. Tedying (talk) 21:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Look very carefully at the videos. Each person marked was saved last. Savvy10 (talk) 00:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>Instead of continually making the same edits over and over, you must discuss and build a consensus on the "S.L."s. "S.L." is an unecyclopedic term not used in American Idol and made up solely for this page. Aspects (talk) 20:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

If everyone is refusing to keep the S.L.'s, why don't we just remove mention of Safe First and Safe second in the finals? Savvy10 (talk) 13:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Consensus before making the same change again: Discuss the changes with other editors on here, build a consensus for the change and then make the edit if there is a consensus for the change. Aspects (talk) 16:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I think there's a compromise. The reason everyone else is removing the S.L. is because they are "un-encyclopedic". The reason I'm adding the S.L. is because the final weeks show a safe first and safe second, and I think that's the same thing as S.L. . So how about we just say who was Bottom 3, give them the same color, and leave it at that? Savvy10 (talk) 18:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Have you noticed that you are the ONLY person advocating this. There are at least 6 different other editors, some with extensive history with the Wiki that disagree with you and you are the only and frankly, most vocal, voice arguing for the S.L. designation. Other than you, the common consensus is that this information is not meaningful to include in this article. And I think that you are waging an single-handed edit-war with the rest of this community. Tedying (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm just trying to compromise here. We could just put the bottom 3 in weeks where there were bottom 3, but not suggest a safe first or safe second. Savvy10 (talk) 23:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

<outdent> I made up the term "S.L." for "Saved Last" as an ealier attempt at compromise. There are teo questions here. (1) Is being "saved last" significant? (Whether A.I. used the term is irrelevant.) (2) If significant, how should it be represented? At this point, although I lean towards "(1) yes (2) Asterisk or footnote, since S.L. is a problem", I think that going back and forth over inserting/removing the S.L. is, well, lame. Dispute resolution is needed here -- maybe an RFC could be called on this issue to settle general consensus once and for all? -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 00:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

How is there a difference between S.L and safe first-safe second? That's what I'm trying to say. If adding S.L. is unwanted, we could leave out safe first and safe second as well. Savvy10 (talk) 13:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The use of two different shades of yellow for safe first and safe second was a compromise reached here because there an endless edit war edit between putting "Btm 2" for the last person saved in the Btm 3 or putting "Btm 3" for both people declared safe. In the past on the show they would say something to the effect of "America this is your bottom 2" after they had sent one person back to the couch, but editors here noticed they were not doing it this season. So the difference between S.L. and safe first-safe second is that the safe first-safe second were officially part of the bottom 2/3 while S.L. would just mean that the person was saved last and not officially part of the bottom 2/3.

As for ArglebargleIV's point: Why do you feel being saved last is significant? I would only feel this way if the show would state that the order they declared the contestants safe was the order the contestants finished in the voting. Being part of the bottom group is significant because the show makes a point of separating the groups. Being part of the top group is also significant but not the order they are declared safe because there is not pattern to it. Aspects (talk) 13:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I know, but after Bottom 3 is announced, the order of voting isn't known, except for whoever was eliminated, obviously. So we could just use Bottom 3 but don't put in a designation of safe first or safe second because it isn't necessary. 24.210.94.126 (talk) 13:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I feel that any way to characterize bottom-2, bottom-3, saved-first, saved-last that was not explicitly said by the show is disingenuous at best and slander at worst. Unless you have proof, you are implying based only on the order that they were "saved" that they had more or fewer votes. A person who was "saved last" could have had 2 million more votes than the person "saved first" but the show wanted to create drama so changed it. Unless it is factual, IT SHOULD NOT BE IN AN ENCYCLOPEDIA ENTRY. Save the implications, rumors and innuendos for the blogs and chats and leave this all out. Tedying (talk) 20:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

"Saved Last" only means, well, saved last. It indicates the last person who was saved, which, in and of itself, is an objective fact, obtainable from the primary source. No implication is specified or intended. Nothing is said about votes. No innuendo, except perhaps what you seem to be reading into it. If one wanted, to be perfectly clear, one could explicitly say that in the footnote that vote order does not imply save order. However, I don't feel too strongly about the whole issue, so if the SL is left out, I'm not going to be upset, nor will I push the issue. (Not that I've pushed it before this.)
By the way, there's no need to use all caps, it's considered screaming. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 22:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

S. L.

I think that there really isn't any need for it. It's been almost a month since the show ended,and people STILL wonder if she was in the bottom because she was saved last.. PLEASE DON'T LEAVE THAT UP. JUST LEAVE IT THE WAY IT WAS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RatingsGuy (talk • contribs) 04:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I feel the S.L. are out of control on the elimination chart now being used six times, are sometimes not footnoted so readers do not understand what they mean and do not seem to add any relevant information the way that the clearly defined Bottom 2/3s do. For these reasons I think the S.L.'s should not be used in the elimination chart. Aspects (talk) 22:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Answer to question (Is Danny Noriega Latino?)

Well, I happen to be in love with Danny Noriega and I know all about him. Yes, he is Latino and he is not mexican, period. He is a mix. White/Mexican. Pienely (talk) 16:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

David Cook - an album???????

Is it true that David Cook has already produced an album? 'Cause I only hear the song he sang on AI on the radio, never a new one. I am getting to thinking that he does not. Anyone???? Pienely (talk) 18:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Top 2 placements

I have changed david A and david C to 'top 2' in top 5 and top 4. THis is because on the finale while th video clip was telling us about their journey it said 'Never in the bottom 2/3' Which fills up the bottom 3/2 placements for top 5 and top 4. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frazzler9 (talk • contribs) 11:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

That is redundant. The other contestants were marked "Btm-3" which clearly implies that the Davids were top-2. We have never used this designation in any other season. For encyclopedic purposes, we should keep the pages consistent. Tedying (talk) 18:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I actually think that when they said they werent in the bottom 2/3 they meant the "announced" bottom 2/3. At a certain point in the competition (top 6 this season) they stopped annoucing the bottom 3 in favor of a bottom 2. We therefore dont know who came 3rd bottom, as we wouldnt have known who was 4th bottom the previous week. I therefore dont think that we can say that they were deffinitavely not 3rd bottom in these weeks, so I dont think that we can put it on here. Sorry if i seem a bit nitpicky. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.176.86 (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

When they said never in the bottom 2/3 they meant never in the btm 2/3. Nothing to do with the announced bottom 2/3 otherwise that statement they blatantly made would be a lie. I mean on top 3 week one of them had to form the bottom 2 by default but on top 6 week they were in the top 3 and top 5 week they were definately in the top 2... any placement lower would put them in the bottom 3 Frazzler9 (talk) 13:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I genuinely think they meant those who were announced to be in the bottom 3. On a personal opinion I think your right, but I think that I have a point here. Maybe someone else could offer an opinion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.176.86 (talk) 18:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC) (90.201.176.86 (talk) 18:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC))

Top 3 placement

The Davids were never in the bottom 2 or 3 which means that on top 6 week when the bottom 2 were revealed neither David formed the bottom 3 with Brooke or Jason fitting in the bottom 3. I have changed the Davids to top 3 on that week Frazzler9 (talk) 19:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I dont understand how you came to that conclusion.. only the bottom two were revealed (Carly and Syesha) so in theory one of the David's could have come fourth with Brooke, Jason and the other David above them. All we know from that week was that Syesha was 5th and Carly 6th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.176.86 (talk) 20:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Because on the finale, when they introduced the 2 finalists in the VT, they blatantly said that neither David had been in the bottom 2/3. WHich means on Andrew Lloyd Webber week (top 6), neither of the Davids could have been the 3rd lowest vote recipient leaving either Brooke or Jason as the middle 2 with one completing the bottom 3. Frazzler9 (talk) 13:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Amanda and Kristy btm 4

I have changed those 2 to btm 4 on girls semi final week 1 as Seacrest declared everyone on the cough to be safe and brought out Kristy and Amanda and the other 2 eliminated contestants separately

I disagree with that too. Unless he specifically stated them as in the bottom 4, we dont know for sure that they were in the bottom four. I personlly feel that its likely they were in the bottom four that night, but it wasnt specifically stated so i dont think we can put it on here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.176.86 (talk) 20:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

ok I agree :( Frazzler9 (talk) 13:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)