Talk:The X Factor

Controversy and criticism of The X Factor was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 08 October 2012 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into The X Factor. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The X Factor article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

This page is not a forum for general discussion about The X Factor. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about The X Factor at the Reference desk.

Television: The X Factor High‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the X Factor task force (assessed as Top-importance).

Cheryl (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cheryl, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CherylWikipedia:WikiProject CherylTemplate:WikiProject CherylCheryl articles

My sandbox

In my Sandbox i am currently changing this page this page to make it more about The X Factor in general and not just about The X Factor (UK)

Please Discuss the changes here User talk:In23065/Sandbox —Preceding unsigned comment added by In23065 (talk • contribs)

If you're going to copy another article's format, I think it would be better to make it like the similar Idol series, rather than the Big Brother series. I do agree that it should be about The X Factor in general though, so well done. ^anemone│_projectors 17:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs more "business" information

The newly "internationalised" article The X Factor (TV series) is in need of significantly more background information about how the internationalisation of the show works in business terms: for example, who owns the rights, what the rights actually constitute, why anyone would want to create a national version of "The X Factor" rather than just doing their own thing, whether the same production company creates (or assists with the creation of) shows in different countries or each country has its own production setup, and so on. All this stuff needs explaining. Matt 14:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC).

Talk pages

I notice that Talk:The X Factor (TV series) redirects here (to Talk:The X Factor (TV series)). Going forward do we think that's a good idea? I don't want to change it unilaterally if it was done for a good reason. Matt 14:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC).

I take it you mean Talk:The X Factor (UK). It redirects due to a page move (moving a page automatically moves the talk page too). I'll delete the redirect, as the article it's attached to isn't a redirect. ^anemone│_projectors 21:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry, I garbled my message. Yes, I meant Talk:The X Factor (UK). Thanks for fixing it; I wasn't sure if there was some good reason. I am also going to move most of the above messages to Talk:The X Factor (UK) as they nearly all relate to what is now at The X Factor (UK), not to what is now at this page. Matt 01:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.53.193 (talk)

Cleanup

I think that this article is a bit of a mess -- not the big table, but the rest of the text. It was originally cobbled together from bits of the article about the UK series without, as far as I can see, any proper "internationalisation" or attempt to verify that the statements are true for all countries. And then there are bizarre statements like the UK version being a "variation in the format" -- specifically a "special pan-regional version" -- and an extremely specific statement about the Danish show which probably ought to go somewhere else. The article is lacking any information at all about the franchising process, or how the business side of things works, which is really a major part of what it should be focusing on. This is not a criticism of any individual editors... I'm as much to blame as anyone for not improving it. Matt 02:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC).

I added a "cleanup" banner, but I'm not sure if "cleanup" is really the right word -- I just think the article needs major improvement. If you feel it's inappropriate then please feel free to remove. Matt 03:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.43.251 (talk)

Clarification

Could anyone state the difference between this and American Idol. The description doesn't really show many differences. It would be a significant detail I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.234.6.46 (talk) 03:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why no explanation about how X-Factor is different (or the same?) as Idol?

Here in Canada, we have no idea what this "X-factor" is, and I'm thinking that not too many American's do either. Why is there no explanation as to how the format and content's differ between these two products (Idol and X-Factor)? And why are there seemingly no plans to bring it to Canada? There's more people in Canada compared to some of the other countries where X-Factor has been in for several years (???). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.98.120 (talk) 13:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should say "it differs from Idol in these ways" because technically it's unrelated to any Idol show, but it would be helpful to say that there is no upper age limit, vocal groups can enter and contestants are split into categories. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We should also add that groups are allowed (in Idol, its just individual singers). Also that judges are assigned specific categories (Girls, Boys, Over 25s and Groups) and they mentor those assigned to them. This is a big distinction from Idol where the judges are just judges, they don't mentor werldwayd (talk) 03:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course. There should be more mentioned here on the format of the show, and possibly differences between international versions. For example, I notice the Italian version has diffrences, but they're not explained in that article or this one. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 14:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kazakhstan's X Factor

I have not found any references to that 2006 season. There is no substantiation whatsoever. Perhaps somebody from the Kazakh Wikipedia could help with some details. But I am inclined to delete Kazakhstan from list, and reinstate later when we get any details. werldwayd (talk) 03:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 14:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesian X Factor

I suspected this was a hoax. There has been no announcement as of yet about Indonesian version of The X Factor. Tjowiki (talk) 12:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Adi Nugroho, the person who is supposedly presenting it, appears to be someone who blogs about The X Factor (that may be a coincidence though because they apparently presented some other show in Indoesia, it was just something that came up when I was searching). I suggest we AFD The X Factor Indonesia. Anemone Projectors 13:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've dug a bit deeper and can't find a single source that isn't a mirror of Wikipedia. It seems that Indonesian Idol has only just ended though. Anemone Projectors 13:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has been deleted now a few times as being a hoax and has yet again been recreated, but I still cannot find a reference on the "official" website. Still not real?? –Anemone Projectors– 13:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UK TV Series

Is it really appropriate to put Ireland next to the UK series when this is simply based on them hosting an audition in the Republic of Ireland in the latest series. The article itself is located at The X Factor (UK series 7) not The X Factor (UK and Ireland series 7). Surely we should simply list the main country the series is based in/produced for? BritishWatcher (talk) 10:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the show is produced by the United Kingdom, but allows Ireland to participate, view and vote. It's not really any different to the French one including Wallonia and the Green one including Cyprus. I also believe the first three of four UK series allowed Ireland to vote. So not an Irish show, but Ireland takes part. I don't have a problem with Ireland being there, but it is a UK TV series. Anemone Projectors 11:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its questionable if those other places should be there either. That box column should simply list the main nation, considering the broadcast column already makes note of the broadcasters and the countries its in. It just seems rather odd to have give equal status, even if it does include a note. Surely it would be better for those issues just to be handled in a note? Rather than putting the flag of Belgium in the row for the French show? I think its more misleading and confusing to put UK+Ireland there like that, than it would simply to explain everything in a note that whilst it is a UK tv series, those in Ireland are also able to vote and in one series auditions were held there. The points you make could be far better explained there. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's true, I agree with that. Anemone Projectors 12:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure exactly what should be included in the note, i dont know how many years viewers in ROI were able to vote, and if there was a reason it stopped one year (or more)? I was thinking it the note could be something like.. "In series 7 audition's were held in Dublin, Republic of Ireland for the first time. Viewers from Ireland have been able to vote in the competition some years, including Series 7. However comment lines on The Xtra Factor are not open to Irish viewers."... Something like that anyway. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General information

Since this has there being over 45 series to date, could we list a small listing of various facts about the show? (most catogory wins; most successfull judge per country, most successfull catagory per country)--Cooly123 03:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how helpful that would be but I would like to see some description of the general format and differences between countries. For example, from looking at articles, it seems the Greek version doesn't have a final showdown, and the Italian one brings in new contestants part-way through the live shows. Anemone Projectors 14:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Number of winners and latest winner

As of today, our page says 47 X Factor winners. But are we sure about this? Can't it be we missed someone and it is 48 or whatever? Is it really necessary to mention the total number anyway? Furthermore is it necessary to mention the latest winner either? I don't think it makes any relevance who the latest winner is. These are local artists and with no effect on other countries' sompetitions nor will they generally be heard in other countries... So which country's which winner is the latest makes no sense to me. I suggest dropping both practices (Total number and the leatest winner announcement) werldwayd (talk) 06:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's copied from either Idol or Big Brother (or both?). I think we should say the number of winners though. I did double check a while back to make sure the number matched how many winners we had listed, so it should be right. The only way the number would be wrong is if the information in the table is wrong. –Anemone Projectors– 18:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies moved to a specialized page

The controversy section was too specific here (to UK), whereas this p-age is about the show in tens of countries. Just kept a brief introduction here and moved the rest to Controversy and criticism of The X Factor. werldwayd (talk) 05:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good job. –Anemone Projectors– 12:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Walsh

I think there is a glaring issue that we are all ignoring regarding this recent series of the "X" Factor. It is clear that, during this run, a new Head Judge has been instated. Louis Walsh's recent promotion to this position, after the departure of Simon Cowell, cannot be brushed under the carpet, however much we have a tendency to persecute him. His new role must be respected and mentioned in this page. Wwweeeccc (talk) 18:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no official head judge. Just a "big-head" judge who likes to think he's head judge. –Anemone Projectors– 10:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Country chart

The country chart needs to be updated. The blue used in the chart legend is not the same blue shown on the chart. I would change it, but I do not know where to find the numbers for the colors. --Shadow (talk) 20:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What chart? –Anemone Projectors– 13:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant the map at the very top of the page. --Shadow (talk) 19:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's slightly off. I think that's because when I've edited the picture, I couldn't match the colours we had used before. I don't know how to change the legend :S –Anemone Projectors– 13:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Sherzinger

Can I please wask why Nicole Sherzinger is listed as a current X Factor judge in the UK Series, and Tulisa listed as a former judge? Has anything been announced stating this, or is it an error? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.164.69 (talk) 15:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism! –Anemone Projectors– 13:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see this has been rectified. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.13.171 (talk) 17:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UK and ROI Joint?

Why does it say that the UK and Ireland is Joint when it is Produced, Originates from and is generally known as the United Kingdom Version, ITV, STV and UTV never referred to it as a Joint Version and TV 3 don't call it a joint version. At the moment the show is only broadcast in ROI but the U.S. version in broadcast in the UK and that is not called a joint version, I think all items saying its a joint version need to be removed. C. 22468 (talk) 21:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although it is a British series, Irish contestants can apply and Irish people have been able to vote in the past. I wouldn't call it a "joint" version though. –Anemone Projectors– 14:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So the references saying it is a joint version will be removed but it will say that it is shown in ROI. C. 22468 (talk) 16:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ok –Anemone Projectors– 13:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The X Factor (TV series) → The X Factor – This may have been discussed before, but I am more than certain that nowadays when people search "The X Factor", they're not looking for an Iron Maiden album, a little-known science fiction novel or the nickname of an American football player. - Unreal7 (talk) 18:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose disambiguation is best, as it is more likely to be a UK or a US article is wanted than this franchise article, or the generic terminology. So a disambiguation page works better. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 04:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about Got Talent and Popstars? There are many versions of those and yet neither have "(TV series)" in the title. - Unreal7 (talk) 20:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Popstars" should probably be renamed to Popstars (TV series), since the most common use is as plural of "popstar" (ie. celebrity). As for "Got Talent", is there actually some other uses for that phrase? The local versions of the show aren't called "Got Talent", they're "X Got Talent", and aside from the TV show article, I don't see any other use for the phrase "got talent". 70.24.251.71 (talk) 04:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about The Office? That has no brackets and there are UK and U.S. versions of that. - Unreal7 (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How come the article has been moved without the discussion being completed? For this reason, I have moved it back. Personally, I thought it was fine as it was. –Anemone Projectors– 14:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, absent evidence per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC that the seeking of this article is "more likely than all the other topics combined". Re Got Talent, Popstars, and The Office, etc., please note Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. ENeville (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Notable Auditions

A "Notable Auditions" section should be included, Here are some ideas lorna bliss Demi Lovato geting owwned for using Auto-Tune --88.111.114.152 (talk) 13:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should go in individual seasons. Lorna Bliss isn't a notable person though. –Anemone Projectors– 12:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So have they been added to the correct locations?--88.111.127.125 (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The X Factor (UK series 9) already makes mention of notable people who auditioned, and Bliss's audition is mentioned under "controversy" because of the complaints it garnered. I'm not sure the other audition you mentioned is worthy of inclusion in The X Factor (U.S. season 2). I also don't think the website you gave can be considered a reliable source. –Anemone Projectors– 12:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the website not a reliable source?--88.111.127.125 (talk) 16:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's some random person's blog. –Anemone Projectors– 12:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But it has video proof!--88.111.121.131 (talk) 17:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How does a video of the audition make that audition notable? –Anemone Projectors– 13:12, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That makes it proof, but the hits and comments make it notable!--88.111.121.131 (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, the fact that people look at something doesn't make it notable. Wikipedia:Notability tells you that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." A video on a blog with comments from members of the general public don't make something notable. –Anemone Projectors– 12:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But the video was also featured on YouTube!--88.111.121.131 (talk) 16:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So? Anyone can upload a video of anything to YouTube. That still doesn't make it notable outside of The X Factor. –Anemone Projectors– 14:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But it should still be mentioned in the notable auditions!--79.69.105.94 (talk) 11:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have these now been included?--88.111.126.79 (talk) 14:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mention it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.123.155 (talk) 17:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Individual auditions do not belong in this article. See my first reply. –Anemone Projectors– 14:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian version

Not sure why this was added, no networks here have confirmed a version of the X Factor for here in Canada. And from what is known, if a "Canadian version" was made it'd end up as merged with the already existent US version of the show. HerroLink 07:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some people like to make up versions. Thanks for noticing. –Anemone Projectors– 14:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scandinavian interest

I'm challenging part of the lead which says "Television stations in many countries, especially in Scandinavia, have expressed an interest in showing the UK version, but have not been able to acquire the rights. This is due to legal issues as the British version of the show is only available in the UK and Ireland". Firstly, I can't find a source for this information. Secondly, the second sentence is confusing. To me it would sound better if it said "The British version of the show is only available in the UK and Ireland due to legal reasons", this however would still need clarification as to why. Please could someone shed light on this? ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 14:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moroccan Version + Formatting Issues

Hello. I have been editing this page for the past year or so and would like to add a few notes here. Firstly, the Moroccan version of X Factor is the same as the current season of X Factor Arabia, which is being broadcasted on several different networks around the Arab world and northern Africa.

More importantly, I wanted to address the recent formatting edits, as I was partially responsible for the change in formatting that was recently reversed. I made the formatting changes that I made with the primary intent of presenting the information in an easy-to-read and relatively attractive and professional format for viewers of the page. These changes were based on formatting that I have seen on the equivalent Idols and Voice franchise pages.

I understand the need for formatting standards, however, in all honesty, I do feel that these recent changes are more detrimental than good, both professionally and design-wise. Yes, it may be obvious who the current and former judges are, but when you clump the names all together in one giant block of text, it a) looks quite unsightly, but, more importantly, b) it makes it harder to find the pertinent information. For instance, let's say I wanted to find out who's currently on the X Factor Australia panel. Under the Current/Former formatting that I instated, I can find the information with a simple glance. With this "standardized" formatting, it takes longer to sift through the names and seasons in parentheses. The difference may be only a few seconds, but that few seconds is like eons in terms of web accessibility.

I can't say I'm a huge fan of the lowercase-ization of the "upcoming season" and "in progress" titles. To me, this screams unprofessional and is reminiscent of teenagers and others who don't capitalize anything and generally dismiss the rules of grammar. I should reiterate, I was following the lead of the respective Idols and Voice franchise pages with regards to my formatting choices - this isn't entirely coming out of thin air.

In short, I disagree with these recent changes, because I believe it makes this page look less professional, less accessible, and less attractive. I'm trying not to come off as hostile, but this is a page that I frequent and edit on a regular basis and, as such, I feel invested in how this page is presented. I really do understand the need to simplify and clean up formatting, but I also don't think we need to stoop down to the bare minimum of design either. I would change it back, but in the interest of not starting an edit war, I would like to throw this out for further conversation. Thank you.

Wickedlyperfect18 (talk) 10:08, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I felt that using "former" and "current" clutteed the table and made it longer than it needs to be. However, I can cope with the addition of "former" and "current" if it's helpful for some people. I don't feel the removal was detrimental though. The current judges are listed first and they all have open dates, ending with a dash. As for using lower case, this is standard English grammar. Using upper case would dismissing the rules of grammar, not lower case. "Upcoming season" and "in progress" are not proper nouns, and if they were capitalised, they may appear to be (such as the names of the winners). Additionally, just because other articles use a particular format, does not mean this one should. The tables in those articles don't really comply with the manual of style. However, my main problems with this page were line breaks between a name and the season(s) they appeared in, which made the table very unprofessional looking, the small text which also goes against the manual of style, and the use of hyphen (-) instead of en dash (–). As you haven't said anything about those changes, I'll assume you have no problems there (they all comply with the MOS so I wouldn't expect any problems). –Anemone Projectors– 21:03, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - I'll learn to live with the lowercase. It makes me cringe a little, but, deep down, I know it's still grammatically correct, so I'll deal. I will still advocate for "former" to be reinstated and a break between the current and former judges, but I'd be fine with leaving "current" out to avoid redundancy and keep things consistent. I agree with everything else, however, I am still very much a fan of the small text. I should apologize, because I wasn't aware that it went against the style guide (if I may, could I get a link to that?) that you speak of when I created it a few months ago. I formatted the seasons/shows presented as smaller text, because I don't feel that the information is as relevant as the names of the judges themselves, but that it should still be there, if that makes sense? The smaller formatting allowed me to deemphasize the information as still important, but less so than the judges themselves - in a visual manner. Otherwise, I agree with all the other points made - thanks for the input and reply! Wickedlyperfect18 (talk) 21:27, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I see a page change and it makes me cringe and my immediate reaction is to want to change it back. Then after a while I realise it's for the better and I get used to it. I think you're right that it's a good idea to put in at least "former", if not "current" as well. I think the reason not to use small text is because of people with visual impairment, but I know people like to use small text for bracketed text. The style guide is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style, but has a lot of subpages and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting seems to be relevant here. I'm not actually sure if we shouldn't use bold text to emphasise "current" and "former" but I think it's probably for the best in this case. –Anemone Projectors– 06:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Argentina and Georgia

According to www.examiner.com/article/the-x-factor-franchise-expands-to-40-territories-sweden-and-georgia-added, versions in Argentina and Georgia were launched in 2012. Were these actually made? They're not included in the list. That site is blacklisted on Wikipedia (hence not linked), so is probably not deemed reliable anyway. But I thought I'd ask just in case. –Anemone Projectors– 15:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Cúchullain ^t/c 15:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

– Having worked on the disambiguation of incoming links to the page, X Factor, I can attest to this being the clear primary topic to which virtually all incoming links are intended to point, month after month. In addition to these page moves, I propose that "X Factor" be redirected to "The X Factor". Per WP:DABCONCEPT, the entire collection of X Factor spin-offs in different countries is a single topic with multiple subtopic articles (the country articles) under the heading of a single general concept article (for which a move is proposed). The question is whether the TV series and all of its spin-offs, taken as a whole, is primary as against other topics with the same title (note that the few titles having variations of "The Ex-Factor" are not matching titles). Finally, such a move would conform with the desire for consistency expressed at WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, as this treatment would match that of other dominant reality TV series with multiple international franchises, including Dancing with the Stars, MasterChef, So You Think You Can Dance, The Biggest Loser, Top Model, and Undercover Boss. bd2412 T 16:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest possible support ever given to anything ever! The TV series is definitely the primary topic! –Anemone Projectors– 18:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - like I did last year. Although if I'd mentioned those other examples it might've got somewhere that time. Unreal7 (talk) 21:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Legends

I think it would be better if legends were added to let users know if the countries version of The X Factor is ongoing, discontinuing, forthcoming or returning. Wonderwizard (talk) 17:44, May 27 2014 (UTC)

2015 series in Colombia, Iceland and Thailand

As it is now 2016, these should not read "TBA" or "upcoming series". Did they happen? If so, do we know the results? Anemone Projectors 17:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The X Factor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091206045830/http://www.cuatro.com:80/microsites/factorx/ to http://www.cuatro.com/microsites/factorx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on The X Factor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090813054719/http://www.canalrcn.com:80/factorx/ to http://www.canalrcn.com/factorx/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081220232829/http://web.nova.cz:80/xfactor/ to http://web.nova.cz/xfactor/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110128081839/http://www.setindia.com:80/xfactor/ to http://www.setindia.com/xfactor/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The X Factor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121005131003/http://www.tvn.cl/programas/factorx/ to http://www.tvn.cl/programas/factorx/

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

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish version

There is no confirmation from the broadcaster of Factor X returning after its recent third season, so Spain should not be marked in yellow on the country chart. Moreover, the season has been considered a ratings failure by specialized media.^[1]^[2] The third season was shortened by the broadcaster due to its low ratings.^[3] Baskesc (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Moreno, Adriano (27 June 2018). "De 'Factor X', al programa de Carlos Herrera: los fracasos más sonados de esta temporada". Cadena SER. Retrieved 7 July 2018. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |work= (help)
^ Jabonero, Daniel (5 July 2018). "Las razones por las que 'Factor X' no ha sido el fenómeno que Telecinco esperaba". ElEspañol.com. Retrieved 7 July 2018.
^ La Razón. 27 June 2018 https://www.larazon.es/tv-y-comunicacion/tv-news/telecinco-finiquita-factor-x-tras-su-gran-fracaso-BE18851426. Retrieved 7 July 2018. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |work= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)

Disputes and controversies

Can the disputes and controversies sections, other than the legal dispute section, be moved out of this page and into the relevant articles for each country where they belong? — ᴀnemone ᴘroᴊecтors 11:06, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

The section on the UK version has been vandalized. J4lambert (talk) 21:00, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Table under "The X Factor around the world" is not accessible to screen reader users

The status of each edition is only shown using colour, which means that someone using a screen reader cannot access that information. See the first bullet point of MOS:COLOUR.

Can this be addressed? I think a status column with something like CA for currently airing, NA for not currently airing etc would suffice, provided there was a key for the abbreviations. KaraLG84 (talk) 15:49, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just go ahead and make the changes tbh. Reality TV tables are the bane of my [accessibility] life. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 22:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It'll need someone sighted to go over it I think. I can't see the colours, and each column is a specific size, so I don't know where the extra column should go or how wide it needs to be. KaraLG84 (talk) 13:02, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Moreno, Adriano (27 June 2018). "De 'Factor X', al programa de Carlos Herrera: los fracasos más sonados de esta temporada". Cadena SER. Retrieved 7 July 2018. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |work= (help)

[2] Jabonero, Daniel (5 July 2018). "Las razones por las que 'Factor X' no ha sido el fenómeno que Telecinco esperaba". ElEspañol.com. Retrieved 7 July 2018.

[3] La Razón. 27 June 2018 https://www.larazon.es/tv-y-comunicacion/tv-news/telecinco-finiquita-factor-x-tras-su-gran-fracaso-BE18851426. Retrieved 7 July 2018. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |work= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)

[1]

[2]

[3]