Talk:The Voice (American TV series) season 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stp changing the order of the coaches' finalist box[edit]

It should be order of where they sit and the order of the boxes that show the contestant and coach choices ex. Adam, Shakira, Usher, then Blake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.207.165.172 (talk) 01:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See all previous The Voice (US) season pages. They are all in alpha order. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Table Setups[edit]

Is it completely necessary for the battle rounds table to be sortable? Since the default is the chronological order that the battles air, what's the justification of re-ordering the table any other way? Absurdist1968 (talk) 01:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, color-coding the "winner" column is a bit superfluous, since the column, by its very existence, indicates the outcome, whereas a different color in the "loser" column is required because of the different possibilities. Absurdist1968 (talk) 01:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right. I had not seen that before. I have made the changes, plus removed the unnecessary and invalid bold type. I'll also make the changes for the previous season articles for consistency. --Musdan77 (talk) 04:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Taking out the green background makes sense but the bolding of the coach's name would be necessary for instances where multiple coaches enter a steal (bold one being the successful steal). Bolding the coach's name when only one has used their 'Steal' would also make sense then. Also, for the sortable table, I feel that it should remain sortable because then one can sort by coaches and it'll be easier to see the outcome on each coach's team that way. I've found it a helpful function in reading previous season's pages. ⊾maine12329⊿ talks@wiki 05:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for giving your views. I wouldn't have gone ahead and made those changes before waiting for other input if I didn't think they were blatant infractions, as well as the OP in concurrence. And I didn't start work on the previous seasons because I wanted to see if there were any opposition. (1) The green background is very unnecessary since the column heading says Winner. I just thought I'd add it to the heading, but of course that's not needed either. But I think that the winner column should be in the second place instead of third. (2) Bold (per MOS:BOLD) in a table should only be in the heading, and sometimes in the first column. If you want something else to stand out, you can use the background color, or as in prose, use italics. (3) I see your point, but all of the columns wouldn't need to be sorted. We can sort the first 3 columns and that's all. Do you agree? --Musdan77 (talk) 19:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yes I agree. Sorry, was unaware of the bolding policy. Changing the winning coach's name to a different background color then? I've tested something out on the page. And the first three columns being sortable sounds good, although, should the song name be sortable too to be consistent with the live shows? And hmm for the winner column being second or third... Changing the contestant to be before the coach would make sense as well. It'd require shifting most of the tables in the previous season though. Shift the contestant in front for the live shows too, and unbold the contestant names?⊾maine12329⊿ talks@wiki 02:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose – I don't think we should change for Season 4 where all The Voice presentations use the colour green for the winner of the round. This is all seasons and all countries. A brief discussion here in Season 4 of American The Voice will not do. Perhaps a general discussion is merited. What I know is that we should be consistent in all The Voice presentations for all seasons and for tens of pages in more than a dozen countries now if not more.... This is not achieved by a brief discussion here in particular US Season 4 page where a couple of contributors or three exchange personal opinions for one day (not even 24 hours between first suggestion and final implementation the same day) and without seeking wider concensus. No chance has been given for a wider discussion and arbitrary changes are being implemented. What are the chances that editors involved in editing tens of Voice pages have had in knowing of the discussion in this talk page here.... Let's have a general discussion that pertains to all The Voice tables in all countries before going ahead. werldwayd (talk) 01:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, all of the countries' articles do not have to be the same, and even if they did, they are not the same. I just looked at the ones for three of them: Holland, Australia, and UK, and they are not like this table. And if you read what I wrote, you'd see that I was going to make the changes on the previous seasons. You must admit that making all of a winners column one color is completely unnecessary. You haven't given any reason why it should be, other than for consistency. However that is not as bad as all the bolding -- and I definitely will make those changes on the other season articles. --Musdan77 (talk) 02:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If we have to go with getting rid of green colour for "winner", we can also with the same logic, get rid of colour (blue or pink) for "loser" as well. We are using now light blue for "loser stolen" by another coach and pink for "loser not stolen" and thus eliminated. we can get rid of that as well as redundant, argument being: Since the word "Eliminated" is mentioned in the last column, it means he/she was not "stolen" anyway, that's why he/she got eliminated. So when we say "Eliminated", using of pink for the losing name is redundant in such a case... The reader just concludes that he was not stolen, thus his/her elimination. With the same token, if the "loser" was actually "stolen" by another judge, the name of the judge / coach is clearly indicated on the last column anyway. So using light blue for the "loser" in such cases is also redundant. The name of the judge in bold near his name is adequate indicator that he was stolen and stayed in competition. So no need to use pink either.... So logically we end up with an all white table, which is not a big deal I guess. The reader is intelligent enough to conclude these things by himself. The utility of using colours though is that understanding of a table becomes immediately more obvious and easier to understand even for the inexperienced reader. That's a utility we need to consider in such matters.... easiness and more clarity. But again, I stand by my earlier request of a much wider discussion than what was held in less than 24 hours and implemented without much consultation. Of course the need is for uniformity in presenting tables. werldwayd (talk) 11:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you do want to standardise across different countries, a taskforce group would probably be needed I guess? The U.S. pages have always been pretty different from other countries too with several of its tables. ⊾maine12329⊿ talks@wiki 02:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Getting away with colour distinctions is equally valid for our auditioning tables for example where we indicate the successful candidates by yellow or orange, orange being the candidate who got one unique judge turning and was picked by default in team of sole judge. But it can be argued, using orange is redundant. When the reader actually sees three dashes and one pick on a line, it means that candidate by default went to that judge. So indicating his case with an orange is redundant. The reader is aware that there are three dashes and concludes his membership to Team X is by default. So let's get rid of orange and use yellow. But using the same anti-colour logic, using of yellow is redundant for all candidates anyway. A "T" can be added besides the tick mark of the picked judge, or lets say a bigger more distinct tick mark, and voila, no need for colours yellow or otherwise at all. A bigger tick mark with a "T" added, the candidate is in that coach's team... Another colour use that may be redundant is the grey for eliminated candidate as we are using now for candidates for whom none of the judges actually turned. I suggest using grey is redundant since there are no tick marks opposite his name. So the reader knows, no tick marks, he was eliminated. We can make the process even clearer by specifying on the column "Contestant" (bold if chosen, simple if not chosen). So names of original candidates in such a case can appear in simple or in bold. When simple, they were eliminated without any coaching, when in bold, they are pertaining to those candidates that were picked by a coach or more. So let's get rid of grey indicator and implement simple / bold system of not picked / picked.... Again I suggest using of grey makes grasping the table easier. But by all means why use grey indicators as well, if readers can understand difference between simple name (eliminated) and bold (picked) anyway as per the clear column title "Contestant, bold if picked). I am giving all these details to say why and how colours have enhanced our tables and they should stay werldwayd (talk) 11:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Table sandbox[edit]

I'm currently trying out these tables here. We're only looking to improve the article, and the battles is a hard table to handle.⊾maine12329⊿ talks@wiki 02:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I like the second one. Good job. --Musdan77 (talk) 05:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're coming up with some good ideas there. My initial thought was to try and reduce the overall amount of coding that goes into creating the tables as well as other logistic simplifications, and it seems that many of your refinements have real potential for doing exactly that. Absurdist1968 (talk) 21:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Finalist Table[edit]

Before I make any changes, I am putting it here, I think it would be better if the finalist table was arranged to read from left to right like so, Thoughts? 66.87.92.4 (talk) 20:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC) Another change to this table could be: having the two stolen contestants last and then after that everyone is paired with the winner of battle on top, so the table can give more information in the same amount of space 66.87.94.57 (talk) 22:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is good that you bring up the subject of tables and I contemplated bringing the subject so many times, but at the end, I never did. As future rounds come, our finalist table becomes so complicated even I, an avid follower of this fascinating program get very confused of all the notations. Look at the table of season 3 for example The Voice (U.S. season 3)#Finalists. Now the table looks just fine and quite undersatandable, but with more rounds, it becomes a total mess. My suggestion is since we are now at the Final 32 stage (8 for each judge), let's leave the present table exactly as is, without any more changes, and let's start a new table (call it Top 32 Finalists) where we continue from this point on, with the names of just the 32, and not reuse the Finalists (Final 56) of 14 finalists each. Nobody is saying we need one global finalists' list reflecting all results from day 1 to the finale. Please comment after having a look at last year's Finalist table werldwayd (talk) 02:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm the one who came up with the curret finalist table template. Sorry, I'm thoroughly confused with what you're proposing. Care to further elaborate here with the full season 3 table what changes you wish to implement. Cheers ⊾maine12329⊿ talks@wiki 03:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My vision for the table, reading left to right. In my head it sounded good, but I don't know if it really ended up being successful, so many colors!!! 66.87.94.104 (talk) 06:45, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

or perhaps, I've given more thoughts to your comments and something like this could work: 66.87.94.57 (talk) 21:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite an interesting results summary and I like that the number of colors used in each table is small. Would like to hear other's comments ⊾maine12329⊿ talks@wiki 02:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a collapse in the code to declutter this page. You can remove ' class="collapsible collapsed" ' at the beginning of the table to change it back to normal when you apply it to the article. Also, I don't really think Table X looks good, the one based on the original but using the sideways alignment. For Tables A and B, the battle round and knockout round pairings can be arranged together for season 3, like you did for season 4. Nice job in making all of these ^^ ⊾maine12329⊿ talks@wiki 05:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! I know I probably overstepped my bounds by changing the actual page, but I really do think it looks much cleaner in terms of information this way, and I think it is great that the Battle Rounds and Knockout/Play off round tags were added above the the charts, so it is even cleaner, so hopefully people will embrace the new style 66.87.93.5 (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the old charts? They were discussed below when they were made, this new chart is not as clear and does contain as much information.76.219.169.152 (talk) 06:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

S4 Table A[edit]

Color Key
  – Advanced Knockout Rounds (Winning Battle)
  – Advanced Knockout Rounds (Stolen)
  – Eliminated in Battle Rounds

  - Eliminated in Knockout Rounds

 Name  – Stolen by another coach in battle rounds

S4 Table B[edit]

Color Key
  – Advanced to Top 12 (public choice)
  – Advanced to Top 12 (judge's choice)
  – Eliminated in live playoffs
  - Eliminated in knockout rounds

S4 Table A[edit]

Color Key
  – Advanced Knockout Rounds (Winning Battle)
  – Advanced Knockout Rounds (Stolen)
  – Eliminated in Battle Rounds
 Name  – Stolen by another coach in battle rounds

S3 Table B[edit]

Color Key
  – Advanced to Top 12 (public choice)
  – Advanced to Top 12 (judge's choice)
  – Eliminated in live playoffs
  - Eliminated in knockout rounds

S3 Table C[edit]

Color Key
  – Winner
  – Runner-up
  – Third place
  – Eliminated

Top 12 Songs[edit]

Someone has added songs to the Top 12 section several days before the episode is scheduled to air. There don't seem to be any sources for these song choices, and the list of songs have changed a couple times since the user added them. --Mr. Corgi (talk) 06:47, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Top 8 – Danielle's song is NOT an iTune bonus[edit]

This week should finally tell us how strictly the show's producers stick to its iTunes rules. Danielle reached number 10 one hour after the voting closed (at 11am EST).[1] By right, she should not be accredited the bonus. ⊾maine12329⊿ talks@wiki 15:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And yet people keep editing it to say she did. Sigh... Mr. Corgi (talk) 09:19, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
not all are familiar with the rules I think. only the 10am est chart is counted. We can also blame the show for being so vague about the bonus. Oh well, best to revert it or leave a note on the user's talk page if persistent, i guess. ⊾maine12329⊿ talks@wiki 11:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notes Re: Guest Performers[edit]

Section notes per original performers included on recorded versions of songs that guests perform on the show are not germane to an article on "The Voice," because, put plainly, those performers did not appear on "The Voice." The only relevant material concerning the performances are the guests who actually performed. Absurdist1968 (talk) 07:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay. Didn't realise that. I initially just added it in because it was alongside what was reported in the news articles. I'll see to it being removed. ⊾maine12329⊿ talks@wiki 14:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle's song Time After Time is not an iTunes bonus[edit]

It passed the deadline! Also, there was a glitch in which Amber's song disappeared on the ITunes chart resulting in Michelle's song to move up a spot after the voting ended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.29.117 (talk) 15:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Voice WikiProject being proposed[edit]

Please join in the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/The Voice if you're interested. =) ⊾maine12329⊿ talks✿wiki 05:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Voice (U.S. season 4). 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 13:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Voice_(American_TV_series)_season_4&oldid=1216360456"