Talk:America's Next Top Model season 17

Call-out Order

Is this the official call-out order? Really?!!

Looks like spoilers that should be deleted immediately. Same thing happened last season. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.184.67 (talk) 02:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree, I'm not sure if it's fake or not, but either way, spoilers shouldn't be on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qpally (talk • contribs) 04:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 2011

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.

Page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

America's Next Top Model, Cycle 17 (All-Stars) → America's Next Top Model, Cycle 17 – The article title should be without "All-Star" name per WP:COMMONNAME, and its unnecessary to have the "All-Stars" title. ApprenticeFan ^work 03:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support: Was the original title banned or something at one point? I was surprised to see it redirect here. Anyway, there's no need to have "All-Stars" as part of the title, per naming conventions. Is it even part of the official title? SKS (talk) 03:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: You are absolutely right, some reality shows (eta Survivor, The Amazing Race, Big Brother) don't have the "All-Stars" title and it's not common to place it here. The correct title should be (reality show name, season x or reality show name x) and no All-Stars title. I have agreed. ApprenticeFan ^work 09:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support: There is no need to have the "All-Stars" as part of the title. — My December ^(talk) 07:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support Obvious, maintains naming consistency. Rejectwater (talk) 12:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

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.

Lisa D'Amato is 6th place

Lisa D' Amato is 6th place not 5th place it was Kim Stolz who is 5th place not Lisa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.198.79.223 (talk) 04:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. — My December ^(talk) 04:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Kayla's Elimination Info

She shared a 3rd place finish with Jane, so technically she is not fourth place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rushes7 (talk • contribs) 07:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Miss HollyJ is adding ANTM/Top Model history info at contestats section

Well, this user Miss HollyJ (talk · contribs) has adding unexplained info about show history at the contestants section, I guess this user may be block if reverting/adding may continue putting the info without permission. The user should be warned if continue. ApprenticeFan ^work 09:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

PLEASE DO NOT EDIT THE PAGE AS IF YOU ALREADY KNOW WHAT WILL HAPPEN — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trafalk09 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

File:ANTM.All Stars.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:ANTM.All Stars.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 110.93.92.117, 17 September 2011

edit hahh 110.93.92.117 (talk) 00:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

No request made--Jac16888 ^Talk 01:11, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Please remember that any edits to the results/call out section needs to have a reliable source to back it up or it will be reverted on site. This is one case where a primary source is acceptable. Mtking ^(edits) 21:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I repeat, large sections of this article need to be sourced or risk being removed Mtking ^(edits) 10:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks like I am talking to myself here, given the recent set of reverting over who won tasks, sources for this stuff need to be quoted, just saying in the edit sum "I watched it" does not meet the requirements of WP:V. I intend to remove the un-sourced sections after 9 pm PDT today Mtking ^(edits) 20:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Episode 2 Model/Brand Chart

Shouldn't there be a chart with the brand that they were trying to portray. Here is the brand for each contestant, I made this list while watching the episode.

Model	Brand
Alexandria	Tough
Allison	Unique
Angelea	Persistence
Bianca	Candid
Bre	Girlfriend
Camille	Proud
Dominique	Survivor
Isis	Inspiration
Kayla	Free
Laura	Loveable
Lisa	Daring
Shannon	Trustworthy
Sheena	Unexpected

Marfi236 (talk) 07:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

No, as it is excessive fancruft and oh, unsourced. Mtking ^(edits) 10:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

almost forgot as this is your original work, it is also not allowed. Mtking ^(edits) 10:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

How is it unsourced? Anyone who watched the show will have seen the 'brands' mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.249.222 (talk) 21:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Shannon current surname

Please do not change "Shannon Stewart" in the article. She now eventually follows her husband's surname. Thanks. ApprenticeFan ^work 12:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you meant to say "do not change 'Shannon Ratliff' to 'Shannon Stewart'"? ZephyrWind (talk) 16:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I fix the typo and it made bad. Got it. ApprenticeFan ^work 16:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I think is wrong to use the "husband-surname", every woman has her own name, why north-american-women change her surname? It's so sad. ~~Wednom~~

That much in itself is fine. However, in the note, suggesting that she was using "her maiden name" during cycle 1 suggest that she was married at the time and choosing not to use her maiden name as though she had an option. She didn't get married until 2007, so her "maiden name" was her actual name, as she didn't have a married name to distinguish from. Absurdist1968 (talk) 22:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It's really not something that overly concerns me, but I do have a query. Considering she's labelled on the show as Shannon Stewart, how come we're referring to her by her married name of Shannon Ratcliff on this particular article?

I know it's not quite the same thing, but Cycle 6 contestant Danielle Evans goes by the name "Dani Evans" after the show, but that season's article still refers to her as Danielle, under the logic that in the show, she was known as Danielle. What's the difference here? In Cycle 17, Shannon is always labelled as Shannon Stewart, never Ratcliff, but we use her married name here? (Kyleofark (talk) 22:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC))

Missing plot for later episodes

Can we write a plot for recent episodes despite not doing the copyright fragment? I am a contributor for Top Model cycles and love to write the plot in every episode. ApprenticeFan ^work 22:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. In fact, once you have a good plot description, we may stop having issues with people filling it in using plot descriptions other people have published, so that would be great. :) All you need to do is just describe the plot based on your own observations of it, and you should be fine. There's some suggestions at Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

OK and thanks for the info. I will write a plot for every episode when I watch. ApprenticeFan ^work 08:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 6 October 2011

I think The call out order boxes should be synchronized as each came up -

example: The contestant was eliminated The contestant was immune from elimination The contestant won the reward challenge The contestant won the competition

and so on instead of just placing them in any random order

Trafalk (talk) 20:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Done — Bility (talk) 22:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 7 October 2011

RE:

2.The contestant won the reward challenge 1.The contestant was immune from elimination and won the reward challenge

Following the format these still need to be switched out, sorry for the bother people :C

98.206.38.163 (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Done — Bility (talk) 20:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Angelea Preston

Rank

If you are disqualified from something, you do not normally get given a place, we need to have a source for the official placings as this could be original research. Mtking ^(edits) 03:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Would it help if we changed it to "finish" rather than "rank"? Because while may not officially rank third because of her disqualification, she did finish third-from last in elimination order. Additionally, I see no reason why it cannot be reflected in the call-out table if a note is appended at the bottom. ZephyrWind (talk) 05:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't think so, think of the 100 meters at the Olympics, if a runner is disqualified, when the results are displayed on the screen they are listed at the end, without a place number and without a time, so unless the show produces a press release to clarify the situation she just needs to be removed from that list.

As for the call out list, my understanding is that she was not "Called Out" and that she took no part in the deliberations as transmitted, so she should not be listed in that episodes at all, as to do so implies she was third, which absent a reiliable source to say she was third is just guess work. Mtking ^(edits) 06:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

What the fuck is wrong with you!? Angelea's disqualification is in no way comparable to a sports competition as the Olympics, as there is no way she possibly could have had an unfair advantage in the circumstances of the modelling competition. Therefore, she should be credited for her well-deserved achivement 3rd place, and besides, the use of the term "disqualification" was ambiguous, and for all we know, could have been the result of secret deals with the company to boost ratings. So stop with the presumptious attitude and shut the fuck up! 99.237.231.23 (talk) 01:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Provide a reliable independent source to her being third then feel free to add it, but absent that all we can say here is she was "Disqualified". Mtking ^(edits) 01:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

There have been many past cases where the call-out table did not reflect actual call-outs at panel. For example, contestants eliminated outside of the judging panel or quit. It's unfortunate that many past editors of ANTM articles are no longer around to give their comments. ZephyrWind (talk) 07:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is no reason to get this one wrong, we can always fix the other, the fact remains she played no part in the call out, and should be removed from the list. Mtking ^(edits) 08:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't put "3rd" down for her rank at all. Just put "Disqualified" or "DQ" or something. But this does spark another debate whether or not we have to adjust the previous eliminated girls' placements by +1 (Laura from 4th to 3rd, etc.), but I think it would be fine to leave them as they are with no official "3rd placer". As for the callout order, it doesn't matter to me whether we leave Angelea's name in there with the dark red cell or not. Like someone else pointed out, girls have quit before and they were put at the bottom of that episode in a special colored cell indicating it, so if we don't include Angelea in the call out order with her disqualifiedness, we have to remove all those girls who quit (the exception being Ebony in C9 who was actually called and simply denied her place in the comp). MarkMc1990 (talk) 21:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your approach for the list, but (am I am still waiting till I can review a on-line version of the program) as she took NO PART in the deliberations (as transmitted) or the call out she should not be listed in that at all, leave her name out and put the note at the bottom that she was disqualified and did not take part in the call out. As for the past cases in other series, the same approach should be taken, where a contestant takes no part (i.e. has left the show before the call out starts) they should not be listed. Mtking ^(edits) 21:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you, it would look cleaner that way. And then the bullets at the bottom describe why those girls are missing from the order. Honestly some of those call out tables are an eye sore with ten different colors, bolding, italics, etc. (Cycle 10 is particularly atrocious). I never understood why things like reward challenge wins and covergirl of the week had to be indicated in the callout order table, but that is another issue. MarkMc1990 (talk) 22:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... The table looks incomplete without Angelea there. I know she wasn't there and thus wasn't called out, but I thought the strikethrough made that clear?136.8.33.71 (talk) 10:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It does not; and anyway looking incomplete is preferable to just wrong. Mtking ^(edits) 20:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

further to above she verifiably took no part in either the deliberation or call out. Please remember this is a Encyclopedia and NOT a fan site. Mtking ^(edits) 20:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I am perfectly fine with omitting her name from the call-out if she was never technically called-out. However, I'm more particular about congruency, continuity and linearity between the franchise articles. Should we remove all such cases like quitters? It's a case of stirring the pot versus letting sleeping dogs lie. ZephyrWind (talk) 08:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Cassandra from C5 also had no part in the deliberation, she is listed on the table. That's stupid to remove Angelea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.87.115.46 (talk) 22:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Disqualified Claim

WP:BLP applies here, this needs to be sourced to a reliable Source (that is NOT a blog or gossip site) or removed. Mtking ^(edits) 06:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

http://www.eonline.com/news/_i_America_s_Next_Top_Model__i__Finale_Scandal__Why_Was_Angelea_Preston_Disqualified_/279287 --- is this proof enough, or is it perhaps someone pretending to be tyra and the judges, which is strictly against Wikipedia rules? EVERYONE WATCHED THE SHOW. Why are these things so hard for you to accept? Trafalk09 (talk) 22:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I was talking about the reasons behind the disqualification (not the disqualification it's self), it was speculation and needed to be sourced or removed. It has been removed now. Mtking ^(edits) 23:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Angelea Preston in the call out

This is very simple (see above) as she took no part in either the judging panel or call out she CAN NOT be listed in the table, this is an Encyclopaedia and NOT a fan site. Either source it or remove it. Mtking ^(edits) 10:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Magdalena, Cassandra, Kimberly, Hannah, Rachel, Terra and Ondrei did not participate in the call-out too, but their names are listed in the tables! If Wikipedia is Encyclopedia, therefore information must be complete, and her name should be appear in the table! And write without mistakes! KIRILL95 (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The only test that counts is "is the information verifiable" and as for the other articles have a read of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, so as you know that they are wrong why not fix them ? Mtking ^(edits) 21:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm tired of you!

1. If Angelea was not in the episode, then would not need her name in the table!!
2. The judges said that Angelea was disqualified!! THIS IS SHOW ON TV!! YOU PROBABLY HAVE SEEN THIS!!

WHAT DO YOU WANT?? KIRILL95 (talk) 09:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

What do I want ? - I want the information in the article to be accurate and verifiable, to that end to list some one in the "call-out" table when she took no part in either the judging panel or call-out is simply not accurate. This is where you drop the stick. Mtking ^(edits) 09:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

How about instead of a "Call-Out Order", why not rename the table to "Contestant Progression" instead. That way all the contestants can be present on the table and be verified instead of being literal with a "Call-Out Order". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachggg3 (talk • contribs) 08:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

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: no consensus for return move. Miniapolis 17:08, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

---

• America's Next Top Model: All-Stars → America's Next Top Model, Cycle 17
• America's Next Top Model: British Invasion → America's Next Top Model, Cycle 18
• America's Next Top Model: College Edition → America's Next Top Model, Cycle 19
• America's Next Top Model: Guys & Girls → America's Next Top Model, Cycle 20

– User:Status moved all the articles without consensus and common names should be (Cycle XX), as included. Revert to original titles, all of these titles should not included as article name. Many of U.S. reality TV series' seasons don't use the "All-Stars" title.ApprenticeFan ^work 05:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. ApprenticeFan ^work 03:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment – I realize you want to keep the pattern established by the first 16 seasons, but I'm pretty sure they are more commonly known by the catchnames than the season numbers by now. I categorized the redirects, which perhaps is a fair compromise, look at how they appear at Category:America's Next Top Model, does that work? That way they can be looked up easily either by name or number. But I don't have a clue what the difference between a "college" and "co-ed" edition is ;) Wbm1058 (talk) 17:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC) Oh I see, the "co-ed" edition has guys in it ;) Wbm1058 (talk) 13:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'm all for consistency whenever it makes sense, but if this really is the title, and it seems to be, then it should stay where it is. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I disagree on your opinion Rreagan007. For example, some reality shows like The Amazing Race 8 uses a catchname of The Amazing Race: Family Edition, Big Brother 7 as Big Brother: All Stars. These catchnames are rarely useless in a procedure of WP:AT and reverting to the old titles. ApprenticeFan ^work 06:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

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.

• Question I have been recently trying to edit America's Next Top Model: Guys & Girls in section "Contestants". Bianca A. and Chris S. are OUT. They haven't participated in the photoshoots and are not included on The CW Homepage. They supposed to quit or are already eliminated. Why does someone always remove my edit? Matze-bepy123 (talk) 18:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion

Why do we have this article here? The article does not give any resons for notability. We don't know if this serial or its episodes have been nominated for any awards, whether the show has had any cultural impact, whether this show has been reviewed by anybody? All we know what the show is about and the plot of that show. Even the sources are of poor quality and apart from Baltimore Sun don't see any reliable source. Either the article should be condensed or removed completely. --Wikishagnik (talk) 04:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

No. This proposed deletion thing violates policy in between ignore all rules and the article doesn't like it in good article way. The editor is really a bad faith on putting the tag. ApprenticeFan ^work 15:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Ignoring the personal attack, your answer still does not say anything about the notability of the subject (WP:NOT). Further, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (WP:IINFO). Wikipedia is also not a nwspaper (WP:NOTNEWSPAPER) so simply writing articles about everything that is happening on TV is not required. Please do answer why is the subject of this article Notable? -Wikishagnik (talk) 06:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm answering your question. America's Next Top Model is a notable show for young viewers ages 14-34 years of age. In aspects for the recent seasons, the viewers slumped down to one million viewers. ApprenticeFan ^work 06:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, all. I just thought I would give this article a look over. Wikishagnik, I agree that Apprenticefan is not answering your question, but I think that comes from a common Wikipedia problem of mistaking the generic concept of "fame" with the very specific Wikipedia concept of notability. I don't see any bad faith at all. Apprenticefan, whereas I think this was PROD'd in error, I wouldn't attribute any bad faith to Wikishagnik. Editors disagree all the time, and a PROD is a fairly minor thing in that all you need to do to make it go away is delete it. There are references to the Baltamore Sun, numerous ones in fact along with references to the New York Daily News and the LA Times. That should be plenty to show notability. I find shows like this to be a drain on the nation's intelligence, but the fact remains that people like it and the papers are writing about it. So how's about you two just "kiss and make up", and let this all go? Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I am sure that Wikishagnik has totally disrupted about the proposed deletion thing. That makes notability is more applied. ApprenticeFan ^work 08:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. Singularity42 (talk) 13:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• Wikishagnik, although I don't really understand how you can think this show is not notable, I feel the need to point out that a series shown on a major TV channel is almost always automatically notable, and certainly one with the viewing figures that America's Next Top Model pulls in. Lukeno94 (talk) 15:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry but I don't understand any of the arguments presented above. WP:NOT is a fairly straightforward policy amd has very simple guidelines for the notability of subjects. It further gives details about what cannot be used as reliable sources. For example this [1] NY Times article is not a newspaper articles but is a blog of a journalist and and hence may not stand up the level of srutiny of regular NY Times articles. The same applies to these [2][3][4] Baltimore Sun references as they are not newspaper articles and are instead a blog piece of a journalist and are to be used with care as per WP:NEWSBLOG. If this blogger is not a journalist then we cannot use this reference at all . These [5][6] are all blog pieces are are clearly not allowed as per WP:USERG. I am not naming the other sources as they are clearly not very reliable and hence are not even mentioned by those opposing my PROD. So, if the subject does not have sources that meet WP:RELIABLE or WP:VERIFY and when I have not been able to see any such sources myself, how can the subject be Notable? -Wikishagnik (talk) 01:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

regarding your comment a series shown on a major TV channel is almost always automatically notable please note (WP:NRVE) which clearly states No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists. -Wikishagnik (talk) 01:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• Except my comment is entirely valid. It's a TV series that ran on a major network with national coverage, which, actually, is enough on its own for an article - it doesn't NEED any more coverage than that. I am well aware of WP:NRVE - this is not relevant to this article, or my comment. Adhering to WP:AGF, I'd like to query what your exact objection to this article is? A further sign of its notability (although not within any policy) is that it has had 35000 hits in the last month - which is well beyond what a non-notable article would get. That's many times more than The Simpsons (season 22), for example (that has 8600 views) - which is a series article just like this one, of a major TV show that also has international coverage. Regardless of your concerns, a PROD was far from the right tool - that is for uncontroversial deletions, and this wasn't going to be. Lukeno94 (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Taking note of the fact that you have not addressed any concern I raised about the notability of the subject and the lack of reliable sources I suggest that you go through Manual Of Style for Television to understand the broad guidelines about creating articles for television serials. Don't just breeze through the requirements for Notability and verifiability and instead go through all of them. There is no exception to notability for any Wikipedia article and there are no seperate standards for Television and no, page hits or broadcast on major channel does not count as notability. Wikipedia is not a fansite (WP:NOT#FANSITE) and no, it does not matter how many likes you get or how many people come to your page. You canot use Wikipedia to promote anything (WP:NOTPROMOTION) and if you are intrested in attracting people on the net to the subject there are other and better forums for that on the net. my problem with the subject is that its not notable (WP:NOT), and if it isnt then the article needs to be deleted. If you have any reliable and verifiable sources then please add them to the aticle, or if there is a policy exeption available then quote it. Please don't discuss your personal opinions and ideology here. -Wikishagnik (talk) 01:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• You're beginning to test my patience and the limits of my WP:AGF. This is not a promotional article. Not is it fancruft. The manual of style says absolutely NOTHING about the notability of a show/series, only about a character. Policy exception? WP:IAR. And I have, every time, addressed your concerns about notability: a TV show on a major, national TV channel IS automatically notable - it, in itself, is a reliable source of coverage. Remember that radio coverage, magazine coverage and TV coverage is perfectly valid for an article: "Sources are not required to be available online, and they are not required to be in English." I personally have absolutely no interest in this subject whatsoever, but that's a WP:IDONTLIKEIT opinion and makes no difference to the presence of this article. Your Wikilawyering isn't really hiding the fact that you're fighting this on similar grounds. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know why you are getting excited about this and frankly if you have issues with my coduct you can raise WP:ANI about me. Getting back to the article and its content, please understand WP:AGF is applicable to edits and editors, it does not apply to Notability at all. WP:IAR again applies to edits and not notability. You are confusing magazine coverage with blog articles. Again, as I can see this discussion is going nowhere I am raising a RSN Discussion on the reliability of the sources I questioned. I guess, we can all wait till the discussion is resolved. -Wikishagnik (talk) 02:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

GOCE reviewed

I have tried to edit this article but there are major issues with this article and i have highlighted them in the comments above. I am leaving this article as it is for the next few months and see how it develops. Regards -Wikishagnik (talk) 23:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Good luck for all and we will get any improving reliable sources. ApprenticeFan ^work 01:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Call Out Order is Wrong?

I was just reading the wiki page when I noticed the "Call Out Order" graph is completely wrong. It lists all the winners of previous cycles against each other, none of which actually competed in Cycle 17 of ANTM. It's suggesting that the previous winners competed again against each other, which you can tell from the list of actual contestants is just not true. I'm thinking somebody added this as a joke? Just a heads up. 68.186.0.217 (talk) 09:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on America's Next Top Model (cycle 17). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cwtv.com/shows/americas-next-top-model/cast/shannon

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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} 03:03, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:America's Next Top Model (cycle 1) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:00, 31 July 2018 (UTC)