Talk:American Idol season 9

Top 12 articles

I'm going to start the article on Siobhan soon, so editors can feel free creating the articles for the other 11 contestants as they are now in the realm of notability. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Could we separate the Top 12 from the semi-finalists? Like put the semi-finalists and list their performances like in Seasons 5-7? Putting the Top 12 with the rest is confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JPSinger45 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure, as long as it conforms with the other pages, which I am basing my actions off of. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Birthdates?

Where are the sources for the birthdates? 24.14.30.172 (talk) 21:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion

It is that time of the year again for the Articles for Deletion to start popping up for the American Idol finalists. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katie Stevens and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siobhan Magnus. Aspects (talk) 23:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I saw those AfDs and then found this. Is there any precedent for delaying such AfDs until after AI ends, at least among the top 12 assuming a verifiable article is established? Its generally my opinion that AfD nominations of major TV show contestants fare better and suffer less drama and distractions if you wait until the show is over. I suppose some feel waiting is some horrible offence though.--Milowent (talk) 19:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

There isn't, but I also think that this is the work of a serial sockpuppeteer. His mode of operation is to pop up with an account, show profound knowledge of policy while nominating a ton of articles for deletion. If he is found to be a sockpuppeteer, I will close the AFD as it will be invalid because of the fact that the user was in the wrong to begin with. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The articles have been kept, nothing more is needed. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Alex Lambert "controversy" section

This section is not a controversy and right now a third of it consists of a list of performances already mentioned in the article. Past versions included a link to a website and those versions seemed little more than linkspam to get people to sign a petition on the site. Unless there are reliable sources, this section should not be included. Aspects (talk) 23:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Alright, Aspects, Melinda Doolittle and Chris Daughtry's eliminations are counted as controversies on the page of the season they were on, and they didn't spark enough controversy for people to sign petitions. Second, there are plenty of better places to make "linkspam" then on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.107.17.32 (talk) 23:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

If Siobhan's elimination is mentioned, Alex Lambert's elimination sure as hell should be mentioned. --76.107.17.32 (talk) 00:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

DeWyze, not Dewyze

All of Lee's pre-Idol stuff (twitter, iTunes, Facebook) lists his name as DeWyze. For some reason, AI seems to keep the W in lowercase. Anyway we can make it DeWyze in the article without it being removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.208.111 (talk) 03:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree. See "Get to Know Lee DeWyze" on the AI site:

http://www.americanidol.com/videos/season_9/lee_dewyze/get_to_know_lee_dewyze/ Raggedyland (talk) 02:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

"Bottom 2"

What makes any evidence that somebody is in the "bottom 2"? Just because they're not the first one of the bottom three to be saved, doesn't mean they were in the bottom 2. There is no evidence for this. Woogee (talk) 04:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep. It's sort of what I said above. We have to go by exactly what is said on the show. We can't take anything for granted. If Ryan says that this is the bottom 2, great. Otherwise, we can't assume anything. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 06:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

My request for proof that she was bottom 2 was removed without discussion. Woogee (talk) 06:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

We could do what we did in Season 7 and put " Safe First " and " Safe Second ", because this is just confusing.

Um what's confusing about it? Both contestants were in the bottom 3. Why do we need anything further? In the end, it means absolutely nothing. Its not as if they have a scoring system. :) --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 06:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the "saved first/saved last" distinctions are unnecessary and don't reveal anything about the results themselves. I just think it would be most appropriate if we listed both Paige and Tim as "Btm 3" because thats all we really know about their position this week. And then we can put "Btm 2" for the weeks when Ryan actually manages to acknowledge that the last two are the bottom two. Additionally, I've always hated the yellow gradient and I think we should shade all Btm 3 and Elim cells in the finals with the palegoldenrod color. That's how we used to do it prior to season 7 before people decided you needed a different color for every single little thing. In my opinion, the bold, bright yellow just jumps out way too much and doesn't mesh with the rest of the more toned-down colors used in the chart. MarkMc1990 (talk) 08:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Even though Ryan usually never acknowledges the two left standing as the 'bottom 2' it is heavily implied and so as a reader of this article, I would like to see a distinction between Tim and Paige's 'btm 3'.. The saved first/last is fine for me. 92.1.174.176 (talk) 19:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

"Heavily implied" has no basis in reliable sourcing. Woogee (talk) 21:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I can live with the "safe first" and "safe second", but Bottom 2 and Bottom 3 are not supported by any sources, and therefore not acceptable. Woogee (talk) 21:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Can we relax for a minute? Until there is some sort of implication from a reliable source, we will use the safe first/second method. –Turian (talk) 01:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Um why? I guess I just don't quite get why we have to use even that. In the end, does it matter one iota if someone was saved first or second? --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 04:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

And besides. Yes this was used for the season 7 article but the judges save didn't exist then. So now we have saved used twice in completely different contexts. I think thats more confusing than using Bottom 2 and 3. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 04:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Does it really matter if we use bottom 2 or 3? I don't think Ryan has EVER used the words "bottom 2", but for the past 8 seasons we've been using BTM2 and BTM3. Now all of a sudden, in Season 9, we are going to demand " evidence ". Quite frankly, I don't see any reason why not to just make things easy and say Paige was in the bottom 2. AT40Reviewer (talk) 12:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, why does Ryan need to say "bottom 2" everytime? It's Season 9. I think people get the concept. And what reliable sources do you want? Next should we say that unless Ryan tells us the amount of votes each contestant had, we shouldn't even say the Lacey had the lowest number of votes because there's no proof? AT40Reviewer (talk) 12:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Look. WP:V is policy. I don't give a damn what happened in previous seasons. Provide reliable sources for your edits, or you'll be reverted. Period. Woogee (talk) 21:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't give a damn that what you want. Only about 3 people want your format, and everyone else wants the original format, as used in the past 8 SEASON. Wikipedia doesn't give a damn if everything's correct or not. The original format was a lot easier, until you guys fucked it up.76.107.17.32 (talk)

I wasn't trying to be rude. I think the safe first/second method is a great way to make both sides of the issue happy. I was just simply replying to what Woohookitty said about "does it really matter!" Does it really matter that they were in the bottom 3 period? People have been asking to reliable sources for Paige being in the bottom 2, but never ask for reliable sources about what the bottom 3 means to begin with. I don't think Ryan has ever said the bottom 3 meant the least number of votes on the show, so Paige could have just as well been brought up by random. That's why I thought we should just use the BTM2/3 thing because there is just as much evidence for Paige being the the bottom 3 as there is of her being in the bottom 2. That's all. AT40Reviewer (talk) 7:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Well the fact that Paige was in the bottom THREE was made explicitly clear. The evidence is right in the episode when Ryan said "Paige, you are in the bottom 3 tonight". There was no part of the episode where Ryan ever said she was in the bottom TWO. It's not wiki's job to say "We need proof she was actually in the bottom 3, the show might be lying". That's just ridiculous, and it certainly doesn't justify listing Btm 2 for someone when we have no evidence whatsoever to believe that. The bottom 3 are the bottom 3 vote-getters, what else would it mean? If they ever lie about who is in the bottom 3, or about what being in the bottom 3 actually means, then the show would be blatantly frauding the audience and the article isn't to assume such things. MarkMc1990 (talk) 20:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Btm 2 got put in again and I reverted again. Woogee (talk) 02:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Top 11 Performance Night

Someone needs to switch Didi Benami and Casey James, because Casey performed first. Not Didi. I would do it, but it won't let me edit.RonZombie91 (talk) 02:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}} Please let this page be edited by all wikipedia users.

Qdiazissipom (talk) 14:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit requests should not be used to make requests for article unprotections. To request that this article be unprotected, please make a request at Wikipedia:requests for page protection. You can check the protection log explaining the reasons for its protection and its expiration date here:[3]. --JokerXtreme (talk) 14:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Sing for Save

Can we put on the performance lists the song that the contestant chooses to fight for the save or in Paige's case, her swan song. Qdiazissipom (talk) 14:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Top 12 – The Rolling Stones

Order	Contestant	Song	Result
1	Michael Lynche	"Satisfaction"	Safe
2	Didi Benami	"Play with Fire"	Safe
3	Casey James	"It's All Over Now"	Safe
4	Lacey Brown	"Ruby Tuesday"	Bottom 3
5	Andrew Garcia	"Gimme Shelter"	Safe
6	Katie Stevens	"Wild Horses"	Bottom 3
7	Tim Urban	"Under My Thumb"	Safe
8	Siobhan Magnus	"Paint It, Black"	Safe
9	Lee DeWyze	"Beast of Burden"	Safe
10	Paige Miles	"Honky Tonk Women"	Bottom 3
11	Aaron Kelly	"Angie"	Safe
12	Crystal Bowersox	"You Can't Always Get What You Want"	Safe
Lowest Voted Contestant's Performance For Judges' Save
NA	Lacey Brown	"The Story" (Brandi Carlile)	Eliminated

Something like this? I understand that it needs to be tweaked but I think it's useful and is a necessary addition. Qdiazissipom (talk) 15:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is anything important, and I find it kind of trivial. Most of the time, they will sing the same song, and like last week, the judges told Paige that it wouldn't matter, which I expect them to do from now on. –Turian (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I think this would be a nice reference for future reference, since it seems like the contestants are able to chose their sing-out song regardless now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.208.111 (talk) 04:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Top 12 – The Rolling Stones

• Date: March 16/17

Order	Contestant	Rolling Stones Song	Result
1	Michael Lynche	"Miss You"	Safe
2	Didi Benami	"Play with Fire"	Safe
3	Casey James	"It's All Over Now"	Safe
4	Lacey Brown	"Ruby Tuesday"	Bottom Three
5	Andrew Garcia	"Gimme Shelter"	Safe
6	Katie Stevens	"Wild Horses"	Bottom Three
7	Tim Urban	"Under My Thumb"	Bottom Three
8	Siobhan Magnus	"Paint It, Black"	Safe
9	Lee DeWyze	"Beast of Burden"	Safe
10	Paige Miles	"Honky Tonk Women"	Bottom Three
11	Aaron Kelly	"Angie"	Safe
12	Crystal Bowersox	"You Can't Always Get What You Want"	Safe
Results
1	Lacey Brown	"The Story" (Brandy Carlile)	Eliminated

• The decision was unanimous and Lacey Brown didin't get the safe, so she was eliminated.

References

Top 11 – Billboard Number One Hits

• Mentor: Miley Cyrus.
• Date: March 23/24

Order	Contestant	Song (original artist)	Result
1	Lee DeWyze	"The Letter" (The Box Tops)	Safe
2	Paige Miles	"Against All Odds" (Phil Collins)	Bottom Three
3	Tim Urban	"Crazy Little Thing Called Love" (Queen)	Safe
4	Aaron Kelly	"I Don't Want to Miss a Thing" (Aerosmith)	Safe
5	Crystal Bowersox	"Me and Bobby McGee" (Janis Joplin)	Bottom 3
6	Michael Lynche	"When a Man Loves a Woman" (Percy Sledge)	Safe
7	Andrew Garcia	"I Heard It Through the Grapevine" (Marvin Gaye)	Safe
8	Katie Stevens	"Big Girls Don't Cry" (Fergie)	Bottom Three
9	Casey James	"The Power of Love (Huey Lewis and the News)	Safe
10	Didi Benami	"You're No Good" (Linda Ronstadt)	Safe
11	Siobhan Magnus	"Superstition" (Stevie Wonder)	Safe
Results
1	Paige Miles	"Oops, I Did It Again" (Britney Spears)	Eliminated

• Simon Cowell told Paige they wouldn't use the save, no matter how she sings, so Paige was eliminated.

References

Top 10 – R&B/Soul

• Mentor: Usher
• Date: March 30/31

Order	Contestant	Song (original artist)	Result
1	Siobhan Magnus	"Through the Fire" (Chaka Khan)	Safe
2	Casey James	"Hold On, I'm Comin'" (Sam and Dave)	Safe
3	Michael Lynche	"Ready for Love" (India.Arie)	Safe
4	Didi Benami	"What Becomes of the Brokenhearted" (Jimmy Ruffin)	Bottom Three
5	Tim Urban	"Sweet Love" (Anita Baker)	Bottom Three
6	Andrew Garcia	"Forever" (Chris Brown)	Safe
7	Katie Stevens	"Chain of Fools" (Aretha Franklin)	Bottom Three
8	Lee Dewyze	"Treat Her Like A Lady" (Cornelius Brothers & Sister Rose)	Safe
9	Crystal Bowersox	"Midnight Train to Georgia (Gladys Knight & the Pips)	Safe
10	Aaron Kelly	"Ain't No Sunshine" (Bill Withers)	Safe
Results
1	Didi Benami	"Rhiannon" (Fleetwood Mac)	Eliminated

• The judges chose not to use their save on Didi.

References

Top 9 (first week) – Lennon/McCartney Songbook

• Date: April 6/7

Order	Contestant	Song (original artist)	Result
1	Aaron Kelly	"The Long and Winding Road" (The Beatles)	Bottom Three
2	Katie Stevens	"Let It Be" (The Beatles)	Safe
3	Andrew Garcia	"Can't Buy Me Love" (The Beatles)	Bottom Three
4	Michael Lynche	"Eleanor Rigby" (The Beatles)	Bottom Three
5	Crystal Bowersox	"Come Together" (The Beatles)	Safe
6	Tim Urban	"All My Loving" (The Beatles)	Safe
7	Casey James	"Jealous Guy" (John Lennon)	Safe
8	Siobhan Magnus	"Across the Universe" (The Beatles)	Safe
9	Lee DeWyze	"Hey Jude" (The Beatles)	Safe
Results
1	Michael Lynche	"This Woman's Work" (Kate Bush)	Saved

• Michael received the lowest number of votes but the judges decided to use their save on him and was not eliminated.

I was thinking something like this its really more cool, and more interesting.

Although the charts have an incredibly bland color pallet, the less chaos, the better.

But I like the idea of noting the sing-off, since it's optional. And in fact, NOBODY sang the song they were eliminated with this season when singing-off for the Judges' Save. Thus, I find it as useful as indicating who was saved first/second, which is just as inconsequential since B2s aren't specified. So let's figure out a way to include this: as part of the chart, or as a footnote?--Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 01:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Changing the Elimination Chart Proposal

Currently, throughout the entire American Idol series of articles, there is no consensus on what we should use for the elimination chart. I have put the two elimination charts currently used in my sandbox. The first one represents Season 3, and the second one represents Season 7. The third represents the current season under the first one's style.

I think we should use the first style for many reasons. The first reason is that the one for Season 3 is much easier on the eye than the one we are currently using. The cyan and pink background colors are nothing more than a distraction. I mean, we really don't need to hold people's hands to tell them that they are female or male. Also, the yellow used for Elim is extremely harsh, especially for an encyclopedia. The 'palegoldenrod' used for the header will match the gray we use for the semi-finals, providing consistency. If you take a look at both, you will see what I mean. The yellows and cyans and pinks are so clashing it almost looks childish. We should keep it more professional by using simpler and complementing colors. –Turian (talk) 04:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm so glad someone finally agrees with me about that dumb yellow! I've missed the palegoldenrod. I completely agree that the elim boxes should match the header just like they do in the semifinals. Personally, and I know I'm in the minority on this one, I think the "Btm 3" boxes should be palegoldenrod as well. It used to be that way until season 7 when people decided everything needed a different color. Or at least, the gradient needs to match the palegoldenrod. MarkMc1990 (talk) 02:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

safe

Bottom 3

Bottom 3

Eliminated

MarkMc1990 (talk) 02:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, some type of gradient definitely needs to be used, and the bright colors (besides the green) need to go. –Turian (talk) 12:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The colors still look very similar. It's hard to distinguish which is which. I suggest changing it a little bit.

Raiderfanforever99 (talk) 11:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a gradient; they are meant to look similar. And plus, if you get confused, just read it what is in the box. –Turian (talk) 18:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Raiderfanforever99, on my computer at home I can tell the difference between the shades of palegoldenrod, but on my work computer, where I am making this comment, I cannot tell the different between the "white" nothing shade and the two shades used for the "Bottom 3" cells. The only one that looks different is the Eliminated cell. Therefore the yellow's work better because you can more easily tell them apart. Also I do not feel the colors come across as childish or non-professional.

I think the pink/cyan color are necessary since the contestants were split up according to their sex and you can see two eliminated males/females each week. And as a side note, I have been keeping the first three season from using the pink/cyan colors because they are unnecessary for those seasons, because they were not split up male/female. Aspects (talk) 01:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Those are absolutely horrible reasons to not change it. If you are unable to tell the difference between a female and male contestant by reading the name or the article, then you would not even be reading the article. We can choose a different color for the bottom, so that is no reason to shoot it down. And 'I have been keeping...'? These are not your articles. If it is not changed here, then I will have it changed by higher powers through guideline restrictions. And it looks extremely childish. If you don't want to remove the colors, then perhaps we should add a gender symbol. But as it stands, it looks pathetically awful. –Turian (talk) 01:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Calling my opinions "horrible" is not a great way to start a discussion. You can tell by names like Lee, Casey, Aaron, Alex and Joe that they are males or females? I have known people of both sexes who spell their names that way. There are also the unusual names of Siobhan, Didi and Todrick that I would not be able to tell the gender. For the prior seasons, I was showing how they were attempted to use the pink/cyan colors and you would not have been able to use those as examples had I not justifiably changed them as unnecessary. Not being able to see the differences between the shades of palegoldenrod is not a horrible reason. In fact, calling the table "childish" and "pathetically awful" are more horrible reasons for changing them than any of the reasons I gave for keeping them. As for your "If it is not changed here, then I will have it changed by higher powers through guideline restrictions." that sound more like a threat for us to go with your way when this is basically a content dispute that should be decided here with a consensus. Aspects (talk) 02:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Call it a threat; I don't care. I'm just letting you know what I would do. Also, there is a list of male and female contestants on the article already; this is just redundant. I know this is your baby table, but it is not up to standards of professionalism expected here, regardless of what you say. We have 70000 different colors, and they all clash. –Turian (talk) 03:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how making the Elimination Chart look like sandpaper is going to make it look " professional ". I think it would be more professional to use common colors, like red or blue. Personally, I think we should use the Elimination Chart format used in the Project Runway or Top Chef pages, using red for eliminated or bottom 3. AT40Reviewer (talk) 7:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The current setup is not up to WP:COLOR standards for the color blind, as you can see here. Something obviously needs to change, which is why we need to use the 'palegoldenrod'. The current yellow setup is a huge issue for the colorblind. We can keep the male/female colors, but they need to change to something more matte and less harsh. Also, see my sandbox. –Turian (talk) 13:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Turian that the gender colours are unnecessary as there are two tables with the top 6 male and female contestants in them. I also have an issue with the colour scheme for btm/btm2/btm3 generally. I think different shades of red would be much more appropriate as red has connotations of danger which, especially with the lack of clarity regarding 'Btm 2', seems appropriate as the three contestants are even addressed by Ryan as being 'in danger of going home'. When there are two contestants left standing centre stage, the slightly darker shade of red for the 'saved last' contestant seems appropriate as they are placed in increasing danger of going home as they are not 'saved first'. Say what you want but being 'saved first' implies heavily that the contestant had the largest amount of votes out of the 'btm 3'. Here is an example: Qdiazissipom (talk) 21:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Please bring the old elimination board back! I liked it. We do not need it to be longer and harder to read!!!

Legend

Top 24

Top 12

Winner

Safe

Safe First

Safe Second

Eliminated

Judges' Save

Stage:		Semi-Finals			Finals
Week:		2/25	3/4	3/11	3/17	3/24	3/31	4/7	4/14	4/21	4/28	5/5	5/12	5/19	5/26
Place	Contestant	Result
	Siobhan Magnus
	Katie Stevens					Btm 3	Btm 3
	Tim Urban				Btm 3	Btm 3	Btm 3
10	Didi Benami						Elim
11	Paige Miles				Btm 3	Elim
12	Lacey Brown				Elim

While the red is better than the yellow, I think the palegoldenrod is more neutral. We don't want to spam colors because the style becomes more of an issue than the content. Also, the palegoldenrod matches the header, like the gray in the semi-finals. –Turian (talk) 21:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is necessary that the elim/btm 3 needs to match the palegoldenrod header. Red has connotations of danger which makes it a fitting colour especially when regarding the saved first and saved last contestant. I still think we should just put 'btm 2' like we have done for seasons 1 - 6 when it was never clarified if the last 2 standing were the btm 2 but oh well... i like the red. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qdiazissipom (talk • contribs) 13:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

After looking at the red, there is no way that it will go in the article. It is just as clashing as the yellow. Adding it makes us look like piss-poor editors. The table used for season three is the only table that actually looks somewhat nice. We don't need all of the flashy colors to differentiate between what is what. –Turian (talk) 14:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

A little history note (as I remember it), a consensus had been formed to stop using Bottom 2 out of the Bottom 3 unless Ryan said so and the compromise to appease both sides was to use Bottom 3 for both but have shades to differentiate them. The palegoldenrod shades were deemed to be too similar and yellow was a close choice that had discernible differences in the shades. Red was not chosen at that time I believe because were using pink for the females and the lighter shades of red were similar to the pink used.

Red would probably be my last choice of the three, but at least you call tell the shades apart. The way this discussion is going, I think we will have a hard time coming to a consensus because it seems like everyone likes something slightly different. Aspects (talk) 02:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I personally believe a gradient isn't needed but I digress. I 100% prefer the red over the yellow, if we cant have the palegoldenrod. I have actually always thought red would be the most appropriate color but could never put the reasoning into words like Qdiazissipom did, and I totally agree with what he is saying about red connotating danger/negative result. I can't think of one reason why we should use the yellow instead just because it was the color randomly picked by whoever created the gradiant back in season 7. Not to mention, the yellow is too similar to the yellow used for the wildcard in the seasons that had it. And as long as we're not matching the header in the finals, I see no reason why the Elim boxes in the semis need to match that header either and therefore it would actually make sense to make those Elim boxes red as well (or whatever color). MarkMc1990 (talk) 09:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, we aren't using red, that has already been decided. If you look at his page, you will see what we agreed to (the first one, not the second one). I am sticking to my guns, and that is the only table I will support. –Turian (talk) 12:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I would be happy with the red but I would also be equally happy with using the table on my user page. It is much bigger but looks more aesthetically pleasing and it allows us to stop abbreviating 'bottom 3' as 'btm 3' which I think makes the table look more professional. My table is much easier on the eyes. Tell me what you think. I would like to make case to adopt my table on his page as a replacement for the one in the current article. We don't need gender colours. Qdiazissipom (talk) 14:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I actually thing think the second table on your page is absolutely perfect! My only problem with the first table on your page is that the gradient doesn't match. You have two light shades of yellow for the bottom 3 and then palegoldenrod for the elim box, it doesn't make any aesthetic sense. MarkMc1990 (talk) 22:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The second one won't be going into the article. It overcomplicates and is massively redundant. We don't need to state when they are eliminated when it is said elsewhere on the table. And the red is never going to happen. When a table has no colors, it just looks plain awful on it. –Turian (talk) 22:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, well then come up with a gradient that either completely matches the header (a revised version of the palegoldenrod one I threw together at the top of this section), or another one where the color actually has some connotations of the situation like the red does. Because mixing the yellow gradient with the palegoldenrod elim boxes does not look good, and nor does using the full on bright yellow. MarkMc1990 (talk) 23:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with that gradient at the top if this section. –Turian (talk) 23:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Because of the wide variety of responses from the editors discussing the issue here, I find it very hard for anyone to find any sort of consensus to make a change. In fact, no one claimed there was one here and the edit summary that changed it was "new table with Mark's gradient", which also says nothing about consensus. Since no one has claimed such consensus I am going to revert back to the former table with an edit summary asking other editors to join the discussion here. And also seeing this table in action even on my home computer I cannot tell the different between the Bottom 3 shades of palegoldenrod when they are not right next to each other, therefore the palegoldenrods do not work for their purpose. Aspects (talk) 02:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Well me, mark and Turian agreed to the new table with the gradient mark made... If you cannot see the gradients then it is a problem with your computer. Consensus was made between me, mark and Turian and no one disagreed and the table has been in place for a few days before you felt the need to disagree. Regardless of the gradient, we were all in agreement that the new table is more aesthetically pleasing as we can spell out 'bottom 3' and we don't have the gender colours which are unnecessary as we have tables with the male and female contestants in them. As far as previous season articles, they can be changed to the new table so please don't use that as an excuse. Qdiazissipom (talk) 22:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Three editors, myself, ATReviewer and Raiderfanforever99, disagreed with the use of palegoldenrod, so it is hard to see a consensus when half of the people disagree. This is reinforced by Christianity922 with this edit summary, "Don't make chart format changes without a consenus in the talk page". And it is not just my computer, but two different computers I work with. If the shades of palegoldenrod can not be told about then it is pointless to use this as the color since you are supposed to be able to tell them apart. Since there is still no consensus on the table, it should be left as it was until there is such consensus to make the changes. Aspects (talk) 00:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

ok might I ask, If we used the current gradients for btm 3/elim then how would you feel if they were incorporated into the new table I constructed? Qdiazissipom (talk) 00:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I just recognized that the gradients for the elimination chart do not match with the color used in the " judges save " box. If you want to keep this gradient, I suggest you fix that problem. Also, try to make the gradients for saved first and saved second a little more distinct. --AT40Reviewer (talk) 21:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The saved part is fine. –Turian (talk) 21:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Second Proposal

So... I am partially thinking we should use colors, but for now, here is a better gradient for the bottom 2/3:

Safe

Safe First

Safe Second

Eliminated

Judges' Save

Male

Female

Top 3

Did Not Perform

Top 32

Wild Card

Top 12

On your second table in your sandbox I like how you put a very small cell with the gender colour next to everyones names.. That is a fair compromise and doesn't look as jarring as having the whole name cell a certain colour. Qdiazissipom (talk) 13:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this could be a compromise between the two groups. It maintains the colors some people want, yet gets rid of the clashing colors some people dislike. Thoughts? –Turian (talk) 21:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

This format is fine with me, I guess.--AT40Reviewer (talk) 22:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not okay with that bottom three gradient. Someone explain to me how it constitutes as a gradient when it goes from white, to light yellow, to more vivid yellow...to the dull palegoldenrod color? Also the "Top 3" part doesn't belong on the gender legend, it should go to the left of the white "safe" box in the bottom 3 gradient because it is describing a voting result. MarkMc1990 (talk) 22:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah... way to definitely miss the point. The first one is the only gradient, as I said right before it. The second one is just a change is color viewing. The final one is the current legend used. No where in my post did I say anything was a legend. –Turian (talk) 22:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, the colors for the first three are as follows: #FFFFFF, #FFFFE0, #FFFFAA. The only differences are the FF to E0 to AA. They are within the same gradient. I picked them because of that. –Turian (talk) 22:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

You don't need to be rude. My point is that the colors in the gradient still do not match and therefore it looks unprofessional. The Eliminated box would need to be solid yellow in order for it to work (and we already said we didn't like the yellow). MarkMc1990 (talk) 22:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Didn't intend to be rude. Would this be better?

Safe

Safe First

Safe Second

Eliminated

Judges' Save

I tweaked it to make it smooth over one another. It still has a somewhat yellow tint, but the palegoldenrod gradient is hard to differentiate without a slight variation. –Turian (talk) 23:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It is a slight improvement, but still does not match. Here's a daring idea, what if we went with a completely different color for the finals header? One that it is easier to create a distinguishable gradient for. MarkMc1990 (talk) 23:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The palegoldenrod is not going to change. And you missed what I said once again: It still has a somewhat yellow tint, but the palegoldenrod gradient is hard to differentiate without a slight variation.

Safe

Safe First

Safe Second

Eliminated

Judges' Save

That is as good as it is going to get. Either take that, or one of my previous versions. The difference are so minor, that it won't really matter in the long run. –Turian (talk) 23:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Make the saved first and saved last gradients a bit less similar and it's perfect. Qdiazissipom (talk) 23:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is what I came up with:

Safe

Safe First

Safe Second

Eliminated

Judges' Save

Keep in mind that the farther the two go away from one another, the more yellow it becomes. And like I said, you most likely can't even tell the difference between the last three versions. –Turian (talk) 23:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes I realize it is supposed to get more yellow as you go from left to right, but palegoldenrod is NOT yellow.

Safe	Safe first	Safe second	Eliminated
Y	Y	Y	Y

^That is what a gradient should look like.

Safe	Safe first	Safe second	Eliminated
Y	Y	Y	N

^That is not. MarkMc1990 (talk) 00:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I have made a suggestion on Qdiazissipom's userpage that I would like everyone to consider. MarkMc1990 (talk) 06:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind that so much, but the black is a little much. Gray would be better. I have some alternates in my sandbox that could work. –Turian (talk) 00:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I changed it back to the gray. How does it look now? MarkMc1990 (talk) 00:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Turian I love the gender styling for the second table in your sandbox.. Please incorporate that into the article.. It lets us show the gender of contestant without being jarring like the previous table. I tried to do it but I messed up;. Qdiazissipom (talk) 21:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I say, we should either use Turian's new chart, Qdiazissipom's red gradient, or Qdiazissipom's new blue gradient, but this palegoldenrod gradient has to go ASAP.--AT40Reviewer (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Blue please. MarkMc1990 (talk) 00:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I made a red gradient replacing the blue on Qdiazissipom's page. Red sometimes represents something that is of big importance, and is bright so it will be easily noticed that that contestent is in the finals, compared to a contestant in the semifinals. --AT40Reviewer (talk) 01:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)My main concern with using red/blue before is that the shades would get confused with the pink/cyan, but now that those colors have been removed I think either of them should be used instead of the palegoldenrod because you can tell the differences between the shades. My first choice would be the blue because it is a color associated with the show, my second choice would be the red since that usually signifies elimination, my third choice would be yellow since you can tell differences between the shades and my last choice would be palegoldenrod. I like the blue used to represent both the elimination and the Top 12 in the bottom table on Qdiazissipom's, but I do like the red used to represent both and find the second table to the third because red across the top and side stands out too much and is too jarring. Either blue or red, I think we have a consensus that palegoldenrod should not be used, so we just need to decide which one to use. Aspects (talk) 17:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Can we get a consensus for the blue? MarkMc1990 (talk) 18:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I want the blue Qdiazissipom (talk) 17:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Myself, Qiazissipom, Aspects all want the blue, Turian said he didn't mind it, and AT40Reviewer seems ok with it, do we have a consensus to change it? MarkMc1990 (talk) 03:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I am still not certain that that is enough to form a strong consensus, especially something that is as drastic as this (it affects many articles). I think we need to give it more time and see if we can find other interested members.

As of now, I want the palegoldenrod version, but I am working on changes in my sandbox that can perhaps make a difference once I am finished. I don't have much time, but I plan on finishing it soon. –Turian (talk) 04:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

There is now a consensus to use the blue gradient and looking back through the discussion there was never a consensus to change the color to palegoldenrod. As such, I am going to change the table to reflect the blue gradient consensus. Aspects (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Apparently you have selective reading. Palegoldenrod is the status quo. There needs to be more discussion on this matter. –Turian (talk) 23:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what the consensus is, but it apparently it is we do what Turian wants to do. What makes you decide what gradient we use when one person wants palegoldenrod and four (including myself) want something else? --AT40Reviewer (talk) 21:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Consensus isn't numbers. Two users with less than 70 edits and one with just 1000 to change something that has been established for quite some time? More discussion is needed. If you aren't afraid of reaching consensus, then discuss it and stop being disruptive. –Turian (talk) 21:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Why is it everybody is disruptive except for yourself? --76.107.17.32 (talk) 21:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh looky, someone who shows up only when there is drama to be had. Now go away.

AT40, look at this please. That is my consensus that has been used for over three years. –Turian (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)Palegoldenrod should not be the status quo because there was no consensus to change it in this article. I stopped changing back to the yellow because it was being discussed here so that a consensus could be reached and an edit war avoided. Using a consensus from season 5 to use palegoldenrod would be overrideen by the consensus in seasons 7, 8 and 9 to use yellow.

But now that there has been a consensus with good reasons and no bad reasons given to use the blue, the blue should be used. Just because we are not using the color you want does not mean there is a consensus has not been reached. You keeping saying "No consensus" but you have provided no reasons how a consensus was not reached in this discussion. Aspects (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Try every single time I type something.... unless you have selective reading as well. The palegoldenrod is used in the header as well, not just in conflict with the yellow. –Turian (talk) 22:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

"Go away" Don't tell what to fucking do. I don't know who you are to tell me that you run this site like it's yours, but I can sure tell you that I'll try my best to get you off as soon as possible. You've been reported before, and it can happen again.--76.107.17.32 (talk) 22:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Can we change the other seasons' finals section to blue? Consistency is important. MarkMc1990 (talk) 06:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Please. But I'm wondering what we'll do in Season 1-3 and Season 8. Will the same shading be used in "Elim" as used in "Top 12"? What shading will be used for Wild Card Round? --AT40Reviewer (talk) 16:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes to your first question. The wildcard can stay yellow but honestly I've always thought it should be gray since it's technically still part of the semifinals, but it doesn't bother me much. MarkMc1990 (talk) 21:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Ratings, please

What happened to the weekly ratings? There are empty spaces where the ratings for the last few weeks (shows 16 through 27) should be. Someone has fallen off the wagon here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.58.123 (talk) 04:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Bottom 2 / Bottom 3 / Saved First / Saved Last.... Let's Get It Finalised

From the perspective of someone who isn't completely familiar with American idol, when looking at the elimination chart I would assume the person would be confused over the use of 'Saved first' and 'Saved Last'. The use of those two phrases gives the impression that we are too stupid to simplify the confusion of the chart by putting 'bottom 2'. The fact that we are using 'Saved first' and 'saved last' shows that the order of safety has some significance and the fact that we are noting it as 'saved first' and 'saved last' makes it quite trivial. In seasons 1 - 6, we have used 'btm 2' for the contestant saved last. Since season 7 we have suddenly taken a serious approach to this which makes the elimination charts in seasons 1 - 6 all significantly incorrect. I personally think that we should note the 'saved last' contestant as 'btm 2' and put a footnote at the bottom saying something along the lines of 'Contestants noted as 'Btm 2' were the ones that Ryan announced as being the last safe'. The show itself heavily implies this. We should either do that or put 'bottom 3' and 'Elim' in the 'palegoldenrod' without any of this 'saved first' 'saved last' nonsense. Qdiazissipom (talk) 23:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think the implication of Bottom 2 is enough to put it into the tables. Ryan would not send someone in the Bottom 2 to safety first. He never has and never will. –Turian (talk) 23:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

That is something will we do not know for sure and may never know. They could easily send the Bottom 2 person back first to create more drama between the person going home and the Bottom 3. It is all speculation and Wikipedia runs on verifiability. For a recent, more thorough discussion see the "Bottom 2" discussion above. Aspects (talk) 02:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Turian. The people who started this (Woogee and Woohookitty) claim that there is not evidence for a bottom 2, which is basically implying the possibility that it was supposed to be Tim and Lacey in the bottom 2, which makes no sense. I do want distinction between the bottom 3 and bottom 2 because, the truth of the matter is, the purpose of this article is not the show the results themselves, but the results SHOW. The only people who know the actual votes are Ryan and the producers, making the amount of votes someone got irrelevant. What is relevant, however, is what happend in the results show. The chronology of who is sent back to safety in the bottom 3 is the most important event in the results show, next to the person that was eliminated. That is why there should be a distinction.76.107.17.32 (talk)

I don't mind putting "bottom 2" for the last-saved person, just because over the past eight seasons, more often then not, Ryan does allude to the fact the last two are the bottom 2 (usually he'll say something like "so this is the bottom 2" or "Randy, what do you think looking at the bottom 2?" or something like that). And that said, I don't feel like he should have to make a fanfare of it every week for us to grasp the concept, we can make that inferation based on repeated past example. But to whoever said that the table is meant to reflect the results SHOW and not the actual results themselves, I disagree. The table is called "Elimination Chart", not "Results Show Chart". The table is meant to show the results of each week's voting and relay how close each contestant was to elimination in terms of voting rank. Distinguishing "saved first" and "saved" last is completely trivial and doesn't reveal anything about the results themselves. If the encyclopedia is assuming in this case that there is no distinction being implied of the first safe member having more votes than the last safe member, then the order that the surviving members of bottom 3 were revealed to be safe has no more meaning than the order the safe contestants on the couch were revealed to be safe/not in the bottom 3 (and we certainly don't have some silly trivial gradient for that!) Am I right? MarkMc1990 (talk) 23:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't think there is any demographic that shows the amount of votes each contestant had. The bottom 3 is based solely on the show. And if the distinction between the bottom 3 and bottom 2 is not important, why should the bottom 3 be considered important to begin with. Hell, if what happens in the results show doesn't matter, why should we even put the guest performances or the group performances. They have nothing to do with the results, right? This is not an article about who got more votes, because no one knows, so why the hell would you assume that the bottom 3 HAS to mean the bottom 3 vote-getters. " Provide evidence " (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC).

Yes, you're right, it is the bottom three people in terms of the amount of breathes they took that week... You can't be serious ca you? It is an article about documenting all aspects of the show. Be serious, or don't bother contributing. –Turian (talk) 02:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Throwing insults does not make you right in any way. These aren't like election votes. They are not revealed. They are not clear. If you have the list of the contestants and how many votes they had, by all means give it to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.107.17.32 (talk) 03:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I can do what I wish; thanks for your concern though. The premise of the show has been the same for all 9 seasons. If you want to question that, take it up with 19 Entertainment, not here. –Turian (talk) 03:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't tell you what you can and can't do, but saying that "I'm not being serious" does not automatically make you right. You are do not own this article, quit acting like you do. The majority prefers the original format, and if we did everything your way, the only visitors to this article would be...YOU! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.107.17.32 (talk) 03:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Majority? Evidence? Owning? Serious? –Turian (talk) 03:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

See. You're doing it again. You can't argue with my points, so you basically just call me an idiot. Basically, your arguement is " I'm right because you're wrong " I'm sorry, bud. It's not gonna work here. --76.107.17.32 (talk) 03:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Have we met before? I don't really know what you are trying to imply. I didn't call you an idiot; I just said your point was ridiculous. "OMG we don't even know if the bottom three got the lowest amount of votes!" Also, the person who gets eliminated has the highest amount of votes! Oh crap! Who would have ever thought that? Your point is being disruptive, that is what it is. –Turian (talk) 03:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not even implying that. You were the one that implied " OH, it could of been Tim and Lacey in the bottom 3 because Ryan decided to switch it around. I was basically implying what you guys were implying. Yes, it is complete nonsense, but it is just as much nonsense as this bottom 3/bottom 2 connundrum.--76.107.17.32 (talk) 03:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

So what do you think? You know, if you had a medium to voice such opinions. –Turian (talk) 03:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Please stop changing the elimination board. Can't you guys just use the one from past seasons? Each season, the Btm 2 and 3 changes every year. Please. This is crazy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JPSinger45 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You should voice your opinions before such discussions take place. –Turian (talk) 01:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

the way it is right now you can almost not recognize any difference between saved first and last - its really hard to read and not good at all. Shameless (talk) 16:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Unless someone can provide documented reliable sourcing which says Person X was in the Bottom 3 and Person Y was in the Bottom 2 of the votes, anything else is just original research. Woogee (talk) 23:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Person X? Person Y? What the hell is this, a math problem? Here's a math problem for you:

3X-X=2X(Bottom 2). Furthermore, we've used Bottom 2 for eight seasons now, and we've even added little notes saying that it is not conformed that they were in the bottom 2 but we still used it.(See seasons 4, 5, and 6). I don't think " I don't give a damn " is a good enough answer. Give a reasonable and mature reason why we can't put "Bottom 2" anymore. --AT40Reviewer (talk) 19:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm in complete agreement. It should be btm 2 and I think your comments have justified it. Since there has been no rebuttal from the opposition .. I'm going to change it to btm 2. 92.3.123.108 (talk) 16:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

One more thing. If Ryan said "this is the bottom 2" everytime, he would be treating us as if we're all two-year-olds. We know it is the bottom 2. It doesn't take a genius to find that out. So I hope this current revision stays. --AT40Reviewer (talk) 22:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)I am going to revert the table changes due to the circular logic justified to changed. Season 6's table was changed with "change color charts per season 9" and then Season 9's table was changed with "see Woohookittys compromise on season 6 table." The colors on season 6 were only changed and not the Bottom 2's, which would have been the compromise. Then on season 9 the Bottom 3's were changed into Bottom 2's based on not fully implementing the compromise. This is definitely not what Woohookitty wanted changed in this article based on their comments here and I am going to notify them to let them address this concern. As to AT40Reviewer's last comment, we do not know it is the bottom 2. If it is not stated, then it is people assuming someone is in the bottom two, which is original research. Also then the use of "Safe First" and "Safe Second" designations would be pointless if we were to use the Bottom 2/3 in the table. Aspects (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

If it bothers you so much, change the Bottom 3's and Bottom 2's on the other seasons as well. Inconsistency is almost as intolerable as being unreliable. --AT40Reviewer (talk) 00:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The bottom 2 note would also be pointless if we use bottom 3. --AT40Reviewer (talk) 03:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Final Nine - bottom 3, v2?

Obviously, Andrew and Katie are gone. Should Tim be labeled for the Bottom 3, since Michael was announced by Ryan himself not even to have been in the Bottom Three?Simple_butpowerful 01:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Tim should be considered as part of the bottom three. –Turian (talk) 02:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Turian. I think the implication from Ryan was that Tim was the other Bottom 3 member along with eliminees Andrew & Katie. 10:30PM April 14, 2010 (EST) -Compuscouts (talk • contribs)

I would say no. All we were told is that Mike wasnt Bottom 3. That doesnt prove Tim that was.. He just happened to be on the stage longer than the others. I personally would guess Tim was Bottom 3, but we cant prove it. :) (Kyleofark (talk) 02:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC))

We have to document it somehow. He was brought out in the normal bottom three process, if he wasn't bottom three, we can safely assume Ryan would have mentioned something with him as well. –Turian (talk) 02:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

How can we safely assume that? Is there a history of this to go by? I don't recall them ever doing the elimination like they did this week. As I said below, we can't really use logic with this show or guessing or implications. We have to by what they said. That's why saved first saved second is the best way to handle most weeks. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 12:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest maybe adding a note underneath? Last year, Anoop and Megan were called forward in the first live show, but it was agreed that because we werent sure if they were in the Bottom 4, a note would be more appropriate. Either that or nothing really, because for all we know, Tim was top of the votes. :) (Kyleofark (talk) 02:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC))

The three were just brought out to the center of the stage, they were'nt even sitting in the bottom 3 seats. Casey, Andrew, and Aaron were brought out as three as well. It doesn't mean anything. --AT40Reviewer (talk) 02:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't stand when the show does this ambiguous crap. If they're going to go out of their way to say "the other person isn't even in the bottom 3", then why can't they just tell us who was? MarkMc1990 (talk) 02:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Tim Urban should not be listed as being in the Bottom 3 because Wikipedia runs on verifiability and with Ryan never saying Urban was in the Bottom 3 or that a certain group was the Bottom 3, it is nothing but original research to say he was in the Bottom 3. Aspects (talk) 02:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Yea but based on phone polls Tim was indeed Bottom 3 but I know this can never be verified solidly. BTW, Siobhan was Btm 4 too. :S ZephyrWind (talk) 07:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Um no. Tim should not be listed as bottom anything. See the previous posts on bottom 2/3. We can't assume a darn thing with this show. All we know is that Andrew and Katie were eliminated and Michael wasn't in the bottom 3. We can't assume that Ryan was implying that Tim was bottom 3. Read that sentence once. :) Its almost a guess to have Tim in the bottom 3. Zephyr, if by "phone polls", you mean DialIdol, you can't go by them. They've been less and less reliable as the seasons have worn on because fewer and fewer people use dial-up. Last week they had Michael 4th. They had Didi 5th the week before. To me there's no question. Tim should not be listed as bottom 3. I don't mean to be critical of other users by saying this but I'm not sure how anyone can trust this show enough to assume anything. And I'm with Mark above. I knew that with 2 eliminations, we were going to run into this maddening vagueness. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 12:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Big Mike Top 6

I think we definitely should put big mike as Top 6 as Ryan told him he wasn't in the bottom 3 which is an indication of his voting position. Similarly to the way we note 'btm 3' or 'top 3' this is the same principle. Qdiazissipom (talk) 16:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I included a tidbit about it in the footnote for that week. I think that will suffice. MarkMc1990 (talk) 08:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Mention of Seacrest

Given articles like this and this should we mention Seacrest's change in attitude in the "Controversy" section? Or is this just gossip rag fare and we ignore it? Padillah (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Considering the amount of commentary on Seacrest's behavior on reliable sources, I would not object to someone adding something along the lines of "Seacrest was criticized by {source} for ..." Woogee (talk) 23:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there a problem with The Wrap as an RS? Or MSNBC? I ask only because of the "scary italics" used to emphasize "reliable". Padillah (talk) 17:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I only emphasized reliable to make sure that we didn't use non-reliable sources. Woogee (talk) 04:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I added sources that include the New York Times, USA Today and ABC News. The sources are all fairly consistent.Eudemis (talk) 03:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Correct attribution of songs?

"Baby what you want me to do" is by Jimmy Reed, not by Elvis, though it was performed in Elvis week.

Katie Stevens/Andrew Garcia = 8-9?

I remember in previous seasons, double eliminations were never further clarified. Thus, in season 8, Anoop/Lil were 6-7, Jorge/Jasmine were 12-13, and Chris/Phil (season 6) were 5-6. Shouldn't Katie/Andrew be listed as 8-9? Or did I miss something where Andrew was specified as having the lowest amount of votes. Usually, they avoid doing that, I think, so that the second-to-lowest "vote-getter" doesn't feel cheated due to the dual elimination, since she'd be safe on a normal night. And I don't recall Seacrest mentioning who had less votes either.--Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 02:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, someone recently removed it. –Turian (talk) 02:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course, if you look on Chris Richardson's or Anoop Desai's page, it would say " he was a fifth-place finalist or placing sixth, so I recommend reverting on those pages as well. --AT40Reviewer (talk) 01:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Songs of the Cinema performance order

How do we know what order the singers will perform next week? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 03:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Rihanna performance

Rockstar 101 wasn't released so it shouldn't be under "failed to chart". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.239.242.30 (talk) 19:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Will the REAL "original" artist please stand up!

On the charts listing the songs performed the "original artist" is indicated beside the song. But it is not clear in some cases who to count as the "original" artist. For example:

• "The House of the Rising Sun". The chart says the original artist is The Animals, but the Wikipedia page for the song tells us that it was recorded by Clarence Ashley and Gwen Foster 31 years earlier. But even then it says that this is the "oldest known existing recording", which does not mean it was the first. Additionally, the page tells us that the song could well be a couple of hundred years old, so "original artist" might not make sense at all in this case.
• "Feeling Good". The chart lists Anthony Newley as the original artist. It is true that he co-wrote the song (with Leslie Bricusse) for The Roar of the Greasepaint – The Smell of the Crowd, but the original cast album lists Herbert Grossman and Gilbert Price as the performers of the song, not Newley. Cy Grant, however, was the first to perform the song on stage. While his stage performance was not recorded, he did record the song for an album in 1964 - a year before the "original" cast album was released.
• "Blue Skies". The song was written by Irving Berlin for a 1926 musical called Betsy. Belle Baker performed the song in the show and it was very popular based on that, even though she did not record it. Ben Selvin is listed on the AI9 page as the "original artist". He was the bandleader for a recording in 1927, But the name the song was released under was "The Knickerbockers", not "Ben Selvin". Also, the vocal for that recording was performed by Charles Kaley. But in 1927 there were around 10 different recorded versions of the song and it is not at all clear which came first. Furthermore, even though the version by The Knickerbockers was the only one to hit number one, three other recorded version made the top 10 and two more made the top 20. So if it matters who recorded the song first, then we really don't know who that was. If performing it in a hit stage show is enough to be the "original artist", then Belle Baker should be listed.
• "Summer Wind". The song was written in German (called "Der Sommerwind") and first recorded in German by Grethe Ingmann. The first English recording of the song was by Wayne Newton. So which counts as the "original"?

Now for the purposes of the AI9 page, it is a trival matter at best who is counted as the "original artist". In fact, with songs that have their own Wikipedia page, it is probably entirely unnecessary, since clicking the link to the song page gives all the information about artists one would need. But if the AI9 page is going to list the name of the "original artist" it would be good to have a clear policy on who counts. For what it's worth, here's how I would list each of the above songs:

• "The House of the Rising Sun" (unknown) -- Whether or not recording it counts, we really don't know. The Wikipedia page for the song confirms this.
• "Feeling Good" (Cy Grant) -- If recording it does not count, he did it first on stage. If recording it does count, his 1964 version predates the 1965 cast album. Either way, he wins.
• "Blue Skies" (Belle Baker) -- When a non-recorded version is particularly notworthy as being popular, it should count as the "original".
• "Summer Wind" (Wayne Newton) -- The lyric was different in German (not just a translation), so they are different songs.

I won't make any changes to how the songs are credited for now, but unless someone offers a good reason to do it differently, I might eventually make changes. 142 and 99 (talk) 20:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok. It's been a week and I see no objections, so I will make these changes. 142 and 99 (talk) 16:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

What if we instead make the policy be the first charting artist/most successful artist? I think that would make the most sense. The Animals are the ones who became famous for THOTRS, with it charting at #1 in several countries, so it should list their name.--Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 00:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

In the instance of "Feeling Good", I think Nina Simone should be the listed artist, as her version is arguably the most popular one. Unfortunately, I can't figure out a factual precedence for this. Damn you, Cy Grant.--Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 00:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, I posted proposed changes and waited a week for people to weigh in before making changes. I would appreciate a similar courtesy here before reverting any of those changes. So I put the credit beside "House of the Rising Sun" back to "unknown". Secondly, the suggestion that the artist named should be the first charting artist/most successful artist will be two different artist in a lot of cases. So unless you pick one suggestion or the other this offers no unambiguous answer as to who should be listed. Thirdly, changing from naming the original artist to either listing the first charting artist or the most successful artist will mean many other credits should be changed. It also means that the already established policy of listing the original artist would have to change. So unless there develops a consensus here among other editors to go with one or the other of these changes, the current original artist credits should stand. 142 and 99 (talk) 02:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

There's no need to get so huffy. It's only Wikipedia. You make several good points. I thought you'd at least appreciate someone bothering to weigh in on the issue.--Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 16:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The only one of the changes that I have a problem with is changing "House of the Rising Sun" to unknown since it is just asking for good-natured editors to changing it, probably to The Animals. It also looks wrong in my opinion to list all of these other original artists and then list unknown for one. By reading the article, I would use Georgia Turner as the original artist of the song since she is credited with the lyrics which is half of the song, which makes it sound like Clarence Ashley and Gwen Foster either performed an instrumental version or it had different lyrics. Aspects (talk) 17:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Aspects, I agree with you that a credit of "unknown" is likely to lead to changes as you suggest and so leaving it as is is not ideal. The problem is that I don't think Turner can be properly credited. It's true that Lomax credited Turner for the lyrics, but she did not write them. (Ted Anthony's book Chasing The Rising Sun: The Journey of an American Song explains this.) Also, the history of the song shows that there were lyrics much like the ones she recorded long before, and that the 1933 Ashley and Foster recording was not an instrumental version. So crediting Turner would be inaccurate, but leaving it as "unknown" is probably edit-bait. How about changing it to say "traditional" with a commented out note beside it referring future editors to this discussion? The credit "traditional" is commonly used for old songs whose authorship is unknown, so designating it as such would indicate that the original artist is also lost to the mists of time. As odd as it might look to credit the original artist as "unknown", any specific name that is put in would not be correct (or at all verifiable, at the very least). 142 and 99 (talk) 22:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I still believe that the first artist to successfully chart the song is a solid way to go, because they're the ones who make the songs "hits". (Arguably, albeit not always better than the original.) But I agree with Aspects that "unknown" is just asking for it...as is "traditional", for that matter. I'd say if we're going to remain steadfast on originals, then let's list Ashley/Foster, as theirs is the earliest known existing recording, and I think that is substantial enough. Lyric alterations aren't truly enough to make Turner a more viable option. Although for some reason, "All the Woman That I Need" is attributed to Luther Vandross (on S7's & Chikezie's pages), when it technically should list Linda Clifford, shouldn't it? But Sabrina Sloan's version lists Whitney Houston as the artist. Neither one is correct according to our current default process, but Houston makes sense as hers became a charting single, and it's difficult to argue. That's basically why I still support The Animals being listed.

All of this brouhaha is partially my own doing, via karma, since back in season 7, I was the one who pushed for the original artists to be credited, after people kept listing the cover bands David Cook borrowed arrangements from, and I insisted "Without You" (Carly Smithson's performance on Mariah Carey night) be properly credited to Badfinger, not her or Harry Nilsson. Ohhh, the irony.--Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 04:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Cinemaniac, the only problem with listing Ashley and Foster as the "original artist" is we know it is not true. We could just change the heading to "original recording artist", but then we would have to put "unknown" beside "Blue Skies" (for reasons discussed in my original post). Putting information we know to be false in the article to avoid expected good faith, but inaccurate, edits in the future is not a great solution. So factuality dictates that we need to use something like "unknown" or "traditional".

The other possible solution is to simply remove from the table headers the words "original artist". Until a few days ago none of the Wikipedia articles for previous AI seasons explicitly stated that the artists listed were "original" artists (The season 8 article was just changed to claim artists as "original"). If the term "original artist" is removed from the header, then it would not matter if in a couple of cases the artist listed was not the original, even if most are. It would be a way of being able to credit some artist beside "The House of the Rising Sun" without being knowingly wrong about how the artist is credited. 142 and 99 (talk) 14:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It is worth noting that on the pages for The X-Factor that they use the designation "traditional" beside a couple of songs, for example here for the song "O Holy Night". "The House of the Rising Sun" seems to be at least as old as that one and with a murkier origin, so "traditional" might be the best way to go. 142 and 99 (talk) 16:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a good point. But just the lack of any artist next to the song bugs me, so perhaps we should remove the tag of "original". If we did that, it would be implied, for the most part, to associate it with the most common artist linked to the song. For any debates, we can simply put a < !-- > type tag in the edit pages, stating "Please see Discussion page" to reach a consensus when necessary. =) So good suggestion.

What do you think, Aspects?--Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 06:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Personally I always wished the artist would fit the theme such as last season's Grand Ole Opry when a covering artist who was part of the Opry should be used instead of the original artist, but I realize that using the original artist is all cases reduces a lot of the arguments we have had on the season articles like whether to credit Dolly Parton or Whitney Houston for "I Will Always Love You." I think if we just have "artist" that we will constantly have battles as to which artist to list and we seem to be having fewer discussions about the original artist. That being said I think Traditional would be a much better option than using unknown for "House of the Rising Sun." Aspects (talk) 20:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Aspects, I agree with you that there is no entirely conflict-free solution about which artist to list. One argument against listing the original artist is that sometimes the person is rather obscure, so no real value is added by naming them. That an obscure band called "i-TEN" recorded "Alone" before Heart did it is really irrelevant to the AI pages. But I would argue that the best solution is to list no artist at all. After all, the contestants are singing songs, so anything more than the title is unnecessary. Besides, almost all of the songs have their own pages which, with a simple click, allows people who are interested to find out who recorded it first, who had a hit with it, who wrote it, and all sorts of other facts. Somtimes listing one artist rather than another on the AI could explain how a song qualifies for that week's theme (like the fact that Mickey Gilley recorded "Stand By Me" in 1980, allowing Danny Gokey to sing it in "year they were born" week last year), but sometimes multiple artists could do that job equally well (as, for example, both the Dolly Parton and the Whitney Houston versions of "I Will Always Love You" were used in films). So any attempt to list artists will either lead to controversy sometimes or be rather irrelevant information sometimes.

But since the convention (for now) is to list original artists on the AI9 page, I agree with you that "traditional" is better than "unknown" for "The House of the Rising Sun". I will change it to say "traditional", but I'm open to other ideas about what to do. 142 and 99 (talk) 18:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)According to Up to the Mountain (MLK Song), Patty Griffin was the writer, the original performer and recorded a demo, so she should be listed as the original artist. Aspects (talk) 06:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think this one is a little bit of a tough call. The fact that she wrote it and recorded a demo of it does not make her the original artist. It is not at all unusual for someone to write a song, record a demo, and then shop the demo to other artists who become the first to record and release it. In fact, that pattern is quite common in Nashville. So if she can count as the original artist at all it would have to be on the strength of the claim that she performed the song live a few times before Solomon Burke recorded it. It sounds like it could be a reasonable criterion, but I worry that there might be other cases of obscure artists having happened to perform a song live before a recording was released of it getting to count as the "original". I also worry that the claim that Griffin performed the song live in concert before Burke recorded it is offered without any citation to support it on the song's wikipedia page, so it might not even be true. I tried a google search and found nothing to support that claim. So I'm a bit ambivalent about who to count, but lean towards Burke here. 142 and 99 (talk) 14:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

If we list the real original artist, should we use the original song title?

The original title for "Fly Me to the Moon" is "In Other Words". Kaye Ballard first recorded "In Other Words" in 1954. If we decide to use the original artist, should we also use the original song title? Raggedyland (talk) 01:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I think we should go with whatever title the show/official website/itunes listing goes by. MarkMc1990 (talk) 01:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipage states that it was officially changed to "Fly Me to the Moon", so that is the correct title. However, I've seen it listed on at least one album before as "Fly Me to the Moon (In Other Words)", so that would probably be acceptable, since plenty of songs do that as well.--Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 00:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

bottom two color

I made it the "safe second" shade of blue because they were the last to be declared safe, as its the same position as being the last/second safe person in the bottom three as the remaining contestant is eliminated. Aspects changed it to the "safe first blue" under the justification that there is no "safe second" in a bottom two. I see what he means, but I just feel like it makes much more sense to use the same blue as last saved person. The closer they are to being eliminated, the darker the shade we should use. The lighter "safe first" shade should only be used for the first person sent back to the couch in a bottom three situation. What do you guys think? MarkMc1990 (talk) 00:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with you! Aspects is being foolish. Qdiazissipom (talk) 17:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

That assumes the order of elimination is significant for something other than theatrical effect. There's nothing to back that up. given that outlook I have to agree with Aspects, If you can't justify placing one of the artists "closer" to being eliminated then it goes by simple order. Padillah (talk) 17:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

He stated bottom two. Safe second is equivalent to standing at the final moment before someone is eliminated. Tempest in a teapot, people. Seriously? –Turian (talk) 18:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

This is obviously talking about the coloring of Michael Lynche's bottom result on 5/5. The colors on the table represnt "Safe First" and "Safe Second" in the bottom grouping, not "Bottom 2" and "Bottom 3." As such when there are only two people in the declared bottom grouping, only one person is declared safe, so they would be "Safe First" color. To put them under the "Safe Second" color would not make sense because there would be no one to be declared safe first. Having something make sense is not "foolish." Aspects (talk) 18:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I also wanted to add that my edit summary of "Since there was only a Bottom 2, nobody was 'safe second'; Changing color to 'safe first' tag." was an exact of copy of Cinemaniac86, [4], that was reverted without an explanation. Aspects (talk) 18:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Tempest. In. A. Teapot. Stop grandstanding over something so ridiculously and mind numbingly trivial. The darker color indicates they stood at the final moment. Technically, I can say Crystal, Casey, or Lee was safe first. That makes logical sense. –Turian (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Crystal, Casey or Lee were not in the bottom grouping, which is what the colors represnt, so they could not be "Safe First."

Turian, since I am not allowed to post on your talk page, this is your warning that you have made three reverts in a 24-hour period and you could be blocked for breaking the 3rr again. Aspects (talk) 19:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Try two reverts. Stop grandstanding. Oh, and where does it state that that si what is meant by Safe first and Safe second? –Turian (talk) 19:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

1) [5], 2) [6] and 3)[7]

As a side note, if you are going to continue to edit and are not retired from Wikipedia, then you should remove the tags from your user page and your talk page. Aspects (talk) 19:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

1. The first edit was a simple edit. The second two were reverts. 2. Worry about your own self. –Turian (talk) 19:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Look, it wouldn't be too hard to push a WP:SYNTH violation on this entire "Bottom 3/Safe First" thing. If it isn't OR then it forces the reader into OR, so drop it. We have no way of validating who got what vote count so there is no way to tell who is in what position. It's all done for theatrics and ratings and, as such, it doesn't mean anything. Let it go. Padillah (talk) 19:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Except that he said "This is your bottom two, America." Doesn't get much clearer than that. –Turian (talk) 19:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

You're gonna make me do this? OK, fine. From MSNBC/Today

Instead, Dewyze was the second singer who was sent to safety, which left Bowersox alongside Lynche in the scary final moments onstage.

Does that mean she was among the two lowest vote-getters? Probably not. Ryan made a big point of saying the results were “in no particular order” — except, presumably, for the order that would create the most drama.emphasis mine

It was expressly pointed out that the results were in no particular order. You may want to review what was said for turns of phrase, but the order is widely understood to be done for theatrical effect. Padillah (talk) 19:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

We are talking about the Top 5, not the Top 4....... –Turian (talk) 19:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

My humblest, most abject apologies. Aspects even tried to nudge me when he said "this is about Lynche on 5/5" but I wouldn't listen. I have no defense, that was shameful. That said, I still think we should drop the whole thing. It looks weired to have a "Second" without a "First", but we can't decide who was first so we're left with "Bottom 2" and "Elim". Padillah (talk) 19:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Which leads to the most annoying debate of synthesis ever imaginable. –Turian (talk) 19:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Would anyone be opposed to changing the wording in the legend from "safe second" to "safe last"? They mean the same thing anyway in a bottom three situation, and I think that would make more sense to use that same color in a bottom two situation then. I think this is a really good solution, please agree :) MarkMc1990 (talk) 22:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

If the tag reads "Safe First", then that means that the color of Mike's B2 placement on Top 5 night should be the "Safe First" blue. I completely agree with Aspects, as I made the same edit on the night of the results show, and back him 100%. But I suppose a "Safe First"/"Safe Last" description makes sense for all scenarios, with the exception of (for example) Carly & Syesha when Michael was eliminated in season 7. The only flaw is that occasional random IPs will swing by and alter it, but we can live with it, I'm sure. I approve, Mark =).

Turian, you need to quit being so abrasive. You're taking Wikipedia far too seriously. You were wrong, because regardless of the darker color, the term it is associated with on the legend makes the choice fallacious. You cannot be safe second in a bottom grouping if nobody was safe first. It's just illogical, no matter what the color implies. So, we should either use Mark's suggestion or stick with what Aspects, Padillah, and I support. And by the way, even if you don't like it, it is consensus ;).--Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 00:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Padillah was talking about the wrong thing, so he hardly supports your horrible idea. Myself, Qdia, and Mark or you and Aspects. I think the consensus is clear. Do not change it or I will report you. –Turian (talk) 12:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

In point of fact I don't support the ranking of eliminations at all. It's been solidly established that the elimination shows are ranked for effect, not based on vote-count. Even when Ryan does throw us a bone there's still significant wiggle room to get it wrong (5/5 elimination for example). I think the only thing we should be listing is the person eliminated, the rest is fancruft at best and has no real bearing on the show or it's outcome. Plus, it leads to synthesis like "How many winners have been in the bottom 3?" and other possible violations. It's just not helping. Padillah (talk) 13:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Relax with the threats, Turian. Mark's "Safe Last" idea is officially in effect, and I think this is the smarter and more suitable way of doing things. I made the earlier edit for one reason only: because at that time, the words had not been changed. But now it has, and I dig it. It adheres to both the color sequence and a proper definition of the legend. Hooray.

Good point as well, Padillah. Nigel Lythgoe even stated in some interview that the producers will often simply "place" people in the Bottom grouping for dramatic effect. He said that the only one who matters is who is eliminated. But since they are the events of results shows, which we chronicle in the chart, it's worth listing them.--Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 16:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Hooray! :) A note on the Nigel interview: Actually, what Lythgoe said is that the bottom three are always the true bottom three, they won't ever lie, but the order in which they save them isn't always based on their rank, which is why we've adopted the gradient as opposed to writing "bottom two". MarkMc1990 (talk) 18:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Cinemaniac above my problem was the "Safe Second" color being used when there was only one person to declare safe. We could have kept the "Safe Second" tag and use the "Safe First" color or we could change to the "Safe Last" tag and use that color. Since people seemed to want the darker shade, I think it is a good compromise to go with the second option. Aspects (talk) 22:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind that what Nigel said applies to ALL seasons. They didn't just start doing it this season. In fact, it would be more important to change the Bottom 3 rank in the first seasons than on the this season because it was when he actually on the show. Votefortheworst even said the Adam may haven't even been in the bottom 2 because of this, but just to get people to vote for him. --AT40Reviewer (talk) 22:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a great source. Can anyone find that interview? That would be a great entry for the article as well. The voting process is shrouded in such secrecy that any tidbit like this is meaningful. Padillah (talk) 12:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

What is the point of the empty table?

How does having an empty table improve the article? We're not on a deadline. We don't have to scoop anybody. And I can't imagine many people believing the show to be canceled after the Top 3 are announced. Padillah (talk) 13:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Judges' Choice Songs Mentioned

The songs for the contestents chosen by the judges are revealed, so I think it should be mentioned, since there are plenty of reliable sources that say so. --AT40Reviewer (talk) 22:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The Significance of "Holy Toledo"

I added this info to the Crystal Bowersox wiki page, but I feel it is significant enough to place in the topmost paragraph on this wiki page, which discusses things like this being the 2nd season in which neither of the Top 2 has been in the Bottom 2/3 before.

• Crystal is also the first contestant in American Idol history to have one of their original songs played on the show, or at least during their hometown package. Crystal's original song "Holy Toledo" was played on the May 19th Top 3 Results show as the background music for her homecoming package - when she returned to Toledo, Ohio and Elliston, Ohio the previous weekend - and seguewayed into her live performance of the same song at "Bowerstock."

I am unable to edit this page, but I'd really appreciate this information being added to the Season 9 wiki page. --compuscouts (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC).

References

Changes

Lets change the bottom 3's to bottom 2's again, mention Alex Lambert's and Siobhan's vote-offs in the controversy section, and we should use the artist of whatever is given. After all, who cares who actually wrote the song? --76.107.17.32 (talk) 03:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources for whether or not someone was in the bottom two or three, just what order they were declared safe. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

No matter how many times you justify it, you can't argue with the fact that there is still bottom 2 on every season so far. Not only is it inconsistantsy, it is hypocrisy. --76.107.17.32 (talk) 02:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I think a better example of hypocrisy is reverting any attempts to make the season articles consistent without an explanation and then using the inconsistency as an argument to change this article. Aspects (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Remember a few years ago, when no attempts like these to revert were made. Why the big change? That question can't be answered because this is no reason. --76.107.17.32 (talk) 21:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

One more thing. The reason why I have made this page on this talk page was in the hope that someone will take a stand. --76.107.17.32 (talk) 21:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Bottom 2=Saved last. It is a term. There already was a consensus in 2008 and it was resolved with putting Btm 2 and Saved last. I don't need to give one. It is explained in the note, which is STILL ON THE PAGE. --76.107.17.32 (talk) 02:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, here's the c|consensus that was formed two years ago that was argued a long time ago and stated that putting bottom 2 is a meaning of saved last. There is also a place in that discussion where MarkMc says that even if it is not the bottom 2, it is the bottom 2 the show wants viewers to believe. --76.107.17.32 (talk) 20:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Consensus can change, and a consensus has not been found here in the talk page of this article to use the bottom 2, so I am going to revert once again since there is no consensus for the change here on the talk page. Aspects (talk) 22:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Coronation Song

For the finale, the songs performed are categorized as Contestant's choice, Simon Fuller's choice & coronation song. I don't think "coronation" is correct for this season. Other seasons, the coronation songs were all about winning and being successful, but this season, they chose songs that could actually be successful singles. In the finale, Seacrest described the songs as their first single, if they win. How about instead of "coronation song" we say "first single upon winning"? AlbertusmagnusOP (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I just checked, and Season 8 doesn't say "coronation song" but rather "winner's single". We should change it to "winner's single" per earlier precedence. AlbertusmagnusOP (talk) 15:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Will Young

Will Young didn't sing on the finale show, he sang on the competition show on Tuesday night, but there's no category for that. How should we deal with that? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Finale show

What happened to Hall and Oates, the BeeGees, and Bret Michaels? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

With the next week could some people please list the contestants that sung "Together We Are One" to further complete the article. Also notable celebrities in attendance for the finale. (Beyonce and Justin Timberlake for example who didn't even perform.)--Cooly123 19:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 (talk • contribs)

"Beautiful Day" Wikilinks

The song title "Beautiful Day" should be wikilinked to the existing page for the song "Beautiful Day" just as all other songs on the page are linked to Wikipedia pages where they exist. Wikilinking "Beautiful Day" to pages or page sections that don't exist is not constructive. Linking it to the Lee DeWyze page does not send people to a page with information about the song If people want more information about the song "Beautiful Day" they should be sent to the page for that song. 142 and 99 (talk) 15:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Linking directly to "Beautiful Day" will confuse people. There is nothing on that page that says that song is the song recorded by DeWyse. There was a section in the DeWyse article until earlier today about the song, when an IP removed the section with no explanation or discussion. I have since restored the section. The link Beautiful Day (Lee DeWyse song) takes someone directly to that section. I have added a link to the U2 song, but there is still the problem of why. It does say in the infobox that the song was written by U2 but that is the extent. The DeWyse version does not deserve its own page at this time but when a link from this page goes to that song the page it goes to should discuss the DeWyse version. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 16:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I just tried the link Beautiful Day (Lee DeWyse song) and it took me nowhere. If at some time in the future there is a better and stable link to use for the song "Beautiful Day" than the direct link to that song page, then it can be changed then. But for not, the "Beautiful Day" page is the one that exists for the song, so it makes sense that the song title take people to a page about the song. That's how it works for all other songs listed on the page. 142 and 99 (talk) 16:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry I put the wrong link above. It should have been Beautiful Day (Lee DeWyze song), I spelled his last name wrong. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 16:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah! That works. The link to "Beautiful Day" in the infobox can be changed to direct there. 142 and 99 (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

So does this solve your concerns? ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 17:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yup! All is well. 142 and 99 (talk) 18:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

And just like that, the problem is back. The section that was specifically about the song on the Lee DeWyze page got moved, so the link has again been changed to something that does not exist. So once again, I'll change it back to direct to "Beautiful Day", since at least that page is stable and is about the song. Sigh! 142 and 99 (talk) 03:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Image of Lee DeWyze

Why does the article for every other season include an image of the winner, but DeWyze's image was removed on grounds that it lacked rationale for usage here? Is it something to do with the permissions of the image itself? --SchutteGod (talk) 17:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind. I see the DeWyze image has been removed from other pages as well. Must be a copyright issue. --SchutteGod (talk) 17:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Siobhan Magnus' Wrong Number on Facebook Fan Page

I think something should be mentioned (in the Controversory section or otherwise) that on a fan page for Siobhan on Facebook, someone posted Aaron's number so people dialled the wrong number and this is likely to be a cause for her elimination. If you don't feel this should be mention please say why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.83.92 (talk) 23:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, we would need a citation for both - the fact that it happened, and the impact it had on the voting. If we can find a reliable editorial source that mentions both of these things then we'd have to measure the weight of what we put in the article vs. the other controversies mentioned. Padillah (talk) 13:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Well many people on YouTube said it happened, and I doubt that so many would be lying. I'll look for the page on which the number posted, and will link to it when I've found it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.31.120 (talk) 15:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort but we need a reliable source that has editorial oversight. I can post a blog entry that says pretty much anything I want, but that doesn't help anyone. If the snafu were reported in a paper or on an entertainment site somewhere that would be worth mentioning. But if it didn't even get a mention on E! then it probably wasn't a big enough factor top merit mentioning. Padillah (talk) 18:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on American Idol (season 9). 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/20100210021610/http://www.kdvr.com/news/kdvr-idol-audition-line-071409,0,7151416.photogallery to http://www.kdvr.com/news/kdvr-idol-audition-line-071409,0,7151416.photogallery

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

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} 04:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on American Idol (season 9). 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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://ausiellofiles.ew.com/2009/08/06/press-tour-diary-executive-session/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120426082233/http://www.disneychannel-tv.com/jonas/joe-jonas-meets-brewer-high-teens-before-first-day-of-classes/ to http://www.disneychannel-tv.com/jonas/joe-jonas-meets-brewer-high-teens-before-first-day-of-classes/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100504100625/http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/04/28/broadcast-finals-tuesday-idol-dancing-ncis-adjusted-up-glee-adjusted-down/50003 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/04/28/broadcast-finals-tuesday-idol-dancing-ncis-adjusted-up-glee-adjusted-down/50003

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:14, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 19 external links on American Idol (season 9). 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://ausiellofiles.ew.com/2009/08/06/press-tour-diary-executive-session/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.kdvr.com/news/kdvr-idol-audition-line-071409%2C0%2C7151416.photogallery
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://archive.americanidol.com/recaps/season_9/feb_17
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20100313%2FNEWS%2F3130311
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5oKtppyAz?url=http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/03/18/tv-ratings-idol-paces-fox-human-target-on-the-bubble-ugly-betty-sinks-to-lows/45371 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/03/18/wednesday-broadcast-finals-ugly-betty-gary-unmarried-inch-up/45430
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100328123846/http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/03/24/tuesday-finals-lost-up-v-clip-show-falls/46017 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/03/24/tuesday-finals-lost-up-v-clip-show-falls/46017
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100401043305/http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/03/25/broadcast-finals-the-middle-modern-family-idol-survivor-antm-rise/46117 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/03/25/broadcast-finals-the-middle-modern-family-idol-survivor-antm-rise/46117
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100412182343/http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/04/07/broadcast-finals-lost-ncis-ncis-la-tick-up-v-the-good-wife-tick-down/47689 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/04/07/broadcast-finals-lost-ncis-ncis-la-tick-up-v-the-good-wife-tick-down/47689
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100414163049/http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/04/08/wednesday-finals-csi-ny-dips-further-south-park-in-plain-sight-and-more/47783 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/04/08/wednesday-finals-csi-ny-dips-further-south-park-in-plain-sight-and-more/47783
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100420181136/http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/04/14/broadcast-finals-tuesday-dancing-lost-adjusted-up-v-adjusted-down/48563 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/04/14/broadcast-finals-tuesday-dancing-lost-adjusted-up-v-adjusted-down/48563
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100421065655/http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/04/15/wednesday-broadcast-finals-the-middle-modern-family-cougar-town-adjusted-up-ugly-betty-down/48734 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/04/15/wednesday-broadcast-finals-the-middle-modern-family-cougar-town-adjusted-up-ugly-betty-down/48734
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100427043915/http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/04/21/broadcast-finals-tuesday-lost-idol-adjusted-up-glee-v-adjusted-down/49348 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/04/21/broadcast-finals-tuesday-lost-idol-adjusted-up-glee-v-adjusted-down/49348
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100428012306/http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/04/22/wednesday-broadcast-finals-idol-l-accidentally-on-purpose-down/49489 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/04/22/wednesday-broadcast-finals-idol-l-accidentally-on-purpose-down/49489
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100506015650/http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/04/29/wednesday-broadcast-finals-modern-family-american-idol-top-model-adjusted-up-high-society-down/50112 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/04/29/wednesday-broadcast-finals-modern-family-american-idol-top-model-adjusted-up-high-society-down/50112
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100511050345/http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/05/05/broadcast-finals-tuesday-idol-lost-90210-adjusted-up-good-wife-v-parenthood-adjusted-down/50683 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/05/05/broadcast-finals-tuesday-idol-lost-90210-adjusted-up-good-wife-v-parenthood-adjusted-down/50683
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100510005113/http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/05/06/wednesday-finals-american-idol-the-middle-modern-family-cougar-town-and-csi-ny-adjusted-up/50751 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/05/06/wednesday-finals-american-idol-the-middle-modern-family-cougar-town-and-csi-ny-adjusted-up/50751
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/05/12/lost-ncis-adjusted-up-good-wife-v-glee-adjusted-down/51230
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100516015142/http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/05/13/wednesday-finals-american-idol-modern-family-cougar-town-adjusted-up-old-christine-happy-town-adjusted-down/51324 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/05/13/wednesday-finals-american-idol-modern-family-cougar-town-adjusted-up-old-christine-happy-town-adjusted-down/51324
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121017171036/http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2010/05/25/tv-ratings-top-25-dancing-tops-idol-with-viewers-again-lost-finale-wins-with-adults-18-49/52328/ to http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2010/05/25/tv-ratings-top-25-dancing-tops-idol-with-viewers-again-lost-finale-wins-with-adults-18-49/52328
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927005610/http://www.dailynorthwestern.com/john-park-finishes-second-in-superstar-k-1.2379947 to http://www.dailynorthwestern.com/john-park-finishes-second-in-superstar-k-1.2379947

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)