Talk:American Idol season 8/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Bottom Four on Top 13 Week

On Anoop's and Megan's Top 13 boxes, those boxes are colored yellow now. Why is that necessary when Ryan Seacrest didn't officially announced they were members of the bottom four? They being asked to go to the center of the stage didn't mean they were the bottom four. Seacrest didn't say even a single word saying they were the bottom four... Azilko88 (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it is logical to think that those called on to the stage will be the one that just scrapped through by the skin of their teeth. Syjytg (talk) 16:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but Ryan Seacrest didn't mention they were members of the bottom four. Yellow box means that specific contestant was a member of bottom three (or four) of that specific week. It's just like what happened with Syesha Mercado last year after the top five. Ryan kept bringing her as one member of the last two contestants, yet she was not announced as a member of bottom two. Azilko88 (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Though he never mentioned, it can be implied that both of them are in the bottom 4. And please remember to sign your posts. Syjytg (talk) 17:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

How can it be applied when Ryan never announced it? Unless there's a source stating that they were really the member of the bottom four. I think we should be consistent with American Idol Season 7's article where from the top 5 week onward, since no explicit bottom three or two were announced, we just left the boxes blank Azilko88 (talk) 18:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Typo error. I mean implied. Syjytg (talk) 18:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

That's the problem, it's only implied. I think we shouldn't write any assumptions here. In this case, there's also a possibility that Megan and Anoop were asked to go to the center of the stage to raise the tension. I mean, those two also didn't perform strong this week. So, to raise the tension, they were also asked to go 'accompanying' Jasmine and Jorge regardless they were really the bottom four or not. It would be hard to guess who would be out then (let's say, if Danny Gokey or Adam Lambert, the judges favorites, were asked to accompany Jorge and Jasmine, it would be a no-brainer guess that Jasmine and Jorge would be the ones who got voted off). Azilko88 (talk) 18:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but other people were also in danger, like Kris, Matt, Scott, Sarver, and Allison, who was in the bottom of a spoiler site. So, ifthey wanted to increase the tension why not add any one of them. I think it's believable that Anoop and Megan, especially, are in the bottom 4.--23prootie (talk) 19:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

True, they could have picked any one of them and still could raise some tension. However, still, we can't list Anoop and Megan being the bottom four HERE unless there's an official statement saying that. It's because this is an encyclopedia site, everything must be true, and therefore we can't write anything just based on our guess, assumption, or belief, rite? As discussed in other part of this Editing Talk, this show should be more explicit and not create much headache, haha Azilko88 (talk) 19:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

May I know the spoiler site please? url? Syjytg (talk) 04:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

DialIdol.--23prootie (talk) 04:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

That is not really a spoiler site. they are not 100% accurate. Syjytg (talk) 09:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• They have been so far this year. And last year, over the course of the season, they were 97% accurate. Not spoilers, per se, but it's pretty accurate. H₂O Shipper 14:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no bottom-2, bottom-3, or bottom-4 so far. We have had this discussion for the last three seasons and unless AI, Ryan, or one of the judges explicitly state bottom-whatever, it doesn't apply. Please do not assume or add anything that is not explicit, no implications. And despite one person's desire, please do not include the dreaded "Saved Last" information. After the current season is over, this information is not relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedying (talk • contribs) 20:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Amen to that. :) Very good job summarizing the basic issue. You can't assume ANYTHING on this show. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 07:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It's Norman, not Normund

At his audition, it said Norman Gentle, not Normund. I thought you were a free encyclopedia, not a name butchering fact site. --68.255.78.37 (talk) 19:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It's Normund, not Norman. Get your facts straight. Gage (talk) 09:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you are the one that has it wrong. If you watch the AI labels printed by the show, they've used "Norman Gentle". For proof, you can check out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2Ik43ULlyw&feature=related. See the one at 0:59. Normund is used by the bloggers who are trying to make fun of AI and VFTW. Tedying (talk) 23:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Tedying is correct. The...subtitles (for lack of a better word - I mean the words in the blue ribbon across the bottom of the screen) have always used "Norman Gentle", quote marks included. "Normund", I believe, is something VFTW made up to make fun of the way Simon pronounced it. Hermione1980 00:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Both terms should be used since I've seen news articles using "Normund" though they should be sourced.--23prootie (talk) 01:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

No. His name on the screen is Norman Gentle. people have gotten "Normund" from how Simon says it. Just because it's reported that way doesn't mean we should use it. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 15:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Semi-final heat 1

On the first group result show ryan said that there was a 20,000 vote gap between anoop and Michael. This implies that anoop was 3rd place in his group... I know this might not be concrete evidence for his 3rd place placement but it should be noted about the vote difference Frazzler9 (talk) 23:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Finalist list

I think that on the list of finalists and their songs, the theme should be put next to the song selection as it looks strange that the wildcard acts have an extra song Frazzler9 (talk) 23:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Ann Marie Boskovich in the elimination chart

Theres a typo in the elimination chart with "Anne Marie" instead of the correct "Ann Marie". I dont have an account at the moment so I cant change it myself, can somebody else fix it please, thanks. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.176.86 (talk) 21:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done Hermione1980 22:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

New judges veto

It should be added to the paragraph about the new judges rule that they can only use their veto power ONCE in the whole competition. That's what Ryan said. 121.247.68.245 (talk) 16:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done by User:Syjytg. Hermione1980 14:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

More AfDs

Someone decided to AfD all of the finalists and the two semi-finalists that have articles here as a list: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kris Allen. Never mind that five of them (Michael Sarver, Jasmine Murray, Lil Rounds, Jorge Nunez and Scott MacIntyre) were all closed as Keep or No consensus less than twelve hours ago or that Danny Gokey should have the same thing happen to its AfD anytime now. If only we could have had this same support for Alexis Grace's second nomination after it was Kept the first time. Aspects (talk) 08:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Speedy closed by me. Haven't had time to remove all the tags from the multiple nominations. Any editor may now remove these as the AfD has closed, and hopefully you guys can quickly chip in here. Best, Fritzpoll (talk) 12:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done Danny Gokey's AfD is still open, and should remain as such for approximately two hours, but all the rest of the articles were included in the batch AfD that was speedy closed; as such, I have removed all of those tags. Hermione1980 14:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Typo

At the end of Kris Allen's description in the Finalists section there is a typo. An extra "a" appears after "sweetheart.".

Corrected by someone else, I guess? I can't find it anymore. Hermione1980 14:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

March 24 week

The week will preempt on Wednesday (March 25) and Thursday (March 26) because of White House Press Conference on Tuesday night in the United States.

Source: http://www.fox.com/schedule.htm?src=menu_item_schedule#week:2009-03-22

--ApprenticeFan Messages Work 11:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Question

Do we need to keep the sources up for the "other performances" once they have aired? I mean. We don't have to source the group songs. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 16:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I personally think that anything that is on the actual show does not need to have a citation. Citations are needed for anything not canonical (distributed by producers, 19E, web-site, Ryan, judges, etc). Tedying (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Adam lambert top top 13 week

Entertainment weekly stated that Adam came top with something like a staggering 32% of the vote. Frazzler9 (talk) 13:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Provide the source before changing. An example of a source is the url of the Entertainment weekly. Syjytg (talk) 13:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I've just been through most of EW's articles about American Idol (Top 13 week-forward), and I can't find anything. Google didn't come up with anything either, but that could be because I didn't put in exactly the right search string. Hermione1980 15:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I've heard something like this too - except it was Danny, and it was something like 40-some percent of the vote. Again, no reputable source. As believable as Adam's getting 32% of the vote may be, I doubt you're going to find a reputable media outlet that will confirm this - Goldman-Sachs, the company that counts the votes, is notoriously secretive about the exact percentages of votes each contestant gets (they have a confidentiality agreement with the show) - so if someone does start saying that "so-and-so got x% of the votes", it's likely speculation. But yes, it is interesting :-) Cespence17 (talk) 17:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This is slightly more believable. Again, not a reputable source so I can't edit, but if you check out the dialidol numbers for week of 13[1], Danny had the most busy signals. It does tend to support the idea that Danny was the highest vote getter, but no confirmation yet. Tedying (talk) 19:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

edit semiprotected page

Walkin' after Midnight is by Patsy Cline not Stevie Wonder. For Once in my Life is by Stevie Wonder not Marvin Gaye

NO it's not... For Once iN my life is originally Tony Bennett.

Wild card

All the wild card contestants including top 13 finalists should have a wild card label next to their wildcard song. actually I think that each themed week should be labeled next to each contestants song. Frazzler9 (talk) 22:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

No. Gage (talk) 00:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually I agree with Frazzler. Because otherwise people can and will become very easily confused as to why Matt, Megan, and the other wildcards each have one more performance listed than the other finalists. MarkMc1990 (talk) 23:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Elimination Grid

Please change Michael Sarver to Elim on 3/26 instead of BTM2 on 5/20. It also lists Adam Lambert as 10th place. Drundax (talk) 02:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done --Mtjaws (talk) 02:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The theme for the final four is rock and roll

Ryan Seacrest confirmed it on Twitter one hour ago. Source: http://twitter.com/RyanSeacrest

Can someone update this info, since I can't updated the Wiki page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.201.22.6 (talk) 03:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Adam Lambert's Sexuality

This article states Adam Lambert as being openly gay without listing a source. Has he ever declared to the media that he is gay? Videos of him kissing guys are not valid sources.Gingerwiki (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Where? I can't find it anywhere. If you're talking about his article, it's been vandalized more times than I can count and is currently semiprotected without that information in it. If it's somewhere and unsourced, remove it per WP:BLP. Hermione1980 16:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep. BLP applies here. But yes that rumor is all over the net, especially on YouTube. That's all it is...a rumor. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 04:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

On Access Hollywood, there is an interview with Adam saying that he has nothing to hide and that he is gay. He says the pictures were taken at "Burning Man" arts festival in the desert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iseriouslyhave6cats (talk • contribs) 00:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Link [2] --71.243.55.75 (talk) 18:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he says he has nothing to hide. But he never specifically says "I'm gay". Cespence17 (talk) 23:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

You know what? I'm not a fan of Adam, but if we are going to mention he's gay we really should mention that everyone else is hetereosexual. :) I mean really. I don't think it matters for the purposes of this specific article. The article on him? Maybe. But not really here. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 01:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Can we just not discuss this? Unless someone has a valid source for it, it does not need to be discussed. Everyone always wants to ask 'who is gay?' but can we just NOT do so? It's a talent competition, not who is and isn't gay. Revan46 02:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Matt G this week

Unless I missed something, Ryan never said that Matt was bottom 2. I have a feeling Scott was "saved" first because it was just easier for him. Otherwise he'd have to be guided all over the place as they shuffle the bottom 2 around quite a bit. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 04:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I had a hard time believing it too, but Ryan did say "These are your bottom two" at some point in the results show last night - I'll have to go back over my DVR later to make sure. But who knows, he could have just said it to create drama, and Matt might have actually been completely safe the whole time - just some poor random finalist put in the hot seat for the sake of good tv. Another thing we'll probably never know for sure...Cespence17 (talk) 13:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC I dont think they will go that far. They will be in deep trouble if they were caught by faking the results just for drama. I think these are the real bottom 3. The actual results might be accidentally leaked out, so I doubt they will take such a risk just for better TV. Dialidol might be wrong this time about Matt. Syjytg (talk) 14:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah the bottom 3 IS the bottom 3. They cannot fudge the results like that. What they do sometimes do is pretend like someone is bottom 2 but isn't...but they are still bottom 3. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 15:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I dont think they would would say "bottom 3" to someone who isnt in the bottom 3. I could only see them doing what they did to Anoop and Megan in Week 1 of the finals and call them to the centre, but then they didnt say anything about a bottom 4. (90.201.176.86 (talk) 21:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC))

Ryan definitely said Matt and Michael were the bottom 2. Same for Michael and Alexis last week. I think as long as Ryan explicitly says 2 contestants are in the bottom 2 after sending the first bottom 3'er back to safety, which he has done for the last 2 weeks now, we should list them as being in the bottom 2. Excuse me for saying, but it is not the job of an encyclopedia to interpret when the show is telling the truth and when they are lying for dramatic effect. We have to go by what they explicitly say MarkMc1990 (talk) 23:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

And having said that, since the show seems content on identifying the bottom 2 within the bottom 3 this season, would it be ok if we went back to using the standard palegolderod color for all Btm and Elim boxes in the finals like in the seasons 1-6 pages? Because the "saved first/last" information isn't really important anymore if we know for sure who the bottom 2 are. There are way to many different shades of yellow in use on the chart as it is anyway. MarkMc1990 (talk) 00:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

we should not put bottom 2 or 3 because nigel Lyth good revealed that because they say bottom 2 it might not be. the voting company that counts the votes tells the producers the bottom 3 and who goes home but does not say the bottom 2, so the bottom 2 ryan announces is the one with the least votes and who the producers want to be in the bottom 2 out of the bottom 3, so adam could have been in the bottom 3 and kris in the bottom 2. plus y did they show that video of Adam being in the bottom 2, because the producers want to coinvence the tone deaf retarded tean age girls with cell phones who are in love with that gay fag to vote for him, either till voting is cut off or till there fingers are just bone. girls be smart, Adam is gay, if you dont believe me read the one on wether or not he is gay, they talk about videos and interviews with him kissing guys and with him admiting that hes gay, plus go to votefortheworst.com and click on the Adam Lambert tag on the right and they will have pictures of him being gay and retarded, plus you girls who think you can be with him are retards, what are ur iqs, 65? 04:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)04:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.216.2.130 (talk)

Jasmine and Jorge's position

I guess I don't quite understand this idea that they "tied for 13th". I highly doubt that they tied for 13th. So they finished 12th or 13th. That's what the 12-13 means. We have ample precedent for this in previous seasons. This is one example. For the past several seasons, they eliminated 4 every week in the semis but they never gave places. So they were listed as 13-16, 17-21, etc. In season 6, we had a similar situation to this year. Phil Stacey and Chris Richardson were both eliminated during the same week. In the chart, they are listed as 5-6. I just don't get the issue I guess. Using 12-13 is entirely accurate. "Tied for 13th" implies that they tied in votes. Well they didn't. The show never gave places and we shouldn't imply places. We'll never know which finished which. But saying 13th is dishonest and simply incorrect. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 11:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, if they were tied it would be at 12th, but I doubt that they got the same amount of votes. I support listing them as "12-13" because that makes the most sense. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 11:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

New Semi final/wild card layout

Hey... I put all the contestants in their respective semi final groups. I put htem in performance order. This is necessary as if you want to see who was in each semi final group you have to look at the elimination chart and be confused by the 'WC' , 'Top 13' tags. The american idol season 3 page has some thing similar to mine with the results for each group at the bottom. I was wondering however if we could make the season 8 semi final lists identic to season 3 coz its a lot to digest... it wud be better without the semi final contestants information. Make another page 'Season 8 semi finalists' and put that information there. this new layout is good as it shows all the finalists in their respective group and it helps analyse the competition... e.g. some1 reviewing it can do them in the appropriate order and it also shows that the contestants who performed 1st didn't make it. Frazzler9 (talk) 13:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I see what you wanted to do, but after cleaning them up a bit, I've noticed that all of the biographies are repeated for those who advanced to the finals. We definitely do not need any of that info more than once. I guess it should appear with each person's first listing on the page. --Mtjaws (talk) 14:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

thx... Im not the best wikipedian so could you sort it out especially the anne marie boskovitch issue. I would much prefer the semi final list with no biography. The season 3 semi list is great... We have the finalist list ... Do we need the semi finalist bios??? Cud u please fix the boldness... Frazzler9 (talk) 18:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

i

Hey, just asking, is you put the semi-final performances like you did in the articles of Seasons 1-4, Can't you also put the Top 13 weeks in the same way with the order of each contestant? Like Top 13 (Michael Jackson) then order each finalist with the song they sang, and at the end put the bottom 3, bottom 2, and eliminated? I liked how you guys did that. JPSinger45 (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I personally like the way the seasons 1-4 articles handle the performances section better too. Its easier to follow, especially when the wildcards have an extra performance listed - that can be confusing. Plus if anyone wanted to see just one contestant's list of performances, they could go to his or her individual article to see that. I would be in complete favor of switching over to the season 1-4 format. MarkMc1990 (talk) 05:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Something to look out for

We apparently have a round of telepathy going on. Let's wait until the show actually airs to put up who is going to do what. Oi. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 00:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

And yes they were right this week but still. If you can find a source, great. Otherwise, it shouldn't be posted. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 01:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Source: [3] (Yes, blogs aren't that reliable...) --71.243.51.45 (talk) 07:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

they have rehearsals right before the actual show, and a lot of people go to see it, so they know what songs they're singing. i've been following mjsbigblog.com and the songs are always right. i still think that it shouldn't be posted though 'cause the performance order is sometimes off.76.197.57.235 (talk) 01:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It was incorrect on the performance order only once. Quit trying to make it seem as if it is unreliable. Gage (talk) 08:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay..sheesh. i'm not trying to make it seem unreliable. all i'm saying is that it's best if the performances are put on after the contestants actually perform, but if people go to the rehearsals and they're sure their information is correct then i'm not stopping them from putting it up.76.197.57.235 (talk) 01:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

elimination chart and top 13

Look at my explanations on the otp 13 performance list coz i have changed megan and jorge to btm 3/4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frazzler9 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but I dont feel that it should go on there unless Ryan specifically said it. For all we know, Megan and Anoop got the top 2 votes. Unless they confirm it, I dont think its encyclopidic. (90.203.39.229 (talk) 17:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC))

LOL for that week Anoop sucked but Megs was awesome but I doubt they got the top 2 votes. Yes I understand that it isn't encyclopidic but Wikipedia isn't just an encyclopedia. IF it was then yeah it wud state that Jazza and Jorge were the lowest but the fact that we can edit it and analyze information to our own conclusion. I have explained why they are on the table as it is most probable that they were the btm 4 based on the points I made. So i'm going to change it baCK. Frazzler9 (talk) 22:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect its your opinion, but I dont see why that means it should automatically go on the article. I gave a reason against your side of it (the unregistered user was me oops), and I think it should go that way because it was like that originally, suggesting that anyone who edited before agreed that this was the case. I dont want you to think im attacking you or anything, but I dont think its a place for an opinion. The facts state that Megan and Anoop were called to the centre of the stage, but were told nothing about being in the bottom 4. I personally agree that it could be likely that they were, but I dont think this is the place for opinions. I personally think the note underneath the table that mentions the two being called to the stages centre is enough. :) (Kyleofark (talk) 23:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC))

Some of the info you have added, specifically about Megan and Anoop being the "bottom 4" and about Von coming in fourth place, is in complete violation of Wikipedia's policy on original research. If something is implied by the show, we need someone else to say so first in a reliable third-party publication. Also, analyzing "facts" and making your own conclusion is blatant original research. I am going to revert these additions. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 00:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you please remove "4th WC" for Von Smith? It's really distracting. Is he really 4th Place? I don't think he was. -- (JPSinger45 (talk) 8:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC))

Done. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 12:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

One more thing, I'm not trying to be noisy and annoying, but since Ryan Seacrest has kept saying the rankings of the Bottom 3, can't we keep the signs in the same old pale goldenrod from Season 1-6? I liked it with only one color. -- (JPSinger45 (talk) 11:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.34.179 (talk)

Lil Rounds Bottom 3 Streak goes April 8: Btm 3 , April 15: Btm 2. Anoop's Bottom 3 Streak goes April 1: Btm 2, April 8: Btm 2, April 15: Btm 3, and Both Elim. I saw it a little messed up. -- (JPSinger45 (talk) 22:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC))

On other articles of Allison Iraheta and Danny Gokey, they say that they were the Top 2, which they definitely would've been since there was a Bottom 3. Should we put the Top 2 symbol like in Season 5? (JPSinger45 (talk) 20:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC))

Please no. With 5 contestants, and three marked "Elim" "Btm-2" and "Btm-3" then it should be obvious who the top-2 are. In articles like this, less is more. The more you clutter up the chart, the LESS readable it gets because you have to sort through the "noise" to get the information. It is not only perfectly fine to leave fields blank, but preferable so that the filled in entries actually stand out. Tedying (talk) 19:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The removal I just made

We can't have the 1-4 format AND the bios of the finalists. It was one big mass of information with lots of repeating. I object to this new format as I think it's a bit too sprawling but if that's what folks want, that's fine. But we can't have both formats. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 07:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I sort of agree. I would propose keeping both sections, but in the bio sections removing the song choices, only leaving the information on the contestants. I think the new format is easier to read and it looks neater too. The old format would have been fine, but the wildcard round does make it a bit confusing why four finalists have more songs than others. (Kyleofark (talk) 17:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC))

I posted this above too, but I like the Season 1-4 articles' finals format better, with listing the week, theme, and performances in order. It flows much easier and looks more organized. If one just wanted to see a list of one particular finalist's performances, they could check his or her individual article for that. And frankly, I think just listing the finals performances in the bios looks sloppy considering the wildcards have one more performance listed than the other finalists without even so much as an explaination, as well as having to scroll down to a different section and count to see what the theme was. MarkMc1990 (talk) 23:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The 1-4 format is way too much like a list. But whatever. I'm losing this one I'm guessing. I do think that at some point, we need some consistency between the articles. Right now we have very little and changing this to this format doesn't help that. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 02:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Btw. I just removed a reference listing from one of the headers. We can't have that. Otherwise we end up with ridiculously long header names. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 02:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so we can't have both a short bio and the current list format? What are we to do about the contestants who don't have articles? (See Alexis Grace) --151.203.215.131 (talk) 18:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion is to put the short bios for the 13 finalists at the start of the Finals section, above the Top 13 week's list of songs. That would introduce the remaining contestants, have links to those with their own articles, and then each week's list of songs will follow. This will give some info about those without their own page. Seems like a reasonable compromise for the two styles that had been in use. --Mtjaws (talk) 02:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I favor the current format (which is like season 1-4) much more than other one. I feel with this one you get a better of idea of how the show went. The other format focuses on the people but that is not what I look for here. Garynine (talk) 19:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a separate List of American Idol contestants (season 8) ? There should be some place to have info on the finalists if they don't have an article. --71.243.55.75 (talk) 18:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I personally don't completely care for this new format (or rather, return to previous formats). I think it should be like the most recent seasons. The Wild Card people will have specific explanations. For example:

Matt Giraud
01. "Viva la Vida" (Coldplay) -- Eliminated
02. "Who's Lovin' You" (The Jackson 5) -- Wild Card Pick
03. "Human Nature" (Michael Jackson)

And so forth. It's really not a big whoop. The only reason I figured this format was resurrected was due to the save. HOWEVER, does anyone else find it as hilariously pointless as I do to say beneath each week's performance list "The judges chose not to save _____." How Sherlockian. It's implied when one scrolls down to the Top 7 anyway that the previous Idols were not saved. Furthermore, it's obvious in the regard that it says "Eliminated: ____" after each week, rather then "Saved: ____". So I move for that to be scrapped, and us to return to the S5-7 format of having brief one or two sentence bios for all the semifinalists, except Jackie and Von as they have their own articles, and for Alexis to have her bio here, while the others have a tiny description and are linked to their own pages.

Another idea:

Semi-Finals Group 1
Semi-Finals Group 2
Semi-Finals Group 3
Wild Card
Ricky Braddy
Tatiana Del Toro
Jesse Langseth
Von Smith

---

Finalists
....

Hopefully you get the point. Basically, because the four WCs who did not advance to the Top 13 had two shows, they'll be described, alphabetically, in that group. This means they won't be listed among the rest of their Group members who did NOT advance. I hope someone takes these ideas into consideration, because I think it'd be a much more appeasing solution.--Cinemaniac86^Oy_gevalt. 05:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

If these ideas don't mesh well or work for you fellow Wikiites, there should be some simple solution we can come up with. Perhaps simply listing the contestants in separate articles like others have said (this show is major enough to do just that) would work after all. Finalists on the first tier, Wild Cards on the second, and Semifinalists on the third. This would echo the Australian Idol page's method, with the sole difference being it'd have its own page so as not to clutter up the main Season 8 article. If we do this, I suggest we do this for at least Seasons 5,6,7 as well.--Cinemaniac86^Oy_gevalt. 05:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

In seperate articles? What do you mean? Honestly, I don't think we need to do anything that radical. There isn't that much dissatisfaction with how the article was before is there? Too many radical changes I think in a short time. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 12:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I really think something like this should really go to the WikiProject don't you? --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 12:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Bottom 3 shading

Since the show is making a point of identifying the bottom 2 within the bottom 3 this season, would it be ok if we went back to using the standard palegoldenrod color for all Btm and Elim boxes in the finals like in the seasons 1-6 pages? Using the different shades of yellow for the bottom 3 began in season 7 as a method for distinguishing the order they were saved, but that information isn't really relevant anymore this season if they tell us who the bottom 2 are. There are way too many different shades of yellow in use on the chart as it is anyway. Surely, this is a reasonable request, no? MarkMc1990 (talk) 19:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

No I like the different btm 3/2 colours as it helps and it easier to mark out contestants who have been in the btm 3 and btm 2 against others and also because being in the btm 2 is different than the btm 3 which I think is important to mark out. Also on the season 5 page it explicitly says that the contestants marked btm 2 are the ones who were saved last. Frazzler9 (talk) 19:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The text labels do a good enough job of distinguishing Btm 2 and Btm 3. And if you don't mind me saying, anyone not reading the chart attentively enough to notice the difference between "2" and "3" probably doesn't care enough anyway. Not to mention, the shades are so close that they look the same on alot of monitors with lower resolutions anyway and that can confuse people. I just feel like the chart would look cleaner if we just used palegoldenrod in the finals and then didn't have 5 different shades of yellow all over the place. MarkMc1990 (talk) 20:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

No. Gage (talk) 08:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You could at least back up your stance with support. MarkMc1990 (talk) 12:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

well being in the btm 3 is different to being in the btm 2... so it should have a different colour... plus it helps compare other contestants. and its better so just leave it!!! !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frazzler9 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Mark on this one. Why? Well basically because I don't trust this show. :) Yes they are saying bottom 2 this season but in the end, we never will know if that is done for purely dramatic reasons or if the person really is bottom 2. The only thing we can count on is bottom 3 really. That they can't really fudge. It's been universal since the beginning of the show. The bottom 2 has not been. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 04:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Well if thats the case then they could be lying about thr btm 3.. Ryan said many occasions... these 2 had the least amount of votes and has also sed ' this is our btm 2' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frazzler9 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Unless you get full consensus to change the colors of these boxes to palegodenrod, then quit adding it. It completely disrupts the entire flow of the chart, the legend, and is completely unnecessary. Quit adding it. Gage (talk) 00:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Well so far me, WoohooKitty, and JPSinger45 above have all agreed that it should not use the shades. Which is 3-2 over you and Frazzler. And you have yet to give any sort of reason why we should continue with the different shades. MarkMc1990 (talk) 01:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not have opinion one way or the other because I could see both sides of the argument, but I would like everyone to fully explain why they feel their "shading" is better here and stop edit warring on the article. People on both sides of the argument are either close or have violated the 3rr and could possibly be blocked. I ask for everyone to cool down for a few days, let debate/discussion take place on the issue and when there is a consensus to act accordingly. Aspects (talk) 02:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I've pretty much stated all my reasons in my first 2 posts. There are 3 of us who agree that it should just be palegoldenrod, one of whom is an admin. There are only two from the opposing side, only one of whom however who actually gave reasons for his opinion. MarkMc1990 (talk) 20:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you please put the pale golden rod shading please? I liked it from Seasons 1-6. It was good for only Season 7 because Ryan Seacrest never announced who was in Btm 3 or Btm 2. The colors are awful for this season. He announces their actual rankings. For example, he stated the Top 11 Btm 2 (Michael and Alexis), Top 10 Bottom 2 (Matt and Michael), Top 9 Bottom 2 (Anoop and Megan), Top 8 Btm 2 (Scott and Anoop), Top 7 Btm 2 (Lil and Matt) and the Top 7 2.0 Btm 3 (Allison , Lil and Anoop). So I don't know why this is still going on. --JPSinger45 (talk) 22:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know either, JP. MarkMc1990 (talk) 20:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Well seeing as there is a 3-2 consensus in favor of changing it, plus the fact that the opposition failed to give any (sufficient) reasoning, I am assuming I can go ahead and make the change and will do so. If consesus changes, the colors can change. MarkMc1990 (talk) 01:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I am against this unicolor racist shading. The basic substantiation for this is that the majority of charts on Wikipedia contain multiple colors, because it is more viscerally effective and visually pleasing. I believe that the separate colors are useful in distinguishing one block from another in people's memories. When something in a chart is all a single color, one could be reflecting upon the Wiki chart the next day but be unable to discern in their minds whether Matt or Scott was in the Bottom 2, or if Michael or Alexis was eliminated first.

It's not so much an intelligence issue, but certain people possess weaknesses in these areas. These visual aids are essential in differentiating one thing from the other. That color becomes synonymous with what it is signifying. (A good example would be the Top Chef or Project Runway charts, where there is a nice contrast between "Win", "High", "Low", and "Out".) Ergo, I fully believe it is wise to retain the separate colors we have for this chart that has been effective in the past, because they represent unique descriptions and it's beneficial to readers in general.--Cinemaniac86^Oy_gevalt. 04:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't really say that I want all one color for the entire chart. I just said that bottom 2/3 should be the same color. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 04:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

That's what I was actually considering, too. That's the one thing I think would be permissible. But I really dig Mark's new aesthetic idea below.--Cinemaniac86^Oy_gevalt. 05:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You present some good arguments. I would, however, suggest at the very least that we reverse the gradient so that it makes more sense with the lightest shade being used for "bottom 3" (as its closest to the white "safe" boxes) and the darkest shade for "eliminated" as its the most "serious", if you will.

This is how it currently is

Safe

Bottom 3

Bottom 2

Eliminated

Judges' Save

This is how I believe it should be

Safe

Bottom 3

Bottom 2

Eliminated

Judges' Save

MarkMc1990 (talk) 05:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Love it! That, I believe, was a very wise idea. I always thought the bold yellow seemed rather obnoxious and dramatic anyway. (It reminded me of those multiple choices on SATs--the "Which of these don't belong?" sort.) Having that more visually potent color represent Elimination is a terrific solution that I think would actually enhance the chart and improve it in the long-run =). Oh, and thank you, btw. You have my complete approval.--Cinemaniac86^Oy_gevalt. 05:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Great. I think it would be appropriate to make this change on the Season 7 article as well. I'll wait a little while though just in case someone opposes for one reason or another. MarkMc1990 (talk) 05:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I was going to suggest that as well. But my paragraph was loquacious enough :P. It's worth doing that though for consistency.--Cinemaniac86^Oy_gevalt. 05:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)