Talk:The X Factor (British TV series) series 13

Philip Hadlow

Should he be included since he was only a guest judge for one person or not? --MSalmon (talk) 20:31, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Definitely not.--Launchballer 21:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - No thanks! Not notable enough. Class455 (talk) 21:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Every so often it keeps being re added so I thought I would discuss it MSalmon (talk) 22:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I've left an editorial note on the page telling users not to add Hadlow to the list of judges. Sorry if i did come across as harsh on it, but it had to be done to stop people from adding it. Class455 (talk) 20:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Definitely not in any list of judges. He's named as judging a single audition in the judges' auditions section. anemoneprojectors 12:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Returning auditionees

Do we really need this long list of unsourced names, most of whom are barely notable and forgotten about since their last auditions, and some of whom may never have had their previous auditions shown at the time? At least, anyone who didn't reach judges' houses previously should probably be removed. Ryan and Aalto are worth including though, as they are both notable people. I'm going to remove the ones who only made bootcamp in their previous audition, but I think we should also remove the six-chair challenge ones. anemoneprojectors 17:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think any of them should be there. Provide a footnote in the navbox like they had on Template:The Voice UK.--Launchballer 18:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we need to mention any returning auditionees. The notable auditionees are fine. In Template:The X Factor (UK) contestants we only include contestants who reached judges' houses, and that template won't be used in this page. anemoneprojectors 14:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Ratings

Is anyone going to add the 4 weeks worth of ratings? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.80.171.211 (talk) 14:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

We're going to use the 28-day ratings provided by BARB so they won't be added until they are available, which is after 28 days. So you'll have to wait. anemoneprojectors 11:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

How come there is no ITV HD ratings? MSalmon (talk) 22:03, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

They're included in the ITV Total. anemoneprojectors 19:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Number of contestants at the six-chair challenge

I've not watched it yet but someone said the number of performances shown wasn't the number of contestants, so it was removed. However, in the bootcamp episode when the contestants found out their mentors, they had a shot of all the contestants in the rooms. There were 14 girls, 14 boys, 17 over 25s and I couldn't count the groups. anemoneprojectors 11:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2016

Zjaakkima (talk) 22:41, 30 September 2016 (UTC) Contestans Saara Aalto is Misspelled As Saara Alto at some occasions

 Done This has since been fixed. anemoneprojectors 21:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Changing Brooks Way's Result

Technically, Brooks Way were disqualified, they didn't withdraw.

Dangold426 (talk) 20:41, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Lifeline vote

The colour we're currently using for the lifeline vote for Freddy is the same colour we use as the winner in the final, I think we need a different colour. ThisIsDanny (talk) 22:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

In the results table, we use "lightgreen" for the winner as it's the same as the person with the most votes. In the last week, when the winner is announced, we have used "ffe87c", which isn't the same as "fdd581". One is more orange, the other more yellow. Though we could easily change that to "lightgreen" in the first 12 series. This greyish-purplish colour people have been putting in is too grey and too similar to the "DDA0DD" of Brooks Way's withdrawal. I'm happy to use a different colour that isn't similar to anything else. Basically, different to these:        but with a similar tone, nothing really bright like people have attempted to add in past years. Any suggestions? anemoneprojectors 12:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

To begin, I apologise for not responding more promptly. I am not a frequent Wikipedia editor but I change what I feel is aesthetically best and most appropriate to the despondency of the article. Use of the orange colour is abrupt, ominous and quite frankly sticks out like a sore thumb. Using #DACEF2 fits more with the article. The lilac shade IS different to that of the colour used for the Withdrawal of Brooks Way - yet still fits with the colour scheme and hence makes the article more cohesive, articulate, consistent and aesthetically pleasing. I urge you to keep it this way. With regards to 'Saved' - it just makes sense. The description of the colour is given above the Results Summary, by the colour key. There is no need to describe the scenario. It is already in the key. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irin161 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I completely disagree that it sticks out like a sore thumb, I think it's quite subtle for an orangey colour and goes well with the other colours. I'm all for keeping it. I don't think the purplish grey fits at all, and it's just too grey. anemoneprojectors 21:44, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I think we should stick with the colour as is it, my only problem being is for the final week it's similar to the winner, but like you suggested that could be changed to green (like the results summary table) which would make it more consistent throughout - but then we've also been using green for jukebox week song choices ThisIsDanny (talk) 22:22, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Generally we use green for "most votes" so that can also apply to jukebox week from previous years. I'm not sure there will be a jukebox week this year because of the wheel spinning thing. Just for comparison:    anemoneprojectors 18:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I am still extremely unhappy about the use of "Bottom three; saved by lifeline vote". It's just way too long and it already describes in the colour key (still think that colour is horrendous). It needs to be changed to just 'Saved' as it says enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irin161 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

"Saved" is not good enough. Per WP:COLOUR, colour must never be the only way to convey information, so putting "saved" and a colour to signify that they were in the bottom three and saved by the lifeline vote is wrong, we have to say they were in the bottom three and saved by the lifeline vote. It's not too long. If it were 500 words long I'd agree with you, but six words is fine. anemoneprojectors 12:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

The lifeline vote also makes it impossible to know any placing before the final results are revealed. Ryan could have been in 11th place in the main vote but still saved by the lifeline vote. Currently Freddie is marked as 11th and Saara as 10th these need to changed to Bottom Three. Sagand42 (talk) 23:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Changed the 10th/11th nonsense for the third time tonight. It's not difficult to understand really but I've had to include a hidden note so hopefully people won't change it back. ThisIsDanny (talk) 23:56, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this should be pretty obvious. Unlike previous years, because of the lifeline vote we just can't know any of the placings until the end when the full results are published. anemoneprojectors 12:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Criticism of novety acts and professional artists

I'm not convinced that it is notable criticism when social media users criticise a particular act. For the sake of neutrality in the article, we should either include praise and criticism for all acts, or remove the section completely, or we should stick to what professional reviewers have said, rather than lazy news reports of what random people have said online. The same for professional artists - if it's against the rules then it's controversial, but it's not so is mentioning the criticism necessary? If so, we need to establish, for the sake of neutrality in the article, that no rules have been broken, or again, remove this section. anemoneprojectors 14:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I would remove it altogether to be honest, or we should just include views of professional reviewers only in the "criticism" section. Class455 (talk) 14:51, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I've removed those bits but left in the Brooks Way section as I don't have a problem with that. anemoneprojectors 18:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I also removed the bit about Little Mix's performance as it was just social media again. If there are official complaints to ITV or Ofcom, we can report on that. anemoneprojectors 11:45, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Emily confirmed bottom 3, please edit

You can find it on the channel. Dermot didn't say anything, but it was revealed on the YT channel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.105.230.103 (talk) 05:54, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

 Not done - There was no bottom three in last night's show, so therefore no lifeline vote. Remember that the vote is announced in no particular order, so we don't know if Emily was in fact higher up the order or not. Class455 (talk) 14:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_TY4Gf2lAE might change your mind — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.191.103.91 (talk) 08:58, 16 November 2016‎

I'm curious as to what stage during the results show that was filmed - I haven't actually watched that one yet but I'm assuming they kept one person waiting during an advert break? That will just be a case of Emily's name hadn't been called yet so she was still at risk of being in the bottom two but wasn't in the actual bottom three - the order of the announcement is still in no particular order. anemoneprojectors 09:28, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

It was in no particular order. They just did it to add suspense. There was no bottom three, only bottom two. ThisIsDanny (talk) 17:44, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't a bottom three because there was no lifeline vote, they did it as ThisIsDanny said to add suspense. MSalmon (talk) 20:55, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

So what Kemp is referring to in the video is the people who were left waiting to hear who wasn't in the bottom two, but it wasn't the bottom three. Thanks. anemoneprojectors 08:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Audience share

Are these figures not being released at all? If no, should we just remove the column from the ratings table? anemoneprojectors 16:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

This was removed - so I'm assuming the answer was no, though I wish people would respond to discussions first. anemoneprojectors 08:08, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Ratings table data

Hi, Can the current 28-day ratings from BARB be removed and reverted to the standard 7-day data please, all past 12 series use the normal 7-day data so why is series 13 so special and the data is much far ahead publicised. I would do it myself but I don't want to get into any edit conflict arguments with people that think this page is only theirs to edit so thought it best to ask on Talk Page first. Superdry19 (talk) 03:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

It's not special. The 28-day data hasn't been available before and giving the 28-day rating is a more truer figure of who is watching. We could try to gain consensus to include both 7-day and 28-day data, but I'd be against removing the 28-day data. But then we'd have to consider using SD Only, Total and SD+HD figures, with both 7- and 28-day data and could end up with 6 different ratings figures, which would get confusing, and also we'd have to consider which rating we use for the weekly rank, as twice the 28-day ranking has been different to the 7-day ranking. I don't think we should use 7-day data. If 28-day data was availbale for the previous series, we'd use it. Actually, it is available for 2015, so I'll probbaly change it when I get the chance. I always use 28-day data where it's available, in other Wikipedia articles to which I add viewing figures. anemoneprojectors 08:10, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

In all honesty the 28-day ratings data for this one series alone just looks silly and out of consistency with the rest of the pages (I'd even be against having it included in 2015 article like you said), I don't know why it can't be removed along with the audience share column and go back to the original and better format of having ITV+ITVHD = Total Viewers like on all previous series articles before this. Look at other long running series like Big Brother, Celebrity Big Brother, I'm a Celebrity..., Strictly etc. NONE of them use 28-day data and have all stuck to 7-day, unless with me saying that you alone will change every one of the pages associated with them series rating data to 28-day now. Superdry19 (talk) 03:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Well we can use both, but I wouldn't want to see the 28-day ratings removed. However, I would go with "ITV Total" only, as I see no need to have separate columns for SD and HD - we added them together before but now BARB has done that for us. anemoneprojectors 16:12, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

The table was changed to include the three separate 28-day ratings, which is fine. I don't see any point in adding 7-day ratings now, but if we do, it'll mean 6 columns of ratings. anemoneprojectors 08:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

needed edits

Please can the following be added:

• In week 7, 5 after midnight used a verse from Otis by Jay Z and Kanye West, which has Otis Reding deemed a featured artist as it interpolates Try a Little Tenderness. That should be acknowledged.
• Why has the allegations about Gifty being used as a front to promote 5th Harmony, and the outrage over her elimination the following day not been mentioned in the controversy section?31.49.62.21 (talk) 12:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

According to the source, they performed "Try a Little Tenderness". If you can find a reliable source that says they included lyrics from another song, then we can add it then. Otherwise it's original research.

Gifty wasn't being used as a front to promote 5th Harmony, but if there are allegations of this, they haven't been mentioned because nobody has mentioned them. It's not that we deliberately not including it. However, see also the section Criticism of novety acts and professional artists above, for why we aren't including comments from social media that haven't been responded to by X Factor officials. anemoneprojectors 15:37, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

a) The Gifty debacle was bought up on xtra factor, and Simon denied there was anything unscrupulous http://www.digitalspy.com/tv/the-x-factor/news/a812570/simon-gets-totally-owned-by-two-viewers-on-the-xtra-factor-about-why-gifty-sings-so-much-fifth-harmony/, and b) You should watch the 5 am performance on youtube, as they rap a verse from Otis midway in the song. Maybe you should cite a link to the youtube performance https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U02q3fS9Dcs 134.83.3.161 (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm aware that it was brought up on The Xtra Factor, that's why I said she wasn't being used to promote them. There's no controversy and no criticism, so nothing to write about. And I already saw the 5 After Midnight performance, but to say that they performed part of another song without a reliable, independent source is still original research. anemoneprojectors 13:56, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

A simple question: Live Week 7:

Added information: Boris The Teeth Guy 7 "You've Got a Friend in Me" Toy Story Safe Sing-off  ???!!!???

WHAT?!?!

Boris The Teeth Guy was The X Factor UK Series 4. And eliminated Judge's Houses!!! Also Boris The Teeth Guy was NOT series 13.

188.238.44.203 (talk) 00:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)