Talk:The X Factor (British TV series) series 10

"Axing" of arena auditions?

I know I'm the one that put this in, but it's what the source said. If there's second audition that takes place in front of an audience, then the arena auditions technically haven't been "axed", have they? Unreal7 (talk) 20:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we should reword it. –anemoneprojectors– 11:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no move. -- tariqabjotu 13:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

---

• The X Factor (UK series 10) → The X Factor 2013 (UK)
• The X Factor (UK series 9) → The X Factor 2012 (UK)
• The X Factor (UK series 8) → The X Factor 2011 (UK)
• The X Factor (UK series 7) → The X Factor 2010 (UK)
• The X Factor (UK series 6) → The X Factor 2009 (UK)
• The X Factor (UK series 5) → The X Factor 2008 (UK)
• The X Factor (UK series 4) → The X Factor 2007 (UK)
• The X Factor (UK series 3) → The X Factor 2006 (UK)
• The X Factor (UK series 2) → The X Factor 2005 (UK)
• The X Factor (UK series 1) → The X Factor 2004 (UK)

Maybe I'm being a total idiot, but each series is regularly referred to in the media by the year it takes place in, and also at the end of each series Dermot O'Leary/Kate Thornton always says "The winner of The X Factor (year) is...". Unreal7 (talk) 12:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'm inclined to oppose this because officially each individual series doesn't have its own name (look in TV listings, for example), it's just the 10th or 2013 series of The X Factor, and it's probably as much referred to in the media without the year on the end as with. –anemoneprojectors– 08:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per AnemoneProjectors. On not following policies per WP:IAR, it is not consistent to stylish the titles. ApprenticeFan ^work 10:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Judge's Houses

The judges houses' stage is due to take part in late August/early September. According to reports, Gary will take the groups to New York, Sharon will take the overs to Los Angeles, Louis will take the boys to the south of France and Nicole will take the girls to Antiqua..It has also been reported that former contestant Olly Murs will assist Barlow, Sharon will be assisted by her daughter Kelly Osbourne, Louis will be joined by former Westlife star Shane Filan and Nicole will be assisted by Mary J Blige. Lawsj1234 (talk) 17:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Not done: wait for it to be confirmed. Mdann52 (talk) 15:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Some of this information has already been added, from a slightly more reliable source than those given. –anemoneprojectors– 17:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

References

Live Shows

The live shows will begin in October. It is reported that Katy Perry, Lady Gaga and Justin Timberlake will perform during the live shows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawsj1234 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks but someone's Twitter isn't a reliable source. –anemoneprojectors– 20:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

By my reckoning the Live shows will start on 14 October (8 auditions, 2 bootcamp & 2 judges' houses) --MSalmon (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

That's a Monday. –anemoneprojectors– 21:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry meant the 12 October --MSalmon (talk) 21:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

You could be right. Have to wait and see. –anemoneprojectors– 22:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

This was all just guess work based on last year, with an extra audition episode--MSalmon (talk) 22:18, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

According to the radio times there are 22 episodes (excluding live results shows) so the 12 October 2013 will be correct for the start of the live shows. --MSalmon (talk) 09:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

That's still original research based on the assumption that there will be 8 audition eps, 2 bootcamp eps and 2 judges' houses eps. –anemoneprojectors– 15:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It has been reported that a 'flash vote' will be introduced this year. After all act have performed on the Saturday, viewers will then have 200 seconds to phone for their chosen singer. O'Leary will then reveal the act with the lowest amount of vote, and this act will be up for elimination. The lines will then reopen for Sunday's result show and the lowest-scoring act will join the act with the lowest votes. If the vote goes to deadlock, the act who recieve the lowest votes on Saturday will be eliminated.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawsj1234 (talk • contribs) 11:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

References

Start date

Has anyone got a reference that shows this new series starts on the 31 August, or is this just guesswork? - if there is a reference, why has it not been included? Bruno Russell (talk) 16:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

There is a source for the start date --MSalmon (talk) 19:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, the source is in the article. It's this one [1] –anemoneprojectors– 15:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

End date

When the series starts, do we put "present", or leave the date, since it's reliably referenced? –anemoneprojectors– 10:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Use present when the series starts and only put the end date in when the show has actually finished --MSalmon (talk) 10:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree. –anemoneprojectors– 12:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

That is always how it has been done --MSalmon (talk) 12:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I just wasn't sure if we'd known the end date before the series had started before this year. –anemoneprojectors– 16:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Associated Newspapers/DMG Media

I don't know when the name was changed but if a source was published when they were called Associated Newspapers, the publisher should be listed as Associated Newspapers, not changed to DMG Media. Also wanted to note that websites still say they are published by Associated Newspapers, so I'm not sure it should be changed at all yet. Associated Newspapers does still exist. –anemoneprojectors– 12:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Louis judges houses

Some references are saying that Nicola, Shane and Sinitta are all helping Louis, while others only say Nicola and Sinitta are[2] - which makes logical sense as 3 seems overkill. Are we sure that Shane is helping, and should reference to him be removed until there is more surity. Bruno Russell (talk) 13:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I was watching This Morning today and I'm sure they said all three were confirmed. The Daily Mail source has a photo of the three together (though where's his luggage?), so he was certainly at the airport with them as they were on their way. (I don't see it as overkill, your opinion might not be the same as the producers, but it's sources that matter not opinions.) –anemoneprojectors– 16:07, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't want it to be done on my opinion, but are there any reliable written sources which say Shane is 100% going to be there, like there are for Nicola and Sinitta? If there are then it's fine, if not then I think that Shane's name should be removed from the main article for the time being. Bruno Russell (talk) 07:27, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Is the Daily Mail not reliable enough? –anemoneprojectors– 08:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Ratings

The Guardian and Digital Spy are reporting different viewing figures. Digital Spy says that Sunday's episode brought in 9.11m with a 35.5% share [3], but The Guardian claims it was 9.6m with a 37.6% share [4]. Who should we believe? Unreal7 (talk) 20:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

They're both reliable sources - but are any other news sites reporting it? I can't find any. –anemoneprojectors– 13:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Here's another one. A peak of 8.85m or a peak of 10.4m?

The 10.4m includes ITV+1, so the 8.85m is the one we should go with. –anemoneprojectors– 22:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Always go with the official BARB ratings once they are released. Bruno Russell (talk) 16:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Length of each episode

I think that with the ratings table should be an extra column, next to the date, that says how long each episode was broadcast for (e.g 60 minutes, 80 minutes, 90 minutes and 120 minutes are the most common throughout the series. It's just because there is so much vary in the lengths of different episodes through the series, and I feel this is important to note. It is done with other shows that often differ in length, for example I'm a Celeb. Bruno Russell (talk) 16:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree. When I saw you added a discussion for "Length of each episode", I didn't know what you were going to say but my immediate thought was to add it to that table. –anemoneprojectors– 09:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Great. I've done just in minutes for the moment, you can change to hours and minutes if you feel this is better.Bruno Russell (talk) 10:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I think just minutes is good. –anemoneprojectors– 11:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Rough Copy

Kaz says he's still in Rough Copy.[5] Unreal7 (talk) 12:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

So does that mean they won't be in Judges' Houses, or has he got a visa? Have to wait, I guess. Removed my edit. –anemoneprojectors– 12:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Well we now know he has left. Unreal7 (talk) 21:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

But he hasn't left, he said so. He'll probably rejoin the group if they get through to the live shows. –anemoneprojectors– 21:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Semi protect the article

Hey. Do you think the article should be semi-protected? There seems to have been a growing number of edits from IP addresses adding in people they believe, or want, to make it through to the live shows. I would say a semi-protect should be put on the article until such a time the finalists are confirmed on the ITV show, and they can be put on with reference. Open to opinion on the matter. Thanks Bruno Russell (talk) 13:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

In the past, the pages have had to be semi-protected until the entire series ends because of people adding the result they would have preferred. But as vandalism is currently creeping in, perhaps it's a good idea now. –anemoneprojectors– 15:52, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Sooli Roots

Should all the stuff on Sooli Roots have been removed - they came from good sources, including the Daily Mail. The X Factor is well known for twists and turns - just because she was seen going home yesterday does not mean she won't be back (for example, Sharon might not fill all her seats and thus might add someone in previously out).

I think this stuff should be re-included. What do you think? Bruno Russell (talk) 12:27, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Until we know that she is coming back then no --MSalmon (talk) 12:28, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

You could be right, Bruno, but we should wait and see. It's actually from the Sunday People, and it's come from an "insider" who we don't know, so we don't know how reliable that person actually is. It could be made up, or it could be true. If Roots is not through then it seems quite dubious. If it turns out that she is through after all then maybe we can put it back. I also removed the bit about Sharon not being happy with getting the Overs, but again it's from an unnamed source and on The Xtra Factor, she said she was happy, and in fact the judges have said the Overs are quite strong this year. –anemoneprojectors– 15:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

So obviously she is not coming back as Sharon has filled all her seats --MSalmon (talk) 20:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Yep she's not in the final 24, so I reckon this report doesn't have much going for it. –anemoneprojectors– 20:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Simon at bootcamp

He had nothing to do with bootcamp this year. Unreal7 (talk) 21:33, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I've already put in that it didn't happen. –anemoneprojectors– 22:10, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Unreal7 (talk) 23:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Final 24 redirects

Hi all, just wanted to let you know that last night I created redirects for all the final 24 (apart from Melanie McCabe - already redirected here - and Jade Richards - redirected elsewhere but now redirects here). You can see them all here. –anemoneprojectors– 11:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Deadlock

Hey. Do we know what's going to happen if Sunday's sing off goes to deadlock. They can't go to earlier public vote as one will have had longer to collect votes. Is this where Simon Cowell will come in? Bruno Russell (talk) 19:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Early reports said the person who lost the "flash vote" goes. That was before the flash vote was officially confirmed, so might not be true. –anemoneprojectors– 20:04, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

It will probably be the act who received the fewst votes "overall" (both Saturday's flash vote and Sunday's vote) that will be eliminated --MSalmon (talk) 20:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

It would be nice if it was the same as previous years, but nothing is guaranteed this year. Personally (and I've been saying this for a few years), I think they should have a different guest judge each week during the live shows, who is impartial, and then eliminates deadlock, because the judges use deadlock as a cop out. But they'd have announced that by now, if it were to happen. Still, fingers crossed for next year (as every year!) –anemoneprojectors– 22:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Will the person that loses the flashvote have their voting line left open so people can vote to save them if the sing-off goes to deadlock then? Otherwise the public vote could not be used in the situation. I was wondering if deadlock may be where Cowell comes in via satellite link (he's sort of impartial). Bruno Russell (talk) 12:22, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, I have no idea how it will work. Guess we will just have to wait and see. --MSalmon (talk) 12:45, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Wait and see, but no I don't think the line will reopen for the person losing the flash vote, because they're already in the bottom two, and if it was reopened, people would vote to keep that person from being elimiated, further biasing the vote. –anemoneprojectors– 18:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Results table

Do you think this needs to be changed, with two differnt colours for the bottom two, the one that was put in on the saturday after the flash vote in one colour and the one in on the Sunday in a different colour. This would then have to be inserted in the key aswell. I think it's important to distinguish when the contestant was put in, as this will effect the voting percentage they have listed. Bruno Russell (talk) 15:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes we need a different colour for the flash vote loser. I think we should put in a row for the flash vote loser, and change the "final showdown" row so it only lists the person who loses the second vote. When there's no "final showdown", does the flash vote disappear? –anemoneprojectors– 17:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I've had a go. See what you think? I didn't know what to call the second vote, so I called it the main vote. Also I couldn't come up with a decent colour quickly enough, so that can be changed. –anemoneprojectors– 17:36, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I think there should be two columns each week (with Saturday and Sunday as headings, life the final). The act who loses the flash vote can go in Saturdays column, and the other act can go in Sundays column. Then have the final showdown rows as normal. --MSalmon (talk) 21:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like too many columns. Could you replicate an example below (with invented results) so we can see what you mean? –anemoneprojectors– 12:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh you do have a point. There's two votes, so two sets of percentages. It depends how the percentages are presented to us at the end of the series (they might combine them for all we know). For now though, I think it's fine to combine them into one, as all we'll know until after the final is who is safe and who isn't. –anemoneprojectors– 12:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps there can be a standby table (like I said) somewhere, just in case --MSalmon (talk) 13:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Would it be something like this?

Weekly results per contestant

Contestant	Week 1		Week 2		Week 3		Week 4		Week 5		Week 6		Week 7		Week 8		Week 9		Week 10
	Saturday	Sunday	Saturday	Sunday	Saturday	Sunday	Saturday	Sunday	Saturday	Sunday	Saturday	Sunday	Saturday	Sunday	Saturday	Sunday	Saturday	Sunday	Saturday	Sunday
Abi Alton	12th	—
Sam Bailey	Safe	11th
Hannah Barrett	Safe	Safe
Sam Callahan	Safe	Safe
Tamera Foster	Safe	Safe
Luke Friend	Safe	Safe
Kingsland Road	Safe	Safe
Nicholas McDonald	Safe	Safe
Miss Dynamix	Safe	Safe
Rough Copy	Safe	Safe
Lorna Simpson	Safe	Safe
Shelley Smith	Safe	Safe
Lost flash vote	Abi Alton	—	Nicholas McDonald	—		—		—		—		—		—		—		—		—
Lost main vote	—	Sam Bailey	—	Kingsland Road	—		—		—		—		—		—		—		—
Walsh's vote to eliminate	Abi Alton
Osbourne's vote to eliminate	Abi Alton
Barlow's vote to eliminate	Abi Alton
Scherzinger's vote to eliminate	Sam Bailey
Eliminated	Abi Alton etc
Reference(s)

?? –anemoneprojectors– 15:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I have changed your table to what I was thinking --MSalmon (talk) 15:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Weekly results per contestant

Contestant	Week 1		Week 2		Week 3		Week 4		Week 5		Week 6		Week 7		Week 8		Week 9		Week 10
	Saturday	Sunday	Saturday	Sunday	Saturday	Sunday	Saturday	Sunday	Saturday	Sunday	Saturday	Sunday	Saturday	Sunday	Saturday	Sunday	Saturday	Sunday	Saturday	Sunday
Abi Alton	12th	—
Sam Bailey	Safe	11th
Hannah Barrett	Safe	Safe
Sam Callahan	Safe	Safe
Tamera Foster	Safe	Safe
Luke Friend	Safe	Safe
Kingsland Road	Safe	Safe
Nicholas McDonald	Safe	Safe
Miss Dynamix	Safe	Safe
Rough Copy	Safe	Safe
Lorna Simpson	Safe	Safe
Shelley Smith	Safe	Safe
Final showdown	Alton, McDonald
Walsh's vote to eliminate	Alton
Osbourne's vote to eliminate	Alton
Barlow's vote to eliminate	Alton
Scherzinger's vote to eliminate	Bailey
Eliminated	Abi Alton etc
Reference(s)

I've reverted mine and pasted yours below, for comparison. Actually, yours is better because it's clear who loses one vote and who loses the other, and mine looks silly! They probably will release all the %s, so shall we just do it now? –anemoneprojectors– 15:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

One more example (same as above but with more info) just to see how it might look.

Weekly results per contestant

Contestant	Week 1		Week 2		Week 3		Week 4		Week 5		Week 6		Week 7		Week 8		Week 9		Week 10
	Saturday	Sunday	Saturday	Sunday	Saturday	Sunday	Saturday	Sunday	Saturday	Sunday	Saturday	Sunday	Saturday	Sunday	Saturday	Sunday	Saturday	Sunday	Saturday	Sunday
Abi Alton	12th 0.4%	—
Sam Bailey	Safe	11th 1.0%
Hannah Barrett	Safe	Safe
Sam Callahan	Safe	Safe
Tamera Foster	Safe	Safe
Luke Friend	Safe	Safe
Kingsland Road	Safe	Safe
Nicholas McDonald	Safe	Safe
Miss Dynamix	Safe	Safe
Rough Copy	Safe	Safe
Lorna Simpson	Safe	Safe
Shelley Smith	Safe	Safe
Final showdown	Alton, Bailey		Kingsland Road, McDonald
Walsh's vote to eliminate	Alton		Kingsland Road
Osbourne's vote to eliminate	Alton		McDonald
Barlow's vote to eliminate	Alton		McDonald
Scherzinger's vote to eliminate	Bailey		Kingsland Road
Eliminated	Abi Alton 3 of 4 votes Majority		Kingsland Road 2 of 4 votes Deadlock
Reference(s)

Everything fits in well, so yeah, this is great. Made one small change to the references line. –anemoneprojectors– 15:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I would just do it because it gives more information without having to majorly change everything --MSalmon (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Excellent work here. Thank you, Just a note, make sure the font, especially the names, dosen't become too small. Did we need 2 columns for each week, is that better than being color coded? Just thinking size wise. Anyway, thanks for the hard work :) Bruno Russell (talk) 17:06, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, we would need two columns for the two separate votes (the other one was too complicated). If the font is too small then just enlarge it a bit --MSalmon (talk) 17:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I was originally thinking one column, but with two separate votes, we'll need both columns to display the %s after the series has ended. 80% is too small on my screen, and therefore probably impossible for people with bad eyesight. 85% is the same as previous series. If the font size could be bigger, it would be, but I don't think any bigger will fit properly. –anemoneprojectors– 17:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Made some small adjustments, how about now? --MSalmon (talk) 21:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Your nowraps made no difference to my screen because neither "Nicholas McDonald" nor "Scherzinger's vote" were wrapped on my screen. I'm reverting your "bottom two" because there is no bottom two, there's two "bottom ones". –anemoneprojectors– 09:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

May I suggest that instead of the table being so long-winded, there's only one column for each week instead of separate ones for Saturday and Sunday and include a "flash vote casualty" in, say, pink, and the other act in the bottom 2 to be blue... This uses less room and makes it look neater, I think. -Jonnyt_123 (talk) 14:08, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

You mean like the first table on here? --MSalmon (talk) 13:09, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

@Jonnyt 123: this was my initial thought but there are going to be two separate results revealed, so at the end of the series we will need two columns for the two different results, when the percentages are revealed. –anemoneprojectors– 13:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

"Bottom two" in live show details sections

As I said above, this year there isn't a "bottom two" because there are two votes, so it's the person at the bottom of each vote, two "bottom ones" if you will. Also, it would be better to state in the live show details sections which vote each person lost, rather than just to say that both lost the vote (however you want to say it), so I'd rather see it go back to "lost flash vote" or something similar. Obviously I'm discussing it and not reverting it per WP:BRD. –anemoneprojectors– 22:03, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I see where you are coming with that so that is fine. Also with regards to Sunday's result can it be "Bottom two"or something else? --MSalmon (talk) 22:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Sunday's isn't a bottom two, it's a bottom one. So something else. I don't know what to call it. –anemoneprojectors– 22:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Lost main vote, like in your first table of results you did? --MSalmon (talk) 22:27, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, unless they call it something else. I was going to say that Caroline Flack did say "bottom two", possibly out of habit, I don't know, but even if it is called a "bottom two" officially, we should still state that one person lost one vote and another person lost another vote, otherwise it look like two people came bottom of a single vote. Although there is a vote freeze, rather than a total refresh. We'll probably have %s that don't add up to 100 when it comes to it. –anemoneprojectors– 22:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

The two contestants that end up in the sing-off are still the bottom two contestants for that week. It's just that this year it's determined by two phases of voting. What about using something like "Bottom two (flash vote)" and "Bottom two (main vote)" for the live show tables? And/or colour coding for the table cells to show which type of "bottom two" the contestant is? Robyn2000 (talk) 00:53, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

They are the bottom two contestants for the week, yes. But they're not in the bottom two of the respective votes, they're at the bottom, so saying "bottom two" doesn't seem right for me this year. We don't need another colour (I thought we did but we don't, since it's obvious by which column they're in) and if we are going to use the word "bottom" it would be more like "bottom of flash vote" and "bottom of main vote". –anemoneprojectors– 09:17, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, wouldn't "Flash vote" and "Main vote" make better headings than "Saturday" and "Sunday". It could otherwise imply that there we two main votes over the weekend. Maybe in the list of performances instead of "Bottom Two" next to Shelley's name it could say "Lost Flash vote", or "12th in Flash vote".81.109.10.204 (talk) 10:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

"Saturday" and "Sunday" fit in well without forcing the text onto two lines. It's clear from the format section that the flash vote is on Saturday and the other on Sunday. We've always used Saturday and Sunday for the final where it took place over two days with a vote freeze, so it would be consistent. But I agree with "Lost flash vote" or "Bottom of flash vote". –anemoneprojectors– 10:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I have changed it per request, not sure what to do about tonights vote --MSalmon (talk) 10:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Probably "Lost main vote" unless there's an official name for the second vote. Or "Lost second vote"? Maybe we should say "bottom of" rather than "lost", it just sounds more neutral I suppose. –anemoneprojectors– 10:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree - "lost" sounds a lot more final than the situation actually is. Also - tonight's episode may give more hints on what terminology to use. Robyn2000 (talk) 12:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Final showdown

I've noticed so far this year we haven't heard the words "final showdown" mentioned, only "sing off". Should we change this article to reflect that, or leave it for consistency, or wait for tonight and see what happens? (Note I will be out tonight and not watching (unless it's on at the pub)!) –anemoneprojectors– 10:45, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Not sure, wait to see what they call it tonight --MSalmon (talk) 11:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

They always used to say 'sing off' before but we always use 'final showdown' - it's just more formal. Bruno Russell (talk) 16:26, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Dermot and the show have been calling it the final showdown for years. –anemoneprojectors– 16:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I have changed it to final sing-off since that is what they are calling it now (didn't hear Dermot say final showdwon at all)--MSalmon (talk) 20:17, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Definitely "final sing-off" and not "sing-off"? Do we know if it's officially hyphenated? –anemoneprojectors– 22:17, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, according to DS --MSalmon (talk) 22:21, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Digital Spy? Most sources I've seen have it hyphenated anyway. –anemoneprojectors– 08:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I still think "final sing-off" sounds a bit chatty, why not final showdown, or simply the "sing-off". Dermot never reffered to as the "final" sing-off Bruno Russell (talk) 13:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Dermot did say "final sing-off" though (I watched it last night and was listening out for it), and we really should go by the show. Maybe see what he says next time, and if it's just "sing-off", use that. I agree it sounds chatty, but we use the terminology that the show uses. –anemoneprojectors– 16:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

By the way, when I said "we use the terminology that the show uses", that applies to the official parts of the show, not the fact that Sharon Osbourne said "I abstain". That word was her own choice, not the show, so we can use what we want. To be more consistent with previous series, we should probably go with "refused", or change them all to "abstained" if we prefer that. –anemoneprojectors– 22:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Peter Dickson said "sing-off" so I've changed it to that. –anemoneprojectors– 19:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Simon Cowell

He's featured in this article as a returning judge, but are we sure he's actually going to be featured? It seems unlikely... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonnyt 123 (talk • contribs)

I agree that now it seems unlikely - I was thinking it last week, as nothing had been said about him. It also came up on my talk page. But we were waiting to see what actually happened. He might appear tonight - they said there's no deadlock, and having a fifth judge would remove deadlock (although they are calling the audience the fifth judge via an app this year, so having an actual fifth judge does seem unlikely for that reason). If there's four votes and they are tied, there's still deadlock, but it won't go to a "deadlock situation" because we know that the flash vote loser will go, so that's probably what they mean - if tonight the fourth judge is about to vote and Shelley has 2 votes and the other person as 1, then it probably won't matter how the fourth judge votes, as if it's tied, Shelley will go (as loser of flash vote), and if Shelley gets 3 votes she'll go. –anemoneprojectors– 13:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

If I am correct then it could mean that only two judges need to vote - assuming they both vote for Shelley to go. As soon as the flash vote loser has 2 votes, they're out. The only way it'll go to all four judges voting is if the first two judges vote to save Shelley and the third votes to eliminate her. –anemoneprojectors– 13:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I think there will be a situation which if it does to 'deadlock' a way of deciding who goes will be used that does not use the public vote - otherwise it would be unfair as Shelley could not have received more votes as her voting line was closed last night. Maybe this is where Simon will come in via-satellite, as the original sources suggested. Of course, if through the series, and d-lock situations, Cowell does not appear on satellite link, his name should be removed - but maybe wait a couple of weeks to be sure that the original sources are false. Bruno Russell (talk) 16:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

What I heard is that if there's a tie, the person who lost the flash vote automatically goes. If this is true, then what I said above would apply - if the first two judges vote to eliminate Shelley, then Shelley goes, as the best that can happen then is a tie and in a tie, she would go. I had a discussion at my talk page with User:Leaky caldron and asked them to start this discussion but they didn't do so. See User talk:AnemoneProjectors#You had better change this as well then...., and #Deadlock above. If Cowell was appearing it would be obviously to put a stop to deadlock by having a fifth judge, but as I said, the audience is the "fifth judge" as they keep reminding us. I don't think Cowell will appear at all. But as I'm going out in a minute you'll have to sort it out between you as I won't be editing. –anemoneprojectors– 16:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

So from the edits I've seen I gather Cowell didn't appear - but still no news on how they've eliminated deadlock I guess? –anemoneprojectors– 22:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

If the judges votes are tied, then the act that comes bottom of the flash vote who will be eliminated as Dermot said --MSalmon (talk) 22:14, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

That's as I thought. So if the first two judges had voted for Shelley to go, the other two wouldn't have needed to vote at all. –anemoneprojectors– 08:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

For it to count as a Deadlock, all four judges need to vote --MSalmon (talk) 09:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Well there's no deadlock, as Dermot said. If there's a tie, the loser of the flash vote goes. We already know who that is. So if the first two judges had voted for Shelley on Sunday, the we'd already know she'd be going as the best that can happen is a tie, regardless of how the other two judges planned on voting - they wouldn't have needed to vote because it wouldn't have changed the result. So we don't need all four judges to vote. The only way it could actually have reached a tie is if two of the first three judges had voted for Lorna and the last vote was for Shelley. If Sharon hadn't abstained, Lorna would have needed three votes to go, but Shelley would only need two. Same as in auditions - you need three yes votes but you know you're not through as soon as you get two nos. –anemoneprojectors– 22:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Dermot just tweeted me to confirm this - if the first two judges vote for the flash vote loser, the result is known before the other two judges have voted. –anemoneprojectors– 21:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Sese pregnancy

Do you think that the controversy surrounding See See (from Miss Dynamix) being pregnant should be included? - critics are saying she should be kicked out. I could write it with refs if you think it should be, but I wasn't too sure if it was notable enough to be included. What do you think? Bruno Russell (talk) 17:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

If being pregnant is controversial then I suppose so. What are the sources? Has The X Factor responded? I'm sure they would say there's no rule against it and that Sese is happy to continue (it is her own body after all). –anemoneprojectors– 22:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Not deadlock

When there's been a tie in the past, in the results summary table, we've always put "2 of 2 votes, deadlock". What do we put this year if it's a tie? –anemoneprojectors– 08:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I would just do it all as "Majority" because that is what it is --MSalmon (talk) 18:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

If it's a tie it's not a majority. Majority is 3 or 4 out of 4, not 2 out of 4. It's the reason they're eliminated... they go because of a majority or because of deadlock. This series if it's a tie they go because of the flash vote, so I guess we'd put "2 of 2 votes, flash vote". –anemoneprojectors– 13:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok --MSalmon (talk) 17:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Live shows section - guest performers

I feel that it's silly to keep saying "[Act] and [act] performed on the [n]th live results show" over and over again, and think it's better to just say something like "Performers included [list of acts]". The information is all given below in the details sections, and looking at older series, we didn't go into this much details and it reads better. Just because series 9 follows a format doesn't mean we can't change it for series 10. So because Lawsj1234 insists that we state "[Act] and [act] performed on the [n]th live results show" over and over again, I want to discuss it. Thanks all. –anemoneprojectors– 10:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it's easy to understand saying act1 and act2 performed on the nth, and act3 and act4 performed on the nth as it makes it easier for people to understand — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawsj1234 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

It's still easy to understand though. Just look at the weekly summaries to find out who performed when - you have to go there to see what they performed anyway. It's going to end up pretty boring to read if we continue for 10 weeks. –anemoneprojectors– 19:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

X Factor

You know on The X Factor (UK series 10) page, where it says {n/a} for when Miss Dynamix didn't perform i would like you to replace it with the word "Absent". Your sincerely, MrWikis2013 MrWikis2013 (talk) 16:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

 Not done We have used N/A in the past when a contestant hasn't performed, and a note just below the table explains why they didn't perform, so I don't think that's necessary. –anemoneprojectors– 18:29, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The note was added by me, by the way --MSalmon (talk) 21:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Not sure why that's relevant to this discussion, but thanks for letting us know. –anemoneprojectors– 11:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Flash vote

Did I hear Dermot correctly in saying that there is no flash vote from here on in, meaning it will be axed for the rest of the series? --MSalmon (talk) 21:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

He said "here on in" but I don't think that necessarily means it's gone for good. We should wait for reliable sources. –anemoneprojectors– 22:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I know, just wanted to check before updating anything --MSalmon (talk) 22:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Do we know if the flash vote is coming back next week, has it been said on Xtra Factor? --MSalmon (talk) 21:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Week 4 column width

Should week 4 be the same width as the rest, like this?

Weekly results per contestant

Contestant	Week 1		Week 2		Week 3		Week 4	Week 5		Week 6		Week 7		Week 8		Week 9		Week 10
	Saturday	Sunday	Saturday	Sunday	Saturday	Sunday		Saturday	Sunday	Saturday	Sunday	Saturday	Sunday	Saturday	Sunday	Saturday	Sunday	Saturday	Sunday

–anemoneprojectors– 22:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

How will all the text fit on one line then? --MSalmon (talk) 22:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I hadn't considered that. I thought it looks a bit strange but it can't be done, you're right. –anemoneprojectors– 22:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I would just keep it the width you have shown above and use nowrap if the text doesn't fit --MSalmon (talk) 22:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Well this is what could happen:

Weekly results per contestant

Contestant	Week 1		Week 2		Week 3		Week 4	Week 5		Week 6		Week 7		Week 8		Week 9		Week 10
	Saturday	Sunday	Saturday	Sunday	Saturday	Sunday		Saturday	Sunday	Saturday	Sunday	Saturday	Sunday	Saturday	Sunday	Saturday	Sunday	Saturday	Sunday
Sing-off	Simpson, Smith		Kingsland Road, Smith		Barrett, Miss Dynamix		Kingsland Road, Foster

Or this with nowrap:

Weekly results per contestant

Contestant	Week 1		Week 2		Week 3		Week 4	Week 5		Week 6		Week 7		Week 8		Week 9		Week 10
	Saturday	Sunday	Saturday	Sunday	Saturday	Sunday		Saturday	Sunday	Saturday	Sunday	Saturday	Sunday	Saturday	Sunday	Saturday	Sunday	Saturday	Sunday
Sing-off	Simpson, Smith		Kingsland Road, Smith		Barrett, Miss Dynamix		Kingsland Road, Foster

I think we should leave it as it is now. –anemoneprojectors– 22:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

That's fine by me --MSalmon (talk) 22:44, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Criticism query

Hey. I'm not sure how accurate is that people "not liking" who the judges have sent through is actual controversy. Some people are always going to dislike who goes through - but its not an actual controversy of this series - it happens EVERY year. People always say "I think they should have gone through" - it's never been included on previous series so don't see why it is here now. Bruno Russell (talk) 18:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually it's on series 7 regarding Gamu, Katie and Cher. Unreal7 (talk)

In series 7 it was a massive controversy - Cheryl Cole got death threats, and there's the controversy. This year, I'd agree with Bruno. It's just people viewers being less than totally satisfied with a result, which happens all the time with everything. –anemoneprojectors– 18:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Surnames or full names?

How come soloists in the finalists table only have their surname when showing when the judges voted against them, but then it shows their full name in the "Eliminated" square at the bottom? Unreal7 (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

It's consistent with all other series. I thought you'd have noticed that. But also, "Nicholas McDonald" will wrap onto a second line, meaning if he's in the bottom two, that row will become taller than the other rows. –anemoneprojectors– 11:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I did notice that it's on all other series, actually. Just curious. Unreal7 (talk) 14:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

By the way, the original discussion was last year (Talk:The X Factor (UK series 9)#Use of full names throught the results table) –anemoneprojectors– 18:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Original artists for week 7

Not getting involved in an edit war so bringing it here. Please can we remove the original (or not in most cases) artists from this table. We don't list original arists, and although in this case it's to explain the reason a song was chosen for the theme, we don't give this information for any other theme other than songs from films. The articles about all the songs being performed explain which former contestant performed or recorded the song. In fact, we shouldn't need to list the films in week 3 either for the same reason. –anemoneprojectors– 16:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Disagree: Week 3 and Week 7 require this. All other weeks the themes are generalised e.g "Love and Heartbreak" - there are no real specifics. On the other hand "songs from former X Factor contestants" is specific and therefore the former contestant should be listed aside this song. Further, for some of the songs they are doing 'the winners single'; and therefore the article itself may not immediatly show the X Factor contestant. In short, I think it is needed for Weeks 3 & 7; and I can see that you have re-edited to include this so I hope you agree. Bruno Russell (talk) 17:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

No, the reason I didn't remove the edit again is because I'm not getting involved in an edit war. See WP:BRD - the person who is reverted is the one who should start a discussion, but as one was not forthcoming but a revert was, I started it. I don't see why we should list the artist who recorded the song. When it was "Lady Gaga vs Queen" we didn't state if it was Lady Gaga or Queen. When it was "UK vs USA" we didn't state if it was UK or USA (I think that theme existed!). –anemoneprojectors– 18:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Then again, when it was "diva week" we listed the diva. I suppose it's ok to do this when it's not all original artists so not necessarily obvious how the song fits the theme. –anemoneprojectors– 09:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

However, I've removed the "musical heroes" because even though they're the original artists and it's unlikely to be anyone else, the sources don't state who the contestants' musical heroes are, so we're basically assuming it to be true. This goes against WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. –anemoneprojectors– 09:33, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Guest mentors and other celebrity appearances

Other celebs have appeared giving advice. Do we add these to the relevant weeks as well? I assumed not since nobody had done so, but the ones for this week have been added. So we either add the others or remove these. Which is it? –anemoneprojectors– 23:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Eurovision at X Factor finals?

Hi folks,

According to this source, two former-Eurovision artists and judges of X Factor Adria (Kristina Kovač and Željko Joksimović) from Serbia have been invited as musical guests for the UK X Factor finals on 15 December. But there are no other details to further explain if they are performing songs or presenting other acts, or part of the "finalist duets". Not sure if this needs to be mentioned in the article? Wes Mᴥuse 17:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

We should wait and see. They're not known in the UK so viewers would definitely be confused if they were performing along with the likes of One Direction and Katy Perry. Could it be that they were just invited to be in the audience? –anemoneprojectors– 21:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

This is what I couldn't understand. It would be strange to report news that they are just guests in the audience. How many other celebrities will be in the audience? They are not "invited guests". Reading the tweets though, the one from Kristina mentions something about "presenting" One Direction; whatever that implies is anyone's guess. Or maybe they are invited as "guest judges"? I cannot find anything else to elaborate more on this. Wes Mᴥuse 21:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I translated the tweet and got something about presenting One Direction - or could she have said that One Direction will be present? I don't speak Serbian and I'm not sure Google Translate is that good at it either! –anemoneprojectors– 22:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

They were not seen or mentioned. –anemoneprojectors– 22:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Results

Not being funny but about three or four people are trying to add the same information to the page at the same time. Why not just let one person get on with it? Then edit conflicts won't happen. Checking the history I'm seeing people's hard work being removed by the next person. –anemoneprojectors– 22:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

It didn't come up as edit conflict for me so I thought I was updating it --MSalmon (talk) 22:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

It really should do. But I think if you can see one person is adding the stats, it's best to let them get on with it as they're probably going to do the whole thing. This happens every year and nobody seems to learn from it :-) –anemoneprojectors– 22:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Well it's all done now anyway, phew :-) –anemoneprojectors– 23:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I was going to do the whole thing but I only did bits of it --MSalmon (talk) 23:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I was just trying to fill out a reference and show the "most votes" in the key. Someone (can't remember who now) made an edit that reverted that, and then I had about 5 edit conflicts trying to restore it! Oh well. –anemoneprojectors– 23:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't me, but anyway it is done now --MSalmon (talk) 23:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes and not too much stress was caused :-) Anyway, well done everyone for the edits and stuff! –anemoneprojectors– 23:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I suppose there will be some small edits that will still need to be made, but anyway onto Strictly, Splash! and Dancing on Ice which I will be keeping an eye on --MSalmon (talk) 23:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Tenses changed to past - hopefully I didn't miss any. I'll search for the last of the references tomorrow. There should be more to come in the shape of award nominationss or Ofcom invesigations though.... I'm hoping to watch DOI but not sure about the others (never watched SCD), and am going to try to avoid getting involved in the Wikipedia articles! I prefer to work on EastEnders ;-) –anemoneprojectors– 23:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Vote freezes

Any thoughts on putting rolled-over voting percentages in the table like this?

Weekly results per contestant

Contestant	Week 1		Week 2		Week 3		Week 4	Week 5	Week 6	Week 7	Week 8	Week 9	Week 10
	Saturday	Sunday1	Saturday	Sunday1	Saturday	Sunday1							Saturday	Sunday1
Luke Friend	9th 3.4%	9th 3.5%	7th 5.9%	8th 6.0%	3rd 7.9%	3rd 7.5%	6th 7.0%	5th 9.0%	6th 8.0%	3rd 13.0%	4th 19.3%	3rd 26.7%	3rd 29.7%	Eliminated 10.3%
Kingsland Road	7th 3.7%	8th 4.1%	10th 3.6%	— 1.9%	6th 6.5%	7th 6.6%	8th 5.2%	Eliminated (week 4)
Miss Dynamix	10th 1.8%	10th 2.2%	—2	—2	10th 1.8%	— 1.1%	Eliminated (week 3)
Shelley Smith	12th 1.5%	— 0.9%	9th 3.7%	9th 4.3%	Eliminated (week 2)

I know we don't normally do it this way, but I just thought I'd ask. Still greyed out, meaning they didn't face the public vote, and still explained in the note. It's probably not that good an idea, but I thought I'd try it. –anemoneprojectors– 09:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

That's ok by me but maybe not do Luke's % because we still need to show he was eliminated, also should we update Sharon's departure on the main article page? --MSalmon (talk) 10:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd rather do all or none. Let's keep it the same as previous years and just have the note. Yeah put Sharon's departure in. –anemoneprojectors– 10:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok --MSalmon (talk) 10:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

References

Things Simon Cowell said

Simon Cowell said a lot of things about this series, like he would consider axing the flash vote, but as he's not (credited as) an executive producer on the show, does he really get a say in it anymore? If not, then shouldn't we remove the things he said as irrelevant? –anemoneprojectors– 11:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The X Factor (UK series 10). 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140701091700/http://www.barb.co.uk/viewing/weekly-top-30?_s=4 to http://www.barb.co.uk/viewing/weekly-top-30?_s=4

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) 17:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Sourcing

With regards to this edit, the assertion in the edit summary is incorrect. Episodes can be used as sources for things that happen in those episodes; it is only if interpretation is required that a secondary source is needed, per WP:PSTS. Reviewing the material cited to the episodes themselves, it does not appear as if any of it falls into that category, although please feel free to point out anything I may have overlooked. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I didn't realise you had started a discussion when I made a nul edit to leave a comment in the edit summary. I worked hard to reference this article so I hope you can understand where I'm coming from, especially as you didn't even use the correct citation templates and one of your references appears to have broken the page (I see you've made some changes to them already so thank you). However, I apologise if I had a bit of a kneejerk reaction. Where possible I always avoid primary sources and would prefer it to be kept that way. Referencing an episode makes it harder to verify that it's actually what happened, than using a news article. I do trust that the references you inserted are correct but where there were multiple sources and one was Daily Mail, all the sources would have been necessary so where you have removed sources, they may still need to be replaced. I'm sure there are sources out there but Daily Mail was the only source I found giving full coverage, i.e. contestant songs, judges' votes and guest performances, so where these are being replaced they might require different sources for each. Dailymotion and Youtube should 100% be replaced. And no I'm not a Daily Mail supporter, I just know these sources to be 100% accurate from all the hard work I put in at the time. I will help if I can, though. — ᴀnemoneᴘroᴊecтors 16:09, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok I'll admit that you've done a good job, so I'm sorry, and thank you. I won't leave it to you to replace episode references. I'll try to do it myself because those references technically are allowed, so it should be down to me really. — ᴀnemoneᴘroᴊecтors 16:30, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Also, I know this isn't you but I'd love to see if the tellymix and unrealitytv sources could be replaced because these are technically blogs and I'm always removing them but I kind of allow them if there's nothing else, so probably can't be replaced, but thought I'd mention it anyway. — ᴀnemoneᴘroᴊecтors 16:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)