Talk:America's Got Talent season 6

Auditions
Last year, we decided midway through last season that we should not list auditions, or put them in a separate page. The reason was that no other similar talent show does this (one exculsion is The Voice, but they are entirely different from the typical 3-judge format). Barring any objections, I think we should do the same this season. Gamer9832 (talk) 17:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we should keep the list of names that did get positive votes to go on to Vegas and put them under the Vegas Week heading. At least, we'd have those names so far. --Mjrmtg (talk) 19:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I have now reversed this edit per WP:OWN. - Presidentman (Talkback) Random Picture of the Day 21:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Specifically, see WP:OWN #3. - Presidentman (Talkback) Random Picture of the Day 21:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This wasn't an issue about owning the article, I was just expressing that we shouldn't list auditions because of the decision of the afd page last year. I was in favor of keeping the list of auditioners. I agree with the previous editor, I forgot about how we list the acts that passed through to Vegas. Because of the afd from last year (if I could get the link here somehow), I don't think we should be violating it here by listing rejected acts. Gamer9832 (talk) 05:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's the link to the afd: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/America%27s_Got_Talent_(season_5_auditions) Gamer9832 (talk) 06:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally I don't see any consensus on that AFD to remove the rejected acts from Wikipedia entirely. The only consensus I see there is that the aduitions should not have a seperate article not a decision on rejected acts on the main page for the season. It it also important to note that the AFD was closed as merge and not delete. Was this discussed somewhere with a stronger consensusÉ--76.69.169.220 (talk) 04:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree about that, last year the decision wasn't made by a lot of people. I wish more people were involved. The problem is that you can't list all the auditions on the season page(the page would be too bulky). If you put them on a separate page, it's not relevant enough to be its own article (last season, some admins said that the article shouldn't be a "directory" of who passed and who didn't). What we are still able to do is list the acts that advanced under the Vegas Week section when it comes time. No one can take away that list, because the acts are notable, and most articles for reality shows still do that. Gamer9832 (talk) 22:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If you scroll down on the season 5 talk page, you can see more discussions over the matter. Gamer9832 (talk) 22:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Im very sorry to add the acts on the article without permission. Next time I will post it here and see what you guys think. Please forgive me for my troubles. Freakishay1 (talk) 9:16 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Unknown Decision acts
There's been some disagreement among editors over whether we should list acts that passed through the auditions, but didn't perform in Vegas. Should we list them? Gamer9832 (talk) 03:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Why not list them? 2 acts that were sent to Vegas but never appeared are "Armand and Angelina" (who are already listed and can be seen in the background during the "Judges Picks" episode) and "Elew" (who seems to have never even made it to the actual Vegas Week recordings).  I actually came to wikipedia to see if anything was here on why they didn't perform in Vegas.  I'm assuming that they have been eliminated, but i'm still curious.  There's no reason to not mention them on the page since they were shown in the original audition episodes as having passed the first round.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.248.186 (talk) 12:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a good point, but in my opinion, I'm against making the list. We'll never know all the acts that made it through the initial audition but didn't perform in Vegas, and the list could go on endlessly. They could have gone to Vegas, too, but NBC decided not to show them. There's also a problem that there are a lot of other acts that made it through to Vegas but weren't televised. Another editor also pointed out that they aren't notable (their only TV appearance was the auditions, so that makes them the same as all the other eliminated audition acts). Gamer9832 (talk) 22:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I re-added the unknown-decision section. Gamer9832 (talk) 16:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I think acts that made it through but could not appear should be recognized for their efforts by getting their own section. JohnnyRH (talk) 23:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Group A vs Group B
Is there any way we can find out with more certainty which acts were in each group? We can't go by which episode their performance was shown in because of they way they edited together the episodes. They did the same thing last year. For example, Anna Graceman was in Group A but was shown during the 2nd episode along with the other stand-by acts. I know this because at the end of the first episode, when the judges are trying to pick the winners from Group A, you can see Anna's picture lying there right on the table. For An Angel (talk) 19:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You can't assume one act is in a certain group just by looking at where they are sitting, or if a picture is on the judges' table. This year, the show made no mention as to which groups were seated in which row (unlike last year), and there is no way to tell if the pictures is really Anna. When they were calling out names for those in Group C, acts stood up from all over the auditorium. The acts didn't know which group they were in until the judges told them to look at listings in the hotel lobby. I think it's best to go with the facts the show has given us. There is also no proof they are in a different group (you need solid evidence, not assumptions). Gamer9832 (talk) 22:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, I don't think I said anything about where they were sitting. I mentioned the photographs of all the performers that were laying on the table at the end of each episode. For An Angel (talk) 23:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, I read it wrong. But the argument is essentially the same. There is no way to tell if the judges had Anna's picture on the table for reference, or if the picture really was Anna. We should go with the info the show has given us, and list acts according to the night we saw them perform in. We have no hard evidence otherwise disproving it (by hard evidence, we need a written, reputable source saying so). We can't assume anything. Gamer9832 (talk) 23:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The evidence doesn't need to be 'written'. The evidence that you're using to list the acts where they are now comes from the episodes themselves, not from any 'written, reputable source'. The episodes are where I'm getting my evidence too. "There is no way to tell if the judges had Anna's picture on the table for reference". This doesn't make any sense. Reference for what? If she really was in the standby group then she wouldn't have performed yet. "and there is no way to tell if the pictures is really Anna." Sure there is. If you look, you will recognize her. For An Angel (talk) 23:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's exactly my point. We have no idea what the judges had her picture on the table for. It might have been for reference. She might have been originally in Group A. The point being: we will never know for sure. We go with what the show tells us, and the show has told us that the act was in Group B, and that she performed on Day 2. I think that's confirmation enough that she was in Group B. It's not our job to assume, and not our job to accuse NBC or the show's producers of lying and not being truthful about which act was in which group. Gamer9832 (talk) 04:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research  Gamer9832 (talk) 16:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Quarterfinals
Why was the chart for Week 2 in the Quarterfinal section deleted? That information came from a legitimate source:. NBC gives them the early exclusive on the upcoming performers. It was 100% accurate for Week 1. I can understand deleting what was put for Weeks 3 and 4 since there is no verifiable source. I'd like to ask that Week 2 be allowed back up since it is verifiable. Also, where did the information for weeks 3 and 4 for the Round Chart come from? No source. I have a source that says Avery and the Calico Hearts will be Week 4, not 3. It's at the bottom of the article.chadwpalm (talk) 01:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * We don't know the exact order the acts will perform in yet. The table is listed in order or performance, so the table wouldn't make sense until we had the exact order. Gamer9832 (talk) 06:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * True, but at least it gives people an idea of who will be performing. Not sure why it matters that the performances are in order before the night it airs anyway.  Isn't hard to put a temporary disclaimer stating that the performers aren't in performance order until the show airs.  Just a thought.  Either that or put up a temporary link to AGTNews.com when they announce the performers since many people come to Wikipedia for their source of information rather than try and find it on a search engine. chadwpalm (talk) 06:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Some stuff on the round chart has been unsourced, thanks for catching that. I'll go ahead and remove it. Gamer9832 (talk) 06:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Round Chart
I don't have time to change it, but the colors are way too damn bright. Shouldn't it be consistent with the season 5 article? Connormah (talk) 22:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree, I reverted it back to lighter colors. Somebody's been messing with the colors for the past few months. Gamer9832 (talk) 22:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Much appreciated. Connormah (talk) 23:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Gamer9832, thank you for your persistence in trying to keep the colors of the chart reasonable. I've gone ahead and reverted the colors back to the "accessible" values, but kept the "grouped by elimation" order of the table. I also tried to restore some of the data that was lost due to a "bulk paste" revert after your last attempt. However, can somebody please verify the ages of Silhouettes? I can't remember if the youngest age is 3 or 9 (this was a conflict of current versus previous information that I couldn't resolve myself). Esjs (talk) 17:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks like a good deal. The ages of the performers are 9-18 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpaCahFmruM at 1:26 Gamer9832 (talk) 22:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Really? But in this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aO1Azk23iC0&feature=related) at 0:46 they say their youngest is 3? Zatchamp (talk) 01:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Haha thats the same video. I guess their youngest performer is 3 but they didn't list her when they first applied to audition. I'll go ahead and change it. Gamer9832 (talk) 03:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, yea, I'm the one who has been changing the colors on the AGT page. I wasted all this time creating a wikipedia profile just to tell everyone, why would anyone want those bland colors? The colors I pick are fun and vibrant!! What's wrong with having a difference? I mean honestly, whose idea was it to make the runner ups color grey? I would like to keep the colors poppin' if you catch my drift. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Windblow1234 (talk • contribs) 06:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Colors aren't supposed to be "fun and vibrant". They're supposed to be accessible (readable by people with disabilities and screen readers), and not too bright that they obscure text. Generally, the lighter colors, the better. I recommend you read Wikipedia's Manual of Style (WP:ACCESS), specifically WP:COLOR, and WP:WPACCESS. Gamer9832 (talk) 06:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Whoa, now, didn't know that this was such a serious issue. . . well alrighty then, if it's such a big deal, ill stop the bulk post haha sorry for all the major I caused you fun people! Um and I don't really know how to sign this, so i'll let the computer sign it for me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Windblow1234 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Unintentional/Non-Performance Related Buzzes
In the past, we have used a blank text "X" with no background to signify that the buzzer was non-performance related or was a mistake by the judges. There is also usually a footnote explaining the reason for the mistaken buzz at the end. Should we still include these in the round tables? Gamer9832 (talk) 14:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Leaving only a footnote inside each box of all elimination tables is adequate. The footnote does explain the reason for the buzzer not related to an act. The use of X for every indication of unintentional or mistaken buzzer out of an act's performance is irrelevant. It is of no significance. We use the images Crystal Clear action button cancel.png (a buzz) and [[Image:Crystal Clear app clean.png|20px]] (a judge's choice) significantly for judges' opinions during live competition and results. --67.169.26.230 (talk) 01:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Isnt the X of some significance since the judges pressed the buzzer? In past seasons we have done so. The blank X is sort of an intermediate btw a real x with red and no x. Gamer9832 (talk) 04:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This image (Crystal Clear action button cancel.png) is thus relevant when a judge hits his buzzer, during an act's performance, indicating his judging against the act. The printed X, which you use for something out of related competition, makes no consistency with an image representing a green ✔ or a red X. Such symbols with colored background are still being used in America's Got Talent (season 3) and America's Got Talent (season 4), and should have been replaced with the images I posted above. We don't need the "X" used to signify non-related buzzes in AGT's season articles as it has nothing to do with an argument on a contestant's act. We have to get rid of this irrelevance out of the article. --67.169.26.230 (talk) 07:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * We have always used a blank X with no background to signify an unintentional/non-performance related buzz, but the red X with the image is too harsh and signifies that the act was actually buzzed.Back then, we had text X's with red background. To show that the act was buzzed but the judge didn't mean it towards them or the performance, we used an X without a background. The same applies here. The red (Crystal Clear action button cancel.png)image is too harsh and does signify that the contestant was actually buzzed for their performance,which is unfair and untruthful as to the true situation (even with a footnote it seems very glaring). The blank X signifies much less connotation with a bad performance and simply notifies us that the judge did buzz the act, but not for performance but for unintentional/non-related reasons.
 * I don't see why it's irrelevant if the judge actually did press the buzzer. the round chart doesn't just apply to the "argument on a contestant's act". It applies to everything that happened that night. Gamer9832 (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean calling a "blank X". We call this a text X. It doesn't need to apply to signification of an unintentional/non-performance related buzz on all elimination tables, however Crystal Clear action button cancel.png used for a judge's buzz and [[Image:Crystal Clear app clean.png|20px]] for his choice to a contestant are relatively significant to the argument on a contestant's act. There are no previous discussions in regard to the use of the text X with the light grey background for a buzz, which is not real against an act. There is no consensus for it either. Leaving only a footnote without following an X or a dash, inside the center of an empty box of a table is fine. Don't just undo my edits because we are engaged in edit warring. --67.169.26.230 (talk) 18:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * BTW, were you referring to an "elimination table", not the round chart? The round chart lists 61 acts and their information. I assume you are using the wrong word. --67.169.26.230 (talk) 18:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * By a blank X, I meant a text X. And it is considered a consensus if people have done to it and agree to it on the past. By removing these text X's, you've broken some sort of consensus (although it really hasn't been discussed, editors just did it in the past and no one has raised an issue about it). It's a very broad consensus that the text X is acceptable, even though it's never been discussed. And by how I mentioned that elimination tables help to cover the whole season, I meant the elimination tables themselves, not the round chart (which does a very good job at it as well). We're not here just to cover what happened in terms of which X's and only a contestant's performance. An article can get as in depth as it wants to, and we cover the whole night, including what the judges have done. The X column doesn't just have to be significant to a contestant's performance, it's significant to the contestant's appearance on the episode. The text X is acceptable because who says we have to follow a strict key? That's what Wikipedia is for. So we can modify and change things to fit an editor's needs. We're not confined to anything. Gamer9832 (talk) 22:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The information on the "unintentional/non-performance related buzzes" is not needed in the article. It is better to leave this out. We are not required to add the text X's to every table for signifying a buzz before or after performance, or even by mistake whose lit X 's in red have been removed. They don't merit counts outside a contestant's performance. For example, during the Wild Card show in season 6 Howie Mandel's buzzer was set off during Piers Morgan's commentary on J. Chris Newberg's performance, but that wasn't against Newberg who was buzzed out by Morgan during the performance. I thought I would replace the text X with an image representing a big red X for consistency accordingly. I could be wrong. In regard to consensus, well, no other editors have objected to my removal of a text X when there is no real buzz throughout competition. Although the text X is acceptable in an article, it causes confusion to some readers because we are now using images in every table in America's Got Talent (season 5) and this article. We have to follow a key formally including: green check mark images, red X images, YouTube logo images, and various background colors, but not text X's. We have consensus for use of these images, at Talk:America's Got Talent (season 5). --67.169.26.230 (talk) 23:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, we did have consensus for use of the images last year, but even that wasn't a big consensus (scroll further down, you see some complaints). But that isn't the matter, that was a done deal long ago. A matter decided last season. I am discussing about the usage of the text X. The argument that there was consensus for your version is not valid because it was only on for a few hours. It is a consensus because we have been doing it for years. Once again, the performance tables aren't intended to be just limited to performance descriptions. They're intended to be summaries of the performance night. Therefore, the use of the text X is merited because it describes an event that happened (like a judge accidentally pressing a buzzer). And no, we don't have to follow any key, we can modify the key for our needs (this is Wikipedia, the free encycolpedia). For example, the addition of the YouTube image last year in the round chart wasn't just there. It was added by a couple of editors and me after we were having trouble sorting out the round chart last year. Wikipedia is not a place where we strive by set key, but we modify it to change and better the article.


 * I also don't see any confusion over the matter of a text X. It's been there long before, no one has raised an issue about it until now. I think people are smart enough to know that the X was unintentional, and that's also why there's a footnote explaining why. I also added it to the key so confusion is literally impossible. Wikipedia isn't about affecting the outcome of a show or sympathy towards contestants. We report the truth like an encyclopedia does, and display all the facts. In that case, I have no reason to see why the X is inaccurate. As a side note, Can anyone else also weigh in on this issue? Gamer9832 (talk) 03:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Who cares about having a text X in the article? You only do care about that. No one is going to argue in favor of the inclusion of a character in every table chart. The tables under the "Quarterfinals", "Semifinals", etc. headings are intended to judge on who will be advanced or eliminated, and on who is X'ed on basis of a judge's opposition, not because of a bad performance. Your initial thread was posted for a day, so I will not be going to delete the text X in the article until our dispute is over.


 * I have to say that the X against an act is relatively irrelevant to a point out of the act's performance, even it doesn't apply to an accidental buzz if undone. Acknowledge it. --67.169.26.230 (talk) 04:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I cannot acknowledge anything. My point was that the performance charts don't just cover an act's performance. They cover their whole appearance on the show. The text "X" is not irrelevant, it has nothing to do pertaining to the act's performance, it's about what happened after the act's performance. Once again, there's no strict requirement for anything on Wikipedia! Everything is open to interpretation, the X column can serve more than one purpose. Notice how when it was originally created for BGT 4 years back, no one said that the column was strict towards only an act's performance. That still matters. As for your argument that no one will argue about it, it's been there for a better part of 2 years without anyone caring, and I didn't make those edits to include them. Whatever the outcome is, however, I will support it so we can stop arguing over this. The matter really is very small. Gamer9832 (talk) 13:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * There had been no objection to the inclusion of any text X not related to a real buzz, in any AGT season-related article. There was no controversy at all either. You proposed the issues on this talk page first. When a few editors and I had removed the text X from the box between the column of "Mandel" and the row of "J. Chris Newberg" then no objections had been raised within a few hours until you reinstated it several hours thereafter. Some of your above statements seems to be misinterpreted, and you have been consistently modifying them per this talk page's edit history. Does that help support for your argument? --67.169.26.230 (talk) 21:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's my take on the situation: A footnote in the box without any X is sufficient for the "Unintentional/Non-performance related buzzes." It is visible enough to call attention to it, and it is rare enough to not really need its own symbol. My second choice would be a text X with the footnote, with the key explaining that a text X is for "Unintentional/Non-performance related buzzes." My last choice is the image with the footnote. Even with the footnote, somebody first seeing it without reading the footnote would probably assume the buzz was related to the performance. Actually my last choice is the image without a footnote, but I don't think anybody is attempting that. Esjs (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * All right I see, that makes sense. I'll go ahead and remove my edits if need be, right now I'll leave it to others to decide what becomes of it. Gamer9832 (talk) 23:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Elim table Dashes
I have to concur with Esjs. We don't use a dash (—) followed by a footnote, in an empty box of a table, too. It doesn't call attention to any signification. --67.169.26.230 (talk) 21:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I see. The dash (—) is another story, it actually does represent that a vote wasn't applicable in that case (use if a judge didn't get to vote on an act because the two others already unanimously declared their vote+ more clarification than just a footnote), but I'm not going to argue about that, I'll leave it up to you. Gamer9832 (talk) 00:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Then we use "N/A" in each box of an elimination table. I'm sure it's acceptable. --67.169.26.230 (talk) 02:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * If a judge didn't choose between two acts during the last result of a Wednesday episode of AGT as two other judges unanimously voted for one act, then a box of an elimination table should be left intentionally blank. The box that is intentionally blank excludes inclusion of a footnote. --67.169.26.230 (talk) 02:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Exclude the dash, but don't exclude the footnote. You need some sort of explanation. Gamer9832 (talk) 13:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Excluding the footnote is not the same as not including it. A footnote usually follows the text in most articles, but for elimination tables, it distinguishes apart from a dash, an X, or an image in a box. If there is no symbol or image in the box then it is blank. Footnotes serve adding an explanatory material or presenting citations, and contain "reciprocal hyperlinks," but they are not called themselves "text." Placing just each footnote in a box of an elimination table is rare. --67.169.26.230 (talk) 22:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Morgan's buzz of Summerwind Skippers in Semi-finals
I would argue that the footnote stating that "Morgan pressed his buzzer after Summerwind Skippers' performance was over" is inaccurate and not needed. It seems to me that he buzzed the act as it completed... but technically still during the performace. However, this is just based on my perception and memory of watching the show last night (which is why I'm bringing it up here and not just simply removing the footnote to start an edit war). Thoughts? Esjs (talk) 21:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. I just rewatched the video, Morgan pressed his buzzer just when the act was about to end. I don't think the performance is finished until they have the part where they transition the stage back to its regular colors and Nick says something. Gamer9832 (talk) 00:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The red X and buzz being set off simultaneously against Summerwind Skippers was valid during the near end of its performance. The footnote is not needed anyway because of the point where Morgan just pressed his buzzer. --67.169.26.230 (talk) 00:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree it was late in the performance but it still happened during the performace. Also unlike the accidental Xs (ie Sharron hitting the X during Landon Swank's performance due to nerves) or the time during last year's wild card show when Howie Xd' one of Pierse's picks at the very beginning as payback for his picked being Xd the X for Summerwind Skippers was not removed as they were for the other cases. Long story short this X was not a mistake or retracted.--70.24.215.48 (talk) 02:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The footnote stating "Morgan pressing his buzzer after Summerwind Skippers' performance was over" was inserted by user "For An Angel" into the article first. User "Gamer9832" later changed this misinformation from "after Summerwind Skippers' performance was over" to "at the very end of their performance," and used the possessive adjective "their" to replace "Summerwind Skippers'." An IP user removed the footnote several hours thereafter, and no one has reinstated it. --67.169.26.230 (talk) 03:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Different elimination table for the Top Ten
Since there will probably be few or no buzzers in the top ten episode, the buzzes section of the currently used elim table will be blank. I think we should use the table for the top 10/finals we've had for the past 2 years (with a few tweaks if needed). This will work better at this stage of the competition.

Here's a sample (I just copy and pasted last year's top 10 table. In the case we need a judges' choice, we can just bold the column silver/orange, like we do in the tables for previous rounds).

Top 10 Elimination Table
Please provide feedback about whether we should/should not continue to use this table. Gamer9832 (talk) 03:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Assuming that this can be easily changed if for some reason there are a lot of Xs due to weak performances I don't see any issues.--70.24.215.48 (talk) 02:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Not sure I agree that there are "few or no buzzes." Two out of ten acts (20%) were buzzed; this compares with 17% and 25% being buzzed in each of the semi-final rounds. The buzz-rate seems to be almost exactly the same as before! Maybe we can do a hybrid of the two tables where, instead of having a "results" column, we have a judge buzz column? After all, the results are color-coded anyway (winners are shown in gold), so do we really need to have a separate column that also says "advanced" or "eliminated"? The additional "results" column seems redundant with the original color-coding. 71.141.120.225 (talk) 19:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The "Buzzes and Judge's Choices" column is unneeded for the Top 10 round in the season 6 since there were no judges' choices in this round. We put each buzz summary in small text enclosed with parentheses, after a contestant's performance description in a row of the Top 10 elimination table. We will need the "Results" column to indicate who will be "advanced" to the finals or "eliminated" from the competition. It will also need to be color-coded through the entire row. --67.169.28.10 (talk) 21:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * at second comment, I replaced the "Result" section with a section called "notes". This way we can record any odd occurrences or buzz that happened during a performance. I agree with you that the color-coding and the "result" column overlap and are repetitive. We can revise that section for another use. Gamer9832 (talk) 23:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I like it. Great work, Gamer9832! 71.141.120.225 (talk) 01:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Why don't we use the "Results" column for the Top 10 round? I don't think it is redundant because we have used the same column in the article America's Got Talent (season 5). --67.169.28.10 (talk) 02:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * We don't have to mirror the Season 5 article. We just use it as sort of a guideline/basic structure for this article. In this case, the "Results" section was repetitive, because we already color-code it. It's like we're saying "this act advanced" twice. Gamer9832 (talk) 02:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Uh, who did you reply to?


 * I meant the "Results" column. Including it in the Top 10 table is fine. Why not? Just because it says "Advanced" or "Eliminated" that is gold-colored in the row background doesn't repeat the result twice. Readers will understand that an act is advanced or eliminated once in the Top 10 round. --67.169.28.10 (talk) 03:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I was replying to you (last comment). I'm not going to argue with you, but having two ways of showing that an act advanced is repetitive. You can better use that column for another purpose. I'm sure people can understand that gold color means that the act advanced. Gamer9832 (talk) 05:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Use a proper indent next time when replying. You conclude that the "Result" column is unneeded for the Top 10 table because a row is colored in gold background and because there is a key saying "Advanced to the finals" already? Are both "Advanced" and "Advanced to the finals" repetitive? Do we need to bold contestants' names who have made to the finals in the current season? --67.169.28.10 (talk) 07:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm just saying it can be used for a better purpose. Gamer9832 (talk) 17:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Use as Elimination Table for Quarterfinals
How do you guys feel about using this modified version of the table above for the quarterfinals/semifinals next season? It has more room for performance description, which allows more depth to be added to the article. It also uses less images where text should be used instead (see WP:MOSIM). It looks sort of like the tables used back in Season 1.

I kept the acts bolded on the Season 5 table, and selected four random acts for judges' choice and buzzes. Gamer9832 (talk) 00:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Top 48 (Week 4)
This may not be important but there is something wrong with that new table proposed. For one, Studio one was not in week 4 of the top 48. They were in week 3 and they were not buzzed or elimaanated at that time. They stayed until the top 10. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.211.105 (talk) 03:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * This table wasn't meant to be factual, it was just an example of what the table is supposed to look like if we used it for the quarterfinals next year. Gamer9832 (talk) 17:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I only realized that as a possibility some time after I posted.--70.24.211.105 (talk) 22:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Landau Eugene Murphy, Jr.
I think Landau has made a big enough splash that he deserves his own page. JohnnyRH (talk) 18:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed, but im not sure whether the page will stay; it might be deleted by someone else if he doesnt make the final. It might be best to wait one more week. Gamer9832 (talk) 04:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the page should be made in anticipation of what could be a very successful career for him. JohnnyRH (talk) 20:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The article named "Landau Eugene Murphy" was deleted per Articles for deletion/Landau Eugene Murphy. It happened over the last month. --67.169.28.10 (talk) 21:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Why? Stupid decision it would seem. He made it to the finals tonight. Can it be brought back? There is entirely to much deleting being done.

Let us concentrate on all the vandalism instead. See my talk page regarding crap that those using mobile phones are getting away with. Why is he being titled a "Classical Singer"?1archie99 (talk) 05:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Please watch your language, 1archie99. As for Landau, I'd give the green light. You have a valid argument that Landau's page should be kept (he's made the finals). Gamer9832 (talk) 06:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Once Landau is notable through the season finale of AGT, his article will be recreated, or even we'll request its undeletion. He was not yet notable when the article was nominated for deletion. --67.169.28.10 (talk) 21:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Why is was so important to delete the article? He won; TIME TO EAT CROW and republish the article.1archie99 (talk) 02:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * While I do agree that he should have an article at this point there was no way at the time of the original AFD to know if he would win or not I am glad he did though. I also don't see anyone who called for deletion declaring that we would not win so I don't think the eat crow idea is very relevant.--70.24.211.105 (talk) 03:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This sort of stuff regarding "vandalism" is off-topic, and you have to be civil. You may contact a deleting administrator in request for undeleting Landau Eugene Murphy. Or, you can create it as a redirect to Landau Eugene Murphy, Jr., which has been recently created. --67.169.28.10 (talk) 06:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Might as well already make a serprete aricle because almost every year singers win why don't they just enter American Idol since most of them are 15 and up — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.30.151.178 (talk) 02:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In Landau's case it is because he is to old to appear on Idol. He is 36 while Idol does not allow anyone over 28 so that was not an option for him.--70.24.211.105 (talk) 02:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * See American Idol. He is not eligible for that, because of his age. --67.169.28.10 (talk) 03:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)