Talk:America's Got Talent season 7

Notability, season 7
I'm new to this show and its accompanying articles. Does anyone else think that William Close (musician), and his Earth Harp, should be mentioned or even given his own article? He was somewhat notable prior to this show,. How about Andrew De Leon, who has gotten quite a bit of news coverage (and has 5 million raw ghits)? I note that the season 6 talk page went into some detail about what stage in the shows unfolding do we list auditions, contestants, round winners, etc. I think that mentioning notable auditions makes sense, and i am not sure (havent checked the season 6 article history) whether there was consensus and when.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * For AGT itself, it has tended to give notability only to those who make it to the final round or two. Not even making the top ten is always a guarantee of an article sticking.  I've generally been of the opinion that the bar should be a little lower, but I'm just one opinion in this.  That said, if you can find one or two Reliable Sources for a performer, particularly from before AGT, then they may very well be notable enough, especially once the AGT appearances are added in.
 * The Times of Israel mention in a little on the light side, not quite a trivial mention, but not really IMHO meaty enough to do it on its own for Close. The other link is hard to tell if it is totally independent of the performer.
 * As for De Leon, if you can provide links to some of the coverage, I can take a look at it. GHits alone are not an indicator of anything as far as Wikipedia Notability goes.  But if those GHits have gotten him independent coverage...
 * Ultimately it's on a case by case basis. While the last few acts standing will likely be considered notable simply for their AGT appearances, other will need to be individually analyzed.  Take a peak at Category:America's Got Talent contestants to get an idea of which ones, over the past years, have ended up with articles that "stuck". - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * To do a quick look at the past seasons:


 * Season 6. Top 4 all have articles.  Of the remaining Top 10, only one has a separate article.
 * Season 5. Top 4 all have articles, but none of the remaining Top 10 do.
 * Season 4. Top 3 have articles, but only one of the remaining Top 10 does.
 * Season 3. Top 4 have articles, but only one of the remaining Top 10 does.
 * Season 2. Top 4 all have articles, but none of the remaining Top 10 do.
 * Season 1. Eight of the Top 10 have articles. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

New Elim Table, What do you think?
Do you think this elim table could replace the old one? It allows room for a full performance description, and replaces the images with text. It also reduces highlighting. Please comment below the tables in the "Vote" section. Gamer9832 (talk) 23:47, 29 June 2012 (UTC) (Side by side comparison)

Votes
We should use the old one, because it is more uniform and it is easier to read and understand.Cleo20 (talk)

mew is better.--1archie99 (talk) 17:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I like the new table for having the description field. But I like the old one for having individual columns for the 3 judges, those could probably be shrunk down to fit. --Mjrmtg (talk) 19:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Like :) --Mjrmtg (talk) 22:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I feel the very first table (the combination one) is great! It keeps elements from the old one, such as individual judge actions, give a space to give specific act info for the show/performance in question, and gives an easy column to read the results with the colors and words. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Definitely the new table is much better and isn't a sight for sore eyes. ;) Reduces the clutter as well. --Dude (talk) 04:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The first new one, older proposed without the graphics clutter is much better. The 2nd proposed is only slightly better.1archie99 (talk) 05:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Older proposed vote. I foresee the buzzed columns being mostly empty so text is better. — WylieCoyote (talk) 21:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm going to go ahead and change to the first table I proposed (without the graphics), once all the results are in and I can find an RNO or some kind of performance summary online unless there is major objection. Thanks for all your input! Gamer9832 (talk) 22:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

New table. I like the newest (combined) table. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Never mind, it looks like there's a lot more for the combined table. I think I'm going ahead with that, we can always remove and change the columns later. Gamer9832 (talk) 01:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Frankly I just add the ratings so "bells and whistles" don't faze me, until we have a long load time. — WylieCoyote (talk) 02:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Would like to know when next shows for upcoming week in on and whether one or two hours
maybe also to NBC. Also a link to the AGT wiki.--1archie99 (talk) 17:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think performances shows are on Monday (today is at 8:30 ET). Results are on Tuesday. Gamer9832 (talk) 21:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Next week the shows change however. Performance shows will be on Tuesday at 8:00 ET for two hours and the results are on Wednesday at 9:00 ET. Look up on any TV Guide which shows that far in advance. My iPhone app shows that is the case. Cturner48 (talk) 23:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I do not use tv guide or have an iphone. I have found that you cannot rely on the nbc site to be correct until just before the broadcast and even then I did not know it was two hours until I went to |an agt sitenot related to NBC.1archie99 (talk) 05:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, as per what happened four years back, AGT will almost certainly go on hiatus for a couple of weeks once the Olympics start, since NBC switches to "all Olympics, all the time" during the event. :) – TexasAndroid (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Buzzed out?
Buzzed would be more accurate. Michael Nejad was not buzzed by Sharon until act was completed.--1archie99 (talk) 04:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll change it. Gamer9832 (talk) 18:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Date vandal on previous seasons
Could I please get a few more people to watchlist the older seasons, and keep an eye out for a particularly annoying vandal. He shows up every couple of months and changes all the dates in some of the older season pages to the dates of the rebroadcast of each episode in Singapore. He's an IP hopper, changing IPs with every edit, so it's impossible to actually talk to him. And there's no way I want to semi protect the older seasons just to catch vandalism that comes once ever few months. The key problem is that, if the vandalism is *not* caught and reverted fairly quickly, it becomes impossible to undo automatically. Last December he struck, and noone reverted it for a couple of months. (I was not actively watching out for him at the time.) When I *did* notice the vandalism, it could not be undone, and I had to manually edit back every single date in the articles. [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=America%27s_Got_Talent_%28season_5%29&diff=498640095&oldid=496535076 Here] is just one example of the edits that I am talking about. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll help you keep a watch over the articles. Gamer9832 (talk) 22:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. If/when you *do* see him strike on one season, please check all the older seasons.  He/she tends to strike several old seasons at the same time, each time he/she strikes. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

If anyone sees this, please continue to keep an eye out for this guy. It's been over 6 months since he last struck, which is overly long for him. Either he's given up, or we'll be seeing him again soon. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Problem With Article
I don't know how to fix it, but everything under the "unknown decision" dropbox is within that box. Someone with the knowledge of how to fix it, please do so. 24.1.0.232 (talk) 03:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It's been fixed. Gamer9832 (talk) 04:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Descriptions in tables
Editor Gamer9832 and I have been discussing this on user talk page. He thinks that it's important to include the name of the original artist of a song that a contestant performs. He hasn't really explained why he feels this way (I will let him speak for himself). I think that it's very unnecessary and superfluous, and anyone who wants to know about the song can click the link for the song's article. He feels as strongly for it as much as I am against it, so we need other input. Furthermore, this description column is just like a "notes" column in many other tables. In such columns, the content should be as brief as possible, so that it doesn't make the row too big in comparison to the rest of the row. Entries are not supposed to be sentences (no periods), but rather use clauses, separated by semi-colons; no great detail, just the facts. --Musdan77 (talk) 04:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * We should keep the performance info in the table as detailed as possible. I didn't intend this to be a simple "notes" section with a few details from each performance that make each look the same. I intended it to be a full performance description that incorporated the unique parts of each performance as well as the artist/song the act performed to. Breaking a full performance description down into clauses separated by semicolons totally defeats the point of it being more than just "notes" (and to be honest it looks just ugly). I'm not looking to follow the protocol for notes, the reason I suggested the new table is so we can have a huge space for performance info. For the argument about why we should keep the artist-- we need to attribute the song to its original performer/writer. It tells readers where the song originally came from. Most people who read Wikipedia don't actually click on the song to find its performer-- they want to see everything at a glance. We need to cater not just to editors, but to everyone who reads this encyclopedia. They come to Wikipedia to get information; and we are trying to detail this season in as much depth as we possibly can for just one article. And where the song originally came from matters (if you were the original artist, you'd want to the song to be attributed to you). For further justification, it's been done for every season, especially back during Seasons 2 and 3 which were performance-info heavy. It's also done on every American Idol page. I'm sorry if my reasoning isn't heavy on Wikipedia policy, but I think that doing this is better for the page. Gamer9832 (talk) 04:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * "as detailed as possible" goes in prose, not a table. Wikitables and detail don't go together. Even tables that are designed to have paragraphs, like for TV series, aren't supposed to have much detail -- that's why they say, "brief summary/synopsis." Most people who read Wikipedia don't click on wikilinks? Let's not even use them then. You underestimate the reader. And even if that was true, it doesn't mean that we should cater to their laziness. No, if I was the original artist, I wouldn't care. If they are really that vain, why should we care? And it doesn't matter what was done in previous articles. I have not seen those. I just happened to see this one, and saw that there were many editing errors, so I went to work on them. If you want to make this article like American Idol season articles, do it. They don't have descriptions in tables. --Musdan77 (talk) 16:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Just because tables don't happen to have descriptions in them elsewhere doesn't mean we can't use the table differently here. Wikipedia doesn't have a policy against that. I think you and I both agree that we need to make the performance descriptions relatively concise, but in no way does that mean we have to break it into clauses like you suggested. Every single reality show on Wikipedia cites the song and the artist in performance descriptions. And when I cited AI I didn't mean the formatting of their table, I meant that they cite both the artist and the song (which was the original argument, that we cite both artists and songs). Having both the artist and the song is a necessary part of the performance description. I have also found that having the song/artist violates nothing in WP:MOS. It is clearly a preference, and a widely accepted one that has been used in almost every tv or reality show article. Gamer9832 (talk) 18:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Like I said, if you want to make it like AI, that's fine, but the way this article is now is not right. I never said that including original artists goes against MOS (though I don't think they need to be or should be in these articles at all), I was saying that having them in descriptions in a table is one thing that makes it too unnecessarily long. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I never said that this article has to be a mirror copy of AI, I'm just citing one of the numerous examples of where both the artist and the song were used in a performance description. Also (this has nothing to do with the argument about original artists), you seem to be saying that tables should have as little info as possible. Tables also don't have to have short descriptions composed of nothing but clauses and not even a complete sentence-- all the MOS says is that tables are there to hold information, it doesn't dictate what should/shouldn't be in tables. Gamer9832 (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you're not looking at the right MOS (WP:TABLES). It says that sometimes a list is better as a list than a table (like when there's more detail). It also says, "Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a table may not." And if you look at the examples given, none has more than 2 or 3 lines in a field. --Musdan77 (talk) 21:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I was referring to the MOS you cited. See this: Often a list is best left as a list. Before you format a list in table form, consider whether the information will be more clearly conveyed by virtue of having rows and columns. If so, then a table is probably a good choice. If there is no obvious benefit to having rows and columns, then a table is probably not the best choice. See, the table is a lot more than just a performance description. The description is merely a part of the table, which includes columns for individual judge actions and results for whether the act was eliminated or advanced. It contains the order. And because the table is absolutely necessary, and we also need detail in performance info, placing detail in a table is perfectly ok. The info placed in the table right now is also currently not any longer than three lines long for most screen resolutions. When the MOS refers to "prose" they refer to formatting entire paragraphs in a table (which the performance description, when less than two lines in most cases, is certainly not). Also (to continue the issue which was raised) the MOS does not encourage the dropping of the artist when a song is already mentioned, and because the MOS has no opinion on this it's merely an issue of preference. And because every single article for a singing or dancing reality show has done it with the song and the artist, I think it's safe to say that the wide preference over the whole of Wikipedia is to have the song and its original artist listed. It only adds two words too, so it doesn't significantly affect the length of the performance description to make the description become a whole paragraph. Gamer9832 (talk) 00:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I certainly wasn't suggesting not having the table. My argument is about the "Performance description" column -- how it's displayed (or if it should be there at all). Currently, six (half) of them have more than three lines (1 has 6 lines -- very unnecessary). Check the Prose sub-section again. It comes under the heading When tables may not be appropriate. Other than that, I would be repeating myself, and I'm not going to do that (like you have, a few times now). --Musdan77 (talk) 01:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * What screen are you using? At 1366x768 I can only see at most three lines. The performance description column is necessary in order to cover the article in appropriate detail. Gamer9832 (talk) 03:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Now I see where you're coming from, having to do with the resolution/size. I've had mine the way it is so long I forgot it's not the average way. But, that's something to keep in mind: some people (like me) can't see the small print that's on WP very well, so we have to make it bigger, and that can change how tables look. --Musdan77 (talk) 01:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * When referring to "two or three lines" max in length I think we should go by the average screen resolution most people use. Let's keep the summary at length two lines or shorter for the usual screen resolution. Whether the artist and the song must be kept should be up to some sort of a vote, because it just comes down to preference.Gamer9832 (talk) 02:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Excessive capitalization.
Latest table has much capitalization; compare with table preceding it.--1archie99 (talk) 02:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Tim Poe
Not sure if it should be mentioned that Tim was able to back up his claims of being injured in the line of duty with evidence. For An Angel (talk) 16:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I would say that definitely deserves a mention. The current section includes a lot of negative.  Since it looks like he was able to produce documentation to refute some or all of the accusations, we definitely should cover that. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I added the info you posted to the controversies section. Gamer9832 (talk) 17:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Many problems with the article
As of now, the 2nd, 4th, and Wild Card Quarterfinals are screwed up, and a coloring mistake is in the Youtube show. If I could fix this, I would. 24.1.0.232 (talk) 02:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It should be fine now. This happens right after each show, where there's an influx of IP users who edit the page. It usually gets fixed in a day. Gamer9832 (talk) 03:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Unintentional X's, and buzzes outside acts' performance
We have previously discussed this on Talk:America's Got Talent (season 6). The usage of "X" (not the red X images) in the article "America's Got Talent (season 7)" denotes something that acts did not get buzzed out by one of the judges, either even when the acts were unintentionally X'd or any X occurred before or after their performance. It is especially confusing or misleading people who are unfamiliar with the U.S. TV show America's Got Talent, and also, not every reader in the world understands what the "X" means without an explanation in the key of a table in the article. There are footnotes in the tables that explain the buzzes' occurrence not related to the acts being buzzed out. My preference is to leave only the footnotes in the tables without the X's, as they are sufficient enough to call readers' attention. The X's were previously removed from all tables in the article America's Got Talent (season 6), but were, however, later reinstated. Articles related to AGT have been edited most frequently by user "Gamer9832". --24.6.164.7 (talk) 05:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with completely getting rid of the text X, as long as the footnote is kept. Also, I did not reinstate the text X's after they were removed, someone else did.Gamer9832 (talk) 03:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I don't think other editors would object to the removal of the text X's because it doesn't appear to be controversial. --24.6.164.7 (talk) 03:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Wildcard show table
Is there a reason that this table does not have the spot to show the three "checks" from the judges for judge's choice? I know that there were no "X's" in this show, but you should keep consistency between the table on the page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Having one huge column just for three checks takes up valuable space. With the extra column for which chose judge which act, the performance descriptions end up being squeeezed in the middle. This results in them appearing in 4-5 lines, which is bad for the formatting of the table (aesthetically it doesn't look very good). We can convey the same information and save space just by removing the column altogether and have a simple note saying how each judge voted. The tables don't need to be completely consistent (the wildcard table still keeps the same relative formatting, and highlighting colors, it just doesn't have the X/check column). Also, in the past seasons, when buzzes are minimal and only happen once or twice each show, we eliminate the X/check column all together. Gamer9832 (talk) 03:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 September 2012
In the Vegas week section, the number of acts that made it from the auditions should be changed to 112 (if you count the acts in all 4 coulumns, it should add up to 112, not 150).

108.12.41.155 (talk) 02:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll make the change. Gamer9832 (talk) 03:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Closing as Yes check.svg Done A boat   that can float!   (watch me float!)  05:38, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 September 2012
In the round chart section, in the semifinals part, the Scott Brothers should be above Shanice & Maurice Hayes and not below, so the list is in alphabetical order ("sc" comes before "sh", if you ignore the "the" part).

108.12.41.155 (talk) 01:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done I also edited for better "sortability". --Musdan77 (talk) 04:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 September 2012
Heynow68 (talk) 04:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC) The Untouchables danced to the song In-Tango by artist In-Grid. It is on Youtube. The current information is wrong.
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * FYI there are no sources for any of the information in the current table. Why can everything be added without a source but one is needed to change it? For An Angel (talk) 12:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Because the article has been semi-protected, I'd rather not make changes which do not have consensus or a source, as this may just add the problem and require the article to be fully protected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:17, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I really don't think correcting a mistake is going to cause any problems or require the article to be fully protected. For An Angel (talk) 01:30, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 September 2012
The date of Justin Bieber and others performed is wrong in the article. It was September 13, 2012, not the 12th.

Dkovit (talk) 00:00, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Uh oh, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=America%27s_Got_Talent_%28season_7%29&diff=512539718&oldid=512459189 somebody else] fixed the mistake without adding a ref. What do we do now? Revert it? For An Angel (talk) 01:33, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on America's Got Talent (season 7). Please take a moment to review [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=788791068 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 tag to http://www.fox43.com/news/wpmt-howard-stern-got-talent-121511%2C0%2C4906110.story
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120908160432/http://www.agtnews.com/news-sharon-quits-over-ugly-fight-with-nbc to http://www.agtnews.com/news-sharon-quits-over-ugly-fight-with-nbc

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on America's Got Talent (season 7). 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://archive.is/20120910224349/http://www.ksdk.com/sales/splash/2012/agt/ to http://www.ksdk.com/sales/splash/2012/agt/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120715064659/http://www.agtnews.com/exclusive-the-12-acts-performing-next-week-are to http://www.agtnews.com/exclusive-the-12-acts-performing-next-week-are
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120903082659/http://www.agtnews.com/exclusive-heres-the-12-acts-performing-next-week to http://www.agtnews.com/exclusive-heres-the-12-acts-performing-next-week
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120903015610/http://donovanjones-and-rebeccapeache.com/Donovan_and_Rebecca/TV.html to http://donovanjones-and-rebeccapeache.com/Donovan_and_Rebecca/TV.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120917092858/http://www.agtnews.com/military-paperwork-says-tim-poe-was-injured-in-the-line-of-duty to http://www.agtnews.com/military-paperwork-says-tim-poe-was-injured-in-the-line-of-duty
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120828034935/http://www.agtnews.com/breaking-news-sharon-osbourne-leaving-agt to http://www.agtnews.com/breaking-news-sharon-osbourne-leaving-agt
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120814122514/http://www.agtnews.com/update-sharon-osbourne-is-f-ing-with-us-folks to http://www.agtnews.com/update-sharon-osbourne-is-f-ing-with-us-folks
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120809224930/http://www.agtnews.com/exclusive-sharon-osbourne-hasnt-been-invited-to-return to http://www.agtnews.com/exclusive-sharon-osbourne-hasnt-been-invited-to-return

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)