Talk:American Idol season 11/Archive 1

Producers' comments
I thought we need to include what Nigel Lythgoe and the producers said about the program, that they will tweak the voting mechanics a little bit for the next season as to avoid the gender bias. I heard it before. And you can check it here. FinnsDeal (talk) 14:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Jennifer Lopez confirmation
I keep having to removed Jennifer Lopez confirmed as coming back for this season of American Idol because it has not been confirmed by American Idol, Fox or Jennifer Lopez herself. There are different sources used to try and verify this but they all link back to the original E! News article where the author's information is from "A source" and unnamed sources are not acceptable reliable sources. Until we get confirmation from American Idol, Fox or Jennifer Lopez, her name should not be added to the article as coming back. Aspects (talk) 02:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Speaking of Jennifer Lopez, is there a reason why there's a "Jennifer Lopez" listing on the bottom? (I don't know the official name). Shouldn't we add the other principal "stars" of the show (Steven Tyler, Ryan Seacrest and Randy Jackson) OR not have Jennifer Lopez at all?SuperAtheist (talk) 23:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That part is for listing categories, so that just means there is a category for Jennifer Lopez. If the other stars have a category, then by all means add them, if not, then you can't. I have no problem if you want to delete it (there is a category for Paula Abdul but her category doesn't appear in any Idol page), others however may add it again. Hzh (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

David Leathers Jr.
Why is he listed as a semifinalist? He was cut tonight. I realize he is one of the 4 in the running to get the 25th spot, so I don't know if that's a spoiler but I think it should be removed in the meantime. MarkMc1990 (talk) 03:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Eliminated Wildcard contestants
Should the eliminated Wildcard contestants be listed as placing 14th-16th? They did not actually advance to a further round than those listed as placing 17th-25th; they just received an extra chance to try to enter the Top 13, but they did not succeed. I think that they should be noted as having been potential Wildcard picks, but listed as placing the same as the other semi-finalists who were eliminated, with a new placing description: '14-25'. Alexroller (talk) 00:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Top 13 Results
I foresee A LOT of edit warring ensuing over how to label the bottom vote getters this week. So here are the facts: Shannon, Elise, and Erika were the bottom 3 among the females and Jermaine, Jeremy, and Joshua were the bottom 3 among the males. Never was there any implication that this was the actual "bottom 6" across both genders. For all we know, some of the safe men could have placed below Shannon or Erika, or vice versa with some of the women placing below Jermaine/Joshua, which would make the "bottom 6" description inaccurate. There's also nothing that says Erika got more votes than Shannon or Joshua more votes than Jermaine. As a result, I changed it to "Bottom 3 (M)" for the males and "Bottom 3 (F)" for the females, with Elise's description simply "Bottom (F)" with the median blue shade. Though I also propose two more alternatives:


 * {| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center; font-size:85%"

!Contestant !Result
 * style="background:cyan;"| Joshua Ledet
 * style="background:#e0f0ff;"| Bottom 3 (M)
 * style="background:pink;"| Erika Van Pelt
 * style="background:#e0f0ff;"| Bottom 3 (F)
 * style="background:cyan;"| Jermaine Jones
 * style="background:#b8dbff;"| Bottom 3 (M)
 * style="background:pink;"| Shannon Magrane
 * style="background:#b8dbff;"| Bottom 3 (F)
 * style="background:pink;"| Elise Testone
 * style="background:gold;"| Saved
 * style="background:cyan;"| Jeremy Rosado
 * style="background:#8ab8e6;"| Elim
 * }
 * Here I have given Erika/Joshua the "Safe first" color designation, Shannon/Jermaine the "Safe last" designation (since they were saved last within their gender), and since Elise was technically saved by the judges, I think we could get away with giving her the orange "Saved" cell. I personally see this as the most accurate way to do it.
 * style="background:gold;"| Saved
 * style="background:cyan;"| Jeremy Rosado
 * style="background:#8ab8e6;"| Elim
 * }
 * Here I have given Erika/Joshua the "Safe first" color designation, Shannon/Jermaine the "Safe last" designation (since they were saved last within their gender), and since Elise was technically saved by the judges, I think we could get away with giving her the orange "Saved" cell. I personally see this as the most accurate way to do it.
 * }
 * Here I have given Erika/Joshua the "Safe first" color designation, Shannon/Jermaine the "Safe last" designation (since they were saved last within their gender), and since Elise was technically saved by the judges, I think we could get away with giving her the orange "Saved" cell. I personally see this as the most accurate way to do it.


 * {| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center; font-size:85%"

!Contestant !Result
 * style="background:cyan;"| Joshua Ledet
 * style="background:cyan;"| Bottom 3
 * style="background:pink;"| Erika Van Pelt
 * style="background:pink;"| Bottom 3
 * style="background:cyan;"| Jermaine Jones
 * style="background:cyan;"| Bottom 3
 * style="background:pink;"| Shannon Magrane
 * style="background:pink;"| Bottom 3
 * style="background:pink;"| Elise Testone
 * style="background:pink;"| Bottom
 * style="background:cyan;"| Jeremy Rosado
 * style="background:#8ab8e6;"| Elim
 * }
 * This one uses the standard gender colors to differentiate the results between male/female. We could also put "Saved" in Elise's cell (but still keep it pink) if that's preferred over "Bottom".
 * style="background:pink;"| Bottom
 * style="background:cyan;"| Jeremy Rosado
 * style="background:#8ab8e6;"| Elim
 * }
 * This one uses the standard gender colors to differentiate the results between male/female. We could also put "Saved" in Elise's cell (but still keep it pink) if that's preferred over "Bottom".
 * }
 * This one uses the standard gender colors to differentiate the results between male/female. We could also put "Saved" in Elise's cell (but still keep it pink) if that's preferred over "Bottom".

I'd like to hear some feedback on my ideas and reach a consensus. MarkMc1990 (talk) 04:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I definitely agree to using the colours. I thought the whole point of them in the first place was to highlight occasions where the male and female contestants were treated seperately. (Kyleofark (talk) 22:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC))


 * I knew as soon has he mentioned a bottom three of each gender that we were going to have trouble with this and we have had a lot of editors changing this without input here or edit summaries to make it that much harder to come to some consensus. Normally I would like using the gender colors, but then we lose the shades of blue for saved first and saved last that help prevent edit wars.  So of the two options, I like the first one best, but I do not think we should use the "Saved" color because we do not know if they will actually use the "Save" this season, it is not the way the "Save" has been used in the past seasons and I think it was simply Lopez's verb choice because they did not want to make it seem like they were eliminating Rosado.  But my opinions then make it hard to show Testone's standing.  Should it use the saved last color stating "Bottom (F)" or possibly even the pink female color just stating "Bottom"?  I am not going to change it until there is some sort of consensus here and hopefully more than just the three of us discussing it. Aspects (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have to say I'm disappointed and even a little surprised that so many different editors have changed the chart to their liking, and yet none of them have weighed in here to actually discuss it and give reasons for why it should be one way or another. I'd like to hear more opinions. As for your concern about it not being the same kind of save as we've known it in the past, it still fits the criteria for the "judges' save" description. Her fate was in the hands of the judges as a result of her getting the lowest number of votes among her competitors (in this case, the women) and the judges decided to save her/not let her be eliminated. MarkMc1990 (talk) 07:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I wish I weighed in sooner, but MarkMc1990, I really liked your first chart! I thought, well, given that it's gender specific, the color distinctions for the genders make the most sense.

If no one else is able to support that though, then at least consider this: The judges specifically stated "We've decided we're going to save Elise." (I'd have to rewatch, but that's close to verbatim, I think.) The word "SAVED" was specifically used. Now, even though this is different than the typical sing-for-your-life save of the past three seasons, it's still a Judges' Save. For all we know, Elise could've had the overall Least amount of votes. It's for this reason in particular that I think it qualifies as an official save. Indicating on the charts that she was Saved by the Judges with the goldenrod bar prevents any discrepancies there and is the most accurate label to use.--Cinemaniac86Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire 16:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. I'm sorry if I jumped the gun in editing it before receiving approval. But I figured I had Mark's backing on using the goldenrod Save tag. Also, I switched the chart back to say all "Bottom 3", rather than "Bottom 2", which I'm sure was the fault of someone else.--Cinemaniac86Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire 19:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And the battle continues! People keep changing it. One person even insisted in their edit summary that the judges will decide who goes home every week, though Ryan specifically stated it was just for that week. Anyway, Cinemaniac and I both agree the article should use my first chart above, Aspects seemed to agree with everything except putting "Saved" for Elise. How can we go about reaching a full consensus and preserving it? MarkMc1990 (talk) 02:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, that last edit was obnoxious and based purely on assumption! Ugh, this is why I tried to avoid editing until post-season, haha. His/Her edit summary made no sense either, regarding calling Elise the Bottom 2 and...so much head pain.


 * I'm pretty firm in supporting the "Saved" tag on Elise, because I do believe this is applicable. In this situation, they had to choose between two contestants. It's irrelevant how they worded it to some degree; the facts remain: They effectively chose to save one, thereby eliminating another. If they chose to eliminate one, they still therefore saved the other person. Either way you analyze it, it's a Saved/Eliminated split.--Cinemaniac86Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire 03:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the "Save" should only be used when a contestant was supposed to be eliminated and the judges choose to reverse the decision. In the case of Elise and Jeremy, the judges HAD to choose wich one they were sending home. --Maxime9232 (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It should be noted though that even the show has consistently been referring to it as a "save". Before Elise performed last Wednesday, Ryan said "the girl who is coming off a dramatic save from the judges". I'm certain there were at least one or two other references as well. Just because it wasn't the way the save is traditionally used, doesn't make it any less of one. MarkMc1990 (talk) 07:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I would also like to throw it out there that this visual representation has the added advantage of aiding in getting the point across that the judges ultimately got to decide which contestant went home. Simply putting "Bottom (F)" doesn't necessarily imply that Elise was in danger of being eliminated imo. MarkMc1990 (talk) 07:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I feel even stronger than before that we should not use the "Saved" with the Judges' Save color because last week Ryan Seacrest specifically stated that there was only one save for the season and they decided not to use it on Shannon Magrane. The save has always been when one contestant was determined to be the lowest vote getter, got to "sing for their life" and then the judges would determine if they stayed in the competition. One of Jeremy or Elise was going home no matter what, there was no "sing for their life" and no mention of using their one save to keep Jeremy in the competition. This "Save" term is something American Idol has defined and by their definition, Elise was not saved. Aspects (talk) 03:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have a new idea, I will put for Elise on her first final result when she was saved the competition moments before Rosado's elimination though the judges save will still in place. I am going to accept it.  ApprenticeFan  work 08:09, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * As an uninvolved party to this discussion, it seems the way the "saved" tag should be resolved is by sourcing, no? The entire chart appears unsourced, unless I am missing something.  --Chris (talk) 20:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

It is okay that I used this format?

Qjtv2911 (talk) 05:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Judges' Save
Is anything to use the Judges' Save? It has never mentioned to Ryan nor Steven, Jennifer and Randy and has been phased out for the entire season. ApprenticeFan work 14:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it sure has now!--Cinemaniac86Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire 08:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

American Idol (season 11) AfDs
The finalists of American Idol (season 11) are currently up for deletion. Please join the discussion at Articles for deletion/American Idol (season 11) finalists and if you feel the articles should be kept, also expand the articles with reliably sourced information. Aspects (talk) 14:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Finalists section, Elimination chart & Finalists template contestants order
It seemed to have come to my attention that someone have been editing and changing the order of the contestants in the above-mentioned sections in the order of being saved by Ryan Seacrest during the most recent results show. I don't think this should be the way. I think the contestants should be listed according to their surname unless the position of the contestants has been determined. Yonglaytan (Yonglaytan) 14:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.1.122 (talk)

Controversy
The section as it is is full of completely trivial and non-controversial items. No references at all (if the issues are controversial there would be plenty of sources), nothing that suggests that those are anything more just fans' chatter of no particular significance. Improve those or the entire section will be deleted. Hzh (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * This entire section should be deleted unless it can be backed up by reliable sources. The Jessca Sanchez part is the funniest, in that people in a message board talking about something is a controversy.  I am going to remove this information until it can be reliably sourced. Aspects (talk) 05:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * And now we do need a controversy section for Jermaine Jones's disqualification with reliable sources. Aspects (talk) 03:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Uggh
Why can't we wait until the show actually airs before posting the stuff about Jermaine Jones? Or at least cite a source? Cart before the horse. --User:Woohookitty Disamming fool! 07:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I did not see this section when I also posted about Jermaine Jones. I agree with you. Everyone needs to remember than all new content needs a cited source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexroller (talk • contribs) 21:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Potential Jermaine Jones disqualification
There were a few premature edits regarding the disqualification of Jermaine Jones. I have removed them because this disqualification is not official at this point. However, it is very likely that his disqualification will become official tonight when the show airs, so anyone can feel free to revert my edits at this point (if Jermaine Jones is, indeed, disqualified). Alexroller (talk) 21:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Cover artists needed for Year They Were Born theme
User:RBBrittain wants to add cover artist for the Year They Were Born theme with an edit summaries of "Add cover artists from year of birth in italics. Since half the contestants chose cover versions from their birth years, they are just as important as the original artists." and "though normally irrelevant, they are DIRECTLY relevant to the THEME of this episode!" Cover artist have not been listed in previous American Idol articles, even for the exact same theme, and this one either. I do not feel these cover artists for this theme are any different than the three songs that Whitney Houston covered just the week before. Since there is a dispute for this, I am going to remove them with a edit summary about this section until there is consensus if they should be added. Aspects (talk) 03:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong add. Your second revert came as I was trying to post to your talk page WHY I undid your first revert. Actually, it is YOUR argument that is inconsistent with the three Whitney covers last week; I did NOT delete any original artists in either episode, but nonetheless the songs in last week's episode would NOT be there if Whitney hadn't covered them.  (There's no need to flag them as Whitney or Stevie individually; that's redundant once you explain the girls sang Whitney while the guys sang Stevie.)  The ONLY difference between that and my edit is that the article text does NOT mention which of the songs were eligible due to cover versions; that's actually an argument FOR adding the cover artists.  Finally, excluding cover artists makes the "Year" column (added before me) irrelevant; the year in that column is for the COVER version (except the 6 that weren't covers) as well as the finalist's year of birth (given for each of them earlier in the article). --RBBrittain (talk) 04:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I should add that if they weren't done with "birth year" themes in past AI seasons, it's those seasons that should be changed to add them; I also suspect past seasons had fewer cover versions than this season (6 of 12). TWID may be a valid reason in some contexts, but IMO not this time. --RBBrittain (talk) 04:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * A compromise may be to move the cover artists to the "Year" column, since the birth year is what makes the cover artist relevant; it serves the same purposes as my original edit while providing more separation from the original artist than my italicization proposal. --RBBrittain (talk) 04:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

My original edit (for comparison)
--RBBrittain (talk) 04:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Compromise edit (as suggested above)
--RBBrittain (talk) 04:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I do think, given the theme, that it would be a good idea to indicate cover versions to avoid confusion, especially considering those are the versions their song choices are directly based on. If I may say so, I think it's kind of dumb that the show lets them consider covers of older songs in the first place. Phillip's song for instance definitely didn't sound like something that would have been released in 1990. MarkMc1990 (talk) 06:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This is definitely tricky. I'm with Mark that it's infuriating they weren't required to be original releases from those years. As the person who steadfastly motioned for the original artists tag back in Season 7 (please, no autographs), it would be remiss of me not to be open to finding the right solution. Given that for specific artist theme nights, such as the previous week's, we include original artists when applicable, I think including it perhaps in the year tab makes the most sense? It's either this or someone will swing by an insist upon removing artist tags, which will be another infuriating, insufferable consensus debate. But hey, we edit, we deal!


 * The only issue I can see would be how uneven the column is. BUT, it doesn't look too off-putting, and I think it fits Wikilogic far more to list it next to the years, rather than make the song/artist column more convoluted with multiple artists. (Especially in the case of "Endless Love"--FOUR names.) So, I approve of Table #2, but credit to Table #1 as well. Like MarkMc1990, you thought about multiple options to find the best solution. Hope we can reach a consensus.--Cinemaniac86Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire 09:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * When the theme is "songs from the movies" it is customary to have a column that lists movies the songs were in to indicate how the song was eligible to be performed that week. Especially in cases where a song doesn't have an obvious connection to a movie for most people (Who knew that "Bridge over Troubled Water" was in The Pursuit of Happyness?) it is useful information. For the same reason, the table #2 column makes sense to have. 99.192.78.22 (talk) 13:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Count me in as a vote for the second table. MarkMc1990 (talk) 20:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Jermaine Jones place?
I edited the rankings to remove him placing 12 and replaced it with DQ, and this was reverted back. If he was disqualified, he did not place 12th. The American Idol website has Jeremy Rosado listed as "top 13" and Jermaine Jones as "disqualified." Thus, he should not be listed as 12th place! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frisky0324 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC) — Frisky0324 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * That's not really how it works. Although the disqualification overrides the typical placement, he still placed in between Rosado and Magrane. Ergo, he was 12th. Same goes for Corey Clark in 9th. Same goes for Frankie Cocozza in 8th, et al.--Cinemaniac86Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire 08:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Wildcard column
Shouldn't the contestants who already made Top 13 via America's votes have shaded cells in the wildcard column since they didn't perform? It looks weird just white/blank, it makes it seem like they performed. This bothered me last season too. MarkMc1990 (talk) 04:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I completely agree! If you look at seasons with different SF formats, such as season 8, contestants who had already advanced to the Top 13 before the Wildcard round had a tan coloured cell in the Wildcard column. Even if the overall format was slightly different, the Wildcard round was used under almost identical circumstances, so in my opinion, those tan cells should be used here (and in season 10)! (Kyleofark (talk) 00:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC))


 * Edit completed. Do you like it? --59.12.218.64 (talk) 15:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC) — 59.12.218.64 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Also, not to nit-pick, but am I the only one who thinks the "Top 13" cells for DeAndre, Erika, and Jeremy should be the finals blue color since they were advancing to the finals? I think it looks kind of sloppy being the same color as the yellow Elim box when the represent two dramatically different things. MarkMc1990 (talk) 06:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks good, thanks! MarkMc1990 (talk) 18:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 March 2012
The mentor for the Top 10 is P. Diddy, not Huey Lewis.

184.174.172.180 (talk) 00:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC) — 184.174.172.180 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Agree Gabrielthursday (talk) 00:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The protection has now expired so you can make the edit. Tra (Talk) 21:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

1st Elimination (Top 13)
Hello, I am just thinking that the "Bottom 3 (M)" or "Bottom 3 (F)" should be "Bottom 6" because it is understood that the contestant is male or female by the color behind the name of the contestant. My idea takes sense... Thank you.. I will change it, but if you don't like it just revert it..

Qjtv2911 (talk) 09:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagree, would you please stop trolling the talk page discussion. There's a discussion already at the top of the page. ApprenticeFan  work 13:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Not to indulge an idea that has been vetoed several times, but it's not "Bottom 6" because we have no idea if they were the bottom six. In theory, the bottom three guys could have all had more votes than all of the girls. (Kyleofark (talk) 13:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC))

Top 9 Format
Who is changing the Top 9 tables format? This should be the one to use it.
 * Mentor: Stevie Nicks

On performance night:


 * Colton Dixon, Elise Testone and Phillip Phillips: "Landslide" / "Edge of Seventeen" / "Don't Stop" (Fleetwood Mac/Stevie Nicks Medley)
 * Deandre Brackensick, Heejun Han and Joshua Ledet: "Lady In My Life"/Rock With You/"P.Y.T. (Pretty Young Thing)" (Michael Jackson medley)
 * Hollie Cavanagh,Skylar Laine and Jessica Sanchez: "Like a Prayer"/"Borderline"/"Express Yourself" (Madonna medley) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.16.90.33 (talk) 23:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC) — 186.16.90.33 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Precedent from Season 8 Top 4, Season 9 Top 4, and Season 10 Top 6 says they should appear in the table in the order. MarkMc1990 (talk) 00:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

My new Elimination Chart idea
Hey guys, I have made some alterations to the pre-existing elimination chart. I think my modifications have made the chart more precise (but not gratuitously so). Firstly, for the semi-finals, I have filled in the exact placements for the Top 10 (Top 5 girls and boys in their respective gender colours). This illustrates the exact system by which the Top 10 qualified. I have also changed the colour of 'Wild Card' qualifiers to yellow and their 'Top 13' advancement to the Top 13 blue colour originally used for the every Top 13 contestant. This illustrates how there was no specific gender requirement for the Wild Card show. Most significantly, instead of using 'bottom 3' and 'Elim', I have filled in the contestants' place in the votes i.e. Shannon Magrane was 11th place in the show she was eliminated. For 'Bottom 3' contestants, I have put in the highest and lowest their position could be e.g. Elise Testone for Top 11 week could have been as high as 9th and as low as 10th hence '9th - 10th' in her cell for that week. The 'Save first' and 'save last' colours still apply thus showing how the show implied that in Top 11 week, for example, Elise was 9th and Erika 10th. For Top 13 week, I have used gender colours as that seems the most accurate thing to do. Having Jeremy Rosado be simply 'Elim' suggests that he was '13th' when he could have been as high as 7th place! By having Elise's '6th' placement and Jeremy's '7th' placement in bold with Elise's saying 'saved' next to it is less confusing than what was previously used and one can infer that the last placed girl and boy had to 'face off'. A footnote can still be used to clarify this and also the order in which the bottom 3 girls/guys were saved. Here it is:

(offtotheraces (talk) 6th March 2012 (UTC)) < sorry don't know how to do this properly!

Radical change
I'm not expecting much support here, but here is an incredibly simplified version of the results, similar to the elimination tables for other reality shows.

The contestants competed as males

The contestants competed as females

The contestant entered the Top 13 as a wildcard

The contestant was in the bottom 3 and was saved first

The contestant was in the bottom 3 and was saved last

The contestant had the lowest number of votes but was saved from elimination by the judges

The contestant was eliminated

The contestant was disqualified

The contestant won American Idol

Just putting it out there. MarkMc1990 (talk) 03:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Therefore, I am going to decline it. ApprenticeFan  work 03:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, was there more to your comment that got left out? MarkMc1990 (talk) 04:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't like it sorry Mark. It looks ugly in my opinion and too abbreviated. What do people think of my chart though? I've made some minor but notable alterations to the existing chart which I think add more to the chart whilst still retaining the aesthetic appeal. offtotheraces — Preceding unsigned comment added by Off to the races (talk • contribs) 14:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)  — Off to the races (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Hi, off to the races, I think the table that you've came up with is pretty inspired by the results chart from The X Factor pages. Personally, I feel that the "Bottom 3" and "Elim" tags should be kept and not be replaced with what you came up with as the host (Ryan Seacrest) always announced the results using these two words. In addition, I feel that the excessive amount of information in the table makes the table looks messy. I think that we should keep what the table is like now and not make any major changes to it. As for Mark, your table is horrendous. Enough said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.2.28 (talk) 16:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for your response, however I have to disagree with your comment. I understand that Ryan uses the phrase 'Bottom 3' but why does that mean that we shouldn't contextualise the phrase? e.g. out of 11 contestants, Elise Testone is in the Bottom 3 and saved first, so she could have placed as high as 9th or as low as 10th (hence '9th - 10th' in her cell). If a contestant is told he is 'eliminated', we contextualise that to the amount of contestants performing to make a placement e.g. Heejun was eliminated and performed with 9 other finalists, so he came 10th. The same should apply to 'Bottom 3'. Ryan doesn't say 'Heejun, you came 10th last night' however he did. Ryan telling Elise she was in the Bottom 3 is the same as saying 'Elise, you came 9th - 10th'. Changing 'Bottom 3' to the potential placements (which only include a maximum of 2 positions as shown) is more precise. I also think the 'Top 5' in respective gender colours is absolutely imperative, as we need to distinguish between the male and female contestants considering how they performed in separate groups and the qualifying system for the Top 13 was based on having an initial 5 females and 5 males advance before wild card. I don't think the table looks messier at all. I would like to start a consensus to adopt my altered chart. I don't think the changes are 'major', but understandable and accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Off to the races (talk • contribs) 19:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

"Love The Way You Lie" (Part IV - A New Hope)
So Colton sang "Love the Way You Lie". Since then there have been many, many edits changing the precise title of the song and who to list as the "original artist". So here's the story of the song:

(1) In 2010, Eminem released a song called "Love the Way You Lie" for his album Recovery, which featured vocals by Rihanna.

(2) Later that same year, Rihanna released a song called "Love the Way You Lie (Part II)" for her album Loud, which featured additional vocals by Eminem. She also released a "piano version" of the song, available only through iTunes as a bonus track. This version did not include any vocals from Eminem.

(3) In early 2012, Skylar Grey released an EP called The Buried Sessions of Skylar Grey that included a song called "Love the Way You Lie, Part III (Original Demo)"

So which song did Colton do and who should be listed as the original artist? Well, he did say he was performing "'Love the Way You Lie' by Skylar Grey", and there was no rapping in his performance, and the arrangement was identical to the one Skylar Grey performs, so it looks like a no-brainer, right? The problem is that the Rihanna "piano version" of the song has identical lyrics and an identical arrangement to the Skylar Grey version. So it tuns out that the only difference between "Love the Way You Lie (Part II)" (Piano Version) and "Love the Way You Lie, Part III (Original Demo)" is the title. So that means that whatever you call the song, Rihanna released it first and so she is the original artist.

Colton and official Idol sites just called the song "Love the Way You Lie", so if you think the difference in title between the demo and piano version matters, there is no help there. Also, Colton saying the song is "by Skylar Grey" could have just been an acknowledgement that she wrote it or could have just been a mention that she is one of the people who has recorded it without it being any special claim that she is meant to be understood as the "original" artist. After all, Idol never names the "original" artist for songs like "Unchained Melody", "Alone", and "Feeling Good", among others.

Were it up to me, there would never be any listing on the Idol pages of "original" artists as it is irrelevant information that one could find out if one really wants to by clicking on the links provided to the song pages. But if an "original" artist must be declared in this case, I'd go with Skylar Grey. Not because I think there is a clear answer to the question: "Who is the 'original' artist?", but because when in doubt, I always prefer that the songwriter be listed if that is a choice available.

(PS - Did you know that Billy Joel is actually the "original" artist for the song "Make You Feel My Love"? He recorded and released it six weeks before Dylan did. But Dylan wrote it, so that's close enough for me to count him as the "original" artist.) 99.192.63.53 (talk) 17:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Colton Dixon Elimination?
Alright. I was looking at the article and it said Colton got eliminated this week. How's that true? I mean, the performance is tonight, and the results are tomorrow. That can't be correct if the votes are done tonight. Please help! FatMamaFan97 (talk) 00:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Not true - vandalism. The edit has been reverted. 07 Matthew (talk) 13:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like it is now... (-_-') Zappa (talk) 03:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Could we impose a registered-users-only protection on this article?
I think it would be beneficial, at least DURING the season. The same practice was used on The X Factor articles, at least during the past 2 seasons, and it yielded much better results. It's not to suggest all IPs make unwelcome edits, but that too many revert constructive edits that took much work, without rhyme or reason to do so. Ex. The elimination chart, above all else. Please consider this, administrators/moderators.--Cinemaniac86Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire 20:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Cinemaniac, you can [[Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for protection|ask for protection here

]]. Just put this article's title at the top of the section and list an explicit decision for the request. If the vandals number more than one, they usually approve it. — WylieCoyote (talk) 20:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I just requested page protection if anyone didn't do so. Zappa (talk) 00:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, well thank you, Zappa, and CAWylie for the information. Do I need to visit to voice my concerns as well?--Cinemaniac86Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire 14:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you should, because it just got denied. Zappa (talk) 21:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I will re-propose it later on. Perhaps it would help if we found some specific examples of late for proof. I think between today and tomorrow, bitter fans might give us enough ammo for just cause. That's a shame though, because too many IPs vandalize and make non-constructive edits.--Cinemaniac86Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire 00:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Practically all pages have vandals, so it isn't about proving vandalism, but whether the proportion of vandalism is enough to warrant protection, and also whether protecting the page will disproportionately affect other legitimate unregistered editors. See a guide WP:ROUGH here for what might be expected to warrant protection.  So far there doesn't appear to be excessive vandalism, and more unregistered editors don't vandalise the page than those who did, so proposing it again won't help.  Hzh (talk) 13:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, not all vandalism is done by unregistered users. I just reversed a vandalism edit by a registered user (who changed the elimination table even though tonight's results have not been revealed yet). So page protection would not have prevented that act of vandalism, but it would have prevented me from fixing it. 99.192.87.28 (talk) 14:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * True, but you could always just create an account so you don't have to worry. Zappa (talk) 20:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * (1) That would not change the fact that vandalism was done by a registered user, and thus the page would not be protected by "protecting" it. (2) Who said I was "worried"? 99.192.69.169=99.192.87.28 (talk) 00:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Results "early" on West Coast
Considering the fact that I live on the West Coast of the US, I think we shouldn't put the results until at least until the day ends, since I wouldn't really want people living along the Pacific coast to feel that Wikipedia ruined the show by "announcing" the results a little too soon. Zappa (talk) 00:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * General theory is: They could simply NOT look at Wikipedia. =P Spoilers are a given.--Cinemaniac86Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire 14:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I live on the West Coast and sometimes I need the results when they happen in order to update the VoteFair American Idol poll (especially for the benefit of East Coast viewers) before I can get the results on TV. As indicated, we can choose not to look here when we don't want to know. (I also want accurate, non-vandalized, results, so I'm in favor of limiting edits to registered users.) VoteFair (talk) 20:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Converting Dual-Song Night Tables Into The Example Below.
There seems to be too much confliction in regards to a recent proposed chart edit I made. One of the things we generally try to avoid is redundancy. The Top 7 Part 2 list of performances is quite redundant. Each contestant's name does not need to be listed twice, NOR does it have to be highlighted in two separate places who is Bottom 3/Eliminated. It also is rather chunky in appearance.

I'm proposing this model, based off of what The X Factor pages do when the 2-song-nights begin:

Now, you see, it appears like a much better read here. The name goes first this way (and in general, might be better for single-song nights too, but one step at a time), because it looks neater. The performance order # corresponds with the song and which slot it was performed in.

Rarely, second half performance orders are switched. Only once in AI history was that done, during last year's Top 4. James Durbin both opened and closed the show. 1st and 8th. So his name would be first, BUT the 1 would go before "Don't Stop Believin'" and the 8 next to "Love Potion #9".

Double-song nights are not always split themes, but they have been for these past two seasons and are during the Top 3 and Top 2, always. So having one song per column of theme helps as well.

And instead of highlighting two lines to indicate Colton's, or James's, or whomever's elimination/B3 appearance, it's just the 1. It looks much cleaner on the page as well, taking up more width than height. I think it would be a excellent alteration to be made, and if the consensus is one of approval, I'd have no problem doing it for previous seasons.

Thoughts?--Cinemaniac86Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire 14:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I love it! Much cleaner and more practical than the way it currently is. You have my support to change it. MarkMc1990 (talk) 21:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support to change it. Yes, much cleaner. Mr.Atoz (talk) 22:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think it looks clearer. Rather messy actually, because it gets confusing when the tables use different formats. Last season James Durbin performed first and last on top 4, and you then get a jumble of numbers. Hzh (talk) 20:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree. I do not like it either. For the competition weeks whereby the contestants only get to sing one song, the "contestant name" column comes after the "order" column. For this new format, it's the other way round. It's not consistent at all! I also think that there were too much information on a single row, which is not very "vision-friendly". Can you imagine at the start of the show Ryan Seacrest announced to the audience "Ok Lauren Alaina is going to sing three songs tonight, "Flat on the Floor", "Maybe It Was Memphis" and "Like My Mother Does"". I doubt any of the audience would remember what she is going to sing for her third song when it's going to be her time to do so. It's the same idea there. Too much information on a single row. Hence, I hope someone would revert back to the original format of the table since we are unable to reach a consensus here. (You're not even supposed to make changes to the table format since there has been no consensus made)
 * Thanks Mark and Atoz! Glad you like it. I appreciate your support. For the record, I did not change it back, but someone else did and it seems to be working well now as it has not been reverted by others. Thank you to whomever for giving it that chance.


 * To the unsigned poster, I don't see what your problem is here. That explanation was more confusing than my chart even was. You doubt they'll "remember her third song by the time she sings it?" That makes no sense. What's great about this chart is that you look at 1 name, you see what they sung all in a row--matching the name up to all of the songs at once., They can see it in order of rotation, and the slot # next to it. One thing I DO agree with is that I believe the names should come before the #s on ALL of the tables, so that it is even from beginning to end. How does that work for you?


 * Hzh, it doesn't feel messy at all, in my opinion. It's about streamlining, eliminating redundancy (which the old charts were). James Durbin's instance is the ONLY instance in AI history where the 2nd half rotation was altered. What they do on The X Factor is what's done here, and it works just fine. We're not here to show what phone #s you dial for ____ or "who got pimp spot", it's about the information, plain and simple. Having it list it like this gives the information in a more simple way.


 * Thanks to all for your comments, and please weigh in if you have not!--Cinemaniac86Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire 07:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * That doesn't change the fact that you have no consensus agreement to change the format to that table. Changing the format of the table to that of the X-Factor has been discussed before, and it wasn't accepted, so now you are doing something against the opinion here.  The point wasn't just the format.  It is messy also because when there are duo and trio, you can't do what you called "streamlining", so in fact you still have different formats - a linear style and a compacted version.  Doing the old way is clearer as to what happened in the show, consistent and less messy.  Hzh (talk) 12:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Once again, I'M not the one who edited it back into the article. Someone else took that liberty.


 * Also, it's not "against opinion". The opinion is split, 2:2.--Cinemaniac86Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire 20:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I am against the tables as they are now. They look horrible, because it appears visually as if contestants appear in the B3 twice. Once again, it is redundant. The duets/trios are a different scenario entirely as they occurred as single performances.--Cinemaniac86Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire 20:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I would say wait for at least a couple of weeks first. I can foresee a situation (since they have extended all performance shows to 2 hours) where the contestants have to do a duo/trio as well as a second solo, then you would have the problem of fitting that into the chart, and it will likely look a mess with your "streamlined" table. The current table is fool-proof and it doens't matter what they choose to do on the show, whereas yours would be difficult to manage when they do something different.Hzh (talk) 09:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Top 6 Results
I wonder if anyone of you have heard Ryan Seacrest mentioning about "Bottom 2" during the results show. After he placed Sylar in the Bottom 3 with Hollie and Elise, he said "Okay right now I'm going to make it into a BOTTOM 2, Skylar you are SAFE!". Was he trying to imply that Hollie and Elise is in the Bottom 2? If it is, I think we should list Hollie as "Bottom 2" in the performance table as well as the elimination chart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.1.100 (talk) 03:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree. This is different than previous results announcements.  I have changed it to Bottom 2 and made a note at the end of the chart.  This is different than just being announced last. Mr.Atoz (talk) 04:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand that Hollie was in the Bottom 2, but still she belongs in the bottom 3. Bottom three includes the three contestants who received fewer votes than the other contestants. What is the use of 'safe last' if you will use the 'Bottom 2' format? 'Bottom 2' format was used last season when Jacob Lusk was eliminated. In that case, only Lauren and Jacob were the contestants who were in the bottom group. Qjtv2911 (talk) 05:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In most cases we only know who the bottom 3 contestants are and we use the 'safe first' and 'safe last' to indicate which contestant was announced safe first and last. We do not know which contestant was specifically the second from the last and the third from the last, just that the contestants were in the bottom 3.  In this case Ryan Seacrest specifically states that Hollie and Elise are the bottom 2. Mr.Atoz (talk) 15:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Customarily, we basically understood that Bottom 2 only applied when Ryan stipulated such information on air. I will rewatch later for context. This would be an exception if so. For all OTHER instances, he never specified it. Basically, we decided to use Safe First and Safe Last to designate the difference, without ASSUMING who had more votes. But if Ryan said Hollie and Elise had the least, Skylar is B3 and Hollie is B2.--Cinemaniac86Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire 11:50, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Standing Ovations
As I was reading the article (scanning the contents, actually), I noticed that the number of standing ovations (or after which songs these were held, and who sang these songs) were not mentioned in any part whatsoever. I know this information would seem insignificant to some, but for fans of specific contestants, this would be a very good achievement for them. Not that I'm promoting Wikipedia as a spoiler thing, really, but what I do think is that this may further improve the quality of the article.

As I examined the tables that were made in this article, though, I have no idea how to insert this information in these (I'm no techie). Perhaps... add another column?

I would like to know how others think about this. Thanks. QueenQuorra Consult 09:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely no. Next someone will want to count how many times Randy says "dawg" or Steven Tyler says "beautiful". Hzh (talk) 10:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh. I see what you are talking about there.  Okay, then.  Forget I said that. :)  QueenQuorra Consult 06:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Elimination Chart
Someone should put "Bottom 2" opposite Phillip Phillip's name when Hollie Cavanagh was eliminated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.110.229.200 (talk) 09:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think Ryan Seacrest said bottom 2, therefore, you cannot say Phillip is bottom 2. Hzh (talk) 10:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Controversy
I think the lack of African-American female semifinalists this season should at least be mentioned considering many people made a bigger deal out of it then the stuff already put there.
 * It is only controversy when the media is discussing the issue. Find some proper media reports that say something about the lack of African American semifinalists then you can include it.  However, don't use fan's sites or forums, or personal blog unaffiliated with major news outlets, because it isn't controversy if it is only fans' chatter - you'd find that fans will disagree or criticise this show (or any other shows) on just about anything, and that don't make them controversial.  Hzh (talk) 08:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes but it should be interesting to note the only black female in the top 25 was a country singer who didn't even make the top 13 or the wild card. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.81.68 (talk) 19:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm...
Who put Jessica Sanchez as the winner? We don't even know who won yet! Besides, are these people supposed to be psychics? No knows who won! We're gonna need to change this. Zappa (talk) 01:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

WHOEVER purposely edited the page to purposely lie and put sanchez as the winner should be banned from wikipedia forever! this may have even affected the voting somewhat, since ignorant people may have believed they didnt need to vote for her if they looked on here and saw she won before it was even possible for anyone to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gawdsmak (talk • contribs) 23:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Music Video
It may or may not be a good idea to include what song the finalists did for the Ford music video. Just throwing ideas around!

Phillip Phillips Wins American Idol
So, I haven't seen the ep, (I'm in NZ-We see performance tonite,results 2morrow) so i can't judge. He mitta done well. I personally think it's not fair a woman hasn't won Now 6 years in a row. I think he's not very good. I won't buy his album. But maybe thats just me. I personally think JS shoulda won! P.S. sorry for the quick text! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.161.234 (talk) 05:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Joseph20318577 (talk) 13:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please explain what you would like edited and reactivate the request. Monty  845  04:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Need a picture of Phil in the box, just like all the the other winners--BuoyDog (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Performance tables
I think that the performance tables starting from top 9 are a bit jumbled up and look kind of messy and stretchy. Here's a possible solution that organizes the solo performances, the duets, and trios:

Top 9 – Their Personal Idols

 * Mentor: Stevie Nicks
 * Solos


 * Trios

In my opinion, I think this format looks way better but what do you think? WikiMaster500 (talk) 04:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There are pros and cons, it looks slightly neater, and you can put the group performance in that table as well. But for now, I would say splitting the table into 2 is unnecessary because it ruins the flow of the table. Probably need a while to think about it and see if I change my mind later. Hzh (talk) 08:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Citing the show itself
I just learned that the following template can be used to create a citation that refers to the show itself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cite_episode

I don't see it used here, yet it might be useful when a recording of the show can provide proof of verifiability, especially if no "other" publication has reported on what happened on the show. VoteFair (talk) 05:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

My Elimination Chart
– The contestant was declared safe. – The contestant was in the bottom three but was declared safe first. – The contestant was in the bottom three/bottom two but was declared safe     last. – The contestant was eliminated.

– The contestant received the most public votes. – The contestant was saved in the Top 13. – The contestant was saved by the judges from elimination.

Qjtv2911 (talk) 09:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)