Talk:American Idol season 9/Archive 1

Abdul quit Idol for good?

Has it been confirmed? Since she said she would not be returning for Season 9 of American Idol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.129.173.204 (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

No. Gage (talk) 21:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

It's Nonsense

Abdul has confirmed she has officially left the show. In case you missed it,it was on Yahoo!News and on TV local stations. She only said,that she was working on getting a fair deal. Though, the last thing she told us was that she will no longer return. She never confirmed she is back. So I think we should leave Abdul out of Season 9,until she confirms she is returing. Her posts on Twitter never meant she was returning. All she said,was that she was working on it. Thats it. She never said she was back. Last official word,was that she was gone for good.

No, there wasn't any official confirmation until yesterday. Gage (talk) 10:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Uh, what are they going to do for the already-taped auditions? Paula's in those... and to have her disappear at Hollywood... would be quite peculiar. 99.150.132.238 (talk) 22:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

They will most likely show as little of her as possible, if anything. –túrian^patois 22:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

They did not begin the auditions in front of the actual judges until recently. Idol does not record in front of the judges on the same day as the schedule that you see on this article. Abdul's leave will not affect the show in any way. Gage (talk) 01:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Simon's Last Season Mentioned Twice

Simon's announcement regarding his last season was mentioned twice in the text, so I removed one. Alanasings (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Auditions

This page is confusing. The Tickets to Hollywood column is listed under regional auditions. Shouldn't it be under the other auditions since clearly the guest judges are there? --Shadow (talk) 04:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

E&W Coast Time Difference/Spoilers

Okay so here in the west coast which is here in Southern California still haven't seen todays episode 1/13. It is currently 7:28 pm and already the page was updated with spoilers. And yes they are spoilers to us who are in Pacific Time. I know were going to see it anyways, but can this page please be updated a day after the episode? I mean it's not just California and up the coast, but Hawaii as well. For those of you that don't know their is a 3 hour time difference between the west and east coast. I'm not so sure about Central Time, but I believe it's a 1 or 2 hour time difference. All I'm asking is for whoever updates this page please don't update it RIGHT AFTER you watch the episode. Their known as spoilers to the ones that haven't seen it. For example it sais on the page that their were only 25 tickets given to auditioners for Hollywood. How did I find that out? The SPOILER posted on here. I know thats not really a big of a spoiler, but it's still a spoiler. Also this page should be locked to prevent vandalism in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.62.134.106 (talk) 03:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I can see where you car coming from but I feel that preventing updating of the page doesn't matter. This is shown over seas at different times also, unfair to them then. My advice is to not look at this page until after it airs. -Opt 05 (talk) 05:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Yea but this is American Idol. I'm pretty sure the english don't really care about American singers when they have X Factor,Britian's Got Talent etc. with Simon Cowell in all of them as well. I think you should put your country before any others. And the United States is not just 30 states if you weren't aware. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.62.134.106 (talk) 05:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

If you don't want to read Spoilers, don't read the article! I don't understand the fuss. 121.247.68.245 (talk) 15:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Spoilers are things before an episode would air. Once an episode has aired, even if it is only in two time zones, they are no longer spoilers. It would cause multiple edit wars for each episode. Aspects (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

LOL If I find out about the episode before it has aired, it's considered spoiled. Spoilers depend on people, not on the televisions airing time.

I still do not understand the reason your looking the information up. Don't search the info if you don't want to see it. -Opt 05 (talk) 01:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow you are so late on this. By this point I could care less on what I wrote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.238.251.1 (talk) 02:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I wouldnt call it a spoiler, but i would call the same situation in the finals a spoiler because the top 24 list was announced by joes place, votefortheworst.com and varius more the week it happened. htey told who had been eliminated pretty early. abut we could have a box to hide the so called spoilers untill the next day so everybody can have a chance to watch it first without spoilers, and others can see it after it happens00:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)75.231.87.3 (talk)

Just to add my two cents, it's not a spoiler if its already been aired. If you read this page despite being aware that the show has already aired anyway, your just asking for trouble. Now if the results were to somehow leak before its aired in the first place, then it shouldnt be on here. For example, the top 24 list has been floating around for a good few months. If that was on here before last weeks episodes, then that would be wrong (Kyleofark (talk) 16:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC))

Pants on the ground is not a controversy

I dont need to say any more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.234.55 (talk) 00:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

No, but Larry Platt might well deserve his own page, rather than a redirect to this one. He's evidently the same Larry Platt who was recognized with his own day by the Georgia general assembly . I've put a few supporting references on 'talk' on the redirected page. spiderwing (talk) 12:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Having a viral hit American Idol audition or having his own day in his hometown is no enough reason to give him his own page. --Shadow (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Home state, not hometown. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

No it most definitely is not. The "You Are My Brother" guy got similar treatment a couple of years ago and yet he doesn't have a page. It basically takes a William Hung type explosion to get a page for an non-advancing auditioner. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 11:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

What about the viral impact of at least the song? --JY23 (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't take much to get something viral. Count me as someone who doesn't put alot of weight into that. I object to him being in this article and now having his his own article. I just think the section in this article needs to be lessoned a bit. Its getting much more space than Hung, who is barely even mentioned in the AI3 article. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 12:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

people who dont even like idol no the song, thousands of artists made their own, usaly sucky, versions, thats enough for an article

00:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.231.87.3 (talk)

Orlando auditions - Day 2

In the second day of Orlando auditions aired on 1/20, Guest judge Kristin Chenoweth was called back to New York for her work, but three present judges were in the panel. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 13:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

"Descriptions" of the Guest Judges???

I'm sorry, but it seems more than a bit biased and definitely not encyclopedic. Why do we even need to know or care what the guest judges acted like? It's all a matter of opinion, and doesn't belong. Agree/Disagree? Cespence17 (talk) 14:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Garcia!

Major YouTube phenomenon

Tasnim16 (talk) 14:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Episodes?

Don't TV shows normally include a list of episodes and when they aired? This one seemed to stop at the end of the first auditions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.102.237.69 (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a separate American Idol episodes page. This page is going to end up being very large. We don't need anything that's already covered on other pages. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 10:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Start the Elimination Board!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.34.179 (talk) 04:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Uhm, where is this episode page? There is no link in the article, and if there is, you've hid it well. Dollvalley (talk) 09:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Michael Lynche disqualified?

There was a source about one Idol contestant initially disqualified due to violation of Idol rules. Here is the link:

http://tvwatch.people.com/2010/01/25/report-idol-contestant-cut-after-dad-talks-to-paper/

ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 16:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

That's actually a couple weeks old rumor. There is 0 evidence that he was ever disqualified. Its all from blogs and the like (and the link you presented is from People Magazine but its essentially a blog). And actually it looks like the link is a People magazine blog citing a New York Post article which was based off of a spoiler site's blog. Oi vey. :) I do wonder where solid journalism went sometimes... --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 12:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Cell Width

Can someone make the cells on the elimination bigger so that the contestant name boxes will stretch out? 24.88.86.28 (talk) 21:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Linking contestant's names

The general policy has been that contestants do not get articles until they reach the top 12. So there is no reason to link their names right now. In fact, doing that tends to encourage people to write articles when we don't want that yet. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 12:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

None of the top 24 currently warrant articles (no "plants" this year that had past experience to warrant such), so that makes sense. CrazyC83 (talk) 03:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I see that we got a Tim Urban article already. Oi. Every year isn't it? :) --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 06:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

All of these redirect semi-finalists can't create early, I may suggest them to WP:RFD to nominate all and re-create if one of these semi-finalists make it in the top 12. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 12:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

After rethinking, one that might warrant an article based on past work on Broadway is Todrick Hall, but definitely not anyone else. CrazyC83 (talk) 16:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

There's quite a bit out there about Todrick Hall, and not all of it nice. But I think we should wait to see if he makes the Top 12, not to set a precident. :) (Kyleofark (talk) 16:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC))

Top 12's been announced. Should we link them now and start making articles? Tcatron565 (talk) 02:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

No, because they aren't notable. Everything that would go into the article would be found on this page. –Turian (talk) 02:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually yes you can. I know that Turian you are new to these AI articles. We always have articles on the contestants once they make the top 12. It's the Idol project guideline and there is precedent going back to season 1. There have been very few contestants without articles. 5 or 6 maybe? Last season's top 13 all have articles outside of Alexis. They are notable once they become top 12. Not only that but look at the previous seasons' articles. We don't have enough space to include all of the information on each contestant. It simply isn't feasible. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 09:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Usually, when they do not have an article, it is because they lost notability by doing nothing outside of Idol. I don't think do-nothing finalists warrant articles, but that would be a separate AfD much later. CrazyC83 (talk) 15:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Well yes. But we tend to assume notability when they are on the show. I mean to say they are "all over the media" is mild. Not sure you could get more notable. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 05:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Date for Hollywood week?

The article lists all the dates for the auditions but not for Hollywood week. Would make it more rounded if that was added, I feel. 121.247.68.245 (talk) 22:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The reasoning is that I'm not sure that date was publicized in anything other than blogs and spoiler sites. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 12:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand. Is it kind of a secret when Hollywood week is exactly? 121.247.68.245 (talk) 00:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It is supposed to be a secret, and spoilers are not allowed on Wikipedia. CrazyC83 (talk) 05:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

But what could be spoiled now? Hollywood is long over? 121.247.68.245 (talk) 01:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Lists

hey can someone make the performance lists we restarted last year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.52.152 (talk) 21:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You could do it as well. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 09:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Quit messing with the colors

Let's decide what the colors should be, stop changing them. But if you're going to change the Eliminated people's color to gray, then change the header to match, ok? Woogee (talk) 03:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm not going to allow edit warring to continue. Knock it off. Woogee (talk) 04:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from. I will say, though, that its very hard to stop, especially from anons. And I don't remember the username off the top of my head but there's a user who likes to constantly change the colors. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 09:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Dark gray has been used for the elimination color in the semifinals since season 6. We don't use the palegoldenrod/yellow colors until the finals. MarkMc1990 (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I am removing the "safe/bottom 3/bottom 2/eliminated" color legend until the finals begin, as it isn't relevant yet and will hopefully avoid confusion and arguments about what color the semifinal "elim" boxes should be between now and then. MarkMc1990 (talk) 00:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow

I really like the new week to week chart. Kudos to whoever it was who hatched it. :) --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 03:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I love it as well.

Is there possibly a way to have the females and males charts be side-by-side per semifinals week though? They'd always be even, since there are an equal # of performances, and it would eliminate a lot of white space.--Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 03:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why not. Sounds like a good idea to me. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 09:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Great....Now I just need to figure out how to do so!--Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 14:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead an did a simple version of it. If you want some tweaks done, I can do them as well. :) –turian^{обсудить} 20:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

They are uneven. The males one in particular looks distortedl. Can you get them side by side and equal lenght/width etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.52.203 (talk) 22:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, they weren't fixed widths so the size depended on what is inside them. I went ahead and gave it a width of 500px, but that might need to be changed to a percentage later on due to smaller resolutions. –Turian (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Personally, the differing widths doesn't bother me too much. I would rather have charts that have the full, and proper, info, rather than compromise or be forced to shorten something to maintain equal margins. That's why I changed CCR to Creedence Clearwater Revival, as it should be the proper artist's name, which made the girls wider--so to speak ;).

Oh, and terrific job! I'm impressed. Thanks for doing that, because it just maximizes the appeal of the tables. I made the guys cyan instead of pink. Tell me if it's too blinding or not. If so, we should find a neutral color instead of pink. I just wanted it to match the elimination chart's gender colors.--Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 14:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

/=> It seems no one liked your changes. We are discussing it down below, so please join in before you make any changes. Thanks. –Turian (talk) 16:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree, as only one random IP address reverted it. I'll leave them pink for the time being, but I'd like more input.--Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 17:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

They won't be cyan, because having them as cyan makes no sense whatsoever. And any time you try to re-add it, I will revert it. The purpose of the color is to have a lighter color-shade of red, it just so happens to be the same color as the one we use for the girls. Nothing more. Nothing less. –Turian (talk) 17:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Todrick Hall.

With the reports of his Oz: The Musical failures and controversy surround the money issues, is it worth listing in the controversies section? Or are the sources not substantial enough?--Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 03:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd say no. As far as I know, it hasn't really been reported on by traditional media, has it? To me, it doesn't really become a controversy until that happens. And the reliable sources policy tends to back that up. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 09:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe he should be disqualified, I don't know--A-spices (talk) 21:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a message board. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 02:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2010/02/20/2010-02-20_american_idol_contestant_todrick_hall_owes_refunds_on_failed_oz_musical_producti.html

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/idolchatter/post/2010/01/todrick-hall-hustler-scam-artist-or-your-next-american-idol/1

http://www.newschannel5.com/Global/story.asp?S=10562143&nav=menu374_2_9

I'm not sure what's usable from those stories, but I'd say it's become a larger story than the Chris Golightly controversy. Eticketjedi (talk) 23:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It isn't directly related to his Idol appearance though. If he warrants an article in the future (he needs to earn it in the business since he doesn't on AI alone), then it would be posted there. CrazyC83 (talk) 15:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Alex Lambert

Is he related to Adam Lambert??? Please respond--A-spices (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No, similar last names do not imply relation. –Turian (talk) 22:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Table

I have put the three past sandboxes in my sandbox, since apparently we can't decide on one. Please state which table you would prefer and the one you would least prefer.

I like Table 1 the most, since the font is smaller and the elimination(s) are more easily identifiable. There isn't too much color and it's the easiest table to read.

I like Table 2 the least, since the font is way too bog (aka normal) for a table with this much text. We don't want multiple rows for just one contestant. Also, there is hardly any spacing between the contestants from one on top of each other. –Turian (talk) 16:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I would have to say the exact opposite that Table 1 is the worst and Table 2 is the best, but Table 3 would be an acceptable solution to me.

Table 1 is way too wide and you have to scroll over to read it. The section heading already states "Semi-final - Top 24" so the use of two columns that state "Top 24" are unnecessary. Using two columns saying the same Order column is unnecessary when one column could do. The color to show the eliminated contestants are unnecesary because of the result column and just seem a reason to add color for color sakes. But if a consensus is found that colors are needed in the table, then I think for the semi-finals they should be the gray used in the elimination table.

I am partial to Table 2 since I created it, but if the smaller font size of Table 3 is found to be better than I would abide by that consensus, although I would suggest going with the pink and cyan colors of the elimination tables instead of the red and blue colors used in Table 3. Aspects (talk) 17:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I like the coloring to show the eliminated contestants. How about we just get rid of the 'Result' column and use the coloring instead (and provide a key)? I think it will be less cluttered that way. Dacunni1 (talk) 17:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You have to scroll over because your monitor is too small and doesn't meet standard monitor sizes.

The colors can be a tad much at times.

I added a fourth table, which seems to merge the previous three. I like it more than the others. Thoughts? –Turian (talk) 17:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I like the fourth table. I liked the color because it helped the eliminations stand out, but I think the bold does that here. Dacunni1 (talk) 18:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, we can even bold the name if need be. I like the colors at times, but sometimes they can turn out circus-looking and make it look a little weird. If there is some other alternative to adding the colors, I will see what I can do to incorporate it. –Turian (talk) 18:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

My vote would be for table 4 using table 1's shaded elimination rows. This way no one would get confused and think Aaron and Jermaine were eliminated week 1. MarkMc1990 (talk) 00:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the best way to do that would be to have a thick border, which I have added. –Turian (talk) 02:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Why do we have this same discussion every single year? Who. Cares. Seriously. Pick a color. Live with it. Move on! :) Yeesh. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 03:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It matters because we will eternally have people changing it to something they prefer, which takes time from people who could be working on something that actually matters. –Turian (talk) 03:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Right but then it'll be picked and we'll be dealing with people trying to change it back. I guess its mostly due to Idol page fatigue. My Idol page fatigure. :) Same battles different year. So. Ignore me. :) --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 03:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

But if consensus is reached, then that is enough to trump whatever changes they try to make. Without it, we can hardly hold leverage against anyone. –Turian (talk) 03:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't like the row color for Eliminated contestants being one color (that of the girls' pink from the Elimination chart). I say either the boys should be cyan or we should pick a neutral color. I don't get why pink was chosen in the first place anyway.--Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 16:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

As I have explained before, pink is used a lighter variant of red. It has nothing to do with the gender of the contestant. –Turian (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)Since it seems the consensus is saying Table four is the best layout, but with some disagreement as to the colors that should be used, I added three more options. One uses the current pink, one uses the pink/cyan to denote male/female, one uses a neutral gray and one uses no color.

My opinion is the one with no color is the best, if we highlight Eliminated then a color is unnecessary. The next best option would be using the neutral gray, the third best option would be the pink/cyan since that is specific to the article and the current pink is the worst option since it is a color already used in the elimination table.

If we do go with the neutral gray or the pink/cyan, we will need to decide if these run all the way through the season or if it will change to shades of yellow as the elimination chart does. Aspects (talk) 20:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Table 4 is the best option. I added a Top 12 style option to the page as well. I think we should keep it consistent throughout the entire season. –Turian (talk) 20:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Should we say 'Advanced' or 'Safe'? Contestant's are announced as being 'safe' not 'advancing to the next round'... I don't like the use on pink/cyan for female/male eliminated contestants. Each table is headed 'male' or 'female' so we don't need the gender colours... the colour used at the moment is fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.52.203 (talk) 15:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll be implementing these changes sometime tomorrow. If you have any issues or suggestions, give them to me now! :) –Turian (talk) 03:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Original Artists.

Let's stick with the precedent we set back in Season 7 on Mariah Carey night. Carly sang "Without You", which was originally a Badfinger song. So, we list it as Badfinger, regardless of whether or night it's Mariah Carey theme week. Similarly, just because Ryan says Katie's doing the Michael Bublé version of "Feeling Good" or Adam's doing the Muse version doesn't change it being attributed to Nina Simone. If we went by cover artists, then half of David Cook's performances would be reverted to that artist instead of the original performer. Ergo, we shouldn't replace Brenda Russell for Jermaine's performance with Oleta Adams. Let's be consistent.--Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 11:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Based on that, then, shouldn't "Smile" be listed as a Nat King Cole song (since he was the original artist to perform the song) instead of a Michael Jackson song? Cespence17 (talk) 14:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Then it isn't a Nina Simone song, it's an Anthony Newley song. Woogee (talk) 04:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Bottom

I think the other "regulars" on here would agree with me that we have to go with what Seacrest says. Not his actions. What he says. So just because he brings someone out during the eliminations doesn't mean that they are bottom anything. The show is just that. A show. So unless he says "here is your bottom X" or whatever, we can't assume anything. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 09:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Every year! Gotta love it. Yes, once again, the results shows are injected with "suspense". (Or, arguably, clever ways of pimping troubled favorites.) They generally don't mention Bottom 2/3s until the finals anyway. But if they did, naturally, the chart WOULD reflect. Only if.--Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 03:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

They have a couple of times in the past (season 5 is an example). But generally they don't. But yes. It's every darn year. :) You know and I know that we'll run into our greatest issues if there is dual elimination week. There are still users convinced that Phil Stacey was announced as 6th in season 6. :) I've had to fix that one a bunch of times. Can't assume a darn thing. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 05:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Current event tag

I do not know why it was removed, would someone tell me why? Thanks, House1090 (talk) 01:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Because it says at the top of the page: Please do not put a current event tag on this page as the season isn't an event. The logic is true and the template says so as well. –Turian (talk) 01:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Total Tickets to Hollywood

Does anyone have this information for seasons 1-7? I would like to add it to those seasons' pages and am currently thinking up a new season table for the main American Idol page that could use the info. Thanks in advance! MarkMc1990 (talk) 07:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It's probably available on the web in scattered sites. However, there sometimes is a discreptancy between golden tickets awarded (this season was 181) and people actually in Hollywood (this season was 172), accounting for pre-Hollywood disqualifications and dropouts. CrazyC83 (talk) 14:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Aaron Kelly

Wrong link (Semi-finalists table) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamflyin (talk • contribs) 22:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)