Talk:The Glee Project

Potential conflict of interest
Please note this page was created by editor, who claims here and here to work for Oxygen (TV channel) and has created pages for many shows airing on the network, including: All About Aubrey, STORIbook Weddings, The Glee Project, Running Russell Simmons, House of Glam, and Hair Battle Spectacular. Please be aware of a potential conflict of interest. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

What's the premise of the show?
This page lists a bunch of people and says it is a television show, but it does not actually get around to saying what the show is. It looks like some sort of reality tv/competition? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.201.159 (talk) 18:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Having viewed the premiere this evening (they are putting us two weeks behind the U.S. on this one, we don't get Oxygen but Slice airs it here), I can now confirm that yes, this is a reality show competition. It's like American Idol and similar shows in that someone goes home every week who doesn't make the cut.  The difference is that there is no audience vote or anything; Ryan Murphy himself makes the eliminations.  Also, there is no live show; it's all filmed and cut before broadcast.  In other words, they already know who won and Murphy is going to keep tight-lipped about it until the finale.  CycloneGU (talk) 03:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Final Viewers
So what is the time frame that we are considering for the "Final Numbers" section, and for that matter are they even needed in the article? Because as I read it the current final number from the first episode is including the mass run of re-runs that Oxygen showed in a set time period, I can't confirm the time period since my company blocks that site :(. To me that just seems like Oxygen wanting to make it look better by having that longer time period since cable shows don't always get super high ratings on initial airings.  I would vote that we just need one of the rating columns, the overnight ratings to be exact since that is what it looks like most shows use. In line of WP:BOLD I have taken out the Final Ratings column. Jnorton7558 (talk) 07:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 24.86.186.153, 17 July 2011
I do not need to edit the page I would just like to point out that for the episode Pairabliity there are four music videos in the form of duets and they are

Samuel and Marissa - Don't you want me baby Lindsay and Cameron - Baby it's cold outside Matheus and Damian- The Lady is a Tramp Alex and Hannah - At the moment Unknown

Verifiable by the sneak peek videos whcih have aired on Oxygen and are also on Youtube if you look up the contenders names and the song Thanks

24.86.186.153 (talk) 16:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Everything must be verifiable and "sneak peeks" are not considered to be reliable sources. Content on YouTube is likely to constitute a copyright violation unless you can point to a specific, officially released on YouTube video. It's probably best just to wait until the episode airs. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 151.199.37.250, 21 July 2011
You should add Canada into the table of countries where The Glee Project is available for viewing. The opening paragraph represents that the show began on Slice TV in Canada on June 26.

151.199.37.250 (talk) 00:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Jnorton7558 (talk) 01:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

slightly confused... the table at the bottom implies that winning the homework assignment means you are safe from elimination that episode. From watching the episodes, this is not stated at all... we can only wait and see if a homework winner finds themselves in the bottom three that episode. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.98.18 (talk) 21:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 203.158.45.30, 22 July 2011
The Glee project has started airing in Australia on Channel 11, on July 8th 2011. they are about to air the 3rd episode " Theatricality" as I type this out .. here is a link to the Channel 11 website for The Glee Project ..

203.158.45.30 (talk) 04:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

✅ Added with reference. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 124.180.143.127, 25 July 2011
The Glee Project first aired in Australia on 15 July 2011

124.180.143.127 (talk) 09:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately without a source to confirm this date, it hasn't. Please find a reliable source that confirms this. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 09:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 124.180.143.127, 25 July 2011
Rechecked and reference provided after seeing incorrect date from "AussieLegend": The Glee Project first aired in Australia on ELEVEN on 15 July 2011. Source: http://www.tvtonight.com.au/2011/06/airdate-the-glee-project.html/

124.180.143.127 (talk) 10:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: AussieLegend never put a date with the airing, that was someone else that claimed it but when added to the article it was left without a date. I currently cannot confirm the source you provided but if someone hasn't before I get home I will look at it then. Jnorton7558 (talk) 10:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * ✅ I've confirmed the source, added the date and changed the reference. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from TheSmokey, 27 July 2011
The Glee Project first aired in Canada on June 26 with a two hour special premiere - http://www.torontosun.com/2011/06/24/glee-project-set-to-air-in-canada Also, Slice has a section of their page dedicated to the show, including an episode guide (which, unfortunately, doesn't cover the actual premiere date) http://www.slice.ca/Shows/ShowsPage.aspx?Root_Title_ID=271989

TheSmokey (talk) 13:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Jnorton7558 (talk) 15:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * using first URL above in this edit GoingBatty (talk) 20:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 92.238.98.18, 27 July 2011
OK, episode 6 the Homework assignment winner Marissa was also in the last chance three and was eliminated... so the statement that winner of the homework assignment is not in danger of elimination is incorrect. Please correct it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.98.18 (talk)


 * I agree that the wording should probably get tweaked a little, but cannot at this point figure out to what. Everything I come up with either doesn't flow right for me or does not sufficiently follow how the show words things as well.  What do others think about just adding a row to the top of the table for the Homework Challenge winner and then eliminating the color for them in the table and just show 'IN' for those that become safe? I will do the addition myself if there is not any objections in ~24 hrs. Also marking the edit request as answered for the moment. Jnorton7558 (talk) 03:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Further discussion
At the time of the above request, the first line of the key under the contender progress table stated "The contender won the homework challenge and was not at risk of elimination", which is clearly wrong as Marissa won the assignment but was then eliminated. I addressed this in this edit, clarifying both similar statements and grouping them together so as to avoid any ambiguity between the two statements. However, Tam001 saw fit to revert the change, without any explanation for his changes. In doing so he also removed the clarification from the first statement, which introduced an additional problem. The new statements were: As the main criteria for both statements is "the contender won the homework challenge", both of these statements can be applied to Marissa. While the second is "more" correct the first statement is still correct and needs to be clarified so as to avoid any ambiguity. I reverted Tam001's change, further clarifying the reasons for doing so, but Tam001 has reverted the change again, and again without explaining why. Given the ambiguity that he's introduced and the failure to provide any explanation as to why he's done so, I've reverted the change and invited him to discuss it here, but I'd like to see other opinions too. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) The contender won the homework challenge
 * 2) The contender won the homework challenge but was eliminated.
 * So this will be my opinion on this. It kind of echos what I said above.  Since the winner of the homework challenge has nothing to do with people at risk/eliminated is there a reason it needs to be a color in the table?  Could we just change the WINs to INs and then add a new row at the top of the table for the winners of the homework challenge kind of like they do here?  Yes they do actually have a winner for the main challenge there.
 * Anyways assuming that idea get discarded, I won't be surprised if it does, I think that..... I don't know which is better. They both have some arguments, as well as the original for that matter.  I think that no matter how it gets worded it will be confusing to some people.
 * The original in that it made it seem as if winning the homework challenge meant you were safe, even though I believe At Risk is something they also use on the show
 * AussieLegend's version is probably the least confusing as it does accurately describe what happened but also..... I don't know where I was going on this lol
 * The version Tam001 is changing it to may have multiple categories that people fit into but also does accurately classify people
 * The more I look at this I think I would think I prefer a combination of the versions. I think that leaving it at The contender won the homework challenge. would be sufficient though the winner/eliminated should be up at the top.  While yes then both statements can be applied to Marissa when people are looking over that legend they should be just attempting to match the colors, so the only people that would need to pay more attention to the difference in the two would be those editing the article to add someone who again both won the homework challenge and then was eliminated. Well them be my thoughts..... I hope you can follow them. Jnorton7558 (talk) 10:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I had used purple as the won the challenge but was eliminated for this reason. Won the challenge = Blue. Eliminated = Red. Thus, together, they're purple. There's no way to please both parties in this situation. I personally prefer just leaving it as "won the homework challenge." Anyone who reads more into that should also be reading into the fact the purple also insinuates that they were eliminated. If all else fails, re-word them. "The contender was safe and won the homework assignment." "The contender was eliminated but won the homework challenge." On a side note, why on the table is it called a homework challenge? It's called a Homework Assignment everywhere else on wiki, and on Oxygen's site/videos. Myzou (talk) 11:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, what we think should be obvious isn't always as obvious to others, so we need to be as unambiguous as possible. The rationale behind the use of purple is quite valid, but it obviously wasn't obvious to whomever changed it. Colour choices to one person may be obvious, but to another the colour choice is inappropriate. (These are just the latest edits in a long, long, long line of colour changes in this article. This happens all too often because people interpret things differently. That's why "The contender won the homework assignment and was not eliminated", rather than simply "The contender won the homework assignment" is necessary; there has to be no room for misinterpretation. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Being eliminated is much more relevant than winning the challenge and as such, both entries should be paired. As for "The contender won the homework assignment and was not eliminated.", it's not needed since anyone with a blue WIN in that chart is clearly not eliminated. There is no ambiguity here. --Tam001 (talk) 22:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You're not looking at the big picture. Wikipedia is a work in progress, long after The Glee Project has finished the article will be here and people will still edit it. With the wording that you've just restored (which is inappropriate given that the matter is currently under discussion), there's nothing stopping somebody coming along and changing the colours again or the content to something that isn't correct, but which still is in compliance with the first statement. Simply changing Marissa's colour to blue would do that. That's the problem with having ambiguous statements. The more important issue is that not everybody has perfect vision. There are a lot of sight impaired people, including those who are colour-blind, to who the colours mean nothing and the table, as it stands now, contravenes WP:COLOR because it mainly uses colour to convey important information. Removing the ambiguous statement is just the first step in making it comply. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The color isn't even the most important part of that info. The word WIN should be enough to clarify anyone's doubts. And there is also the detailed description of each episode in another section. --Tam001 (talk) 03:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Your argument was "anyone with a blue WIN in that chart is clearly not eliminated", so colour seemed to be of some importance to you when you wrote that. As for the episode descriptions, people shouldn't have to go to other sections to look for information. The sections should stand on their own. My point remains, when you have two very similar statements, you have to clarify each statement. It's a sad fact, but a fact nonetheless. Wikipedia is rife with articles that get edited and again and again because ambiguities allow people to misinterpret, and misinterpret they do. Spelling things out allows readers to come away with the correct story and editors to make appropriate edits. It doesn't work all the time but it's a good start. And, of course, we still have the non-compliance with WP:COLOR to worry about. Sight impaired people have no idea what the wins, outs, risks and lows mean, because they aren't mentioned in the key. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I am going to agree that the WIN color statement should have something additional besides "The contender won the homework assignment." The best that I can come up with that both sounds correct and does not imply incorrect information is: "The contender won the homework assignment and was not eliminated." Jnorton7558 (talk) 10:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I feel the need to bring up a new point in regards to the homework assignment thing. Rumors and (unsourced) spoilers on fansites are listing a certain contestant as winning the homework challenge in episode 9, being in the bottom 3, but not going home. This would create "The contender won the homework assignment, but was at risk for elimination." Marissa would quality for both of these instances this time around. I am aware it is a rumor, but I figure it'd be better to talk about it now, in case it happens, rather than have edit wars occur if it does happen. So, we need to figure out how to phrase all 3 things. (Winning the HA; Winning the HA, being at risk, and not going home; Winning the HA, and being sent home.) On top of that, we need to decide on a color for winning the HA, being at risk, and not going home in case it does occur, as well as a color for the total winner of the Glee Project. I would prefer it be discussed here, rather than in edit wars when the episodes eventually air, as I said before. Myzou (talk) 13:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I know I'm gonna repeat myself but I feel that defiantly if that rumor is true then I'm going to again suggest that we just make the HA winner a separate row to itself and not put WIN in the table because it seems like we're just adding more and more colors when the WIN has nothing to do with being eliminated or not. This would also clear up the wording issue that we seem to be having as well.  I swear this is the last time that I will mention this :) I'll make a test page at User:Jnorton7558/sandbox for others to look at and modify if they wish. Jnorton7558 (talk) 08:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * My big issue with that is the fact the different length of the names creates uneven table grids. It is not very nice to look at. EDIT: We could always use an asterisk or another symbol to denote a win, that way it could be placed next to RISK, OUT or IN, that way the general idea (If they were at risk, if they were eliminated, or they were In) could still be shown, without too much intrusiveness to the eyes. Myzou (talk) 15:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Hannah being Low in Episode 4
She should be IN instead of LOW. She was called back with the rest of them unlike Cameron — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.158.11 (talk) 05:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In episode 4 (Dance Ability) both Hannah and Cameron made the callback list but were correctly placed in the "LOW" category. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, but Hannah called back with the rest of the IN contenders, I saw it in the Oxygen extra videos. In the real episode, I guess the editing was kinda messed up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.53.234 (talk) 03:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I have to agree with the original poster. Hannah was never stated to be needing improvement. He simply said that he wanted to see her practicing more, but that she was incredible. (Just re-watched it on Hulu) He mentioned that dancing was not her strong suit, and he wanted to see her practice... but she did incredible. That's not a critique. Myzou (talk) 10:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've watched the episode again, and I have to agree too, but we have to be careful of introducing original research and, remaining neutral you could make the same arguments for other people in several episodes:
 * Episode 2 - No specific critiques were made of Damian, Hannah or Emily. Even the general comment didn't actually state they needed improvement. Only the bottom three were critiqued.
 * Episode 3 - Robert told Lindsay she was very "big", whatever that means, during the homework assignment (Dot had actually said she seemed forced) but then went on to praise her for taking the notes she had been given from that and "applied them 100% and did a wonderful job" during the music video. That's being cited as having improved, not needing improvement so she shouldn't be in the LOW category for that episode. This is pretty much exactly the case with Hannah in episode 4.
 * Episode 4 - Cameron wasn't actually told he needed improvement, he was told his nervousness showed but that he actually took the direction. That seems to make him borderline. It's WP:OR to put him in the low category for this episode.
 * Episode 5 - This is a tricky one. Although six people performed in front of Ryan, he was exceptionally positive to both Alex & Hannah, and he made no critiques of Lindsay or Damian. None of those four were "cited as needing improvement", which is what "LOW" is supposed to mean. When he told Hannah, Lindsay and Damian they were safe, that was all he said.
 * Episode 7 - Nobody was cited as needing improvement, even the bottom three, who were chosen because they weren't in the top three. It was suggested that Lindsay overpowered Damian's performance "because she was so in character". That's not a critique and she shouldn't be low just because she was the last of the top three to be picked. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I'd just say we get rid of LOW on the table. There's really no need for it. A lot of the time, they will critique everyone during the vocal exercises, choreography classes, and video shoot. When they are critiqued in front of all the judges during the reveal of the bottom 3, it's always just re-iterating what they told the person they need to work on earlier in the episode. I should clarify: It mostly seems like the critiques at the end are simply for show. For giving us an idea about how the decision of bottom 3 was reached, and not to make it discourage the bottom 3, as everything they say had been said previously in the episode. Myzou (talk) 09:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, I don't see any benefit in "LOW" at all. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed here as well as the LOW category seems to be more OR then anything and just took it out of the table. Jnorton7558 (talk) 10:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been thinking. We may want to re-add the pink color, for something like "The contender performed a Last Chance recital, but was not at risk for elimination." as Damian, Hannah, and Lindsay all have done that, in episode 5. That's an actual case of being low in the judge's books, but earning the right to stay with a performance, like the normal bottom 3. The bottom 3 that week were chosen because Ryan wanted to give them critiques. EDIT: And that wording would cause edit wars like the homework assignment ones, (as at risk people also would fulfill the "Performed a last chance recital" part, so it wouldn't use that wording. :P Just giving a general idea of what it would say. Myzou (talk) 15:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Episode 7 LOW
While Hannah is definitely IN, Lindsay, I believe, should be listed as LOW since it was between her and Damian to be in the bottom three. 173.189.160.82 (talk) 02:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree completely. And Damian shouldn't be RISK he should be SAVE because he was basically not called back at first then saved because another contender's quit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.53.234 (talk) 03:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I actually was zoned out editing when the critiques went through, and totally overlooked that they did indeed critique Lindsay. However, SAVE is not needed. He was at risk of elimination. We know what WOULD have happened, but that does not affect what DID happen. He was simply at risk, but someone else went home. No need to make a new color/label for that. Myzou (talk) 10:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Low's???
Where are all the Low's??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.153.28.92 (talk) 19:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If you read 2 talk page notes up, you'll see the majority of us agreed that LOW was not needed, as a lot of the time, they aren't doing anything except re-iterating what was said earlier in the episode. No one disagreed, so the change was made, feel free to voice your opinion though. Myzou (talk) 23:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Another Choreographer
Should we mention the name of another choreographer? A woman, but I forgot her name. Perhaps her name can be added in this sentence. "They also learn choreography from Zach Woodlee, occasionally assisted by ..." 07 Matthew (talk) 09:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you mean Brooke? --GinoKolle (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. I googled. Her name is Brooke Lipton. 07 Matthew (talk) 16:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The Prize
Since this is a reality TV show, I think it would be best to mention in the first or second paragraph that the winner will earn a seven-episode guest starring role in the third season of "Glee". 07 Matthew (talk) 17:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request
Alex did not win the homework assignment for week 8. Marking Hannah as Out is correct, but Alex needs to be fixed. In Contender Progress table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.26.62 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

This appears to have been fixed. Thanks for the quick response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.26.62 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request
The ratings from the episode "Believability" is .912. Here is the reference http://insidetv.ew.com/2011/08/09/bachelor-pad-ratings/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.185.248.35 (talk) 18:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Episode 9
Delete citation needed from the music video. The episode has aired and that was the song performed. Also, should there be mention of the special guests? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.26.62 (talk) 13:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Cameron Quit
Is it noted anywhere that Damien would have been eliminated had Cameron not quit? and Cameron Quit, that is labeled in the progress table, but in the list of contenders he is listed as eliminated. I've tried to change that but it always gets changed back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.119.229 (talk) 05:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As for the first part I'll let someone else answered but in the list of contenders there is no difference as to the status of the competitors between quit and eliminated. There is no reason to differentiate in that table between the two.  There is also a note explaining this when you edit that line of the table. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 05:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jnorton. If one wants to know more about the "actual situation", he or she can always refer to the more detailed progress in the contender progress section, where it is stated that Cameron quit. 07 Matthew (talk) 05:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If you arent going to not things like that in the contenders table it seems very unnecessary. It is noted "Quit" on the same table on the Glee Wikia. The only other page that I have seen that has a similar table is Dancing with the stars, and in those tables it is noted when they Quit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.119.229 (talk • contribs) 07:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not possible to include that sort of complexity in the table. I did make one necessary change, to clarify that there weren't just two people at risk that week and to identify Cameron as the third person, but explaining how Damian was saved is too much for the key to the table. The place for that sort of thing is in the episode table itself. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It is absolutely possible to include "quit" on the table, and putting in a comment saying "do not change this to quit" isn't done with any authority. Stifle (talk) 13:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request from Cacobart, 21 August 2011
In Brazil, The Glee Project was first aired on June, 26th by Fox Brasil. Here's the code:


 * Fox Brasil
 * style="text-align:center;" | June 26, 2011
 * style="text-align:center;" |
 * style="text-align:center;" | June 26, 2011
 * style="text-align:center;" |

Cacobart (talk) 21:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done --Jnorton7558 (talk) 23:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect Winners
Umm... Sam and Damian won, with Alex and Lindsey being the runner up. The tables need to be fixed.

That's right Sam and Damian won. Amy dst (talk) 02:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)Amy Dst


 * Honestly, everyone needs to calm down with the editing, and discuss. There's multiple violations of WP:Color on the table currently. 4 different WIN types, with only color being the only different thing between them, the same with 2 different OUTs. I suggest, unless someone has a better idea, that we remove won the homework assignment from the table, and use an asterisk to denote that someone won. Then the overall winner be GLEE, The runner ups being Glee (with lowercase?). Then, based on the change to winning the homework assignment, if they won it and got eliminated, it'd be OUT* and if they won it and were at risk, then it'd be RISK*. That's the only way I can think of to differentiate between the different ways, without using color as the sole thing. Myzou (talk) 02:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've set up an idea of what I mean at my sandbox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Myzou/sandbox Feel free to input opinions on it. Obviously it can be improved, but we need to figure out a way to organize that table so that it still complies with the color rules on Wikipedia. Myzou (talk) 02:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request: Episode 10
Can someone update the episode 10 details? Everything related to the winner has been changed, but the episode table has not been updated.

Screen Capture of Logo
I have cropped the image (8kb), but I have some problems uploading it to wiki commons, since I am not sure what reason should I give since the logo is not my own work. I have seen other shows like Survivors that have logo on their pages, so it would be nice if we can have the logo here on this TGP page as well. 07 Matthew (talk) 19:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Samuel's Name
His last name is Larsen not Larson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.238.13.157 (talk) 00:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 72.194.118.152, 24 August 2011
Please change the following two lines of text... Note: Ryan Murphy revealed to Cameron that by quitting, he had saved Damian from elimination.
 * Cameron – "Blackbird" – The Beatles – Quit

...to read: Note: Ryan Murphy revealed to Cameron that by withdrawing from the competition, he had saved Damian from elimination.
 * Cameron – "Blackbird" – The Beatles – Withdrew from competition

The new language more precisely describes Cameron's decision and is generally more respectful.

72.194.118.152 (talk) 15:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done — Bility (talk) 19:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 72.194.118.152, 24 August 2011
The following text should be added to the page (I'd recommend in the intro section following the listing of the show winners):

Cameron Mitchell won the "fan favorite" competition and the associated $10,000 prize.

See the following sources: http://thegleeproject.oxygen.com/fan-favorite-bing#fbid=8Cw9jrKwuNZ http://frontburner.dmagazine.com/2011/08/22/cameron-mitchell-a-glee-project-winner-after-all/

72.194.118.152 (talk) 16:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done — Bility (talk) 19:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

New York Times
I would think that this New York Times article needs to be added to this article. It's great to have such a solid third party source with so many facts. I don't have time at the moment but would be happy to see it included. Thanks.LoriLee (talk) 02:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There's also been a People Magazine article written up. The more solid these sources, the better.LoriLee (talk) 13:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

City/State format
The second season uses a simpler format, linking the city and state as one unit. The first season was set up to use separate links for city and state.

I'm wondering why the first season's method seems desirable. It leads to overlinking: California is linked three times in that table and New York (the state) twice, for example. Regardless, I think the article needs to be consistent. Can we please decide which method is preferable, and use it going forward? BlueMoonset (talk) 17:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Season 1 was set up the way it was because WP:REPEATLINK specified tables as an exception to the overlinking rule because "each table or list should stand on its own with its own independent set of links". Since then there have been a multitude of changes to the MoS. The specific exception was finally replaced in this edit after an RFC discussion. WP:OVERLINK says, "Avoid linking the names of major geographic features and locations, languages, religions, and common professions" but "major" isn't defined. Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking seems to point to having a table in which the locations would look like Option 1 in the adjacent table. Using the method that has been used by an IP recently, it would appear as Option 2. Option 1 consistently does not show the major geographic locations as linked, while option 2 makes some appear to be linked. I think that option 2 is likely to cause future problems. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Of the two choices, I think I would prefer Option 1 because it's ruthlessly consistent, though Option 2 works in practice because as soon as you mouse over the link you see that it's always the city/state. So I'd be fine with it as well. (And Option 2 could be made ruthlessly consistent by linking the whole thing to the article even if it doesn't have city and state name, just like similar piping is done in Option 1 to the city even if it is a city and state article name.)


 * To my view, both of the tables as currently displayed in the article violate WP:REPEATLINK and WP:OVERLINK. While it's fine to have a new set of links in a table, the table itself is still subject to both rules internally, so each table should only get one of each link per city and/or state. You follow that rule in your two options; both article tables should follow the rule as well, regardless of which option we end up with. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Absent further discussion, and because the tables as currently constituted do violate the Wikipedia Manual of Style as noted above, I'm planning on going with Option 1 later today. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Callbacks
I think that something should be added to the elimination chart for the contender who was the first to receive a callback. I think it's quality information someone would like to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.116.240 (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Contest process
I've reverted out Markovian's addition of multiple cites linking TVFanatic to the method in which the episodes are constructed. The reliability of TVF came up in RSN last November, and it appears to have little in the way of editorial review. As well, the information being tagged with citations doesn't appear to have the relevant information in the reference that this article says it does. I am not arguing with what we appear to see as the process, so long as we state that. Stating unequivocally that this is how the process is handled (any tv reality competition is heavily edited, and events frequently happen out of sequence) is an extraordinary statement, and thus needs extraordinary citation. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The blunt response would be WP:SOFIXIT. To elaborate, if you think the article should state that we appear to see something then a simple copyedit is preferable to demanding citations, as copyediting fixes the problem immediately. Remember, not everything needs to be cited. Verifiability requires that everything added to Wikipedia must be verifiable, not that everything has to be cited. (Note: WP:V doesn't mandate that it be easily verifiable, just that it be verifiable) Once episodes have aired, they serve as primary sources and may be used to support claims made about them. (That's one reason we have Cite episode.) For example, if season 2, episode 6 has aired, it may be used to support the claim that Charlie has been eliminated. If it hasn't aired then, of course, a secondary source is required but if it has aired then a citation from a secondary source is just icing on the cake. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The blunter response, AussieLegend, would be to point out that everyone's shorts get in a twist if I were to edit out that information which seems OR. In point of fact, i did look for citations to back up the comments, and found none that addressed the issue precisely.
 * And, as for our WP:V piolicy, I believe you are misunderstanding its application in a number of ways. No, not everything needs to be cited, unless (and this is key) it is likely to be challenged. If I challenge the veracity of the information being presented, it either gets a cite or it gets gone. That't the way it works. That's what separates us from some cheesy fan blog/wiki.
 * Another misinterpretation of WP:V is the imagined idea that any sort of verifiability is okey-doke. It is not. Granted, it doesn't have to appear online and at our fingertips, but it does have to be actually cited to a source that could be checked if necessary.
 * Before I make my third point about your interpretation of WP:V, I'd like to ask that you better explain how you use the primary source of the episode to "support claims made about them". Your argument about Charlie's departure in #206 is not really on point; that is more of an issue surrounding copyvio than anything else. You don't publish reveal information about an episode within 24 hours of its broadcast. The program relies upon its revenue for those reveals, and rushing to post (something we ABSOLUTELY SHOULD NOT BE DOING) details of the final reveal infringe upon and damage its copyright. In the case of Charlie's departure, I am unsure why you (or anyone) think tht we are in the scooping business. We are not. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Nobody was suggesting you edit the content out, only that you edit the content to point out that the process "appears to be". Yes, WP:V does say that anything likely to be challenged needs a source, but when every episode follows the same process, and anybody can confirm that process simply by viewing an episode, it's unlikely to be challenged because it's easily verifiable.
 * "I'd like to ask that you better explain how you use the primary source of the episode to "support claims made about them"" - WP:PRIMARY says "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." There's a (I thought) very obvious way, and that's by watching the episode to verify that what's written in Wikipedia matches what happens in the episode. To make it easy Cite episode has the ability to include time codes, so the person adding the citation can point the reader directly to the time in the episode if what happens does so at a specific time.
 * " Your argument about Charlie's departure in #206 is not really on point; that is more of an issue surrounding copyvio than anything else. You don't publish reveal information about an episode within 24 hours of its broadcast" - Yes, you said this on another editor's talk page, and I'll ask you what I asked there, do you have a source for that? --AussieLegend (talk) 15:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 July 2012
The air date for season 2 episode 7 Theatricality has a typo. It reads July 10, 2012 and should be July 17, 2012

Cduston (talk) 16:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks like another editor made this fix already, so marking this answered. RudolfRed (talk) 02:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Last chance recital usage
Why is the phase "last chance recital" being used in this article? In the on air program and on the Oxygen website (see blurb for TGP2 Bonus 207: Extended Top Three Critiques on http://features.oxygen.com/videos/The%20Glee%20Project/Season%202) they use "last chance performances." Can someone do a find and replace please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.110.152.116 (talk) 18:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Australian Channels
The article incorrectly says Season 1 was on Eleven and Season 2 is on Ten. It's the other way around. Season 2 WAS on Channel Ten for like 3 episodes, then switched to Eleven, and Channel Eleven didn't exist during the first seasons run. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.183.56 (talk) 12:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * According to this source, Eleven (TV channel) was supposed to start broadcasting on 11 January 2011. Another source says that the season 1 was to start airing on 15 July 2011. A quick check of the EPG shows The Glee Project scheduled for Friday nights on Eleven, but not a sign of it on Ten. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Contenders Table
I keep making edits to the contenders table to try and condense at least the dates and results column and make them part of the same column, only to have them reverted. What is the problem with having the table as I've changed it to? I think it looks just fine. The resources are still there and the table still retains the same usefule information as before, so what is the problem? Tyler george6 (talk) 02:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia, we don't encourage people to make edits that just change the way that content is displayed and nothing else. The fact that you've made this same change so many times after it's been reverted is troubling and I would hope that you'd refrain from doing it again. --Mblumber (talk) 03:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Firstly, as you know, I asked you on your talk page to respect WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO, which you clearly have not. Your edits have been made by you, and subsequently reverted four times by three different editors. When edits are reverted, you need to discuss them, as per WP:BRD and, while the proposed edits are under discussion the status quo prevails. You don't force opposed edits back into the article, and then make an announcement on the talk page; that's not discussing, that's edit-warring.
 * Now, as to the problems with your changes, the first time you made these changes, you did so claiming "references are unneeded and take up unnecessary space". This was not true, as references are required for anything that is challenged or likely to be challenged and, once included, there is never a good reason to remove references. You also said "With the formatting of the result column it puts the elimination and the dates in the same column and make the table look less cluttered." Again, this is not correct. Your changes made the table take up more vertical space by jamming dates unnecessarily into the results column. In order to achieve this you made the font smaller, which makes it harder for people with vision problems to read. As the result of taking up more vertical space, the table was unnecessarily made more narrow, resulting in unnecessary white-space to the right of the table. Your next addition inexplicably was similar, this time inexplicably removing the contenders' ages, claiming "If ages are desired they could possibly be added in under each contestant's name in a smaller font." However, this has exactly the same problem for vision impaired persons. When there is sufficient horizontal space for a table, there is no need to unnecessarily compress everything into a few columns. As I indicated in my reversion of this change, ""Condensing" the table has just removed content and made the tables take up more room." Your reversion of this was made without reason, and this was reverted by another editor. Your reversion of that today,again re-introduced the vertical size, sideways white-space and difficult to read issues that I earlier mentioned. In its present form, the table takes up minimum space vertically, with minimal white-space to the right, and presents all relevant information including ages and references in individual, easy to read columns. There's simply no benefit to the changes that you made. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Tyler george6, those are very valid arguments, and at any rate it's time to stop edit-warring since consensus does not appear to be on your side. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 03:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)