Talk:The Sing-Off

United States and Puerto Rico
Why can't the sentece just say "...United States." Isn't Puerto Rico part of the United States?. Just wondering. 207.63.17.236 (talk) 18:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Puerto Rico is only a territory of the United States. DrNegative (talk) 01:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So, it IS part of the US. 174.22.125.201 (talk) 20:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it is a self-governing unincorporated territory. Most importantly, it is not a state, and deserves its own mentioning whenever the two are together in a subject. DrNegative (talk) 21:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Puerto Ricans do consider themselves an entity unto themselves, and compete in the Olympic Games separately from the U.S. See Puerto Rico at the Olympics. Badagnani (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Call out order irrelevant
I don't like the way results are displayed in season 2 (2010). Call out order by Lachey means nothing as some come in part 1 some in part 2, and results are announced in no particular order. As for positions, we can't say Pitch Slapped is 10th and Men of Note 9th. In fact they are both 9th-10th with no particular order. I think we should go back to the format for year 1 werldwayd (talk) 03:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC) --William Allen Simpson (talk) 02:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. I also don't like how the way the results are displayed for Season 2 doesn't include a place for the songs performed. The way the table is organized for Season 1 is great because it encompasses both elimination order and the names of the songs, in a clear, compact, organized fashion. Also, it just looks sloppy to have two different seasons on the same page presented in two completely different ways. We should definitely make the Season 2 format either identical, or closer to, the way that Season 1 was organized. Musicman800 (talk) 05:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Lachey didn't actually say that the call out order was significant.

New page really necessary?
I don't know that a new page was necessary, nor the radical redesign of the new page. I agree with Werldwayd and Musicman800 - the Season 1 organization is great, and it was great when we had that for Season 2 on the original page, rather than five different tables for season two on a separate page that are nothing like the tables for Season 1. I propose we go back to one page with identical formats.Nickenge (talk) 08:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC) --William Allen Simpson (talk) 02:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. I created the second season page. The main reason I created it was because as the Sing-Off is a popular show, and it will be necessary to have separate season pages down the road, because the main article would be too big. TDI19 (talk) 20:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So why didn't you do that for the first season, as well? There's also still the problem of the tables being completely different. Onesmallnote (talk) 05:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I was planning to create a first season one, but unfortunately, the information is limited. NBC has taken down all its season one full episodes, and the only way you can see them is purchasing them on Amazon or iTunes. TDI19 (talk) 16:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with splitting out a separate (season 1) page, as they were already mentioning "next year" at the end of the second season finale. It was pretty popular this year. This page could have a lot of information on its own. I'd like to see how it started, who organized it (according to NPR, Ben Folds), etc.

Considering that season three will be starting soon and that, honestly, the current page is entirely unwieldy, I would like to revive this discussion. Each season should have its own page, and the main page should just be about the show as a whole.

I think what we have for each season section currently will do just fine for the season articles - we could also add a brief description of each group (names of those involved?) and of each episode.

What we currently have here for the intro section can be expounded upon and divided into real sections - for example, a history section, a "structure" section (about the judges, about the episode/elimination procedure, etc.), and a "season synopses" section.

CyMoahk (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So, I was an idiot and didn't actually look at the current Season 2 page. I really like it!  (Though I think the call-out order is kinda pointless, and still would like lists of names for each group.)  I know we're missing "order" information for season one, but all things considered, the order of performances and the order of being called safe really isn't that important - i.e. we can fill out all the vital information seen on the Season 2 page for a Season 1 page.  But those tables on the main page should go, compared to the split tables on the Season 2 page.  It is nice to see almost all the information for a season in one table, but with the seasons getting bigger it's going to be harder and harder to do.  It just looks really cluttered to me now.  And no main page of a multi-season show should try to include all the information about each season. CyMoahk (talk) 20:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Swan Songs
Should the swan songs really have their own row in the song charts? It just seems a bit less organized when they could just be incorporated into the elimination block for each group. I feel that it would just serve a better purpose to have all of one group's songs in one row as opposed to two. 74.243.222.141 (talk) 04:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. I just created the Season 3 chart, but since they don't have all of the groups perform on each episode, a some changes to the format may have to be made. For now, I've kept the format consistent with seasons 1 and 2. Bjory7 (talk) 08:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Fuckin' Perfect
The clean version of the song Fuckin' Perfect by P!nk was performed on the show. According to sources, this version of the song is either titled "F**kin' Perfect" (which appears on the CD cover art) or simply "Perfect" (which is how it was introduced by the show's host during broadcast). It seems that some IP users (or perhaps just one with multiple addresses) want to edit-war over changing the song title back to the title of the unedited version of the song, using "no censorship" as their reasoning. The problem with that reasoning is that it's not Wikipedia who did the censoring, it's NBC and, by extension, the performers. I've changed it back, but upon reflection it's probably good to get some feedback. To me, it's not about censorship, but about accuracy. They didn't sing "Fuckin' Perfect". They sang "F**ckin' Perfect". End of story. What do people think should be done with this title? -Dewelar (talk) 00:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The song is called "Fuckin' Perfect". That is the only title it has. Because some audiences are offended by the word "Fuck", the title is sometimes printed as "F**kin' Perfect", but that is not the title. Even when talking about the original version of the song (which includes "fuckin' perfect" in the lyrics), most mainstream print media call the song "F**kin' Perfect" not because they have mistakenly named the "clean" version of the song, but because they will not print the word "Fuckin'". But "F**kin' Perfect" is not the title of the song. As for the idea that "Perfect" is an alternative title, it isn't. The problem for would-be censors is that while writing the name with asterisks works, it does not make a title you can say easily. So NBC decide (as other audio-based media often do when censoring the title) to just call it "Perfect". But the fact that NBC misstated the title for their own censoring reasons does not make it suddenly become the title of the song.


 * The bottom line is that P!nk called the song "Fuckin' Perfect" and censors have forced it to be represented with asterisks or refered to in an inaccurate shortened form. Wikipedia, however, has no such limitation. It can - and should - give the proper title of the song, whatever version of the lyrics were sung. 142.68.40.210 (talk) 00:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The limitation that Wikipedia has is that it must represent what happened, not how something could have happened if other media didn't censor it. If the media censors something, we must report that the censored version is what was presented. -Dewelar (talk) 02:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You are missing the point. The song only has one title. The page can reflect that the song was introduced by intentionally misstating the title to avoid having to say "Fuckin'" on TV and that the radio edit version of the lyrics were sung if you want. That would accurately describe what happened. But for the page to say that the title is anything other than what it really is would be to make a false claim. 142.68.40.210 (talk) 03:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * One more thing: If you check the page for "Let's Spend the Night Together" you will see a mention of the time Ed Sullivan insisted that the Rolling Stones change the lyrics of their song (and thus, in effect, the title) to "let's spend some time together". That is what they sang, and the article says so. But the article does not go on to make the claim that they did not sing "Let's Spend the Night Together" and actually sang a song called "Let's Spend Some Time Together." That's because the song only has one title, no matter what version of the lyrics the Stones sang. Same story here. 142.68.40.210 (talk) 03:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * No, actually, not the same story. The Stones situation differs in that the version of the song performed on the Ed Sullivan show did not actually exist as a separate entity outside of that performance. The song "F**ckin' Perfect" does exist as a separate entity from "Fuckin' Perfect", as it has been released to the public as a single (to which I provided a link within the article before you deleted it). To say that the title of the clean version is the same as the title of the original is the real falsehood. -Dewelar (talk) 05:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Additionally, since you seem dead set on making this an edit war, and additionally refused the common sense compromise I most recently attempted, I'll go ahead and wait for some more people to chime in before reverting again. -Dewelar (talk) 05:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Firstly, if you really think there are two different songs, one called "Fuckin' Perfect" and one called "F**in' Perfect", then could you please tell me how each one individually did in the Billboard charts. Because if you look it up, they will only tell you how "F**kin' Perfect" did. Do you think that is because they are two different songs and only one charted or because they are just one song and one version of the title is just a censored representation of the actual title? Also, can you explain why Billboard tells us in one article, " 'Pretty pretty please, don't you ever ever feel/Like you're less than/F**kin' perfect,' she sings." Why do they say she sings "F**kin' perfect" when the only versions of the song I know of are the one where she sings "Fuckin' perfect" and the one where she sings "perfect"? Have they made an error or is "F**kin'" just their way of representing "Fuckin'"?


 * Secondly, about your Amazon.com link that was supposed to prove that there are two different titles, can you explain why Amazon sells the "explicit" version of the song under the heading "F**kin' Perfect (Explicit Version)" ? If the title really denotes the version, then do you call this an error on their part as well? Or how about the fact that if you want to buy the Pink "Greatest Hits... So Far!!!" album from Amazon they only list a song called "F**** Perfect"? Is this supposed to denote yet another version of the song or is this just another way of representing the title to the one and only song properly called "Fuckin' Perfect"?


 * Thridly, the very fact that even you call these two supposedly different songs the clean version and the explicit version of the song is just to say that there is, in fact, only one song and just two different versions of it. To say that there are two versions of a song is to acknowledge that there is just one song. That song has one title. That title is "Fuckin' Perfect". That P!nk is forced by censors to represent the title differently sometimes or to release a version with altered lyrics is exactly the same as the Rolling Stones situation. In both cases it does not create the existence of multiple songs with multiple titles.


 * Fourthly and finally, while you wait for other input you might review Civility. I have not said anything rude or insulting to you yet you have repeatedly accused me of edit warring. I have only seen this as an editorial disagreement and discussion about that disagreement. Also remember that it is impossible to have an edit war without two participants, so for you to say I am edit warring is to also admit that you are as well. I prefer my perspective on what is happening, but to each their own. 99.192.85.34 (talk) 12:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC) (=142.68.40.210)


 * You're right, I've gotten myself a bit too worked up about this, and I apologize for those comments.
 * Back on topic, I will state that I have never claimed that they are separate songs. They are separate versions of the same song. To me, the issue is no different than, say, a remix of a song that happens to have a different parenthetical title. Using the title of the base song when it is in fact the remix that's been used in a particular context would be inaccurate, just as I believe this to be inaccurate.
 * I did check into the Amazon link that I originally provided, and it does appear that they use the censored title to represent both versions of the song. As I said, though, I have seen the clean version represented as both "F**ckin' Perfect" or simply "Perfect", but the more research I do I believe that "Perfect" might actually be more accurate. -Dewelar (talk) 15:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the apology. While we wait to see if anyone else offers an opinion on this issue, I just want to add that I checked iTunes and they do not have any version of the song under the name "Perfect". Every version they sell - whether the "explicit" or the "clean" version - is denoted by some variation on "Fuckin' Perfect" with asterisks replacing some letters. There is a one asterisk version, a two asterisk version, a three asterisk version, and even a five asterisk version. Each of these variations on the title is independent of what the lyrical content of the version of the song is, so it is clear that they are just different ways to censor "Fuckin'". Thus it would seem that iTunes thinks that there is only one title and that title is "Fuckin' Perfect". 99.192.64.50 (talk) 21:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC) (=142.68.40.210)


 * To further clarify (or perhaps muddy the waters), per the song's wiki page, the clean version's video was titled "Perfect" by the record company. -Dewelar (talk) 04:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, I just checked the videos on Pink's YouTube channel and the file name for the "clean" version is listed as "P!nk - Perfect" but then in the description box it reads, "Music video by P!nk performing F**kin' Perfect." For the "explicit" version of the video the file name is "P!nk - F**kin' Perfect" and the description reads, "Music video by P!nk performing F**kin' Perfect." It would seem, then, that either they don't know what the title for each version is or calling the song "Perfect" or "F**kin' Perfect" are just two different ways of offering a censored representation of the title, which is "Fuckin' Perfect". At the very least, the fact that both iTunes and the video description call the song "F**kin' Perfect" even in it's "edited" form suggests that that version does not bear a different name or that a different name is used to distinguish between versions. 99.192.93.34 (talk) 23:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC) (=142.68.40.210)
 * Forgive me if it's been mentioned, but what is wrong with it reading "... sang an edited ("clean") version of Pink's F**kin' Perfect"?-- Canad iandy  talk  06:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Song Table
Folks, the song table is getting a little unwieldy. Perhaps it should be split between episodes 1-5 and 6-end? -- \/\/slack (talk) 04:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why the song table is there at all. There is an independent article for the season, so why does the table need to be on both pages? Idol and X Factor pages only put the details of song performances on the season pages, not the main page for the show. Even the US version of The Voice does it that way, and that show has only had one season. I'd say we should nuke the table completely here. 99.192.59.217 (talk) 16:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Cancellation of the show
Anybody know the specifics of why NBC decided ultimately to not renew The Sing-Off for a fourth season? I think that would be useful info to put into this article if possible, as there are some details currently lacking on this. I've read speculation that with shows like America's Got Talent and The Voice on NBC, it didn't have its place on the network any more, or that the ratings in the 3rd season were down, but nothing definitive. Personally, as a fan of the show, I think it had a pretty strong following, but who knows. I'm curious to know if there are any hard facts out there in any case.DanBabaiDC (talk) 02:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Season 4 Groups Announced
Time to make a Season 4 page: the groups — Preceding unsigned comment added by ToneDaBass (talk • contribs) 00:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ha. That's not how page creation works. The info can be added to the section here, but not for a page yet. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment: new WikiProject for a cappella-related articles
Hi there! To any and all interested: I've proposed a WikiProject dedicated to a cappella. This would be a group of editors interested in improving the quality of articles related to a cappella. If you're passionate about a cappella—ranging from the Pentatonix to collegiate groups like the Whiffenpoofs, or perhaps pop culture representations like Pitch Perfect and The Sing-Off—please check out the proposal and share your thoughts!

Here's a link to the proposal for WikiProject A Cappella.

If you could see yourself contributing to an article related to a cappella (like this one), please consider joining!


 * —Shrinkydinks (talk) 21:02, 8 December 2019 (UTC)