Talk:American Idol season 6/Archive 1

message: He kept calling her his "lady", never once said wife.  Is there proof that she was his wife?  Corvus cornix 19:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Check this article on Reality News Online. - 上村七美 | talk 00:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Warning, that page brings up tons of popups!  However, this is just one person's recap, which says "Sherman tells us that he was motivated to audition by his wife", but I will repeat:  Sherman Pore never once said "wife".  Corvus cornix 23:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This page, for example, says "girlfriend".  Corvus cornix 23:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sherman Pore

message: Is getting a bit out of hand. Here's my problem. I don't want the season 5 article. :) That thing is messy and honestly, has way way too many early auditioners/Hollywood people listed. And I just want to avoid that. What makes someone notable who is a gas attendant and sings? I mean. I can see the Castro look-a-like. He was unusual looking. But just someone who sings? Not sure how that's notable. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 09:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we need to make a separate list of all the people who auditioned so that people won't add them all here. I also think that would work for the Season 5 article. Tennis DyNamiTe (sign here) 22:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with that is that would be almost impossible to maintain without guidelines. I mean, if we included everyone who auditioned, it'd take one hell of a big page. :) About 100,000 people auditioned. If you just do those that were shown on tv, it could be done. But does just being on tv make them notable enough to be in a list? --WoohookittyWoohoo! 17:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not have the list include all those who actually made it to Hollywood? Then on the same list (article) include notable rejects that are mentioned on some important/notable media or news article. Tennis DyNamiTe (sign here) 02:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have no problem with that in a separate article. Problem with listing it here is that it would overwhelm things. If you look at the season 5 page, we have lots and lots to add yet. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 16:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: A good place will be Larry King Live. I've seen some rejected contestants appearing on that program some time ago. - 上村七美 | talk 11:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: This page has a list of season 6 spoilers (contestants who went to Hollywood, the Top 40, and the top 24). Elle Bee 19:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure if we can rely on that list. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a note to the notable contestant section which hopefully will stop anons from adding people and not saying why they are notable. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 11:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Tennis Dynamite, I'm not sure why you continue to remove Chris Sligh from the notable passed contestants list. He is in the local band "Half Past Forever," has won songwriting competitions in the past, and has been noted in prominent places like Entertainment Weekly as a "reasonable top 12 bet." He was given much airtime in the Birmingham episode. His singing and personality are just as notable as a "Fidel Castro look-alike" or "best friends forever," etc. Wikiedit2006sc 04:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case he can go back into the article. Before, all that his paragraph said was stuff like Paula saying, "I like you very much," and him wanting, "to make David Hasselhoff cry." These things are not notable at all. As long as you include the songwriting competitions and the link I don't see why he couldn't stay. Tennis DyNamiTe (sign here) 15:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. Not only do they have to be notable but you have to say why they are notable. It's just like our notability guidelines. Exact same thing. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 17:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've added the citation to Chris Sligh's information. One thing I'm curious about is if they have to be notable, why are Amanda Coluccio and Antonella Barba, Anna Kearns, Phil Stacey, Porcelana Patino, Rudy Cardenas, and Sean Michel in this article, for instance? Their respective sections don't seem particularly notable: being best friends, being tall, having your baby born the day of your audition, training physically for the audition, being from Venezuela and disliked by Simon, and being a Fidel Castro look-alike. Being a Wikipedia novice, I'll defer to you and not delete them for now, but I'm just curious how either of you would defend their notability. That is why I didn't see any more reason to remove Chris Sligh than these and perhaps others (before adding the Chris Sligh citation).Wikiedit2006sc 22:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The notable contestants list 

message: She was a really well known singer and someone should put up an note on her on the rejected list. I'm new to Wikipedia so I can't do this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.204.145.119 (talk) 02:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes you can. The page is not protected. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: In the same way you added the message you can add information to the article! You might want to look at this if you need help. Tennis DyNamiTe (sign here) 03:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isadora Furman  

message: I'm going to keep reverting lists of the top 24 finalists until it's either reported by a major news source or the shows themselves air. Because of Wikipedia:Verifiability, we cannot use fan sites, blogs, etc. Just not reliable enough. The thing is, their "widely reported list" has changed a few times in the last 2 weeks (for example, Sean Michel was once listed but is not anymore). It just isn't reliable enough, especially in an age when Wikipedia is trying to be stricter with such things. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 00:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. It is all rumors anyway. Not until it airs should the top 24 be mentioned here. CrazyC83 01:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is this a major news source? 
Link: (unreliable source - do not use) www.postchronicle.com/news/original/article_21262673.shtml —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.76.201.156 (talk) 12:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Even that site basically admits that these are rumors. And there is a good chance that they are getting them from the sites that were listed yesterday when people tried to post the full list here. Still don't think it fits verifiability. Let's just wait until it airs. Not sure why that would be a problem. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 13:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish that people would stop adding non-notable people to the list who have been rumored to be in the top 24. It feels like an end around. It's only 2 more days. :) --WoohookittyWoohoo! 13:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yeesh 

message: He's an interesting one. Apparently they only aired his audition in the UK. Please don't link YouTube in the article itself, but his audition is at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRDyGD94r8Q  I'd consider him notable because of the band he was in. Just putting this here so no one thinks his inclusion is a hoax. :) It actually isn't. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 20:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tom Lowe 

message: Just wanted to state that Verifiability is important. So. Please please do not post unsubstantiated rumors. Like. That Thomas Daniels was disqualified. A few internet sites says he was, but I see 0 quotes from Thomas himself. And 0 from Idol. So. It should not be included. Rumors are not ok to post. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 12:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verifiability 

message: What is going on with this page?!?! Every 5 seconds there is something different under the "Top 24" section. --Zach 19:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because people keep either putting in misinformation or POV essays. If you look at the history of the season 5 article, it's pretty typical. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 00:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And we're getting a lot of "fans say". We're not a message board or a forum. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 00:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page 

message: The minimum age is 16, and 16-17 years old are not children. They're old enough to drive. Elle Bee 13:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tennis Dynamite or others might know more about it but IIRC the season 5 page also used "girls" and "guys" and the show also uses "girls" and "guys". Even the AI website uses those 2 terms. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 14:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Season 5 page uses men/women. Elle Bee 14:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it's been changed on this page too. No objections. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 15:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Females/Males vs Women/Men 

message: August 1979 - August 2006 is 27.  That's listed as the age cutoff.  Is the date wrong or the age cutoff wrong?  Shouldn't it be 1978? --Doctorcherokee 21:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age Cutoff 

message: Please note, a number of non-notable contestant articles are up at WP:AFD. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Idol contestants to discuss. Thanks --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 02:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep all of them.  The more articles the better.  If a person exists, let 'em have an article.  Deletionism is friggen idiotic to say the list and turns people off from Wikipedia.  What I would suggest is to add a section on this article that indicates the guest judges and themes for each week.  That would help a lot!  Cheers! --24.154.173.243 00:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD nominations 

message: What's up with the elimination chart?  Why does it say "idol"? Va girl2468 22:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Vandalism. I fixed it. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 15:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Elimination Chart

message: Any objection to mentioning on this page like it's mentioned on the season 5 page? I think it's definitely notable enough. You can't argue with a 87% accuracy rate. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 15:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DialIdol 

message: This practice is distracting, completely unhelpful, and (as of right now) totally unexplained (in fact, I'm just assuming that's what those random numbers must be.) There's no reason to bold the numbers either. I vote for complete removal of those numbers. No one is going to use them again; they're not relevant to the show.  It's not as if the contestants ever wore or will wear those numbers again after the initial audition. Moncrief 22:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Season 5 also has this convention. If it's removed from her, it'll have to be removed from that article. Not saying that's bad. :) Just pointing it out. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Having audition numbers worn by contestants next to contestants' names 

message: Per WP:BLP, we MUST get a source on the controversy surrounding Antonella's pictures before we can post it. And I mean a reliable source discussing the controversy, not just a link to the pictures. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello.  They just announced on The O'Reilly Factor, a rather highly rated Cable News show, that a segment airing tonight sometime between 8:30 PM and 9 PM will address the A. Barba picture controversy.  That's pretty mainstream and "reputable" to merit a reference.  Best, --164.107.223.217 01:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will see what I can do. I'll add the site listed above as the reference. As for O'Reilly, do we have any links to the discussion on his show? --WoohookittyWoohoo! 03:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And see. This is why we need to be careful. I just removed stuff which said that pictures of Barba had surfaced of her performing a sex act on a man. Well. Even votefortheworst is now exposing this as a hoax. They are now even making light of the whole situation. So that's why I keep saying we must be careful. We cannot put up rumor-type stuff. We just cannot. We have to wait until a reliable source prints this stuff. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 03:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Olberman and Tucker Carlson also covered this on their news shows and I'm sure I'm not the only one to have seen them! --164.107.223.217 06:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am really really tired of policing her section. Firstly, sources need to be sited on every controversial statement. And secondly, the sources must say essentially what is being said in the article. So if the source says there is talk of disqualification, you cannot say that many are calling for her disqualification. Or you can't use a source to show that the bottomless bathroom photos are among the photos that have been shown on websites when the source never mentions those pictures. We're strict with stuff when it involves living people. So people, please try to be more careful. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just questioning why her name redirects to this page. She needs to have her own article. Didn't she have one?? Drdr1989 06:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see this. And honestly, I'm grateful it redirects here. :) Having a hard enough time policing this page. And I wish people would stop adding this dumb petition. Honestly, if the anons keep it up, I might request semi-protection. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very, very bad reason for deleting her page as she is nowhere near "non-notable". For those that disagree with me, it should be noteworthy that only two items: Britney Spears and lunar New Year had more searches than Antonella Barba for the past week on Google. Gosh I wish Wikipedia could be that noteworthy. ;) 67.182.61.149 06:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Drdr1989 06:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: If she becomes a finalist, she will get her own page. For now, this is sufficient. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, she'll probably get a page before that... Drdr1989 06:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The redirect page is currently protected. And honestly, when people tried to put content on the page, it was essentially what was on this page. I just don't see the point in duplication right now. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I can't help you there, homie... Drdr1989 06:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. Many problems with including that link. For one thing, it clearly violates the external link guidelines because it's promoting a site or a cause. For another, it isn't informative. The link is not a way to add knowledge about the article or to get more information on the article. It's just to promote something. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe but we would need a reliable source that mentions the petition, NOT a link to petition itself. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 09:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  While it may be noteworthy that Barba was featured on O'Reilly and Olbermann much of the information discussed on these programs was false. Both shows seem to be misinformed. I would not classify them as reliable sources of information about how events unfolded. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Redtizzy (talk • contribs) 19:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antonella Barba 

message: WT?!  I thought there were pictures with this article!?  Please restore those, as they really help out, because just text is kind of bland.  Stay safe! --24.154.173.243 02:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are several reasons why these fair use images should not be used in the article. They are copyright violations. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 12:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then why are they used in the American Idol (season 5) page??? We need to have the same rules apply across the board!!! Pumapayam 18:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably because nobody who knows the fair use rules has noticed them and removed them. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 18:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, as I said on your talk page, report the images to Wikipedia:Requested copyright examinations.  They will examine if the picture content is valid or not.  If you would like, I will report them myself.  However, remember that you can't delete images without consensus from other users.  Just because the Season 6 pictures were violations of copyright policy does not necessarily mean that the ones for Season 5 are!  --Nevhood 23:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: I'm going to keep putting in the places as 13-16, 17-20 and 21-24 until someone gives me proof that specific places in the semi-finals are announced somewhere. As far as I know, the order in which eliminations are announced in the semis is completely random. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 22:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And it looks like someone changed it back. Once again, if someone can show me where they announce specific places during the semis, I'll let it go. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: For the week of 2/22, I changed the order of elimination to (from bottom) "Paul Kim; Amy Krebs; Nicole Tranquillo; Rudy Cardenas" as that was the order in which they were sent home on the episode. I just thought it would make more sense to order it that way on the chart. I did the same thing for the week of 3/8, as it was the same case. I don't believe I ever changed the actual rankings though. Also, this was all before I created my account. MarkMc1990 20:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I know it seems minor but... 

message: Where is the list of notable auditionees? The show has already started and the list should be posted by now! Where is it? - 上村七美 | talk 11:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I'm removing the current list too. The list that was just put it up was just a list of people going to Hollywood. The problem with that is that the show is notorious for not showing at least 4 or 5 of the people who make it to the semi-finals and well more than half of the people who make it to Hollywood (example - 10 people were listed for New York. 35 from New York made it to Hollywood). So we can't really know yet who is and isn't notable at this point. And these people listed aren't all notable. It's not even all of the people going to Hollywood. I agree with Tennis. Let's wait until the auditions end. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 03:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know I broke my pledge, but I did add one notable contestant: Sundance Head. He's related to someone famous, he made it to Hollywood and we even have an article on him already. I count that as notable. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 17:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I redirected that article per this discussion. Tennis DyNamiTe (sign here) 22:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem with that. Not sure we can do that with Jordin Sparks since she was a winner on another reality show well before she was on Idol. Just added her as notable. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 12:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since WP:BAND, criterion eight states, "Has won or placed in a major music competition," as notable, I say keep her. Tennis DyNamiTe (sign here) 23:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: OK. I wasn't sure of taking her off in the first place. Tennis DyNamiTe (sign here) 00:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: She lied about her age though initially; notice the "26?" in her age on the show clip. CrazyC83 04:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, after all, no other show can claim to have the viewers of American Idol, and you'll find fan clubs online for most of those listed. I think they should be reinstated. CrazyC83 01:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: List of notable auditionees

message: Will somebody PLEASE update the "kick-off"'s from last night? The show should've aired everywhere by now.67.102.184.26 00:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, not sure what you are referring to. The eliminations were added to this page as they happened. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 03:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update? 

message: When accessed from the main American Idol article, the American Idol title-picture is replaced by a lewd photograph.  When accessed from the article History page, the photo returns to the normal American Idol title screen.  I removed the title photo briefly, but the lewd photo continues to show up when accessed from the main American Idol article. //§JMB SilverHawk7 23:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to refresh your cache. Read this. Essentially, your browser is bringing up an old version of the page. I restored the picture. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 00:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: The hyperlinks contained in each of the 24 semi-finalists' names should not redirect to American Idol (season 6).  These are self-referential, which is really quite pointless.  Either they should each go to their own page, which would most likely mean a red hyperlink, or link to their name within the American Idol (season 6) page (ie American Idol (season 6)#Melinda Doolittle). - Im.a.lumberjack 01:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a reason for the self-referencing links. They are placeholders. 12 of them are going to become full articles...probably tomorrow night once the finalists are announced. So it makes 0 sense to change the links so they link to within this page and then change them again when the finalists are announced. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 12:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also I think that, if a decent article (not a stub) can be made, Antonella Barba should get an article simply because of high popularity (she is atop search engines after all!) if she does not make it. CrazyC83 01:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have put Antonella Barba (only) up at WP:DRV simply because of the buzz she has gotten over the controversy. CrazyC83 03:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just don't see why it can't be handled here. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-referencing links 

message: There's been a lot of mean-spirited edits to the contestants' bios by anon editors - can we get an admin to protect the page from anons from editing the content? BrownHornet21 03:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Michael 04:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At least half of the anons contribs have been constructive in some way. I don't see it as necessary. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 04:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to (partially) protect the page 

message: We now have pages on all 12 finalists. :) --WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finalists 

message: Sundance Head was one of the favorites this season.  Shouldn't he be considered notable here on Wikipedia? Marcus2 13:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, he is one level lower than the finalists and should not get an article automatically. If, in userspace, a decent draft article can be created (as I have recommended with Antonella Barba), then I think it should stand, but not if we will only have a stub. Look at Ayla Brown for an example. CrazyC83 01:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please try to keep the Wikiproject's requirements in mind as well as the AfD discussion referenced above. Generally, semi-finalists do NOT get their own page. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How come non-notable (outside of show) semi-finalist contestants on American Idol can have their own articles, yet runner-ups on other high-rated reality shows don't even get articles? -Sam. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.24.182.201 (talk) 01:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How high rated? CrazyC83 01:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Well anon, it's generally because they have notability outside of the show. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sundance Head

message: I added a citation needed tag to ABBA being week 6. I see 0 sources on it anywhere. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 11:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone added "mentioned during auditions". So I removed the listing. Yes it was mentioned during auditions but it was mentioned as an example. And. The list Seacrest read off of "helpers" that will be used during the season didn't mention anyone from ABBA. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ABBA 

message: I originally removed the Bottom 3 chart. But. I think it's a good idea. Not as a permanent addition but as a way of keeping track who was in the bottom 3. With the current format of the elimination chart, we can't enter in when people are in the bottom 3 until they get eliminated. Any other ideas on how to address this? --WoohookittyWoohoo! 11:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The chart should be modified to look like the one in American Idol (season 5).  --musicpvm 05:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, season 5 shouldn't even have a bottom 3 chart. I think it's only useful during the season. After the season, it's completely redundant. In fact, it might be better to create some sort of chart that tracks number of times someone is in the bottom 3. Or maybe not. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 11:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The way the elimination chart was set up is wrong. Normally, the names of the semi-finalists/finalists are listed first (usually in alphabetical order), then the placement order is filled in. When somebody is eliminated, the person's name goes to the bottom of the list. I am going to set up this season's chart in that way. The bottom 3 chart would thus be redundant. For examples of elimination charts and how they are updated, you can take a look at the page histories of (most recent examples) The Amazing Race 11, Survivor: Fiji, or Dancing with the Stars (US TV series). The template Template:AI5ElimHist that updated the elimination history in American Idol (season 5) was deleted (I requested the deletion), but I believe the way eliminations were updated was as I have described above. Tinlinkin 01:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and added in colespans for the weeks we haven't gotten to yet. If you don't like it you can change it back. I just thought it would make more sense to do it that way, because having blank boxes for those weeks would make it look like all the remaining contestants were safe all those weeks. MarkMc1990 03:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tinlinkin's way makes the most sense to me. By the way, shouldn't they be in alphabetical order by last names? Tennis DyNamiTe 23:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To me, it doesn't matter, as long as the order of names is not random. The descriptions of finalists in the article are presented in alphabetical order by first name, so that's why I set up the chart by first name. Tinlinkin 02:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I sorted the descriptive list by last name, since the  is sorted by last name. Elle Bee 13:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bottom 3 chart 

message: Please provide sources when adding themes and performers. Otherwise, this becomes a fansite article. Until it's announced, we have no idea who will perform what and when. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 01:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Following the results airing in the eastern US, it is perfectly fine to add the performers for that week, since whoever is updating obviously saw the show.69.41.105.182 02:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Woohookitty is referrring to the fact that some people have been adding "future themes" for weeks before being announced. Tennis DyNamiTe 02:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. That's what I was talking about. For a bit there, the article had posted "guests" for most shows through May. That's fine once they are announced. :) Right now, except for Inspirational Week, nothing has been announced outside of who is scheduled to appear. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 11:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Themes / Performers 

message: I noticed an i.p. added Top 4 in the chart for Sanjaya, but I'm not sure why it was removed in the first place. The Season 5 chart mentions when Chris Daughtry and Katherine McPhee were in the top two in the voting, so why shouldn't Sanjaya be included? Tennis DyNamiTe 21:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're going to include him, include everyone else that made it into the Top 3 or Top 4. It makes no sense to single him out, no matter how horrid he is (did anyone just see him perform? >.<!) 69.41.105.182 00:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that he was the only one that was ever mentioned by the show as making into the "top anything" in voting so far (besides not being eliminated). (Oh and Sanjaya should have left weeks ago) Tennis DyNamiTe 01:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I personally don't have a problem if Sanjaya's top 4 rank is included in the chart. The only reason it might seem a little odd though is because we don't know who the other 3 members of the top 4 boys were that week. MarkMc1990 23:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top 4 

message: Does anyone think that there should be a section describing the controversy over Sanjaya? Or at least something in his Finalist description highlighting it? It seems to have become a really important aspect of this season, and he's the most talked about contestant. Maybe a paragraph describing what the issue is, his crazy hairdos, with references to articles on CNN, Entertainment Weekly, etc? Thoughts? MissMJ 16:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It can be handled in his article. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, add it! --164.107.223.217 15:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sanjaya controversy? 

message: Chris Sly is off season 6. just to let you know.
Wrestling Maniac 23:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The table from which you removed him is just a list of the Top 24. Tennis DyNamiTe 23:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chris Sly Gone  

message: Why was the order of competing contestants in the elimination chart changed again? Ordering or grouping by top 3, middle 3, et cetera, shows a bias of popularity, because only viewer votes determine positioning. At first glance it may not look biased, but it is. For certain shows like The Amazing Race 11, ordering by placement is acceptable because that program was pre-taped and viewers cannot determine final future outcomes. In this program, this is an ongoing competition and any ordering that is not strictly based on names is either haphazard or creates a bias toward a certain outcome. On the next show, what if the producers decide not to say who is in the top 2, middle 3, whatever? Then what would happen with the chart? Tinlinkin 17:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think the order should remain alphabetical. It doesn't really make sense to order them by placement going only by one week's results, especially since the voting order can change drastically from week to week (none of the eliminated contestants were ever in the bottom three before, for example). Besides, couldn't ordering them by bias be considered original research (especially because we don't know the order of the top 3 and middle 3, and in some cases, the bottom 3)? MarkMc1990 17:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I have no idea who changed it to order by placement, (but I do recall some note somewhere that said that they ordered it by placement, then alphabetically) and alphabetical order by last name makes a lot more sense. Thankfully the placement order almost  follows alphabetical order so it's not that much work to change it back. Fixed. MissMJ 21:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was Maxvip who rearranged the table twice (, )  without any reason except saying the table is rearranged by placement. Then you rearranged it the same when you were fixing an edit by an anon. Since you changed the table back and understood our concerns, thanks for doing that, and you are forgiven. Tinlinkin 03:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of contestants 

message: The whole top/middle/bottom 3 thing from last week is why I don't like top and middle being listed. Because. It riles up the "conspiracy theory" folks. Last edit had Ryan saying that the men were not in the top 3 "as a group". He never said those words. That's why. I say. Leave top and middle out. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 22:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally don't care, but I think the show wanted us to observe the supposed "top" and "middle" groups as fact. I think that info is encyclopedic enough. I would leave it in the chart, and then maybe put something about the April 4th results in the controversy section. Another idea would be to put a superscript (1) next to "4/4" and then explain it at the bottom of the chart (see the American Idol (season 4) chart for Mario Vasquez's withdrawl to see what I'm talking about). MarkMc1990 23:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I wasn't going to originally put the Top/Middle information because he never said the women were the top 3, but when he got to the guys, he said something to the tune of "So, if these are not your top 3..." which I would think implies that they are the middle three. MissMJ 01:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep it does. But I say. Let's not include it all. For one thing, the note that's in there is a bit too long for a note. For another, there is no evidence that we should not take Seacrest at face value. Anything other than that is rumor and message board type stuff. As for putting it as a controversy, I have yet to see it reported in the media, in which case you are probably not going to find a source on it. So there's 3 solid reasons not to include any of it. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 01:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's best just not to include it at all as well because it's not clear WHAT Seacrest meant by what he said. And I don't think it's essential to include middle/top anyway. Yes it's included in Season 5's chart but in that case, there were just 6 left and Seacrest made it clear that this was the top 2. I think that the 3 girls were the top 3, but Seacrest never actually said that. So let's just be safe on it and not include it. Just stick with bottom 3 like we always have. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 02:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't care what you do with the article ... but Seacrest clearly stated that the contestants were separated into top, middle, and bottom groups, and then clearly told the three guys on the left they were not the top group, which meant the three women on the right were.  There's nothing controversial, conspiratorial, or message boardy about it.   Wasted Time R 02:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you misunderstood me. Personally I agree. It's not controversial. And the message boardy thing is people thinking that this is some sort of conspiracy. And yes. The women were the top 3. Guys the middle and the bottom 3 were the bottom 3. But on the other hand, since people keep putting the information back in and obviously some believe that Seacrest wasn't clear enough, I think it might be best to just not include any of it. This article is incredibly hard to patrol anyway. Just not sure we need more to try to stop. I seem to spend way too much time a day removing unsourced stuff from this article. We don't need one more thing people don't agree on. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 02:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top/Bottom/Middle 3 

message: How is it that the current week's loser is already posted on the chart even before their name is announced on the show? Does someone in LA type it in as the show is filmed? Is the show aired later? -dogman15 05:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's live. Seacrest emphasizes that every week. And which edit are you referring to? It looks to me like Malakar's name was posted just as it was announced. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 14:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe it seems that way because you're in a different time zone? Tennis DyNamiTe 20:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the chart... 

message: here we go again :) We have a disagreement on whether the top group this week was the top 3 or not. It's unclear to me. Seacrest said that one group had the most votes and the other had the bottom 3. He didn't say "top 3" nor did he say how many people would be in each group. He singled Melinda out but never told her what group she was in. To me, top 3 shouldn't be used for this week. Thoughts? --WoohookittyWoohoo! 14:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He said there was a group with the most votes and a group with the fewest.  After Melinda sat down in the middle, he told her she was safe, and then to slide to the left to join that group, which was all safe.  So no "top 3" was defined, just a top 4 and a bottom 3.  In fact, they do this almost every year at seven, with the two groups composed to surprise and puzzle the audience as to which is which.  If Melinda and Jordin had both been in a group of 3, it would have been clear that was the safe group, which is why Melinda was pulled out to be the "chooser".  It doesn't imply she she was fourth in the voting.   Wasted Time R 14:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was my thought. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 23:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Correct. The groups are NOT divided into top 3 and bottom 3, with the person in the middle choosing the safe group. Nor is the person who chooses the group the top vote getter, which seems to be another common misinterpretation. All that is known about that contestant's rank is that they are not in the bottom 3. (Plus, I know the voting is often unpredictable, but does anyone really think Melinda was only 4th in votes?) MarkMc1990 03:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the thing is Mark, she could have been the top vote getter. The show never says. I wish they'd would just do what they do and then at the end, show the placings. But they don't because they want to build artificial drama. But what it leads to is confusion like this. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 04:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes she could have and probably was. She could have been ranked anywhere from 1st through 4th, and I'm willing to bet that she was the top vote getter. About the show revealing the placings every week, they would never do that because the same person/people probably usually place at or near the top every week and that would give away who the winner was probably going to be. MarkMc1990 02:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True. But it does lead to discussions such as this :) Which might be the point. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top 3 

message: I should start crying so that I can get that treatment! When I was 13, when I cried, I was told to shut up :( Armyrifle 21:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I hate to be the one to say this: This is not a forum, this page is for how to improve on the article. If you want to talk about it, go to a good forum about this stuff. Google it. White Coyote 14:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ashley Ferl

message: who was the bottom 3 person on 3/21? the elim chart doesn't say. Elle Bee 16:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There wasn't any. :) They had 11 contestants. I forget exactly how he did it but Seacrest announced (I think) 3 groups of safe people and then the last 2 were the bottom 2. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 18:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  March 21 

message: I'm confused by this:
# You'll Never Walk Alone (Jerry Lewis)
It doesn't seem that Jerry Lee Lewis, "The Killer", the rock and roll piano player and singer from the 1950's, which is where the link points to, ever sang this song.  Instead, Jerry Lewis did sing it, but he's not the original artist.  It's actually a 60 year old song, as Simon said last night on the show.  What artist should we put?  Maybe it'd be better to put the composer?  Just some thoughts that stemmed from my confusion.  Thanks, --luckymustard 18:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I say the we just put Carousel on there. If someone sang a "Grease" song or a "Les Miserables" song, we'd probably put that. Anyone agree? Disagree? Better idea? - hmwithtalk 19:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This happened last season too. I'm not really sure which one we should use. Tennis DyNamiTe 22:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well until something better is figured out I'm gonna get rid of "Jerry (Lee) Lewis" all together.  --luckymustard 01:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think putting the musical makes most sense, since the article the song title links to includes the information about who sang it over the years. MissMJ 02:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll go ahead and put Carousel in the mean time. If someone disagrees, take it right off! - hmwithtalk 04:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Song and Original Artist not matching up 

message: Both P!nk and Gwen Stefani were in the billing, yet neither were in the actual show.  What gives!  And no, they were not in that horrendous Staying Alive skit. Pumapayam 20:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Idol Gives Back - Missing Stars like Gwen and P!nk! 

message: Okay, someone keeps adding Tom Cruise's name to the list of celebrities who appeared during Idol Gives Back, and I seriously for the life of me cannot recall him being there. I think I would recognize him if the appeared. Does anyone else remember? MissMJ 22:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tom Cruise?