This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Television: Idols High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Idols task force (assessed as High-importance).

Archives

Archive 1

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

It was Maxvip who rearranged the table twice ([1], [2]) 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)[reply]

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. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 22:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 01:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 02:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 02:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 14:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it seems that way because you're in a different time zone? Tennis DyNamiTe 20:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have information about Ryan Seacreast possibly revealing Melinda's elimination BEFORE THE ACTUAL RESULT??

He said that she was going home right before they showed her "home" trip. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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? --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 14:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

That was my thought. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 23:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 04:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

True. But it does lead to discussions such as this :) Which might be the point. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Removing this poorly-written section -particularly the parts about getting free earrings and what contestants she likes - would greatly improve this article. Whatever notability this girl has can probably be summed up in 2 or 3 sentences. Consensus?MattDredd (talk) 23:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

who was the bottom 3 person on 3/21? the elim chart doesn't say. Elle Bee 16:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 18:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused by this:

1. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This happened last season too. I'm not really sure which one we should use. Tennis DyNamiTe 22:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Certain things about this season pop up more often than any other season yet. -The auditions were repeatedly referred to as "a very special American Idol" due to the extraordinary amount of people making heartbroken appeals and tear stained pleas for a second chance. This could be considered confirmed by the editor's choice to include montages of such events. -While the fifth season, the attitude and appearance of the Idol's was the constant source of debate, "pitch-y" is a veritable buzzword of the judge critique in the sixth. Especially in the top 24, the word has been used on every single contestant at least once. -The concept of "vote for the worst" was brought into major focus due to Howard Stern and Sanjaya Malakar.

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)[reply]

As American Idol Season 6 redirects to this page, shouldn't also American Idol Season Six?. Just wondering, Tcpekin 03:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

During the auditions, Simon mentioned ABBA week, well, the show's almost over, and it still hasn't been done. If Bee Gees is next week, wouldn't the top 3 be doing it, along with the judge's choice, and the choice of that producer guy? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Art10 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

He was using it as an example. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 02:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have a problem. :) Seacrest never said who finished 5th or 6th. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 02:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to keep switching it back to 5/6 for Stacey and Richardson. Seacrest never said who finished what. And with this show, you can't assume anything... --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 14:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should put 5th for the both of them and there is no 6th? Kind of like in skating, if two competitors tie, they get the same rank, and the next rank is skipped. MissMJ 17:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Woohoo. It should be 5-6. Elle Bee 19:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is 5/6 in one cell, vertically, for both contestants? Other contestants who tie simply have it in all of their boxes. Either change this one, or change all of those. We have to keep consistency. - hmwithtalk 18:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. Changed all the others to rowspan as well.--Bobblehead 18:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But, now, it's different from every other season. - hmwithtalk 18:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a preference then? I just think the rowspan looks better than repeating the same information over and over again, but it's a purely cosmetic preference. The "rankings" for all the season's can be changed or the merged cells on this one can be changed back to the repeating rows.--Bobblehead 21:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever was first chosen to go (Phil) should be listed as 6th, and the other (Chris) 5th, as the tendancy is to name the contestant with the fewest votes as eliminated first when two or more go home (like in the semifinals). CrazyC83 01:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that isn't how we do the semi-finals. We list them as 13-16, 17-20, etc. Seacrest didn't give specific positions so we shouldn't list specific positions. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 04:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bobblehead, I agree. I prefer it the way that you did it as well... I just wish the other charts looked as well. - hmwithtalk 04:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4 and 5 are the only other ones that have this elimination chart. 4 can be changed rather easily, but 5 seems to have arranged their mass eliminations by a specific order. I didn't watch 5, so does anyone know if people were eliminated in order of their vote counts during the mass eliminations, or is the order on 5 an arbitrary one determined by the order they were kicked out during the show? --Bobblehead 18:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was arbitrary. They are listed in the chart in the order that they were announced. As far as I know, the show has never given specific places for the semi-finals. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 20:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in season 5 Ryan Seacrest did tell the contestants whether they received the lowest or 2nd lowest amount of votes in the semifinals. I'm not sure about season 4 though. MarkMc1990 01:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I recall that they just did a bottom 2 a couple of times but that was it. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 14:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any thought to spinning it off to it's own article and leaving just a summary of the show here? I think it's article worthy. And article length. For here, it's a bit cluttery especially since we have the finale yet. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 23:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it! Originally it was its own article, but it was mislabeled as an organization and had tons of random speculation and bad writing and was unnecessary at the time, so I merged it into this one. But since there's tons of info on it now, a separate article would clear up the clutter. MissMJ 23:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'll work on it tonight. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 01:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There. :) If anyone else can prune some more, be my guest. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 01:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the ratings section needs to be ditched. It has no references as to where it's getting its numbers, and the numbers themselves are kind of useless. It's pretty common knowledge that American Idol has high ratings in general. Once this season's run is over, I'm sure some info will pop up about how it rated overall this year and we could insert it into the general show description somewhere. None of the other articles have ratings sections. MissMJ 23:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go with that. It's clutter. I do see mentioning the drop in ratings but probably not in its own section. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 01:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone adding sources to this article needs to read WP:RS and WP:EL. Just removed a link that requires registration AND is from a site where the section cited is called the Rumor Mill. Rumor Mill folks. :) We can't use just anything. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 19:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Am I the only one who dislikes the orange-brown being used as a background on the table? --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 22:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it looks bad. If we keep it, we should change the other seasons to match. --Ajm⁸¹ 22:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like MissMJ changed it to a much nicer color. Thanks. :) --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 00:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I took one look at it and went "Ew, who changed it to this nasty pumpkin?" Apparently someone made it all goldenrod rather than palegoldenrod. MissMJ 01:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...strangely enough, will be from Sherman Pore (the 64 year old, who wasn't legally able to audition being more than double the age limit). Generally, contestants cannot sign new deals until three months after the season ends (so recordings will have to wait until fall at least), so he probably got away by being ineligible to begin with. I cannot find a website for him, but the news article is here. CrazyC83 04:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thought about just removing this but it's alot of material, so I'll ask others. To me, this is just way too trivial to include. For one thing, it means nothing. There is no pattern or anything. Sometimes he calls people out seemingly randomly. Sometimes, the bottom 2 or 3 is clearly at the end of the row(s). It's random. Thus. Trivial. And so it's kind of pointless. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I did remove it. The colors didn't match up quite right either. And some colors (like light blue) weren't explained. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that earlier and it wasn't even correct anyway. MarkMc1990 18:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When the article was merged into this one, the image was merged as well... and should stay. She is notable from this season, and the fair use is disputed for one reason: that "another free version can be found"... but that's impossible, as only screenshots of this episode can be used to show her how she look that day. For readers to recognize her, this image must be used.

In the future, instead of reverted without much (or any) explanation, take it the talk page. Thanks. hmwithtalk 16:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You uploaded the image, so obviously you're biased towards its inclusion. Once the dispute surrounding the image is resolved, then it can be added back into the article. - Dudesleeper · Talk 16:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And it's not "impossible" that a free version can be found. - Dudesleeper · Talk 16:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, it doesn't matter who uploaded it, as all opinions count equally. Obviously, I uploaded it since I feel that it should be used. Secondly, what image of her on AI can be used besides the screenshot? If anyone can find one (including you), replace it. hmwithtalk 17:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not beyond the realms of possibility that someone in the audience took a picture of her. Unlikely, yes, but likely enough for the rigid Wikipedia image policies. - Dudesleeper · Talk 17:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here, how's this: Why shouldn't it be used? hmwithtalk 17:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because... its... fair-use... is... being... disputed. - Dudesleeper · Talk 17:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, while any image, after being used for a while, has its fair use disputed, it is removed from the article in the mean time? I did not know that this was Wikipedia policy... The reason for the dispute is that another one can be found, and another one cannot be found, therefore, the dispute is unjustified in the first place. But this isn't about the fair use of the picture, this about its use in the article. If its policy to remove images while fair use is disputed, please show me the link, and I will agree and stand 100% corrected. =) If not, it should stay. hmwithtalk 23:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to side with hmwith, here. The image is only disputed because there may be a free public domain image, not because it violates copyright. Removing it just because it isn't free doesn't make sense. It would only make sense if it violated some copyright, which has not been argued at all. I'm going to put the image back, as I feel this is an adequate reason. Wrad 23:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the image is acceptable, as it's not possible to get a free image of her crying on the show, which is the thing that made her "notable". — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 01:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File talk:Ashlerferlcrying.jpg

Y Done

Hello. After I first saw the elimination chart in this article I was quite impressed by it's complexity. I then decided to add a similar table to this article with a few changes: Sa Re Ga Ma Pa Challenge 2007#Elimination Chart. I've tried my best at representing the show's elimination process but there are 2 problems with the chart that I need some help with to hopefully fix...

• the table is too big

- and -

• the contestant's names don't span across one line

I realise that this talk page is intended for discussion about improving AI6, but no one is contributing to the elimination chart on the SRGMP C2007 article, so I was quite desperate for some additional help there. Thanks

P.S. all the info. in the table and article is up to date

-- Bhavesh.Chauhan ^{Message Me | Contribs} 02:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it up for you. =) The table was too big because you had too many columns for the page width, which was resulting in the columns being squished and the names to be on two lines. A more detailed explanation of what I did and why can be found on that article's talk page. MissMJ 23:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MissMJ. You've done a great job at formatting the table. You've fixed all of the problems that I was having trouble fixing with and it's basically just how I wanted it too look like. I think the main problem in the chart is that there are soo many contestants; if there is any change it requires all the position of the contestants on the table to change. You seem very skilled with tables, I just find Wiki Tables very complicated at times to understand while editing. I think there should be some additional program that converts something like an Microsoft Excel spreadsheet table into a Wikipedia table with ease. Again, thanks soo much. You're a star! -- Bhavesh.Chauhan ^{Message Me | Contribs} 03:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Song previously sung by contestant" Jordin sang Aguilera's "Fighter," which she had never sung before...? What is the theme then? I missed it when Seacrest said it. >_< MissMJ 00:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Her second song is the one she had sung before. :) --Ajm⁸¹ 00:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, right! Whoops. ^_^ MissMJ 00:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very relieved that the season is almost over. It'll make our lives much easier. :) --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, except season 3 of So You Think You Can Dance starts today. =P MissMJ 16:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering what people think of spinning off the finale into its own article like we do for episodes of any series. Asking this now to (hopefully) prevent a repeat of last year when the season 5 article became overloaded with info on the finale. I say. Spin it off like we did for Idol Gives Back. Thoughts? --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 15:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do it! If it's been done for the previous seasons, then it makes sense to do it for this season too. This article is a monster already, no need to feed it any more than we already do. xD MissMJ 22:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created the article here. Changing the title won't offend me. :) --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 00:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably going to need help patrolling that section. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 03:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep an eye out for Tom Cruise in tonight's show. - Dudesleeper · Talk 22:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I particularly liked the little dance he did during "Knees Up, Mother Brown". - Dudesleeper · Talk 02:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Half the songwriters' names in the American Songwriter Contest section do not have sources listed next to them... Where are people getting this attribution information? MissMJ 22:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page lists the top 20 songs and the names of the writers. --Ajm⁸¹ 22:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American Idol has made it clear that Phil is the 6th place finisher and Chris R. is the 5th place finisher. They both mentioned it in their exit interview and I think the results table should reflect their individual places instead of them sharing both.

Source? And it's going to have to come from their website. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 23:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this is the video, but unless I missed something, they sound just as uncertain about the placings as we are. --Ajm⁸¹ 00:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the ambiguity on the AI website says to me that it's uncertain and undetermined. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 00:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the layout of the season 5 and 6 articles different from the seasons 1-4 articles? The way the seasons 1-4 articles are layed out are in "scorecard" format, which takes you through each week of the competition from the first week of the semi-finals all the way to the finale. Why do the seasons 5 and 6 articles not have this? I think the scorecard format is more organized and comprehensible. Also its important that the individual articles for each season remain consistent with eachother. Anyone have any thoughts on this? I'm surprised no one has brought up this issue before. MarkMc1990 19:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer this layout. Less confusing. hmwithtalk 21:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, the layout of the articles for each individual season should remain consistent with eachother. One format to fit all. So I say we should either apply the scorecard format to the seasons 5 and 6 articles, or apply the current format of the seasons 5 and 6 articles to the seasons 1-4 articles. MarkMc1990 18:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else have an opinion on this? MarkMc1990 00:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The format for 5 and 6 is now in the minority. Seasons 1-4 and 7-9 use the table format. I'd say 5-6 should be changed. 18 August 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.35.244 (talk) 15:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The format for 5 and 6 is a lot easier to navigate and figure out what the heck is going on (looks a lot less like a gimongous list as well). I say 1-4 get converted to 5 and 6. MissMJ 05:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. One thing we could do with the scorecard format is to make a separate page for each performance episode. -- JYi 05:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point, since all of the information would be in the main article already, just ordered by contestant. Any volunteers just dying to make the conversion or should I do it? MissMJ 22:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are there "reference" links next to the songwriters' names that link to their MySpace pages, profiles on random sites, or in the case of one songwriter, modeling photos?... These are useless since AI already released their names, and as far as I can tell, that's the only source that's needed. If no one comes up with a good reason to keep those references, I'll remove them next week. MissMJ 19:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know of none. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has probably been reported elsewhere, but it is now official that they are signed as part of a duet. There is mention of it on Sundance's article, but Sabrina does not even have one. Should she get one knowing she has a major label deal? CrazyC83 14:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not until something is actually released. Just getting a deal doesn't always mean getting a release. Idol has examples of people who got major deals and didn't release a thing. Sundance has an article because he has a deal AND he's notable for being the son of Roy Head. Just having the deal wouldn't be enough IMO. If something is actually released on the major label, then I'd say yes. Otherwise, I think it's premature. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 16:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are ongoing AfDs for several low-ranking season 6 finalists. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haley Scarnato will point to the other AfDS (and is also the most commented on at this point out of the 5). I apologize if people will think this is canvassing, but I don't believe it is, because these AfDs are relevant to this season and should determine how and when contestants get articles, in consideration of all Wikipedia policies. TLK^'in 04:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd keep them for now and wait and see what happens. After a year or so if they are nowhere, then redirect. CrazyC83 16:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is time to revisit this, but at this point I believe all the Season 6 finalists have kept their articles worthy. (Some finalists from earlier seasons, though, should probably be redirected) CrazyC83 (talk) 22:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ashlerferlcrying.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 12:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original heading: "What/Why r there numbers in parenthesis beside the names?

Beginning in this section: Top 24 semi-finalists. There r # in (). Y? 70.108.56.92 (talk) 04:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Despite this person's inability to write in actual words, it's a valid point, and since no one's offered an explanation in three months, I commented them out - and as soon as I'm done here, I'm going to do the same to the Season 5 article (the only other one in which they appear). 71.255.98.252 (talk) 15:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are the numbers contestants received when they auditioned (the pieces of paper they wear on their clothes). It has been decided to remove them due to uselessness and confusion they caused in the Season 7 article. I assumed it had already been done so for the other seasons as well. MissMJ (talk) 17:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey shouldn't thew table shwo that jordan sparks, melinda doolittle and lakisha jones were the top 3 for big band week. Ryan said it himself that chris, blake and sanjaya weren't the top 3 but they wern't the bottom which leaves lakisha, melinda and jordan being the top 3 for that week. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frazzler9 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on American Idol (season 6). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120616074802/http://articles.nydailynews.com/2006-08-31/entertainment/18345707_1_ryan-seacrest-audition-american-idol to http://articles.nydailynews.com/2006-08-31/entertainment/18345707_1_ryan-seacrest-audition-american-idol
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061110214709/http://www.westwoodone.com/pg/jsp/randyjackson/audioarchive.jsp?pid=11004 to http://www.westwoodone.com/pg/jsp/randyjackson/audioarchive.jsp?pid=11004
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110522105140/http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/tv/la-showtracker-idol-sp,1,6582829.special?coll=la-entnews-tv&ctrack=1&cset=true to http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/tv/la-showtracker-idol-sp,1,6582829.special?coll=la-entnews-tv&ctrack=1&cset=true
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090706045700/http://www.votefortheworst.com/20090630/ashley_ferl_crying_girl_los_angeles_idol_auditions to http://www.votefortheworst.com/20090630/ashley_ferl_crying_girl_los_angeles_idol_auditions
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070408021033/http://songwriter.americanidol.com:80/ to http://songwriter.americanidol.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081202032236/http://www.cbsnews.com:80/stories/2007/02/24/entertainment/ap/main2509675.shtml to http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/24/entertainment/ap/main2509675.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070525221943/http://www.usmagazine.com/sanjaya_out to http://www.usmagazine.com/sanjaya_out
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080709005849/http://buzz.yahoo.com/buzzlog/67409/sanjayas-hair-raising-searches to http://buzz.yahoo.com/buzzlog/67409/sanjayas-hair-raising-searches
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090216215438/http://www.medialifemagazine.com:80/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=517&num=10909 to http://www.medialifemagazine.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=517&num=10909
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070528025942/http://downloads.americanidol.com:80/ to http://downloads.americanidol.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928055026/http://playlistmag.com/news/2007/06/13/idol/index.php?lsrc=mwrss to http://playlistmag.com/news/2007/06/13/idol/index.php?lsrc=mwrss

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on American Idol (season 6). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.commercialappeal.com/mca/local/article/0%2C2845%2CMCA_25340_5046296%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/tv/la-showtracker-idol-sp%2C1%2C6582829.special?coll=la-entnews-tv&ctrack=1&cset=true
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930181348/http://www.topix.net/content/trb/1460967013072410154415339256701112819897 to http://www.topix.net/content/trb/1460967013072410154415339256701112819897
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090106032522/http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman/publish/article_10453.asp to http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman/publish/article_10453.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100314121636/http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman/publish/article_11805.asp to http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman/publish/article_11805.asp
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman/publish/article_11958.asp
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman/publish/article_12118.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100330134508/http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman/publish/article_12267.asp to http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman/publish/article_12267.asp
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman2/publish/Television_44/In_the_end_it_came_down_to_Thursdays.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on American Idol (season 6). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070528080242/http://www.idolsmusic.com/america6.htm to http://www.idolsmusic.com/america6.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070528080242/http://www.idolsmusic.com/america6.htm to http://www.idolsmusic.com/america6.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]