Talk:American Idol season 9

Top 12 articles

I'm going to start the article on Siobhan soon, so editors can feel free creating the articles for the other 11 contestants as they are now in the realm of notability. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Could we separate the Top 12 from the semi-finalists? Like put the semi-finalists and list their performances like in Seasons 5-7? Putting the Top 12 with the rest is confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JPSinger45 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure, as long as it conforms with the other pages, which I am basing my actions off of. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Birthdates?

Where are the sources for the birthdates? 24.14.30.172 (talk) 21:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion

It is that time of the year again for the Articles for Deletion to start popping up for the American Idol finalists. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katie Stevens and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siobhan Magnus. Aspects (talk) 23:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I saw those AfDs and then found this. Is there any precedent for delaying such AfDs until after AI ends, at least among the top 12 assuming a verifiable article is established? Its generally my opinion that AfD nominations of major TV show contestants fare better and suffer less drama and distractions if you wait until the show is over. I suppose some feel waiting is some horrible offence though.--Milowent (talk) 19:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

There isn't, but I also think that this is the work of a serial sockpuppeteer. His mode of operation is to pop up with an account, show profound knowledge of policy while nominating a ton of articles for deletion. If he is found to be a sockpuppeteer, I will close the AFD as it will be invalid because of the fact that the user was in the wrong to begin with. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The articles have been kept, nothing more is needed. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Alex Lambert "controversy" section

This section is not a controversy and right now a third of it consists of a list of performances already mentioned in the article. Past versions included a link to a website and those versions seemed little more than linkspam to get people to sign a petition on the site. Unless there are reliable sources, this section should not be included. Aspects (talk) 23:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Alright, Aspects, Melinda Doolittle and Chris Daughtry's eliminations are counted as controversies on the page of the season they were on, and they didn't spark enough controversy for people to sign petitions. Second, there are plenty of better places to make "linkspam" then on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.107.17.32 (talk) 23:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

DeWyze, not Dewyze

All of Lee's pre-Idol stuff (twitter, iTunes, Facebook) lists his name as DeWyze. For some reason, AI seems to keep the W in lowercase. Anyway we can make it DeWyze in the article without it being removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.208.111 (talk) 03:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree. See "Get to Know Lee DeWyze" on the AI site:

http://www.americanidol.com/videos/season_9/lee_dewyze/get_to_know_lee_dewyze/ Raggedyland (talk) 02:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

"Bottom 2"

What makes any evidence that somebody is in the "bottom 2"? Just because they're not the first one of the bottom three to be saved, doesn't mean they were in the bottom 2. There is no evidence for this. Woogee (talk) 04:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep. It's sort of what I said above. We have to go by exactly what is said on the show. We can't take anything for granted. If Ryan says that this is the bottom 2, great. Otherwise, we can't assume anything. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 06:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

My request for proof that she was bottom 2 was removed without discussion. Woogee (talk) 06:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

We could do what we did in Season 7 and put " Safe First " and " Safe Second ", because this is just confusing.

Um what's confusing about it? Both contestants were in the bottom 3. Why do we need anything further? In the end, it means absolutely nothing. Its not as if they have a scoring system. :) --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 06:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the "saved first/saved last" distinctions are unnecessary and don't reveal anything about the results themselves. I just think it would be most appropriate if we listed both Paige and Tim as "Btm 3" because thats all we really know about their position this week. And then we can put "Btm 2" for the weeks when Ryan actually manages to acknowledge that the last two are the bottom two. Additionally, I've always hated the yellow gradient and I think we should shade all Btm 3 and Elim cells in the finals with the palegoldenrod color. That's how we used to do it prior to season 7 before people decided you needed a different color for every single little thing. In my opinion, the bold, bright yellow just jumps out way too much and doesn't mesh with the rest of the more toned-down colors used in the chart. MarkMc1990 (talk) 08:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Even though Ryan usually never acknowledges the two left standing as the 'bottom 2' it is heavily implied and so as a reader of this article, I would like to see a distinction between Tim and Paige's 'btm 3'.. The saved first/last is fine for me. 92.1.174.176 (talk) 19:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

"Heavily implied" has no basis in reliable sourcing. Woogee (talk) 21:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I can live with the "safe first" and "safe second", but Bottom 2 and Bottom 3 are not supported by any sources, and therefore not acceptable. Woogee (talk) 21:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Can we relax for a minute? Until there is some sort of implication from a reliable source, we will use the safe first/second method. –Turian (talk) 01:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Um why? I guess I just don't quite get why we have to use even that. In the end, does it matter one iota if someone was saved first or second? --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 04:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

And besides. Yes this was used for the season 7 article but the judges save didn't exist then. So now we have saved used twice in completely different contexts. I think thats more confusing than using Bottom 2 and 3. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 04:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Does it really matter if we use bottom 2 or 3? I don't think Ryan has EVER used the words "bottom 2", but for the past 8 seasons we've been using BTM2 and BTM3. Now all of a sudden, in Season 9, we are going to demand " evidence ". Quite frankly, I don't see any reason why not to just make things easy and say Paige was in the bottom 2. AT40Reviewer (talk) 12:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, why does Ryan need to say "bottom 2" everytime? It's Season 9. I think people get the concept. And what reliable sources do you want? Next should we say that unless Ryan tells us the amount of votes each contestant had, we shouldn't even say the Lacey had the lowest number of votes because there's no proof? AT40Reviewer (talk) 12:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Look. WP:V is policy. I don't give a damn what happened in previous seasons. Provide reliable sources for your edits, or you'll be reverted. Period. Woogee (talk) 21:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't give a damn that what you want. Only about 3 people want your format, and everyone else wants the original format, as used in the past 8 SEASON. Wikipedia doesn't give a damn if everything's correct or not. The original format was a lot easier, until you guys fucked it up.76.107.17.32 (talk)

I wasn't trying to be rude. I think the safe first/second method is a great way to make both sides of the issue happy. I was just simply replying to what Woohookitty said about "does it really matter!" Does it really matter that they were in the bottom 3 period? People have been asking to reliable sources for Paige being in the bottom 2, but never ask for reliable sources about what the bottom 3 means to begin with. I don't think Ryan has ever said the bottom 3 meant the least number of votes on the show, so Paige could have just as well been brought up by random. That's why I thought we should just use the BTM2/3 thing because there is just as much evidence for Paige being the the bottom 3 as there is of her being in the bottom 2. That's all. AT40Reviewer (talk) 7:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Well the fact that Paige was in the bottom THREE was made explicitly clear. The evidence is right in the episode when Ryan said "Paige, you are in the bottom 3 tonight". There was no part of the episode where Ryan ever said she was in the bottom TWO. It's not wiki's job to say "We need proof she was actually in the bottom 3, the show might be lying". That's just ridiculous, and it certainly doesn't justify listing Btm 2 for someone when we have no evidence whatsoever to believe that. The bottom 3 are the bottom 3 vote-getters, what else would it mean? If they ever lie about who is in the bottom 3, or about what being in the bottom 3 actually means, then the show would be blatantly frauding the audience and the article isn't to assume such things. MarkMc1990 (talk) 20:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Btm 2 got put in again and I reverted again. Woogee (talk) 02:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Top 11 Performance Night

Someone needs to switch Didi Benami and Casey James, because Casey performed first. Not Didi. I would do it, but it won't let me edit.RonZombie91 (talk) 02:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}} Please let this page be edited by all wikipedia users.

Qdiazissipom (talk) 14:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit requests should not be used to make requests for article unprotections. To request that this article be unprotected, please make a request at Wikipedia:requests for page protection. You can check the protection log explaining the reasons for its protection and its expiration date here:[1]. --JokerXtreme (talk) 14:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Sing for Save

Can we put on the performance lists the song that the contestant chooses to fight for the save or in Paige's case, her swan song. Qdiazissipom (talk) 14:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Top 12 – The Rolling Stones

Order	Contestant	Song	Result
1	Michael Lynche	"Miss You"	Safe
2	Didi Benami	"Play with Fire"	Safe
3	Casey James	"It's All Over Now"	Safe
4	Lacey Brown	"Ruby Tuesday"	Bottom
5	Andrew Garcia	"Gimme Shelter"	Safe
6	Katie Stevens	"Wild Horses"	Safe
7	Tim Urban	"Under My Thumb"	Bottom 3
8	Siobhan Magnus	"Paint It, Black"	Safe
9	Lee DeWyze	"Beast of Burden"	Safe
10	Paige Miles	"Honky Tonk Women"	Bottom 3
11	Aaron Kelly	"Angie"	Safe
12	Crystal Bowersox	"You Can't Always Get What You Want"	Safe
Lowest Voted Contestant's Performance For Judges' Save
NA	Lacey Brown	"The Story" (Brandi Carlile)	Eliminated

Something like this? I understand that it needs to be tweaked but I think it's useful and is a necessary addition. Qdiazissipom (talk) 15:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is anything important, and I find it kind of trivial. Most of the time, they will sing the same song, and like last week, the judges told Paige that it wouldn't matter, which I expect them to do from now on. –Turian (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I think this would be a nice reference for future reference, since it seems like the contestants are able to chose their sing-out song regardless now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.208.111 (talk) 04:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Top 12 – The Rolling Stones

• Date: March 16/17

Order	Contestant	Rolling Stones Song	Result
1	Michael Lynche	"Miss You"	Safe
2	Didi Benami	"Play with Fire"	Safe
3	Casey James	"It's All Over Now"	Safe
4	Lacey Brown	"Ruby Tuesday"	Bottom Three
5	Andrew Garcia	"Gimme Shelter"	Safe
6	Katie Stevens	"Wild Horses"	Safe
7	Tim Urban	"Under My Thumb"	Bottom Three
8	Siobhan Magnus	"Paint It, Black"	Safe
9	Lee DeWyze	"Beast of Burden"	Safe
10	Paige Miles	"Honky Tonk Women"	Bottom Three
11	Aaron Kelly	"Angie"	Safe
12	Crystal Bowersox	"You Can't Always Get What You Want"	Safe
Results
1	Lacey Brown	"The Story" (Brandy Carlile)	Eliminated

• The decision was unanimous and Lacey Brown didin't get the safe, so she was eliminated.

Top 11 – Billboard Number One Hits

• Mentor: Miley Cyrus.
• Date: March 23/24

Order	Contestant	Song (original artist)	Result
1	Lee DeWyze	"The Letter" (The Box Tops)	Safe
2	Paige Miles	"Against All Odds" (Phil Collins)	Bottom Three
3	Tim Urban	"Crazy Little Thing Called Love" (Queen)	Bottom Three
4	Aaron Kelly	"I Don't Want to Miss a Thing" (Aerosmith)	Safe
5	Crystal Bowersox	"Me and Bobby McGee" (Janis Joplin)	Safe
6	Michael Lynche	"When a Man Loves a Woman" (Percy Sledge)	Safe
7	Andrew Garcia	"I Heard It Through the Grapevine" (Marvin Gaye)	Safe
8	Katie Stevens	"Big Girls Don't Cry" (Fergie)	Bottom Three
9	Casey James	"The Power of Love (Huey Lewis and the News)	Safe
10	Didi Benami	"You're No Good" (Linda Ronstadt)	Safe
11	Siobhan Magnus	"Superstition" (Stevie Wonder)	Safe
Results
1	Paige Miles	"All Right Now" (Free)	Eliminated

• Simon Cowell told Paige they wouldn't use the save, no matter how she sings, so Paige was eliminated.

Top 10 – R&B/Soul

• Mentor: Usher
• Date: March 30/31

Order	Contestant	Song (original artist)	Result
1	Siobhan Magnus	"Through the Fire" (Chaka Khan)	Safe
2	Casey James	"Hold On, I'm Comin'" (Sam and Dave)	Safe
3	Michael Lynche	"Ready for Love" (India.Arie)	Safe
4	Didi Benami	"What Becomes of the Brokenhearted" (Jimmy Ruffin)	Bottom Three
5	Tim Urban	"Sweet Love" (Anita Baker)	Bottom Three
6	Andrew Garcia	"Forever" (Chris Brown)	Safe
7	Katie Stevens	"Chain of Fools" (Aretha Franklin)	Bottom Three
8	Lee Dewyze	"Treat Her Like A Lady" (Cornelius Brothers & Sister Rose)	Safe
9	Crystal Bowersox	"Midnight Train to Georgia (Gladys Knight & the Pips)	Safe
10	Aaron Kelly	"Ain't No Sunshine" (Bill Withers)	Safe
Results
1	Didi Benami	"Rhiannon" (Fleetwood Mac)	Eliminated

• The judges chose not to use their save on Didi.

Top 9 (first week) – Lennon/McCartney Songbook

• Date: April 6/7

Order	Contestant	Song (original artist)	Result
1	Aaron Kelly	"The Long and Winding Road" (The Beatles)	Bottom Three
2	Katie Stevens	"Let It Be" (The Beatles)	Safe
3	Andrew Garcia	"Can't Buy Me Love" (The Beatles)	Bottom Three
4	Michael Lynche	"Eleanor Rigby" (The Beatles)	Bottom Three
5	Crystal Bowersox	"Come Together" (The Beatles)	Safe
6	Tim Urban	"All My Loving" (The Beatles)	Safe
7	Casey James	"Jealous Guy" (John Lennon)	Safe
8	Siobhan Magnus	"Across the Universe" (The Beatles)	Safe
9	Lee DeWyze	"Hey Jude" (The Beatles)	Safe
Results
1	Michael Lynche	"This Woman's Work" (Kate Bush)	Saved

• Michael received the lowest number of votes but the judges decided to use their save on him and was not eliminated.

I was thinking something like this its really more cool, and more interesting.

Changing the Elimination Chart Proposal

Currently, throughout the entire American Idol series of articles, there is no consensus on what we should use for the elimination chart. I have put the two elimination charts currently used in my sandbox. The first one represents Season 3, and the second one represents Season 7. The third represents the current season under the first one's style.

I think we should use the first style for many reasons. The first reason is that the one for Season 3 is much easier on the eye than the one we are currently using. The cyan and pink background colors are nothing more than a distraction. I mean, we really don't need to hold people's hands to tell them that they are female or male. Also, the yellow used for Elim is extremely harsh, especially for an encyclopedia. The 'palegoldenrod' used for the header will match the gray we use for the semi-finals, providing consistency. If you take a look at both, you will see what I mean. The yellows and cyans and pinks are so clashing it almost looks childish. We should keep it more professional by using simpler and complementing colors. –Turian (talk) 04:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm so glad someone finally agrees with me about that dumb yellow! I've missed the palegoldenrod. I completely agree that the elim boxes should match the header just like they do in the semifinals. Personally, and I know I'm in the minority on this one, I think the "Btm 3" boxes should be palegoldenrod as well. It used to be that way until season 7 when people decided everything needed a different color. Or at least, the gradient needs to match the palegoldenrod. MarkMc1990 (talk) 02:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

safe

Bottom 3

Bottom 3

Eliminated

MarkMc1990 (talk) 02:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, some type of gradient definitely needs to be used, and the bright colors (besides the green) need to go. –Turian (talk) 12:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The colors still look very similar. It's hard to distinguish which is which. I suggest changing it a little bit.

Raiderfanforever99 (talk) 11:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a gradient; they are meant to look similar. And plus, if you get confused, just read it what is in the box. –Turian (talk) 18:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Raiderfanforever99, on my computer at home I can tell the difference between the shades of palegoldenrod, but on my work computer, where I am making this comment, I cannot tell the different between the "white" nothing shade and the two shades used for the "Bottom 3" cells. The only one that looks different is the Eliminated cell. Therefore the yellow's work better because you can more easily tell them apart. Also I do not feel the colors come across as childish or non-professional.

I think the pink/cyan color are necessary since the contestants were split up according to their sex and you can see two eliminated males/females each week. And as a side note, I have been keeping the first three season from using the pink/cyan colors because they are unnecessary for those seasons, because they were not split up male/female. Aspects (talk) 01:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Those are absolutely horrible reasons to not change it. If you are unable to tell the difference between a female and male contestant by reading the name or the article, then you would not even be reading the article. We can choose a different color for the bottom, so that is no reason to shoot it down. And 'I have been keeping...'? These are not your articles. If it is not changed here, then I will have it changed by higher powers through guideline restrictions. And it looks extremely childish. If you don't want to remove the colors, then perhaps we should add a gender symbol. But as it stands, it looks pathetically awful. –Turian (talk) 01:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Calling my opinions "horrible" is not a great way to start a discussion. You can tell by names like Lee, Casey, Aaron, Alex and Joe that they are males or females? I have known people of both sexes who spell their names that way. There are also the unusual names of Siobhan, Didi and Todrick that I would not be able to tell the gender. For the prior seasons, I was showing how they were attempted to use the pink/cyan colors and you would not have been able to use those as examples had I not justifiably changed them as unnecessary. Not being able to see the differences between the shades of palegoldenrod is not a horrible reason. In fact, calling the table "childish" and "pathetically awful" are more horrible reasons for changing them than any of the reasons I gave for keeping them. As for your "If it is not changed here, then I will have it changed by higher powers through guideline restrictions." that sound more like a threat for us to go with your way when this is basically a content dispute that should be decided here with a consensus. Aspects (talk) 02:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Call it a threat; I don't care. I'm just letting you know what I would do. Also, there is a list of male and female contestants on the article already; this is just redundant. I know this is your baby table, but it is not up to standards of professionalism expected here, regardless of what you say. We have 70000 different colors, and they all clash. –Turian (talk) 03:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how making the Elimination Chart look like sandpaper is going to make it look " professional ". I think it would be more professional to use common colors, like red or blue. Personally, I think we should use the Elimination Chart format used in the Project Runway or Top Chef pages, using red for eliminated or bottom 3. AT40Reviewer (talk) 7:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The current setup is not up to WP:COLOR standards for the color blind, as you can see here. Something obviously needs to change, which is why we need to use the 'palegoldenrod'. The current yellow setup is a huge issue for the colorblind. We can keep the male/female colors, but they need to change to something more matte and less harsh. Also, see my sandbox. –Turian (talk) 13:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Turian that the gender colours are unnecessary as there are two tables with the top 6 male and female contestants in them. I also have an issue with the colour scheme for btm/btm2/btm3 generally. I think different shades of red would be much more appropriate as red has connotations of danger which, especially with the lack of clarity regarding 'Btm 2', seems appropriate as the three contestants are even addressed by Ryan as being 'in danger of going home'. When there are two contestants left standing centre stage, the slightly darker shade of red for the 'saved last' contestant seems appropriate as they are placed in increasing danger of going home as they are not 'saved first'. Say what you want but being 'saved first' implies heavily that the contestant had the largest amount of votes out of the 'btm 3'. Here is an example: Qdiazissipom (talk) 21:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Please bring the old elimination board back! I liked it. We do not need it to be longer and harder to read!!!

Legend

Top 24

Top 12

Winner

Safe

Safe First

Safe Second

Eliminated

Judges' Save

Stage:		Semi-Finals			Finals
Week:		2/25	3/4	3/11	3/17	3/24	3/31	4/7	4/14	4/21	4/28	5/5	5/12	5/19	5/26
Place	Contestant	Result
	Siobhan Magnus
	Katie Stevens					Btm 3	Btm 3
	Tim Urban				Btm 3	Btm 3	Btm 3
10	Didi Benami						Elim
11	Paige Miles				Btm 3	Elim
12	Lacey Brown				Elim

While the red is better than the yellow, I think the palegoldenrod is more neutral. We don't want to spam colors because the style becomes more of an issue than the content. Also, the palegoldenrod matches the header, like the gray in the semi-finals. –Turian (talk) 21:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is necessary that the elim/btm 3 needs to match the palegoldenrod header. Red has connotations of danger which makes it a fitting colour especially when regarding the saved first and saved last contestant. I still think we should just put 'btm 2' like we have done for seasons 1 - 6 when it was never clarified if the last 2 standing were the btm 2 but oh well... i like the red. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qdiazissipom (talk • contribs) 13:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

After looking at the red, there is no way that it will go in the article. It is just as clashing as the yellow. Adding it makes us look like piss-poor editors. The table used for season three is the only table that actually looks somewhat nice. We don't need all of the flashy colors to differentiate between what is what. –Turian (talk) 14:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

A little history note (as I remember it), a consensus had been formed to stop using Bottom 2 out of the Bottom 3 unless Ryan said so and the compromise to appease both sides was to use Bottom 3 for both but have shades to differentiate them. The palegoldenrod shades were deemed to be too similar and yellow was a close choice that had discernible differences in the shades. Red was not chosen at that time I believe because were using pink for the females and the lighter shades of red were similar to the pink used.

Red would probably be my last choice of the three, but at least you call tell the shades apart. The way this discussion is going, I think we will have a hard time coming to a consensus because it seems like everyone likes something slightly different. Aspects (talk) 02:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I personally believe a gradient isn't needed but I digress. I 100% prefer the red over the yellow, if we cant have the palegoldenrod. I have actually always thought red would be the most appropriate color but could never put the reasoning into words like Qdiazissipom did, and I totally agree with what he is saying about red connotating danger/negative result. I can't think of one reason why we should use the yellow instead just because it was the color randomly picked by whoever created the gradiant back in season 7. Not to mention, the yellow is too similar to the yellow used for the wildcard in the seasons that had it. And as long as we're not matching the header in the finals, I see no reason why the Elim boxes in the semis need to match that header either and therefore it would actually make sense to make those Elim boxes red as well (or whatever color). MarkMc1990 (talk) 09:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, we aren't using red, that has already been decided. If you look at his page, you will see what we agreed to (the first one, not the second one). I am sticking to my guns, and that is the only table I will support. –Turian (talk) 12:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I would be happy with the red but I would also be equally happy with using the table on my user page. It is much bigger but looks more aesthetically pleasing and it allows us to stop abbreviating 'bottom 3' as 'btm 3' which I think makes the table look more professional. My table is much easier on the eyes. Tell me what you think. I would like to make case to adopt my table on his page as a replacement for the one in the current article. We don't need gender colours. Qdiazissipom (talk) 14:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I actually thing think the second table on your page is absolutely perfect! My only problem with the first table on your page is that the gradient doesn't match. You have two light shades of yellow for the bottom 3 and then palegoldenrod for the elim box, it doesn't make any aesthetic sense. MarkMc1990 (talk) 22:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The second one won't be going into the article. It overcomplicates and is massively redundant. We don't need to state when they are eliminated when it is said elsewhere on the table. And the red is never going to happen. When a table has no colors, it just looks plain awful on it. –Turian (talk) 22:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, well then come up with a gradient that either completely matches the header (a revised version of the palegoldenrod one I threw together at the top of this section), or another one where the color actually has some connotations of the situation like the red does. Because mixing the yellow gradient with the palegoldenrod elim boxes does not look good, and nor does using the full on bright yellow. MarkMc1990 (talk) 23:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with that gradient at the top if this section. –Turian (talk) 23:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Because of the wide variety of responses from the editors discussing the issue here, I find it very hard for anyone to find any sort of consensus to make a change. In fact, no one claimed there was one here and the edit summary that changed it was "new table with Mark's gradient", which also says nothing about consensus. Since no one has claimed such consensus I am going to revert back to the former table with an edit summary asking other editors to join the discussion here. And also seeing this table in action even on my home computer I cannot tell the different between the Bottom 3 shades of palegoldenrod when they are not right next to each other, therefore the palegoldenrods do not work for their purpose. Aspects (talk) 02:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Well me, mark and Turian agreed to the new table with the gradient mark made... If you cannot see the gradients then it is a problem with your computer. Consensus was made between me, mark and Turian and no one disagreed and the table has been in place for a few days before you felt the need to disagree. Regardless of the gradient, we were all in agreement that the new table is more aesthetically pleasing as we can spell out 'bottom 3' and we don't have the gender colours which are unnecessary as we have tables with the male and female contestants in them. As far as previous season articles, they can be changed to the new table so please don't use that as an excuse. Qdiazissipom (talk) 22:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Three editors, myself, ATReviewer and Raiderfanforever99, disagreed with the use of palegoldenrod, so it is hard to see a consensus when half of the people disagree. This is reinforced by Christianity922 with this edit summary, "Don't make chart format changes without a consenus in the talk page". And it is not just my computer, but two different computers I work with. If the shades of palegoldenrod can not be told about then it is pointless to use this as the color since you are supposed to be able to tell them apart. Since there is still no consensus on the table, it should be left as it was until there is such consensus to make the changes. Aspects (talk) 00:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

ok might I ask, If we used the current gradients for btm 3/elim then how would you feel if they were incorporated into the new table I constructed? Qdiazissipom (talk) 00:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I just recognized that the gradients for the elimination chart do not match with the color used in the " judges save " box. If you want to keep this gradient, I suggest you fix that problem. Also, try to make the gradients for saved first and saved second a little more distinct. --AT40Reviewer (talk) 21:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The saved part is fine. –Turian (talk) 21:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Second Proposal

So... I am partially thinking we should use colors, but for now, here is a better gradient for the bottom 2/3:

Safe

Safe First

Safe Second

Eliminated

Judges' Save

Male

Female

Top 3

Did Not Perform

Top 32

Wild Card

Top 12

On your second table in your sandbox I like how you put a very small cell with the gender colour next to everyones names.. That is a fair compromise and doesn't look as jarring as having the whole name cell a certain colour. Qdiazissipom (talk) 13:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this could be a compromise between the two groups. It maintains the colors some people want, yet gets rid of the clashing colors some people dislike. Thoughts? –Turian (talk) 21:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

This format is fine with me, I guess.--AT40Reviewer (talk) 22:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not okay with that bottom three gradient. Someone explain to me how it constitutes as a gradient when it goes from white, to light yellow, to more vivid yellow...to the dull palegoldenrod color? Also the "Top 3" part doesn't belong on the gender legend, it should go to the left of the white "safe" box in the bottom 3 gradient because it is describing a voting result. MarkMc1990 (talk) 22:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah... way to definitely miss the point. The first one is the only gradient, as I said right before it. The second one is just a change is color viewing. The final one is the current legend used. No where in my post did I say anything was a legend. –Turian (talk) 22:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, the colors for the first three are as follows: #FFFFFF, #FFFFE0, #FFFFAA. The only differences are the FF to E0 to AA. They are within the same gradient. I picked them because of that. –Turian (talk) 22:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

You don't need to be rude. My point is that the colors in the gradient still do not match and therefore it looks unprofessional. The Eliminated box would need to be solid yellow in order for it to work (and we already said we didn't like the yellow). MarkMc1990 (talk) 22:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Didn't intend to be rude. Would this be better?

Safe

Safe First

Safe Second

Eliminated

Judges' Save

I tweaked it to make it smooth over one another. It still has a somewhat yellow tint, but the palegoldenrod gradient is hard to differentiate without a slight variation. –Turian (talk) 23:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It is a slight improvement, but still does not match. Here's a daring idea, what if we went with a completely different color for the finals header? One that it is easier to create a distinguishable gradient for. MarkMc1990 (talk) 23:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The palegoldenrod is not going to change. And you missed what I said once again: It still has a somewhat yellow tint, but the palegoldenrod gradient is hard to differentiate without a slight variation.

Safe

Safe First

Safe Second

Eliminated

Judges' Save

That is as good as it is going to get. Either take that, or one of my previous versions. The difference are so minor, that it won't really matter in the long run. –Turian (talk) 23:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Make the saved first and saved last gradients a bit less similar and it's perfect. Qdiazissipom (talk) 23:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is what I came up with:

Safe

Safe First

Safe Second

Eliminated

Judges' Save

Keep in mind that the farther the two go away from one another, the more yellow it becomes. And like I said, you most likely can't even tell the difference between the last three versions. –Turian (talk) 23:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes I realize it is supposed to get more yellow as you go from left to right, but palegoldenrod is NOT yellow.

Safe	Safe first	Safe second	Eliminated
Y	Y	Y	Y

^That is what a gradient should look like.

Safe	Safe first	Safe second	Eliminated
Y	Y	Y	N

^That is not. MarkMc1990 (talk) 00:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I have made a suggestion on Qdiazissipom's userpage that I would like everyone to consider. MarkMc1990 (talk) 06:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind that so much, but the black is a little much. Gray would be better. I have some alternates in my sandbox that could work. –Turian (talk) 00:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I changed it back to the gray. How does it look now? MarkMc1990 (talk) 00:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Ratings, please

What happened to the weekly ratings? There are empty spaces where the ratings for the last few weeks (shows 16 through 27) should be. Someone has fallen off the wagon here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.58.123 (talk) 04:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Bottom 2 / Bottom 3 / Saved First / Saved Last.... Let's Get It Finalised

From the perspective of someone who isn't completely familiar with American idol, when looking at the elimination chart I would assume the person would be confused over the use of 'Saved first' and 'Saved Last'. The use of those two phrases gives the impression that we are too stupid to simplify the confusion of the chart by putting 'bottom 2'. The fact that we are using 'Saved first' and 'saved last' shows that the order of safety has some significance and the fact that we are noting it as 'saved first' and 'saved last' makes it quite trivial. In seasons 1 - 6, we have used 'btm 2' for the contestant saved last. Since season 7 we have suddenly taken a serious approach to this which makes the elimination charts in seasons 1 - 6 all significantly incorrect. I personally think that we should note the 'saved last' contestant as 'btm 2' and put a footnote at the bottom saying something along the lines of 'Contestants noted as 'Btm 2' were the ones that Ryan announced as being the last safe'. The show itself heavily implies this. We should either do that or put 'bottom 3' and 'Elim' in the 'palegoldenrod' without any of this 'saved first' 'saved last' nonsense. Qdiazissipom (talk) 23:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think the implication of Bottom 2 is enough to put it into the tables. Ryan would not send someone in the Bottom 2 to safety first. He never has and never will. –Turian (talk) 23:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

That is something will we do not know for sure and may never know. They could easily send the Bottom 2 person back first to create more drama between the person going home and the Bottom 3. It is all speculation and Wikipedia runs on verifiability. For a recent, more thorough discussion see the "Bottom 2" discussion above. Aspects (talk) 02:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Turian. The people who started this (Woogee and Woohookitty) claim that there is not evidence for a bottom 2, which is basically implying the possibility that it was supposed to be Tim and Lacey in the bottom 2, which makes no sense. I do want distinction between the bottom 3 and bottom 2 because, the truth of the matter is, the purpose of this article is not the show the results themselves, but the results SHOW. The only people who know the actual votes are Ryan and the producers, making the amount of votes someone got irrelevant. What is relevant, however, is what happend in the results show. The chronology of who is sent back to safety in the bottom 3 is the most important event in the results show, next to the person that was eliminated. That is why there should be a distinction.76.107.17.32 (talk)

I don't mind putting "bottom 2" for the last-saved person, just because over the past eight seasons, more often then not, Ryan does allude to the fact the last two are the bottom 2 (usually he'll say something like "so this is the bottom 2" or "Randy, what do you think looking at the bottom 2?" or something like that). And that said, I don't feel like he should have to make a fanfare of it every week for us to grasp the concept, we can make that inferation based on repeated past example. But to whoever said that the table is meant to reflect the results SHOW and not the actual results themselves, I disagree. The table is called "Elimination Chart", not "Results Show Chart". The table is meant to show the results of each week's voting and relay how close each contestant was to elimination in terms of voting rank. Distinguishing "saved first" and "saved" last is completely trivial and doesn't reveal anything about the results themselves. If the encyclopedia is assuming in this case that there is no distinction being implied of the first safe member having more votes than the last safe member, then the order that the surviving members of bottom 3 were revealed to be safe has no more meaning than the order the safe contestants on the couch were revealed to be safe/not in the bottom 3 (and we certainly don't have some silly trivial gradient for that!) Am I right? MarkMc1990 (talk) 23:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't think there is any demographic that shows the amount of votes each contestant had. The bottom 3 is based solely on the show. And if the distinction between the bottom 3 and bottom 2 is not important, why should the bottom 3 be considered important to begin with. Hell, if what happens in the results show doesn't matter, why should we even put the guest performances or the group performances. They have nothing to do with the results, right? This is not an article about who got more votes, because no one knows, so why the hell would you assume that the bottom 3 HAS to mean the bottom 3 vote-getters. " Provide evidence " (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC).

Yes, you're right, it is the bottom three people in terms of the amount of breathes they took that week... You can't be serious ca you? It is an article about documenting all aspects of the show. Be serious, or don't bother contributing. –Turian (talk) 02:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Throwing insults does not make you right in any way. These aren't like election votes. They are not revealed. They are not clear. If you have the list of the contestants and how many votes they had, by all means give it to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.107.17.32 (talk) 03:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I can do what I wish; thanks for your concern though. The premise of the show has been the same for all 9 seasons. If you want to question that, take it up with 19 Entertainment, not here. –Turian (talk) 03:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't tell you what you can and can't do, but saying that "I'm not being serious" does not automatically make you right. You are do not own this article, quit acting like you do. The majority prefers the original format, and if we did everything your way, the only visitors to this article would be...YOU! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.107.17.32 (talk) 03:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Majority? Evidence? Owning? Serious? –Turian (talk) 03:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

See. You're doing it again. You can't argue with my points, so you basically just call me an idiot. Basically, your arguement is " I'm right because you're wrong " I'm sorry, bud. It's not gonna work here. --76.107.17.32 (talk) 03:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Have we met before? I don't really know what you are trying to imply. I didn't call you an idiot; I just said your point was ridiculous. "OMG we don't even know if the bottom three got the lowest amount of votes!" Also, the person who gets eliminated has the highest amount of votes! Oh crap! Who would have ever thought that? Your point is being disruptive, that is what it is. –Turian (talk) 03:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not even implying that. You were the one that implied " OH, it could of been Tim and Lacey in the bottom 3 because Ryan decided to switch it around. I was basically implying what you guys were implying. Yes, it is complete nonsense, but it is just as much nonsense as this bottom 3/bottom 2 connundrum.--76.107.17.32 (talk) 03:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

So what do you think? You know, if you had a medium to voice such opinions. –Turian (talk) 03:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Please stop changing the elimination board. Can't you guys just use the one from past seasons? Each season, the Btm 2 and 3 changes every year. Please. This is crazy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JPSinger45 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You should voice your opinions before such discussions take place. –Turian (talk) 01:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)