This article was nominated for deletion on 1 June 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

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

Television: Idols Mid‑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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Idols task force (assessed as High-importance). Mariah Carey Bottom‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mariah Carey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mariah Carey on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Mariah CareyWikipedia:WikiProject Mariah CareyTemplate:WikiProject Mariah CareyMariah Carey articles Bottom This article has been rated as Bottom-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sign Up Dates

In the chart put the registration dates so people can know when to audition from this page-- BuoyDog ( talk) 22:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC) reply

for the judges dont put the in the info box unless they have 100% signed on with a contract — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.202.217.27 ( talk) 02:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Recently there has been a mass of edits regarding speculation and rumors of replacement judges, these claims are just that, rumors. Wikipedia does not indulge rumors. Please do not add content that is unverifiable and/or un-sourced. LiamNolan24 ( talk) 16:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Please do not add anyone's name to the judging panel until there has been official confirmation. LiamNolan24 ( talk) 20:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Why isn't anything about the fight is added in here? Penpaperpencil (Talk) 08:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC) reply

That is gossip, not worthy of mentioning. LiamNolan24 ( talk) 17:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Not a gossip, a controversy. Penpaperpencil (Talk) 05:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Unless it becomes noteworthy on the show, when it airs, then it will be added here. Not before. LiamNolan24 ( talk) 07:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Two judges fighting isn't noteworthy? Penpaperpencil (Talk) 12:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC) reply

It is already added in Nicki's article under its subsection of Mariah Carey dispute or you can try to be bold by including it here. ;-) 175.137.203.205 ( talk) 16:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Thanks ;) Penpaperpencil (Talk) 12:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Definitely, there will be a new format of elimination chart because American Idol season 12 will be having a ranking. I am proposing these new format of elimination chart. The finalists will be already cut into 10 and there will be no wildcard finalists. This is just an example: Qjtv2911 ( talk) 09:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Is this okay?? If not, edit it.. :) Qjtv2911 ( talk) 09:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply

I think we should wait until we reach the semi-finals before starting a table because we will not know who will be performing until then. Also, we cannot assume that what a producer says now is what will actually happen, since we have been mislead/late changes were made in past seasons. This table is not that much different than past tables besides the placements, so it is not really a new format, and if they do announce the placements then will add it to the table. Aspects ( talk) 04:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC) reply

The top 10 male and top 10 female semifinalists (top 20) are announced in early March, and the top 10 on March 7. I have changed some in the elimination chart.. I hope that it is much better than before. Qjtv2911 ( talk) 09:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Ok the show keeps referring to the Top 40 as "semifinalists" but logic tells us that this stage is actually the quarterfinals. The semifinals would be the Top 20 and the finals would be the Top 10. MarkMc1990 ( talk) 07:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC) reply

They are doing something different this year, they have never shown the Top 40 (or whatever the equivalent was in previous years) performing like it was the Top 24 of previous years. We'll just have to mention this, and see how this pans out in later rounds. If they say the Top 20 are the finalists, then that's what we'll say. It's always been somewhat confusing when the semifinals stage starts in the past anyway. Hzh ( talk) 09:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC) reply

I should add that they did Top 36 in season 8 in the semifinals, followed by a Top 13 at the finals. Not sure whether they'll have a Top 10 or Top 20 finalists this year. Hzh ( talk) 21:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC) reply

Well considering America didn't even get to vote in the Top 40 rounds, I don't see why this is considered the semifinals. The semifinals will be the Top 20, where America votes 5 of each gender through to the finals. The finals will be Top 10 (no wildcards this year, supposedly). It's effectively the same format as the previous two years' semifinals but with only 10 of each gender instead of 12 and no wildcards. MarkMc1990 ( talk) 23:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC) reply

It doesn't bother me whether the Vegas rounds this year is called the semifinals or not, although it does look like American Idol is changing the structure somewhat. Last year's Vegas rounds were more like the Hollywood rounds, with groups and solos, this year they decided to make it more like the Top 24 voting rounds, except that there is no voting. I suppose it's their show, they can make whatever changes they like, if they want a semifinal with no voting, then that what's what you'll get. We can just adjust accordingly, or we can stick to the previous years' structure to be consistent, but I think it would be more appropriate to do as how the show describes it. I should also say that it has always been confusing as to which stage is which, in some years they called the Top 24 the finalists, in other years they don't. We'll see what they do this year. Hzh ( talk) 02:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC) reply

I think there will be a wildcard. The viewers will pick ten while the judges will pick 2 as wildcard. Fox revealed that the finale will be on May 16 which means there will be ten weeks in the finals. If there will be twelve finalists next week, two finalists will go home because there will be only ten weeks instead of eleven or twelve. Randy hinted at the end of the show for girls, that the judges might pick a wildcard. Qjtv2911 ( talk) 12:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC) reply

True, but wait for it to be official before adding anything to the page -- BuoyDog ( talk) 16:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC) reply

Is it top 10 or top 13 for the elimination chart?-- 75.4.130.62 ( talk) 01:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC) reply

Because of the new method of revealing the results with the exact rankings of fourth place and beyond, the "safe first" and "safe last" descriptors applied to the bottom 3 in previous seasons are no longer necessary in the elimination table. Therefore, I have removed the lightest shade of blue formerly applied to "safe first" and simply changed the "safe last" descriptor to "bottom 2" in the legend. Hopefully this makes sense to everyone, but there are still people making changes to both the performance table and elimination table trying to change Paul's result to "bottom 3". MarkMc1990 ( talk) 07:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC) reply

Yes, but it depends on if they continue to the same thing the show. What the ranking should show is the Top 3, and the numbered ranking (i.e. Lazaro 4, Amber 5, etc.). They might still do bottom 3, who knows, but we should try to reflect what happens on the show as closely as possible. Hzh ( talk) 10:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC) reply

I agree that that is what the table should show. However, in Paul's case, there should be no "bottom 3" shading since the show didn't present it as such. The "safe first" and "safe last" labels are also unnecessary now that we know the exact placements, since they were originally implemented as means of distinguishing the order when no distinction between the bottom 3 and bottom 2 were made. Now if the show goes back to the old way of doing results at some point, then we could obviously add those things back. MarkMc1990 ( talk) 17:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC) reply

They're doing the traditional "Bottom 3" reveal tonight, so the ranking is not going to be a weekly thing. Wilted Youth ( talk) 20:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.128.77 ( talk) reply

Bottom 3 is still longer a thing. They brought back the traditional way of delivering the results.. Qjtv2911 ( talk) 01:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC) reply

American Idol season 12 introduced the new format of delivering the results. The show ranks the contestant based on his/her total votes. The thing is, is there any changes we shall apply to the performance table or keep the old thing because many users try to edit the table? This is my preferred table:

As of top 10, this is the contestants' performance table:

The results have common with the delivering of the rankings at The X Factor (U.S. season 2). They put "safe" at the result column because the rankings of the contestants are shown at their elimination chart. I think we can adapt what x factor page has. Qjtv2911 ( talk) 11:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC) reply

X-Factor has the same format in Idol pages for previous season, and they are doing the same thing as previous seasons, so it is rather pointless to use X-Factor as an example (you might as well make a case for consistency with previous Idol seasons). X-Factor also don't have a Top 3 I think, so they are not exactly the same. Hzh ( talk) 13:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC) reply

I think the results column should include the actual placements. The information is relevant and verifiably accurate. I think it is more important to be as specific and accurate as possible than it is to be consistent with past seasons. The latter view doesn't make much sense in my opinion, seeing as this is the first season that revealed their actual placements, so of course the other seasons' tables wouldn't have them. I also do not consider it redundant to list the placements in both the performance and elimination tables, since the elimination table can be seen as a summary of all the results columns for each week of performances. My personal preference would be to show, for example in Paul's column, "Safe (8th)". It seems like a nice compromise. MarkMc1990 ( talk) 18:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC) reply

I should say that although I think having placements in the result column is preferable, I don't mind whichever way that is done. I also think that if the placement is used, it is not necessary to say "safe", since that is obvious (I'm not sure if Bottom 2 is even necessary since it is again obvious ). Perhaps shading or coloring the Top 3 might be useful. Hzh ( talk) 20:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC) reply

Does anybody have any clue or idea why the editor called Qjtv2911 inserted this hidden comment outside the ==Top 9 – [[Lennon–McCartney]] Songbook== text? Also, per Wikipedia:Headings: "Headings should not normally contain links, especially where only part of a heading is linked." The article Lennon–McCartney itself should not be linked in the section heading, though the same editor and Yonglaytan have kept linking the title again and removed the {{ See also}} template, which I added below the heading. [1] [2] [3] -- 24.6.164.7 ( talk) 04:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC) reply

Does it really belong there? It has nothing to do with the progression of the competition itself, nor does it distinguish Aubrey as having placed 11th over Charlie in my opinion. It is not as if the winner got to re-enter the competition as was the case in the wildcard rounds of previous seasons. MarkMc1990 ( talk) 07:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC) reply

Not Heart. Every time this song is performed on Idol there seems to be a bunch of people who come to the Wikipedia page for the season and insist on changing the original artist credit to Heart without bothering to even check to see if that is right, even when the edit summary tells them that it is not. But if anyone bothers to click on the link to the song page for " Alone" will read in the opening paragraph this:

"Alone" is a song composed by Billy Steinberg and Tom Kelly. It first appeared on via Steinberg and Kelly's pet project, 1983's I-Ten, Taking a Cold Look. It was later recorded by John Stamos in his role as Gino Minelli, on the original soundtrack of the CBS sitcom Dreams in 1984. American rock band Heart made it a number one US and Canadian hit in 1987. Twenty years later, Céline Dion recorded it for her album Taking Chances.

So the original artist was I-Ten, who wrote, recorded, and released the song in 1983. John Stamos was the second artist to record it and Heart were only the third, some four years after I-Ten. And if you don't believe the Wikipedia page, try googling the information and you will see that this is correct. But in general it is probably worth actually checking information rather than going on assumptions before making changes. In most cases, all you have to do is check the individual song page, which is conveniently wikilinked. 99.192.86.200 ( talk) 13:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC) reply

I mistakenly reverted it, thinking that this was the season where the song was sung during the "Year They Were Born" show, and in that case, it's about who recorded it that year -- not the actual "original artist".

Now personally, I think that having "original artist" on these season articles is very unnecessary. (1) It's not really about who originally recorded the song, it's really who's best known for the song, and (2) if the song has an article, then if someone wanted to know who originally recorded it, they can just click the link. That's what it's there for. -- Musdan77 ( talk) 18:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC) reply

Firstly, even in a "year they were born" week the table lists the original artist, not the artist who recorded it that year. For example, in season 11 the artist listed for ""Hard to Handle" is Otis Redding, even though Redding recorded the song in 1968 while The Black Crowes recorded it in 1990, the year Phillip Phillips was born. The same is true for "Turn the Beat Around", "Let's Stay Together", and "When a Man Loves a Woman". The same thing was done in seasons 10, 8, 5, 4 and, until you changed it earlier today, season 7. (By the way, since you did change the header for season 7 the artist credit had to be changed for "If I Were Your Woman" from Gladys Knight & the Pips to Stephanie Mills.) So your suggestion that the artist listed is whoever recorded the song in the birth year is not correct.

Secondly, I agree with you that listing the original artist is unnecessary, but I have always supported not listing any artist. As you say, if someone wants to know who recorded the song - originally, most famously, or otherwise, they can just click the link to the song page. The pages for The X Factor and The Voice (In their American, British, and Australian versions) do not list any artists. So if anyone wants to get rid of artist listings here as well, I'm all for it.

Thirdly, in years past there have been discussions about listing whoever is "best known for the song" and that always results in subjective and irresolvable disputes. The chief virtue of listing the original artist is that it is (with rare exceptions) an objective question. (Last year "Love the Way You Lie" was a disputed song regarding who counts as the "original" artist, and despite the fact that Billy Joel recorded and released "Make You Feel My Love" two months before Bob Dylan did, the Idol pages count Dylan as the "original" artist.) The most famous version of a song is almost certain to be frequently disputed. Which is why the simplest solution is the best - list no artist. But if you really want to give someone credit for a song, I'd go with the songwriter before anyone who recorded it anyway. But I'd be happy with the Voice / X Factor system. 99.192.51.126 ( talk) 19:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.86.200) reply

I support not listing any artist MarkMc1990 ( talk) 01:36, 28 March 2013 (UTC) reply

I too would support removal of original artist, although I think there are occasions when the listing of artist may be justified (for example when the contestant specifically stated which version of the song he or she had done). Hzh ( talk) 12:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC) reply

I'm going to go ahead an be bold and remove the artist names. 99.192.53.38 ( talk) 21:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.86.200) reply

It will be applicable to all seasons as well. ApprenticeFan ^work 04:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC) reply

When is the american idol finale? Will it end at May 16? Qjtv2911 ( talk) 06:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC) reply

The schedule says the American Idol season ends on May 16. So either in one week there will be no elimination, or they might do something special on the May 15/16 week. The producers are changing the rules as they go apparently (e.g. the judges' save), so who knows what might happen. Hzh ( talk) 08:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC) reply

I think the last sentence in the finalist section for Kree Harrison should be removed that reads “She is the contestant who has been the most times in the top 2/3” because technically Angie Miller is tied with Kree Harrison for being in the top 2/3. In the week of the top 5 (4/18), Kree Harrison was in the bottom 2 with Jangle Arthur leaving Candice, Angie, and Amber in the top 3. They both have been in the top 2/3 five times. CCamp2013 ( talk) 06:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC) reply

It should be removed because that is something we don't know for sure, since top 2/3 was only revealed in some weeks. Hzh ( talk) 07:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC) reply

There's an IP editor put during Final 4, week 1 that both Angie and Kree were declared safe, Ryan never mentioned them they are in the "top two", only he said Amber and Candice were in the bottom two of this performance week. Can someone revert this? ApprenticeFan ^work 16:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC) reply

The highlighted row in the performance tables normally has a negative connotation, indicating those who are eliminated each week. However, it has a positive connotation during the semifinals and Top 2, where it indicates those advancing and the winner, respectively. This is not consistent and can lead to visual confusion. I believe this issue was addressed last year, though it never got resolved. Might I suggest either adjusting the highlighting to be consistent, or perhaps using a light red highlight when it's negative and light green when it's positive? MarkMc1990 ( talk) 02:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Agreed The "Elimination chart" has too much color (in my opinion), yet these others are just gray. (??) -- Musdan77 ( talk) 02:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Agreed I also agree to change something regarding background color at the performance table. Qjtv2911 ( talk)

The criticism between on Angie Miller's controversial is truly sourced and do not remove the section, its really similar to Pia Toscano's most controversial elimination two seasons ago. ApprenticeFan ^work 08:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC) reply

I have to agree with the removal. It wasn't that controversial. And it's not like with Pia because Angie made it to the Top 3! I mean that's very, very good. -- Musdan77 ( talk) 02:38, 18 May 2013 (UTC) reply

I have no opinion one way or another, but just to say that whether someone reached Top 3 or Top 9 is not a reason to say whether the elimination is controversial or not. Someone can get to Top 2 and it would still be controversial if they don't win (e.g. Clay Aiken and Adam Lambert). Hzh ( talk)

I think I'll add just a general observation, perhaps a suggestion in the future when contestants get eliminated to decide if something is controversial. Generally something becomes controversial when there are a lot of coverage on the subject with many dissenting opinions. The Pia Toscano elimination can be considered controversial because of the widespread coverage, and well-known figures weighed in on the issue, for example Tom Hanks. Similarly for Jennifer Hudson when Elton John criticized her elimination. I haven't been paying attention to Angie Miller's elimination, so I won't comment on this, but I would say in general if it is only fans getting upset, it isn't worth putting in, because fans get upset about the elimination of their favorites all the time. Hzh ( talk) 15:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC) reply

The effect of vote splitting (i.e. Amber's votes shifting to Candice rather than Angie) easily accounts for why a singer can get more votes than any other contestant in prior weeks and then later get fewer votes than the (same) other contestants. This effect has caused many "surprise" eliminations. Specifically it's important to realize that when voters are only allowed to indicate their favorite (instead of a full ranking of all the choices), the choice with the most votes is not necessarily the most popular (and the choice with the fewest votes is not necessarily the least popular). Therefore I agree that Angie's elimination was not "controversial" to the extent required for inclusion in the American Idol controversies article, although it may qualify here as a "surprise" elimination (if there is a reference to that effect). VoteFair ( talk) 04:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Why? Is this the "controversial" thing is true? ApprenticeFan ^work 05:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC) reply

In my personal opinion, controversy is too strong of a word for Angie's dismissal. This was surprising just because Miller should have beaten out Kree based upon the third to last competition episode. But at the end of the day, Miller would have probably been eliminated to Candace shortly thereafter had she stayed anyway. I think it was evident Candace was the more talented singer, but that's more getting into my subjective opinion. Bottomline, I believe the section was right to go or at least be removed from this section in particular. As Hzh has noted, a controversy is something really being duked out within the media and among everyone. This was hardly a controversy. You might consider creating a surprise castoffs section and sticking it there but this section is not the place with "controversy" titling the section. AmericanDad86 ( talk) 17:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Don't be a crap, please be civil and make your five pillars that your "failure controversy" is false. It's really sourced. ApprenticeFan ^work 13:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC) reply

I just got round to reading the sources, nothing in there however suggest that the elimination is controversial. What a few sites said to be shock elimination is not the same as a controversial elimination (some there don't even say that it is a shock elimintaion, e.g. Billboard, so there isn't even a consensus on if it is a shock elimination). Better sources are needed, otherwise I would support the deletion of the section. Hzh ( talk) 13:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Angie's elimination was definitely "shocking", as expressed here and here. Just because a site doesn't state that doesn't necessarily mean they disagree. As for whether it's "controversial", I support keeping the article because there's a significant amount of different opinions regarding her elimination. Kree's sob story (Both of her parents died), combined with the fact that East lines were down and many of Angie's phone votes were canceled(Angie herself expressed confusion regarding this situation) ultimately resulted in Angie's elimination. Considering Melinda Doolittle's elimination was considered "controversial", I see no reason why this shouldn't be. 6xdandangp ( talk) 11:00, 1 June 2013

My problem with it is primarily the sources. You'd find "shocker" and "shock" in the headlines of blogs and minor news source of so many eliminations that it is rather meaningless to use them to indicate controversy. Here for example the elimination of Michael Johns in Season 7 - here, here, here, and here, on Siobhan Magnus in Season 9, here, and here, and on Colton Dixon in Season 11 - here, here and here. I can go on, there are half a dozen other eliminations like these. They are shock eliminations, but not really controversial (although some, not me, would claim that Siobhan's elimination is controversial due to some irregularities). For Angie Miller neither Billboard nor Rolling Stone call it a shocker, and all you have is just blogs and minor news sources. You really need better sources to call this elimination controversial. Hzh ( talk) 12:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Note also that for the Melinda Doolittle one, whoever put it there had Simon Cowell sounding off about her elimination, saying she should have won, and that made it just past the controversy test, having a major figure weighing on the issue. So even if I don't think her elimination is controversial, I can't object to it being listed. On this, you'd find that Colton Dixon's elimination might qualify better as a controversy than Angie Miller because Carrie Underwood expressed her shock and surprise on his elimination (even if personally I don't think his elimination, like Melinda's, is controversial). I would therefore say that to support your contention that it is a controversy, you would need to find something similar. Hzh ( talk) 12:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC) reply

ApprenticeFan has made it so I cannot edit the page anymore and even stated the city I was from so I deleted my earlier posts. I will however stand by my statements that this is NOT a controversy and the sources are very biased. From seeing the opinions on the talk page almost everyone has agreed that this is not a controversy so I do not see why it is continually allowed, but if someone who is completely biased has the power to not allow you to edit the page well then more power to you. 184.91.36.102 ( talk) 07:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC) reply

I am not going to template-warn you, but your presence on the harsh controversy in the shocking elimination. In past seasons, Constantine Maroulis (season 4), Kellie Pickler and Chris Daughtry (season 5) have had both shocking eliminations, Daughtry was in the bottom two once before until his actual elimination when he reached into the top 4, but both have no controversy status. As you likely to turn case in WP:BOOMERANG. I am denied mean this edit may be seen to admins and should agree or disagree with it. ApprenticeFan ^work 12:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC) reply