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

United States: Television 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. This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as High-importance). 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).

During The Top 5 Results Show Jamie Fox Promoted His New Movie The Soloist Successfully And Then Got Cutoff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bvernon199 ( talk • contribs) 22:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Per our policies talkpages are not chat forums or to be used for general discussion that do not directly address improving this article. Also we need to remain civil to one another. For chart proposals please develop those in your own userspace. -- Banjeboi 02:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Yahoo was reporting around 7:30 pacific time, before the show even aired, that Kris Allen won Idol. Did they do this shit last season, report it before the show aired? I've seen the last couple season finales and that didn't happen. Fox advertises the finale as being live (i.e. a circa 15-second delay), so I assumed that at, oh, 8:10 pm (west coast time, my time), I was watching something that was being taped at 8:10 pm in LA. -- 98.232.181.201 ( talk) 03:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC) reply

The results were announced at 10:00 pm Eastern time, which is 7:00 pm Pacific time; the finale was live for eastern and central time zones only, it is tape-delayed for the west coast. -- Jackieboy87 ( talk · contribs) 03:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Why should there be two indentical sections on Itunes one at the start and one at the end? Only to promote Itunes. Wikipedia is not for that! Suggest to remove top mentioning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.127.162.156 ( talk) 14:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC) reply

 Done A user moved it to the top, and another restored the deleted bottom one, creating two of the same. I now deleted the top one since it isn't as important there as the other info. Thanks for keeping an eye on it. -- Mtjaws ( talk) 18:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Grand Finale (American Idol 8) should be merged with American Idol (season 8)#Finale. The article can easily fit into the main article, and currently is a WP:Content fork.   iMatthew :  Chat  19:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC) reply

No. Gage ( talk) 07:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Besides that, we've been doing this for a couple of seasons now. It works well because putting it here would simply crowd an already crowded page. -- User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 08:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Disagree - The Grand Finale is a different event as opposed to the show. It's more of an actual concert rather than just a results show. It may have added historicity if it is able to launch a music superstar.-- 23prootie ( talk) 22:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Have any of you read Wikipedia:Content fork?   iMatthew :  Chat  22:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC) reply

How on Earth is that a content fork? -- Banjeboi 23:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Disagree. Grand Finale (American Idol 8) is an appropriate sub article to this and should be represented here summary style. -- Banjeboi 23:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Disagree - I think the page is too cluttered if all the finale info isn't split off on its own page. CloversMallRat ( talk) 05:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I changing the 'Elim' to palegoldenrod as they are too similar to the wildcard colours Frazzler9 ( talk) 13:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC) reply

i know Ryan never said they were the bottom 4... but it was heavely implied... ryan would say to JaSMINE... come to centre stage please... then to Kris ... you are safe... then to Megan... come down to centre stage... he only referenced Megan and Anoop as being 'safe' in comparison to Jasmine and Jorge respectively...I will put it btm 4 for Megan and Anoop even though I know that it will be reverted Frazzler9 ( talk) 15:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC) reply

That is entirely original research and has no place on Wikipedia. I have reverted you. -- Jackieboy87 ( talk · contribs) 16:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I copied this performance summary list of the 'Popstars The Rivals' wikipedia article. I think it looks more proffessional.. What do You guys think?

Frazzler9 ( talk) 23:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC) reply

It doesn't make any sense to me to have this AND the elimination chart. Keep them separate. -- User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 08:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I have no idea how this might help anything as it is more confusing than what we already have. Sorry. -- Banjeboi 08:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC) reply

No they're meant to be in place of the performance lists... Atm we have those weekly lists. I think this example will work better as it says 'btm 3', 'btm 2' . 'elim' right next to the name so you don't have to waste time trying to find the eliminated name and their position in the performance list. here is a better example:

Week 2 (1 November 2003)

Semi Finals Group 1 (18 February 2009)

Theme: Billboard Hot 100 hits

Frazzler9 ( talk) 10:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC) reply

What don't you understand about no? Gage ( talk) 03:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply

What don't you understand about the fact that I don't value your opinion...

This format is used on the Pop Idol page so if you want to keep consistency then you should stick to the original Idol wikipedia article. This way looks more professional and the notes section is good for putting facts like Alexis, Allison and Lil were the highest voted females and information about the save etc... 92.2.27.46 ( talk) 21:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Actually, the Pop Idol page was only done recently - I should know, I helped do most of it. If anything, the Pop Idol pages should change to these American Idol pages, which are far more established. Pop Idol doesnt even run anymore, making it sort of irrelevant. ( Kyleofark ( talk) 15:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)) reply

Well if you made the pop idol page then did you make these tables. They are really good and are more clear and simple to read. 92.4.65.142 ( talk) 22:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I made some of the tables, but the first few were already done by someone else, who I imagine thought that Pop Idol would be under the same category as The X Factor, which followed it as such in the UK ( Kyleofark ( talk) 23:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)) reply

I'm going to revert the changes just made. I don't see a consensus here for this change. LEAVE. IT. ALONE. :) Tired of the constant messing with the tables in this article. -- User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 06:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply

We need a consensus before massive changes are made again. -- User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 11:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I didn't actually make the change this time actually haha.. But i vote for these tables to be used 92.4.83.254 ( talk) 20:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply

The tables do look ok, but every single section for all eight seasons would have to be changed, to create a unified look. I am fine with the current, simplified format, and object to "change for the sake of change". Everything doesn't have to look like the European counterparts. -- Mtjaws ( talk) 15:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I also do not think the changes are necessary. Adding these tables seem to be change for changes sake and adding color to brighten up the page, which are two of Frazzler9's current themes. As evidenced two quotes above not making the change this time, we know all of the IP addresses starting with 92. are Frazzler. I have been reverting these table changes from the first two seasons because the editor, 70.52.179.169, refuses to discuss anything in an edit summary, article talk page or his own talk page. So no, Frazzler you, your many IP 92. statements/edits and possibly also 70.52.179.169 have not "gained consensus." Aspects ( talk) 17:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply

By the way I was not making any effort to conceal my IP address. I just hadn't signed in to Wikipedia. I looked at this page and saw that someone had implemented the tables into the article so I just adjusted them to look more professional and sophisticated. My aim is not 'colour for the sake of colour'. i prefer these tables as they make more direct emphasis to the advanced or eliminated contestants. The notes section I particularly like because we can say that the contestant was eliminated but then add that he/she was selected for the wild Card; a similar debate occured with the elimination chart and that the semi final performance should say 'elim' instead of 'WC'. The original list at the moment never say that the contestants who didn't advance were eliminated. It just shows the Wild Cards and the top 3. To be absolutely sure that the contestants were eliminated you would have to check on the elimination chart. The tables act as a more efficient resource and doesn't need to be cross-checked with the elimination chart. The colour I feel isn't distracting or in appropriate... I find that it is used well. BY the way I am not 70.52.179.169... and the only IP 92. I have are my computer and my ipod touch. Frazzler9 ( talk) 18:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply

So with this edit, [1], you admit you do not have consensus but then you still make the edits? Aspects ( talk) 16:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I was just showing an accurate completion of the tables. I think that the notes section is useful but needs to be trimmed down and not to take up so much space. I htink the tables are more useful and act as a 'stand-alone' resource. You don't need to cross-reference the tables and the elimination chart, everything is perfectly clear. 92.4.67.8 ( talk) 17:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Okay, one more request to please STOP making changes without discussing them here AND getting a consensus. I believe that frazzler is the ONLY one that is interested in these changes. Not only is there a consensus, there is a fairly strong consensus for frazzler to stop making arbitrary changes on his own whim. I would recommend that frazzler start up his own AI web-page where he can change things daily to his hearts content and stop making changes to the Wikipedia. Tedying ( talk) 02:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC) reply

You really need to chill out.... Why are you getting so worked up about an edit which you probably didn't experience and if you did you could have just taken 2 seconds to revert it. I doubt that it caused you much trouble. I was just showing what an accurate completion of the tables would look like. I am not the only one wanting this edit... IP 70 actually made all the tables and added them to this article. The tables make this article look more proffesional. The movie week especially looks jumbled and stupid. 92.6.113.88 ( talk) 18:59, 9

June 2009 (UTC)

Wild Card Round - Billboard Hot 100 hits

I much prefer these tables. If there is a concern about space then we can eliminate the 'artists' sections and merge it with the song section to make it a 'songs (original artists)'. 92.6.113.88 ( talk) 20:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC) reply

check otu this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pop_Idol_(series_2)#Elimination_chart ... this is the pop Idol article and they use tables.. they lose the notes section however after the semi finals 92.6.113.88 ( talk) 20:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC) reply

So what was the final score of votes between Kris and Adam? This is something American Idol never mentions on the show (or rarely). And its pretty important for validity. 24.61.21.58 ( talk) 05:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply

There is no way of knowing, official numbers were not released, and rarely are. Gage ( talk) 16:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Hm. Lame. So I guess we all just trust that the show is delivering us the proper winner every week without actually knowing the true results. (not like that couldn't be fooled with, I know, but it would be nice to know anyway).

Someone needs to elaborate on the AT&T scandal because there are quite alot of significant details not gone into there..like the exponential voting, free cell phones given out, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.21.58 ( talk) 06:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I was just doing some work, and browsing through, various contestant articles. Why does every finalist except for Alexis Grace have an article? I noticed the deletion page (so don't just point me there), and it seems very shady to me that it was first kept then deleted a VERY short time later, with very little discussion, and no reference to the previous time when it was kept. Anyways, it just seems odd that Jorge Nunez and Jasmine Murray--neither of whom lasted as long in the competition as Grace--have articles about them and she doesn't. And someone protected Alexis Grace so the article can't even be created. I just don't understand all of this stuff. Unitanode 13:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• sigh* Long story short: the deletionists won the argument for deleting her article, because we couldn't come up with a reason why she was truly notable at the time. Jasmine was considered "notable" on the merits of her "Miss America's Outstanding Teen" title; I have no idea what made Jorge notable. But based on the fact that she finished 11th and hasn't done anything "notable" since, I'd just leave it be - I'm afraid if anyone makes a big stink about it again, the deletionists will just come back and try to wipe out some more contestant pages (i.e. Jorge, Jasmine, Sarver, etc...). Cespence17 ( talk) 16:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Actually it started out with articles for Alexis, Danny and Michael since they were the first three to advance to the final 12/13. They passed the first AfD and then they were overturned on review. By that time the deletionists were going after Von Smith and Jackie Tohn, that both had articles before they were on American Idol, and Danny and Michael's articles had numerous references to fulfill WP:MUSIC. If only Alexis had made the top 10, chances are more articles would have been written about her and since she would have gone on tour, would have increased her chances to pass WP:MUSIC. I tried to get the last version before the deletion on a user page of mine but it seem to get lost in the shuffle of the deletion review and never happened. Now I do not have the effort. If someone else wants to try, go to Wikipedia:Deletion review asking to have the page userified. Aspects ( talk) 17:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• It all seems a bit pedantic and over-the-top. Why would anyone care if Alexis had an article? Doesn't EVERY finalist on AI have an article? I truly don't understand the motivations of people who argue for deletion of articles like that one. Unitanode 18:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply

she should have an article as she was in the top 12... thats how it works... I'm going to the admins if the deletionists don't let us have an article for Alexis Grace Frazzler9 ( talk) 19:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply

It is a bit silly that Alexis doesnt have an article, though I do understand why. To be honest, I think more needs to be written about her on the main AI8 page. All whats there now is "Alexis has been singing at a young age" which is a bit basic and not at all informative about Grace, considering a lot of aspiring artists sing from a young age. If anyone could find sources, im sure it would be useful if it were mentioned that her exit was a shock, that she has a son and so on.( Kyleofark ( talk) 21:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)) reply

Alexis deserves an article (she's unlucky, isn't she? first the tour, now the only finalist without an article). If she had survived just one more week, she'd already have one.-- Yolgnu ( talk) 04:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I changed the wording of a sentence in their short biography things. They both previously said "Jasmine/Jorge was the first to be eliminated from the top 13 along with Jasmine Murray/Jorge Nunez. I felt that to give the wrong message, because whilst they were the first two to be eliminated, and we're unsure of the order, its strange to say that two people were the first to be eliminated. Im not even entirely sure that it makes sense. I changed it to "Jasmine was eliminated in the first week of the finals, along with Jorge" and the same for Jorge, which i feel makes more sense. I know its minor, but I thought id mention the change here anyway. :) ( Kyleofark ( talk) 22:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)) reply

(Moved elimination chart to User:Frazzler9/Sandbox instead of continually having new charts here on the talk page. Aspects ( talk) 20:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)) reply

I think this is a good idea and should be up for discussion as this version of the elimination chart is more in-sync with the shows format in which the highest-voted female, male and the next highest vote recipient advances. You get the impression from this table through the use of the male and female colours that the highest male and female advanced. I have some problems though. Do we know for definite that Kris, Jorge and Michael were the 'next highest'? If so then should their semi final result block contain '2' in the cyan colour or '3' in the palegoldenrod. I fear that if it was the 'cyan' colour it might give the impression that 2 guys get voted through. i got this idea from other idol articles which show the vote placement for the semi finals by using '1' and '2' on contestants semi final performances. I implimented this idea into season 1 and 3 articles as i thought it made the table more accurate. one issue i had with this is that the column width is not equal to the 'btm 3' column lenght so I put an extra '0' in front of the semi final dates. I know u can increase column width but I didn't want to mess with it.. I am not putting this idea on the table just for change sake but I feel that is useful and you can't deny that I have a point. 92.3.181.207 ( talk) 20:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC) reply

The changes you are proposing make the table more confusing. "You get the impression from this table through the use of the male and female colours that the highest male and female advanced." That is exactly what happened. The problems with placing the numbers are 1) the placements of the men were never fully explained on any of the three semi-final weeks, it is confusing how two people couple could be 1 and it is leads one to believe every week the top two men and the top woman would advance when it could have been been two women and one man. Aspects ( talk) 20:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC) reply

On the season 7 article Kinnik Sky and Kevin Covais are, in the elimination chart, listed as 'btm 3' in their own gender colours on top 20 week. It is the same principle as Allison was the 1st voted female as Kinnik was the btm 3 female and Adam was the 1st voted male as Kevin was the btm 3 male. We could possibly put '1 - 2' on Kris and Adam? On the main AI page it once said that ADam, Scott and Danny were the highest. The table acts as a stand-alone source and isn't as reliant on the other text in the wikipedia chart as the old table. I still think this table should be up for consideration... 92.3.181.207 ( talk) 21:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• Long story short, you have no consensus to change the chart to your preferred form. Stop doing so until such time as you can gather consensus for it. Unitanode 05:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply

ok i don't mean this disrespectfully but shut up. I have never changed the article to include this table and what i'm doing now is trying to gain consensus so your comment is irrelevant as it is stupid.. My change is appropriate. Like the season 5 article, Kinnik sky has a btm 3 in pink and kevin covais has a btm 3 in blue... This is the same principle.. and it makes sense. at the moment it says 'top 13' What does that mean???? They advance to the top 13 but it doesn't make sense when it says 'top 13'. The contestants arn't announced as 'top 13'. They have advanced to the top 13. 92.0.139.111 ( talk) 15:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I don't mean this disrespectfully, but it must just be a huge coincidence that another anon IP just happens to be trying to force the new chart format into the article, right? Telling people to "shut up" is incredibly counterproductive, especially when you're wrong about the issue you're discussing with them. Unitanode 16:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Just to add my two cents in this, but I really dont see the point in adding this information. Anyone with any sense would work out that the people with "top 13" are the ones who went through, just by them having "Top 13" and the other contestants from their group having "Elim". Also, seeing as we have no idea of which males were the 1st placed male, it's just going to get confusing. I think it should just be left as it is. The table is fine, people need to stop making endless changes to it. ( Kyleofark ( talk) 16:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)) reply

excuse me im not an anon IP.. This is frazzler9 and ip70 is not me... The table is more of a results table than an elimination table & so the placements should be charted. If we do not kno the male placements we can put 1-2 92.0.139.111 ( talk) 19:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply

(Moved elimination chart to User:Frazzler9/Sandbox instead of continually having new charts here on the talk page.) Aspects ( talk) 22:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I feel that the wild card colours are too similar to the elimination colour scheme especially the yellow 'elims'. i am suggesting this scheme posted below... We could also change the 'save' colour to this scheme as it is the same concept: the judges are saving a contestant who was eliminated at one stage in the competition. The WC colour is too similar to the elimination chart colours 92.3.174.44 ( talk) 14:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC) reply

check out my awesome ideas at User:Frazzler9/Sandbox.. these are significant and not foolish ideas 92.3.174.44 ( talk) 19:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I am changing the wild card colours to the same colour used for the judges save. I am doing this because A) the wild card colours are too similar to the btm 3/btm 2/Elim colour scheme and B) because it is a similar concept: the judges saving contestant/contestants who were originally eliminated 92.3.174.44 ( talk) 11:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC) reply

It's completely pointless to add "top 2" in their table. If Matt got eliminated and Adam and Kris were in the bottom 3, it's pretty obvious they were top 2 since they were the only ones left. It just adds visual pollution to the article. -- Tam001 ( talk) 21:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Because it clears a maybe slight confusion as the show doesn't usually announce the top 2 and it is not common in the american idol results. The 'top 2' in the voting is the narrowest voting block to be revealed on the show as in some cases could make implications who the final 2 could be and so I think we need to put 'top 2' in the chart to clear up possible confusion as the 'btm 3' (Kris) was in theory also the 'top 3'. something in an off-green colour which makes implications that they were the highest vote getter (full on green is the winner). Also it fills in a whole column of the chart 92.5.34.74 ( talk) 18:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC) reply

"Top 2" are not needed in the charts. Since the other three are listed as being "Elim", "Btm 2" and "Btm 3", then it naturally means that the other two would be in the Top 2. Aspects ( talk) 19:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC) reply

The only time top 2/3 should be listed is in situations where there is a gap between the top 2/3 and the bottom 2/3. Like in AI6, where we knew Melinda/Lakisha/Jordin were the top 3 one week. ( Kyleofark ( talk) 22:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)) reply

Currently Kris Allen's image is being used twice in the article. First in the infobox at the top of the article and second next to his mini-biography. I have removed it from the article since I cannot recall any Wikipedia article using the same picture twice in the article, just to have it reverted without an explanation. I do not want to have an edit war, so I am starting a discussion here to gain a consensus on the image. Aspects ( talk) 04:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC) reply

I feel that since the elimination chart is more of a results summary (if it was just elimination chart then there would be no btm 3) then we should place the semi-final positions e.g. Allison, Alexis, Lil were the highest voted female for their group so they are '1' in the female colour. For the two guys that advanced each week we should put '1-2' in cyan showing that they were either the 1st or second male that advanced. In a perfect world, if we knew which position the guys came in then we could put the 2nd guy as '3' in palegoldenrod showing that the 3rd spot is not gender specific. 92.4.145.177 ( talk) 21:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Frazzler, these changes were earlier discussed less than three months ago here on this talk page. From the earlier discussion that still holds firm here: The problems with placing the numbers are that the placements of the men were never fully explained on any of the three semi-final weeks and it is leads one to believe every week the top two men and the top woman would advance when it could have been been two women and one man. Again this seems to be another way for you to add color to the table.

Also, you seem to have this tendency to make changes to the article and when called on them for not being discussed, you revert back to your version and then add something to the talk page. Per WP:BRD, once reverted you need to discuss on the talk page to gain a consensus, not revert and start a discussion. Then you also tell people to see the talk page, when there is no discussion, just your comment. I am going to revert back to the Adv version until such time that there is a consensus for these edits. Aspects ( talk) 01:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC) reply

We need to be as vague as possible in regards to AI placements. They simply aren't forthright enough with them for us to say "X finished X". -- User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 05:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC) reply

If putting '1-2' for the two male contestants that advanced makes the impression that 1 female and 2 males advanced each week then having 'Adv' for all three who advanced from each group makes the impression that the top 3 voted contestants advanced which is not the case. The highest male, female and then the next highest vote recipient were the ones who advanced. The 3rd highest female could have more votes than the top 3 male contestants... My chart idea gives the impression that gender was an important factor as all the female contestants (Alexis, Allison and Lil) are blocked as '1' in pink showing that they were the highest voted female. My edits are not vague at all. Michael and Danny were the top 2 male vote-getters as Alexis was the highest female vote getter. We could simply put an asterix at the bottom of the chart saying something along the lines of: out of each group of 12 , the highest voted male, highest voted female, and the next highest vote recipient advanced. In each group two males advanced however it was never revealed who was the highest male and who was the next highest vote recipient. It's a result summary and so the placements are important. If we're only basing this chart on the sole outcomes of the show then we would only show eliminations and not 'Btm 3' or 'Btm 2'. I am not doing this to add color to the table, it just makes the chart for factual... EDIT: Instead of putting '1 - 2' which looks a bit unclear I have replaced it with 'Top 2' in the cyan color. This makes perfect sense as it shows that Michael and Danny, Kris and Adam, Jorge and Scott were the 'Top 2' male contestants in their group. Frazzler9 ( talk) 12:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Your interpretation of "Adv" in the chart as meaning that they were the top 3 is YOUR interpretation of the chart. Adding top 2 or whatever is also an interpretation given that the show is notorious for being unclear about placements before the final 12. It's best to just simply say that they advanced and leave it as that. Doing anything else is reading things into what was said. They advanced. Period. Leave it at that. Nothing else really matters given how vague this show is about placements. -- User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 09:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC) reply

On the elimination chart, I have replaced the 'adv' with other things that make more sense. 'Adv' is very vague. From the chart, I can gather that the top 3 voted contestants advanced. That is however not the case in reality. The top 3 females may have more votes that the top male but still the highest voted male, female and the next highest vote getter advanced. I have put a footnote at the bottom of the chart which says something along the lines of 'every week highest male, female and next highest advanced. Every week, 2 males advanced however it was never revealed which male was the highest and which male won the non-gender specific slot'... Because of this I have replaced 'adv' with 'Top 2' in the cyan colour for male contestants and 'Top' in pink for the female contestants that were non wild-card as we know that they were the highest female vote getters. This new format makes the chart much more correct especially with the footnote at the bottom. Frazzler9 ( talk) 02:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Per WP:BRD, you need to gain a consensus since your changes have already been contested. This seems to me to be another case of you adding changes for changes sake and adding colors to brighten up the page, two of your constant themes throughout this article. Your first edit summary stated "makes more sense and is important... look at note at bottom of chart", if your changes to the table really made more sense then the chart footnote would not be needed. We went through a similar change to this less than four months ago. The table has been stable since then, so why bring the changes up now, besides the fact that you never seem satisfied with any version and have to keep making changes. You have brought so many changes to these tables, and each time we ask you to bring them up in the talk page and make the changes in your sandbox, to then gain a consensus to see if other editors agree with you. Instead you keep making edit after edit, reversion after reversion on the talk page without trying to gain a consensus.

We have to be vague because the show was not specific. With your changes, it makes it look like the top two males were voted through and the top female was voted through as a rule. For another thing you put "Top 4" in the wild card round that makes it appear it was a voting round and those were the top four vote getters, which is incorrect. Please gain a consensus here, instead of continually making the same edits over and over again. Aspects ( talk) 02:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Came across this tidbit about what season 8 people got paid and their financial obligations [2], figured it would make an interesting addition to the article somewhere. -- Hourick ( talk) 17:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC) reply

As for the song list: can anyone please revert it back to become similar with that of season 7's? Season 7's list is much better than what we have, as we actually get to easily see the songs sung by each of performer if they are listed together. Hope this is a good argument for you guys.

As for the grand finale: the article has been deleted. Anyone who can actually re-write the event in this article? LordBelly06 ( talk) 07:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC) reply

The article was userified to my account, User:Aspects/sandbox/Grand Finale (American Idol 8), but I have not yet gotten around to. Aspects ( talk) 00:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on American Idol (season 8). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{ cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{ nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090317095952/http://weblogs.newsday.com:80/entertainment/music/idol/blog/2009/03/jorge_nunez.html to http://weblogs.newsday.com/entertainment/music/idol/blog/2009/03/jorge_nunez.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090425005838/http://weblogs.newsday.com:80/entertainment/music/idol/blog/2009/04/david_archuleta_grins_his_way.html to http://weblogs.newsday.com/entertainment/music/idol/blog/2009/04/david_archuleta_grins_his_way.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.— ^{cyberbot II} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on American Idol (season 8). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{ cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{ nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080828002329/http://ap.google.com:80/article/ALeqM5iwXD4BoO2HF6nbttn2FU7Cw_ZtowD92PCML81 to http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iwXD4BoO2HF6nbttn2FU7Cw_ZtowD92PCML81
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090605001710/http://weblogs.newsday.com:80/entertainment/music/idol/blog/2009/03/lil_rounds_makes_us_feel_great.html to http://weblogs.newsday.com/entertainment/music/idol/blog/2009/03/lil_rounds_makes_us_feel_great.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090312000257/http://www.etonline.com:80/news/2009/03/71473/ to http://www.etonline.com/news/2009/03/71473/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090314070105/http://weblogs.newsday.com:80/entertainment/music/idol/blog/2009/03/american_idol_cant_use_nasty_1.html to http://weblogs.newsday.com/entertainment/music/idol/blog/2009/03/american_idol_cant_use_nasty_1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.— ^{cyberbot II} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on American Idol (season 8). 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/20090421002658/http://www.wnct.com/nct/lifestyles/faith_values/article/american_idol_finalists_are_church_worship_leaders/32095/ to http://www.wnct.com/nct/lifestyles/faith_values/article/american_idol_finalists_are_church_worship_leaders/32095/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090526101822/http://www.wral.com:80/entertainment/blogpost/4811492/ to http://www.wral.com/entertainment/blogpost/4811492/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090216215650/http://clefhangers.com:80/news.asp to http://www.clefhangers.com/news.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090211210336/http://clefhangers.com:80/albums.asp to http://www.clefhangers.com/albums.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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 21:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on American Idol (season 8). 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/20090808172751/http://omg.yahoo.com/news/paula-abdul-leaving-american-idol/26014?nc to http://omg.yahoo.com/news/paula-abdul-leaving-american-idol/26014?nc
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120326032330/http://www.times-herald.com/local/The-audition-you-didnt-see-647953 to http://www.times-herald.com/local/The-audition-you-didnt-see-647953
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090612041325/http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=%2Fwww%2Fstory%2F06-08-2009%2F0005039853&EDATE= to http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=%2Fwww%2Fstory%2F06-08-2009%2F0005039853&EDATE=
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090227093625/http://www.joesplaceblog.com/2009/02/24/adam-lambert-interview-with-sign-on-san-diego/ to http://www.joesplaceblog.com/2009/02/24/adam-lambert-interview-with-sign-on-san-diego/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090601154754/http://www.mlive.com/news/kzgazette/index.ssf?%2Fbase%2Fnews-32%2F123459063858410.xml&coll=7 to http://www.mlive.com/news/kzgazette/index.ssf?%2Fbase%2Fnews-32%2F123459063858410.xml&coll=7
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090529010322/http://blogs.augusta.com/node/2384 to http://blogs.augusta.com/node/2384
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090528214259/http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/40164 to http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/40164
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090529021550/http://blogs.usatoday.com/idolchatter/2009/03/megan-joy-dumps.html?csp=34%2F to http://blogs.usatoday.com/idolchatter/2009/03/megan-joy-dumps.html?csp=34%2F
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090727235629/http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20261333&BRD=1377&PAG=461&dept_id=172922&rfi=6 to http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20261333&BRD=1377&PAG=461&dept_id=172922&rfi=6
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090701070309/http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2009/05/american-idol-a.html to http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2009/05/american-idol-a.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101229025338/http://www.tvweek.com/news/2009/05/american_idol_finale_ratings_h.php to http://www.tvweek.com/news/2009/05/american_idol_finale_ratings_h.php

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 18:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on American Idol (season 8). 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/20090324132757/http://dannygokeyfansite.com/2009/03/21/more-american-idol-mansion-peek-us-weekly-issue/ to http://dannygokeyfansite.com/2009/03/21/more-american-idol-mansion-peek-us-weekly-issue/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090510033517/http://www.laprensagrafica.com/index.php/fama/espectaculos/20202.html/ to http://www.laprensagrafica.com/index.php/fama/espectaculos/20202.html/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 22:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on American Idol (season 8). 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/20090704152414/http://newsroom.mtv.com/2009/06/29/mj-on-tv-american-idol-bashir-specials-tonight-so-you-think-you-can-dance-in-near-future to http://newsroom.mtv.com/2009/06/29/mj-on-tv-american-idol-bashir-specials-tonight-so-you-think-you-can-dance-in-near-future/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 00:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC) reply