Jump to content

Talk:America's Got Talent season 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Audition citites

[edit]

What happened to the Philadelphia auditions where they cancelled? There is no mention of this anywhere. I recall this being sometime from Aug-Oct 2009.--Cooly123 00:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 (talk • contribs)

Las Vegas

[edit]

I do not think that Lindsey Sterling, the violin player, advanced into the Top 48. Can anyone provide clarification on this? Thanks Gamer9832 (talk) 02:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The violin player did make it into the top 48. But there is definitely someone there that doesn't belong because there's 49 listed. For An Angel (talk) 13:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I found the extra one. It was the "Hot Shot Tap Dancers". They were the group where one of the dancers almost slipped and fell. For An Angel (talk) 19:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added back HSTD. It was Bhangra Empire that didn't belong. For An Angel (talk) 18:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to edit the top 48 as it has changed from last week to this week. Nike Pike has beed added to the top 48 and twisted trystan and kristen are out. this is from the official post before tonights live show. the official abc post can be seen here but someone undid my edit and reverted it back.

http://boards.nbc.com/nbc/index.php?showtopic=844408 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.167.5 (talk) 22:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bhangra Empire seems to have been booted from the top 48. This should be edited, along with a brief phrase explaining how this happened (I haven't a clue).3Tigers (talk) 14:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If my memory is correct, they advanced in an earlier group of about 100, but they never made it to the top 48. Cresix (talk) 15:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Round Chart

[edit]

Should a round chart be put up listing the entire Top 48 and complete information on them like last year? Gamer9832 (talk) 03:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Be happy to make one. Since incompetent lazy people don't want to. ♥xoxo♥ (talk) 06:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I finally made one due to my busy schedule. ♥xoxo♥ (talk) 06:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great job :) --Mjrmtg (talk) 13:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The round chart looks great- thanks for adding it =D Gamer9832 (talk) 02:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


What do the numbers in the "Qtr. Final" section mean? Lexicografía (talk) 13:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers down the first left hand column are the order of appearance during the show. --Mjrmtg (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think they refer to the week the acts appeared; same for the the semi final. It would be good to add "(Week)" to the caption of those columns to eliminate confusion.1archie99 (talk) 16:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, whoever's messing up the buzzer chart in the quaterfinals really needs to stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.66.212.139 (talk) 22:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i undid the vandalism, somebodys also been messing up the agt season 3 and 4 pages recently as well Gamer9832 (talk) 02:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Piers is technically the first judge (always announced first when the judges emerge at the start of the show), but want's the finale on the 7th of september just in case there isn't one more big twist or one special week or one more wild card week not because the game but the date the live finale's on. Xs across on the stage merely line up with where they are sitting. I think Piers should be the best judge in the world i want him to make the decision so that my favorites are HIS favorites to be counted, if you america disagree, i'll tell every person in the entire world that you don't got talent of the vote! i'm just making sure how many of you who watch this agree with piers morgan. Opinion? On a side note, it's too bad we can't pre-advance somebody - that little girl at the end is a shoo-in and if she doesn't advance, America has a serious problem with their ears. CycloneGU (talk) 03:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do the numbers under "Qtr. Final" from the Round Chart mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.67.3.137 (talk) 01:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I update the town of Alex Bui. It was incorrectly listed as NYC.. it is in reality Egg Harbor Towinship NJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.167.5 (talk) 03:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wildcard Show Announced!

[edit]

We need some new colours for the big chart where everyone's progress is tracked. That way we don't confuse them with their first quarterfinal appearances. Problem is, we'll have acts formerly rejected by the judges who will get through, and even others voted through without prior rejection; should we instead resort to footnotes for any acts that were formerly eliminated from their group without judges' intervention? CycloneGU (talk) 02:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't catch all the names of who is a wildcard, but I think someone's name that hasn't been in Hollywood yet. --Mjrmtg (talk) 02:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You, my alert fellow editor, are correct. I've noted it in the Round Table (see discussion below). CycloneGU (talk) 05:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

well i DID know who they are now look in the America's got talent (season 5) link on the wildcard show link below to see the wildcard acts!

I also found them in a blog just a moment ago. Not a valid source, but they were announced to millions on television, so...*LOL* CycloneGU (talk) 03:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Round Table Updated

[edit]

Please cover me on this and make sure I got everything. There should only be twelve TBA acts not in blue (pink DOES count among the twelve), and all twelve should be marked as returning for the Wild Card show despite being eliminated in one of two ways (different icons). I should have it done, but a second look never hurts. Also, I did not fully enter information on the returning non-Top 48 acts into the table, but I've reserved their places in the table, what their act is, and the TBA stickers. Obviously I don't remember where these people are from as yet. CycloneGU (talk) 04:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the last 5 "TBAs" under the quarerfinal's column for the acts coming back that didn't make it to the Hollywood round since we can assume that the wildcard round will be the 6th episode of the quarterfinals. And I filled in the remaining ages which I got from the auditions article. All that's left is a few missing hometowns. For An Angel (talk) 12:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm...now some comeback acts are showing "Quarter-finalist" and others are showing still TBA. This is inconsistent. CycloneGU (talk) 13:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've put the TBAs back in for now. We cannot predict at this time if they will be eliminated; thus, if they do end up advancing, it will make them semifinalists. So we want to keep it consistent for all twelve. CycloneGU (talk) 14:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about the "Qtr. Final" column. Do you mean the "Position Reached" column? We can either treat it as a "position reached so far" and keep updating it as acts move on, or highest position reached ultimately and leave it as TBD until they are eliminated. For An Angel (talk) 21:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While an act is still in the competition, leave it TBD. However, I learned the finals are five weeks away...and there are only two semifinals, and the extra show next week. I think we will have a problem after the first semifinal; some of THOSE eliminated acts will be returning for ANOTHER second-chance episode, I think. So we can't even mark off the eliminated semifinalists until AFTER the second semifinal, when they announce the returning acts for one last try. CycloneGU (talk) 01:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

wildcard alert

[edit]

due to the wildcard, make a blue background for the person who won it an on the legend let it say didn't make the semifinal, won the wildcard. is that ok? 69.236.162.10 (talk) 01:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We'll figure that out. It'll be even more interesting if a Vegas-eliminated act actually votes through (from a show standpoint, our job is identical either way). But yes...any act getting through will be noted in some fashion as advancing after a second chance. CycloneGU (talk) 05:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christina & Ali Group confusion

[edit]

Many people are confused about which group they were in because of the episode their act was shown in. They were part of Group A but their performance wasn't shown until the 2nd Vegas episode with the other Group B acts. The reason why they did this isn't important. We can speculate and say it was either for timing purposes or dramatic reasons. But the point is that they really were part of Group A and therefore performed AND judged on the first night. The proof is in the episodes themselves. It is easy to miss if you are not paying close attention and it took a lot of convincing before I believed it. But look closer: In the beginning of the first Vegas episode when they were all sitting in the audience listening to the judges explain why they were grouped that way Christina & Ali are CLEARLY shown sitting with the Group A acts.

http://www.imdb.com/video/hulu/vi2459436569/

At 6:34 you can see them sitting right next to Antonio Restivo & CJ Dippa. Prince Poppycock is a few rows behind them (he's pretty hard to miss).

http://www.imdb.com/video/hulu/vi4170712601/

At the end of the 2nd Vegas episode, Christina & Ali and New Directions are the last ones to find out if they're moving on. Look at what the judges are wearing. Their clothes change inexplicably. It's most noticeable with Sharon. On the 1st day she was wearing a white shirt and on the 2nd day she was wearing all black with lots of necklaces. Right before they showed Christina & Ali and New Directions finding out if they're moving on, they showed Airpocalypse and Sharon was wearing her all black outfit. Then they showed C&A and ND and her clothes changed to the white shirt. Look at what Nick was wearing too. He was wearing a pink suit on the 1st day and a dark colored suit during Group B's acts. But when he congratulates Christina & Ali on moving on to Hollywood, he's wearing what he had on the first day.

I know that it's easy to be fooled because of how well it was edited together but what proof is there that they were in Group B other than the episode they were shown in? For An Angel (talk) 14:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The judges could have judged the acts over a period of more than just two days, maybe they were switched by the judges off-screen. (That's still speculation, though.) But, the fact is that if they were shown in Group B, then that means they belong in Group B in this article. Our job as editors on wikipedia is to tell the facts as they were shown, not to speculate.
http://www.tvsquad.com/2010/07/08/americas-got-talent-episode-512-vegas-week-recap/ Gamer9832 (talk) 15:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That person who wrote the blog that you linked to obviously wasn't paying attention. "RNJ"? "The band with the blond female singer"? Do you really think they're a reliable source? All the proof you need is in the episodes themselves. Just look at these screen shots from the beginning of the 1st episode:

The first is them entering the theater, with GROUP A.

http://i720.photobucket.com/albums/ww206/WD_1983/AGT/AGT01.jpg

The second is just them, where they're sitting, so you can identify them in the next shot.

http://i720.photobucket.com/albums/ww206/WD_1983/AGT/AGT02.jpg

The last one is the wide shot of Group A

http://i720.photobucket.com/albums/ww206/WD_1983/AGT/AGT03.jpg

Here you can see their performance and judging. Look closely at what Sharon & Nick were wearing when they are talking to C&A. It's pretty obvious by their clothing that the judges didn't judge the acts over more than two days because they only had two outfits.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGmsTbNPnYc

After their performance, you can even hear Group B in the audience applauding them. When Group B performed, there was nobody in the audience. So they couldn't have been in Group B.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyWyEkuhO7s

The fact is that they were SHOWN IN GROUP A. That they were shown in the 2nd Vegas episode doesn't mean that they were in Group B. To say that by itself wouldn't be speculating. Speculating would be if we guessed what their reasons were for showing them that way. For An Angel (talk) 03:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is still your original research (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research). Again, who knows, the judges could have changed their minds off-screen (Vegas Week itself was probably done over more than just two days). But, if NBC decides to place them in Group B, then they are officially in that group. Gamer9832 (talk) 19:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not original research to watch the episodes closely. What evidence is there to say that it was done over more than two days? Even 100 acts at 90 seconds each will only add up to two and a half hours. They could have easily gotten through all the acts in two days if they were there for most of the day. For An Angel (talk) 23:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Evancho should be classified as a singer or a soprano, not an opera singer.

[edit]

It is very possible she may sing a song from another genre next. Her cd consists of many genres. The young pianist who advanced on the same show is identified as a pianist, not a classical pianist. 1archie99 (talk) 04:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I changed her act description from opera singer to singer. Gamer9832 (talk) 01:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was changed back to opera singer; we'll see her perform again in the next two weeks and determine whether she is an opera singer or she performs other genres. Gamer9832 (talk) 22:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changed it to singer again, what do you think about changing her description to classical singer? It's the genre of her cd. Gamer9832 (talk) 22:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
She sang opera on the show. That's all that's relevant. Her CD is not germane to this article. If she sings a different genre on another show, then change it. Please read WP:CRYSTAL. Wikipedia does not predict future events in articles. Cresix (talk) 00:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, her one performance on the show was an opera song, but I don't see why that is sufficient to classify her as an opera singer. Kristina Young performed on the same show doing "Before He Cheats" and she is just listed as a "singer", not as a "country singer". Cam Hodges performed Taio Cruz's "Break Your Heart" and he is listed as a "singer", not as an R&B singer. Even Alice Tan Ridley who is listed on her own Wikipedia page as "a gospel and R&B singer" and performed "At Last" and "Midnight Train to Georgia" on the show is just listed as a "singer".
While we're at it, Hannibal Means is listed as an "opera singer" even though he auditioned performing Leonard Cohen's "Hallelujah" and then performed "The Circle of Life" from The Lion King, neither of which are opera songs. To classify him as an "opera singer" rather than just as a "singer" is to impose an interpretation of the style in which he sang those songs, which is not an objective criteria. It's OR and should be removed. Both Means and Evancho should just be listed as "singer". 99.192.79.65 (talk) 15:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Means was classed as an "Opera singer" with Aponte and Prince Poppycock during the Vegas callbacks, though. I do agree that Evancho should be listed as just "singer", as there's no evidence otherwise on the show. 24.45.191.242 (talk) 21:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If she and Poppycock both sing opera, they should both be classified as an opera singer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.106.65.153 (talk) 18:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quarterfinal Sorting Complete

[edit]

Anyone wanna do a few touchups? I'm removing the pink listing for now. The four wild card qualifiers deserve to be among the rest of the top group, and the rest must be sorted. If anyone believes wildcards should still be separated among non-qualifiers, go for it, but I think it pointless. CycloneGU (talk) 02:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I separated the wildcards from the other quarterfinalists because they technically placed higher in the competition, since they were called back for a second performance (most of them had already performed previously in other quarterfinals). Also fixed a few typos. Gamer9832 (talk) 23:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Swingshift Sideshow

[edit]

According to their introduction video in the Wildcard episode, they pulled out of the competition after the Auditions round and did not perform in Las Vegas. Where do they belong in the "Las Vegas Week" list, then? I added a footnote that they didn't perform, but they obviously weren't in Group A or any other group for that matter.

I don't want to take the initiative of adding a new section or anything without a consensus. 24.45.191.242 (talk) 05:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I put the fact that they weren't in the Las Vegas Round as a footnote on the week 6 elim table. Since they didn't perform in Las Vegas, they shouldn't be listed in that part of the article. Gamer9832 (talk) 23:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Swingshift Sideshow are actually Twisted Trystan and Krystan + one more person... for whatever reason that hasn't been made clear. --khfan93 (t) (c) 23:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
nope, they're two different acts: one auditioned in LA, one in Orlando. Lexicografía (talk) 01:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My bad then, I just assumed since Trystan and Krystan pulled out of the show, and both acts are very similar, that they were the same... --khfan93 (t) (c) 01:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New elimination table for the Top Ten

[edit]

Since there will probably be few or no buzzers in the top ten episode, the buzzes section of the currently used elim table will be blank. I think we should use the table from the finals last year (with a few tweaks). This will work better at this stage of the competition.

Here's a sample (I selected the top 3 from last year as "Advanced" and the fourth and fifth place finishers as "Advanced/Eliminated" in judges' choice.)

Key   Advanced to the finals.   Advanced in the judges' choice.   Eliminated in the judges' choice.
Top Ten
Order Contestant Performance Description Result
1 Voices of Glory Sibling singers; sang "Greatest Love of All" by Whitney Houston. Eliminated in Judges' Choice
2 Hairo Torres Contortionist dancer; danced to "Puttin' on the Ritz" by Rufus Wainwright and "Closer" by Ne-Yo. Eliminated
3 Lawrence Beamen Bass singer; sang "You're the First, the Last, My Everything" by Barry White. Eliminated
4 Bárbara Padilla Opera singer; sang "O Mio Babbino Caro" by Giacomo Puccini. Advanced
5 Fab Five Sister cloggers; danced to "Circus" by Britney Spears. Eliminated
6 Texas Tenors Country–classical singers; sang "My Way" by Frank Sinatra. Advanced in Judges' Choice
7 Drew Stevyns Singer (and guitarist); sang "I'll Stand By You" by The Pretenders. Eliminated
8 Grandma Lee Stand-up comedienne; performed a varied routine, picking on her children, her (fictional) ex-husband, Piers Morgan and Simon Cowell. Eliminated
9 Kevin Skinner Country singer; sang "I Don't Want to Miss a Thing" by Aerosmith. Advanced
10 Recycled Percussion Junkyard percussionists; played "Wipe Out" by The Surfaris. Advanced

Please provide feedback about whether we should/should not use this table. Thanks :) Gamer9832 (talk) 02:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like this table, I am just not sure why you set it up with people advancing. It is the final so it will just have the winners and runners up ranked...no one "advances". Also no judges choives...just popular vote.

Chris1834 (talk) 10:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this year its a bit different. Since the final isn't for another two weeks, there's a "top ten", and then the final. We need a new table for the top ten stage. Gamer9832 (talk) 14:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I had not read this change in the schedule. I think the table you have is great then for the Top Ten. Chris1834 (talk) 17:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Top 10 round

[edit]

Frankly, the show is on tape delay for the US wesy coast. This isn't a news site and we dont have a deadline. So, posting the results can wait until that airing ends, in the very least.

- J Greb (talk) 01:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't WP:SPOILER or something similar apply here essentially? (That particular guideline applies to fictional content, but I'm sure there's something similar for everything else.) Wikipedia shouldn't be "censoring" content that is available. Gary King (talk · scripts) 02:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It's not our job to protect viewers who haven't seen it yet from finding out the results. Wikipedia isn't a place for spoiler alerts. Gamer9832 (talk) 02:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, this is far worse than a spoiler alert. This is locking down the article, which should only be done in extreme circumstances, as a last resort. This is not one of those situations. Gary King (talk · scripts) 02:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the editor is abusing his/her powers as an administrator. We should be allowed to freely edit the article, as long as the information can be sourced, not wait for its final airing on the West Coast, which was not the initial broadcast. Gamer9832 (talk) 02:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. There is no reason to lock the article, it hasn't been locked in previous weeks, and if you can't keep yourself away long enough for the show to air, I'm not sure that's the editors' problem. Zehnra (talk) 02:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. On the other hand, I think that people come to the article to see the results if they missed anything, which is a service that Wikipedia has provided many times before for other articles. Gary King (talk · scripts) 02:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)
And I repeat for you - this is non-free content that has not fully aired in the country of original broad cast. You want to update the material after the west coast airing, fine. But given this isn't a news sited it can wait for the broadcaster to get its full swing at it.
And frankly, dealing with an article that is being updated as a show or event airs is and extream situation. - J Greb (talk) 02:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By "extreme", I meant a situation that rarely occurs. An episode article being edited while the episode airs is not a situation that occurs rarely. I think you are using the word "extreme" to mean "time-sensitive", in which case I would agree with you there. Gary King (talk · scripts) 02:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is wide precedence that updating based on live results is acceptable, such as the Academy Awards. If you don't want to be the one making updates, J Greb, you don't have to, but it is unnecessary and from what I've seen against the spirit of Wikipedia policy to lock out all edits if the news example is your sole justification. --MatthewM (talk) 02:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I lived on the west coast of the USA, and I wanted to experience "in the moment" the events of the show, I think the last thing I would do is go to the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and read about the show before it was aired. West coasters are used to this. Don't treat them like idiots. Cresix (talk) 02:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i agree. stop being a bully. i came here to find out the results, there is no reason they shouldn't be listed. if you don't want to know, then don't read the article.

J Greb, I agree with the other editors who have stated that you have overstepped your bounds as an admin. There has been no policy violation here. There is no prohibition against "spoilers" on Wikipedia. Your opinion is fine. Your use of administrative tools is entirely inappropriate. I personally insist that you immediately remove the protection. Otherwise I, for one, intend to pursue a review of your actions here by other administrators and the Wikipedia community. Cresix (talk) 02:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with everyone else here. It would be in your best interest, J Greb, to remove the protection of this article. What I think is going on here is that you don't want to be spoiled, and in the meantime, you're preventing those who actually want to see the content, from actually seeing it. This sounds like a personal gain issue more than anything. -- GSK (talk ● evidence) 02:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First off: No, it isn't a case of not wanting to be spoiled. My locality got the show based on the east coast live airing. It's more a case of trying to be fair to the broadcaster.
That aside, I'll take the mea culpa in the face of consensus here. The protection is down, the article is back to where it was, and my appologies for having interupted your editing. - J Greb (talk) 02:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

dont let one bad apple spoil it for everyone

[edit]

Somebody will always complain about anything. Only a fool would come on here to complain that posting the results spoils it for pacific coast viewers! People that say something like that are just saying it to be a trouble maker.Dont let their groundless complaints have any affect. Please post the results as soon as they are available.Just ignore all the foolish cry babies that would dare come here to find results and then complain that the information they purposely sought out, shouldnt be posted! wow, unreal. Thanks everyone, for posting the results quickly, now and also all the times in the past as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.160.131.17 (talk) 02:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but this is to whoever runs the charts-it is extreamely confusing-try to dumb it down a bit and not have 10000000000000000000000000000000 different charts!--208.111.198.213 (talk) 05:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the nature of the article. It's a very diverse show, with varying elimination processes each season. There is no possible way to make the charts simpler. Gamer9832 (talk) 14:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

merging the Auditions page into the article

[edit]

The afd on the season 5 audition page was recently closed, and the result was merge. I do not think it is possible to merge all the info into the article (it would make it overcrowded, hard to navigate and edit). I'm proposing we list a few notable auditions which didn't advance in the summary (as is the case of American Idol), and delete the rest of the info altogether. The consensus on the talk page was that there was not point in listing all the rejected acts. This means that next season we should stop listing rejected acts at the auditions. Gamer9832 (talk) 23:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the discussion a closely guarded secret? The first I even heard that the auditions page even existed is from this mention. Would it not have been a good idea to alert us that the auditions page was being considered for afd on this page? I would appreciate seeing the discussion so I can see how the decision was made. I agree that merging would make the season 5 article complicated. Now that I have read the auditions page; I like it just the way it is. I would like to further state that the entire AGT series of articles is really great and thank the editors for all their work. Following the articles has helped me enjoy the programs and vice versa.1archie99 (talk) 00:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dont care about merger..but i am very concern on how this was done...I see the merger decision was made by very few people.. I also see some deletions of entire articles on very very flimsy vote counts. Looks a bit sneaky only posting the notice after the vote!! Could someone explain Y notices were not posted for all this articles?? Moxy (talk) 00:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps many more would have participated including me had they known about the afd proposal. NOW THAT THE SECRET IS OUT let's reopen the discussion.1archie99 (talk) 00:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree if more experienced editors saw the proposal ..the conclusion would have probably been to delete the whole article and not to merge...none of them are notable enough to meet Wiki standers/guidelines. Moxy (talk) 03:34, 13 September 2010
You may be correct; I withdraw my suggestion. Why not just keep the first section of this article as is; listing the cities where the prelimary auditions were held. When the merge is complete then eliminate the jump. Least confusing way to merge is put in parentheses the city where each act came from in the Las Vegas week section. The lists of rejected acts that now appear in the article to be merged could be eliminated.1archie99 (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about the production of the program

[edit]

It would be interesting to know if the show provides any guidance or resources to the acts once they have avanced to a certain point.1archie99 (talk) 03:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finals

[edit]

Why is there no mention of the X from Piers on Princepoppycock? --Mjrmtg (talk) 10:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone deleted the performance description, but it's back in the performance summaries again. Gamer9832 (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

buzzes

[edit]

for the buzzes, why are they rubber? i think the judges choice checks are fine, but i like the x's that are in the red background.


Pixiemasters (talk) 20:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility

[edit]

This article overuses colour, and uses images where it should use text. People with impaired sight or who use screen readers would not be able to read this article properly (WP:ACCESS). Also, not an access issue but it overuses bold text (WP:MOSBOLD). –anemoneprojectors– 12:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The chart that lists how far each contestant made it in the competition especially has colors making it hard to read the contestants names. Cleo20 (talk) 22:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It must be done this way because of the nature of the show. AGT has many more contestants (more than twice that of Idol) nearing the final stages. So far, we have found no better way to do the chart at the bottom of the page and keep track of contestants. As for adding pictures of contestants to the chart ( or any of the charts on the page), they would significantly enlargen the size of an already big article. If you guys would like to suggest new ways to do the chart that would make it more accessible, please do so. Gamer9832 (talk) 17:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per the images of the "X" and the check, or the "YouTube" image, we all decided this is the best way to do this. It is visually pleasing, and makes the article easier to read than just a bunch of "this act passed", and "this act got cut" texts. In my opinion, the images actually makes the article more accessible. Same for the YouTube image. Adding texts saying "YouTube auditioner" would add to the difficulty of reading the article (therefore making it less accessible). Another reason being we sort of ran out of colors, haha :D Gamer9832 (talk) 17:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The main thing for me is the ticks and crosses in the tables. In Britain's Got Talent, we've used an X and a tick symbol. It got changed to images for Britain's Got Talent (series 5) because of this article, but I changed it back because other BGT articles aren't done that way. When someone said they got it from here, I thought I should try to get it changed her as well. If there's really no way you can't use colour, then that's ok, but some people can't see colours, so if the information can be conveyed through text, maybe with another column, then that would be better. But I'll leave it up to you guys. I can see perfectly well so I'm ok lol
In reply to the above, it's not about being "pleasing to the eye", it's about being accessible to PEOPLE WITH SIGHT PROBLEMS and people using screen readers. Not about making it "accessible to people who can see perfectly". So saying "Youtube auditionee" would be MUCH better. –anemoneprojectors– 17:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as a normal sighted person, I find the colours in the table VERY hard on the eyes! Some of the text is actually unreadable. –anemoneprojectors– 17:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And another thing, some of the colours just have the same meaning as the "Position Reached" column anyway! That column could easily be adjusted. –anemoneprojectors– 17:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand there may be some need for colour, of course. But two tables that I feel definitely don't need any colours are "Top 10 Elimination Table" and "US ratings". The former because there's only one colour, and the final column in the table does the same thing, and the latter because the colours only signify first and second place in the ratings, which is what the numbers signify. The bold should probably be removed from that table as well. By the way, please excuse my use of British English :-) –anemoneprojectors– 17:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the colors in the finals table for third place and unbolded all the contestants' names except for first place. If you guys think all/more of it should be unbolded or uncolored, go for it. I've also removed all the colors from the ratings table. I don't know what to do about the overall table at the bottom, or Top 10. Any suggestions are welcome, and any changes to the format of the table or page are great as well (just not a complete reformat). It's up to you guys. ive got to study for SATs, so ill be back in a while :D Gamer9832 (talk) 20:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm probably going to remove this page from my watchlist anyway so I'll leave it to others. I just wanted to make people aware, really. –anemoneprojectors– 00:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on America's Got Talent (season 5). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:40, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on America's Got Talent (season 5). 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:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Final Buzzer

[edit]

Does Wikipedia not allow for users to add buzzers made in the Final? Piers buzzed Poppycock in the Grand Final but it's not recorded here. I added that some time back but it got removed for being unacceptable. Not sure if its a rule or some angry fan of Price Poppycock.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:America%27s_Got_Talent_season_5&oldid=1216208474"