Talk:Australian Idol season 5

Australia: Television / Music Low‑importance

	Australia portal Australian Idol season 5 is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian television (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian music (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Television: Idols High‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Idols task force (assessed as High-importance).

Eliminated section

We don't need an 'eliminated section'. They are still part of the top twelve finalists. Once the series finishes, if we have the eliminated section, then there will be one person in the Top 12 section and the rest will be in the 'eliminated section'. Also, if we have an eliminated section, then we might as well list all the eliminated people who tried out. σмgн gσмg 05:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an 'eliminated section' it is a heading to divide the article for ascetic and reading ease; It clearly defines who is still in the competition and who isn't, Moving the competitor to the bottom of the list is not only confusing it makes it less obvious. At the end of the series the eliminated divider would be removed, but while the series is on it is crucial to define those who are still in the competition. . --Theloon 06:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed something really interesting in the weekly summary chart at the bottom of the page. Usually, it reveals who was at the bottom three each week. It seems that someone foolishly tried to play around with that thing, since he/she supposedly added who was to be in the bottom three in the upcoming (although the competition has not even gone around into those future weeks as of yet). Why would someone want to this? For all we know, this may not be true. Even if so, why would one want to ruin the surprise? Or, supposedly one may have a bias, maybe taking a liking to Matt Corby, so much so as this person would want to place him as the winner. Somebody, please help! Jgdum 19:26, 01 October 2007 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgdum (talk • contribs)

It wasn't true. Someone was just vandalising the page. The program is broadcast live and voting takes place on a weekly basis, so it is impossible to know who is leaving weeks beforehand. The biggest hint that it was a vandal was when they spelt Tarasai completely wrong. Don't worry, it's definately not true, and if it comes up again i will revert it back Survivorfan101 03:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hillsong Stacking?

I'm not a regular wikipedia editor but there has been some recent discussion in the media (Today Tonight) about concerns that the Hillsong pentecostal church has been 'stacking' the show with contestants - might be intersting to address? I refer you to these articles for your consideration.

Ten wary of false idols — and rivals

How to win Australian Idol

The Idol edge - From NOV 2006

Thanks

129.78.64.101 02:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, this wouldn't be appropriate as it's simply trivial non-notable accusations that don't have any merit. Hillsong church has over 15,000 people and across the country more than 25,000 people attend their churches and the music programs foster a high level of musical tuition and encourage it from a young age. You may say Hillsong has a monopoly based on the sheer volume of quality musicians and singers they produce, but they don't encourage them just to "pile on" to Idol. It's simply a natural progression for talented musicians to take an avenue that may potentially allow their music to become accessible to the public. Another thing is, I can't find any record of the TodayTonight report you're talking about, just the reports from The Age (which is a Melbourne based paper, the articles written by a Melbourne based writer who doesn't appear to be doing anything other than speculating on information from hearsay, from the distance about a church from Sydney). These are not considered reliable reports, even though they're from a somewhat reliable paper. --linca linca 10:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

how old are you? Just because you disagree with something does not mean it doesn't exist. There have been accusations from more than just Today Tonight about a topic that is directly relevant to the article. Calling a major newspaper - The Age - unreliable shows your inherent bias. This is not a page for fangirls and fanboys but an encylopedia topic with facts and appropriate social and cultural references and little more. I would edit the page but I know you will revert it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.238.150 (talk) 22:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree about The Age. For being a major newspaper since the 1800s, it has to be a reliable newspaper. Plus, I have also heard a report about it in Today Tonight, which seems to explain the Hillsong Church voting pile-up clearly. RaNdOm26 (talk) 08:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know. This is the 21st century. The media has only just discovered the ability to report from cities other than the one that their newspaper prints from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.223.89 (talk) 11:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But that doesn't improve the ability to provide a first hand account. Though we can purvey and view things from miles away, we acn't literally be in two places at once. --linca linca 12:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doing It For The Kids

There should be information about the Doing It For The Kids special, especially the songs that were performed by the Top 6. 144.53.251.2 02:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia can be edited by anyone. If you wish to add any detail, fell free. Just don't expect someone else to add it for you at your demand. I'm sure if you added the information, no one would delete it. Survivorfan101 13:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awful

This article's prose is just... awful. There is a massive need of additional references. The structure and sizing is fine. Perfect, actually, but there's a lot this article needs to improve: • References added • Prose adjusted to be readable (poor grammar adjusted, facts straightened out etc). • Numerals within prose converted into words (even if it is "Top Twelve" etc) • Any full day and month dates (a la "12 March") should be wikilinked to allow the user's preferences to parse the date according to their settings (i.e. US users would convert to March 12 from 12 March etc). If this isn't done, dates apepar as written, which doesn't meet WP:ACCESS (accessibility) standards. I'm not interested enough to do this myself, but it needs to be done. --linca linca 10:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You do realise there are hundreds and hundreds of people editing this article every day. Check the history page. Even if I do something, soon it will be altered to something else which looks worse, because everybody changes anything. RaNdOm26 10:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. But nevertheless, lots of info in the article is just really poor. Any chance of getting it temporarily blocked based on the fact that it's about to end soon, and it should help stop the dodgy IPs and new editors, just in case. --linca linca 11:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here I Am

Letting you know here that a new article has been created for the winner's single, Here I Am (Idol winner song). I suggest that when the winner is announced on November 25, the name of the article should be changed to the name of the winning artist - ie. Here I Am (Natalie Gauci song) or Here I Am (Matt Corby song). RaNdOm26 (talk) 06:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree (btw. the article is now at Here I Am (Australian song)). Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 07:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Da Costa Namespace

An article has recently been created called Mark Da Costa which I came across when categorizing uncategorized articles. I know that usually contestants on reality programmes such as Idol/Big Brother don't have their own pages (esp when they are eliminated early and have no other notability). I wanted to fix this problem myself but am unsure if it is normal to list the article as afd or to put in a redirect such as member redirect. Can someone who watches over the AusIdol page perhaps fix the Da Costa one as it really shouldn't exist (plus, it's not exactly preferred wikistyle!) but also just quickly let me know here (or on my talk) what you did so I know for future reference? Many, many thanks Sassf (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've redirected it to this article, my edit summary should explain my justification pretty well. Thanks for finding that! — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 01:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Sassf (talk) 03:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 controversies

The Australian Idol 2007 was marred by controversies. The Hillsong Church scandal, when Today Tonight accused the church of vote rigging, was a major factor in the show from the final 8 onwards. A lesser scandal was in the final 4 stage when Who Wants to be a Millionaire accidentally gave the wrong phone number for voting for their viewers choice, which gave Carl Riseley (who finished 3rd, and avoided elimination that night) a vote. But perhaps the biggest controversy related to Tarisai Vuche being called fake, as at the Final 5 round. Tarisai has said publicly that she was told officially that this was a setup to increase ratings, although it should be noted that nobody officially has said this publicly. Whether it was real or not, it certainly increased ratings significantly, as did the Hillsong scandal. These are perhaps the most significant scandals in the history of the show, and I don't think that there is anyone who watched the show in 2007 that was not aware of both major scandals, and has an opinion about them. Judging on media reports, with regards to both scandals people are pretty much split as to which side they take - whether they think that Hillsong Church was rigging or not (or alternatively whether it was a con to try to get people to vote for eventual winner Natalie Gauci and 3rd placed Carl Riseley - the only 2 in the top 8 who were not named by Today Tonight), and whether they think that Tarisai Vuche was victimised or really was/is fake. They are major stories any way you look at it, and the truth of the scandals doesn't need to be proved - its the affect that they had on the show. Surely there is a place for them.

It is supposed to be the major reason why Natalie Gauci's debut single, debut album, and initial tour have gone so badly, because of all of the suggestions that it was rigged in her favour. Not to mention that judge Mark Holden openly said that he wanted her to win, from the top 5 stage onwards. Dyinghappy (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a discussion of these in a seperate ==Controversy== section, but not under Tarisai's name (which I reverted, if I recall correctly). Please go ahead, remembering to discuss everyone involved. See also WP:RS and WP:CITE. Good luck, Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 08:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems odd not to mention these things, when they dominated the entire season. I also note that whilst Here I Am (Natalie Gauci song) and The Winner's Journey (Natalie Gauci album) talk openly about how unpopular they are, the article Natalie Gauci is being controlled by User:Violeton to prevent any negative publicity being in there, in spite of their popularity being relevant, factual and provable. Perhaps there is a Wikipedia policy about such things that is supporting these actions? I am not sure. Dyinghappy (talk) 19:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, the Natalie article fell off my watchlist somehow. I'll try and restore some POV there. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 00:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2007 controversies section added

I added the section. As it is controversial (hence the name) it is probably best that I not edit it again, so hopefully others can contribute or wipe out sections of it. Hopefully it can be allowed to remain, though, as it was a dominant part of the 2007 season, and the article is incomplete without it. Dyinghappy (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'll try and clean it up etc., thanks for that. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 00:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:AustralianIdol.jpg

The image Image:AustralianIdol.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --10:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Process

I have to question why there is an excessively long list of smaller grids of the songs performed by the finalists each week but also an almost identical list of songs below each of the contestants names. It doesn't seem necessary. Someone111111 (talk) 12:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Australian Idol (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) 22:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]