Jump to content

Talk:The X Factor (British TV series)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Hello

Once again that MegastarLV kid seems to think that a discussion page on American Idol which has not reached a consensus is enough to force his changes onto every other so-called "related" page such as The X Factor UK, The X Factor USA, Dancing On Ice, Australia's Got Talent, America's Got Talent, Strictly Come Dancing etc, yet Wikipedia works on an each-page-is-different system I thought?JackJackUK (talk) 23:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I take that "MegastarLV kid" as a personal attack against me. The articles all use the SAME type of infobox, therefore we follow the SAME guidelines. Think again.  MegastarLV  (talk)
Yeah, they may follow that infobox but doesn't mean they follow the same format for the dates. I don't know why I'm being linked to the infobox television page; where on that page does it say that every television must follow a format? It doesn't, so erm THINK AGAIN.JackJackUK (talk) 23:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Use of present

I have changed the word (present) to (since) because it is a better word to use rather than (present) because present is rather self-explanitory, if somone has (2012-present) then it that means they are present anyway by the date and the dash. --MSalmon (talk) 18:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted this because it is not needed. The way it was has been fine and there is no need for change –Howabout90– 20:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I was just suggesting an alternative, as things can change --MSalmon (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I always prefered to use "since" but many people seem to dislike it. –anemoneprojectors– 13:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Kelly Rowland Walmart Soundcheck cropped.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Kelly Rowland Walmart Soundcheck cropped.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Kelly Rowland Walmart Soundcheck cropped.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Tulisa

Hey all,

Hope you all well; do we need to refer to Tulisa as "Tulisa" rather than "Tulisa Contostavlos"? She is credited as just Tulisa on the show.

--55tompty55 (talk) 09:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

See [[1]] --MSalmon (talk) 10:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Does this page really need semi-protection when it already has pending changes protection? Especially when the reason for semi-protection is the addition of unsourced rumours, when that's the reason why it had PC protection? –anemoneprojectors– 09:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Leaky Caldron 15:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Please explain. –anemoneprojectors– 16:11, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Why do you think it does not qualify for normal semi-protection to prevent persistent IP vandalism just because it is covered by pending changes? Leaky Caldron 16:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I didn't say I don't think it qualifies, I asked why it qualifies. –anemoneprojectors– 18:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
You asked why it qualifies "when it already has pending changes protection". I'm not concerned about pending changes acting as a barrier against repeated & frequent unregistered user vandalism, which is what the recent off-season additions have been about. It clearly qualifies under WP:RPP since the patrolling Admin. agreed to my request. Leaky Caldron 10:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
That's all you had to say. I was unaware you had requested protection. –anemoneprojectors– 17:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:The X Factor (U.S.) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 19:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Tulisa axed

Simom cowell confirmed Tulisa will be axed from 2012 and will not return, possible replacements are Sharon, Katy Price and Simon to be a fifth judge, Gary also stated that he would not return unless changes to the show are made please change Tulisa to 2011 - 2012. BOT823 (talk) 23:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source. –anemoneprojectors– 14:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/02/22/x-factor-tulisa-axed-by-simon-cowell_n_2739587.html BOT823 (talk) 22:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Problem with that is it says "Tulisa is said to be facing the chop" and "reportedly to be axed from the ITV show". It appears to be reporting what The Sun said, which says she hasn't been axed but is expected to be. This isn't reliable enough - we need confirmation from ITV, not a report in a newspaper that it hasn't happened yet. –anemoneprojectors– 13:07, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay well it shouldn't be long as the Show usually starts around Summer Time or late summer usually a month after the Brittan's Got Talent show has ended. BOT823 (talk) 21:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how long it is, it'll be when it is. I don't think we know when the judges' auditions start this year but last year they started on 23 May, so if they start around the same time, we should know within the next month or so. –anemoneprojectors– 17:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Sharon Osbourne placement in infobox

Seems to be disagreement over where she should be placed. Logically to me it makes most sense to place her between Nicole and Simon as this reflects her first stint (and shows her as the first judge to leave) and her second appointment after Nicole. It makes much less sense to order by date of first appearance as that does not necessarily reflect the current panel. Eddyegghead (talk) 01:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I would put them in the order of Louis (original judge, never left), Sharon (original judge, returned), Gary and Nicole. Basically, the order they joined. Then the dates in the infobox for the current judges are in chronological order (2004, 2011, 2012). I'm not sure how this doesn't reflect the current panel. The dates reflect that. We could put every judge in alphabetical order starting with Gary Barlow and ending with Louis Walsh, with all the others, past and present in the middle, and it would still reflect the current panel. –anemoneprojectors– 13:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
However, that's in the overall context of the entire programme. In the context of just series 10, I would put Sharon last. We used to put them in order of how their names were announced on the show, but we changed to "seniority". There actually isn't any seniority in the show - the judges only joke about that. Maybe we should list the judges in the "Series overview" table alphabetically (and individual series infoboxes, and maybe other places. Yet another argument could be made for the order Gary, Sharon, Louis, Nicole, based on which judges are being "replaced" (Simon>Gary, Sharon>Cheryl>Tulisa>Sharon, Louis>(Brian)>Louis, nobody>Dannii>Kelly>Nicole). That's the order used in the table under "Judges' categories and their finalists", and I don't think that should be changed because judges, especially Louis, should always be in the same column. –anemoneprojectors– 16:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Series overview table

Thanks to Renzoy16 for the excellent changes to the table, reducing clutter. I changed the text size to 95% instead of 85% as it's better for those with visual impairments - we have to cater for these people. The longest name/date/whatever on each column is nowrapped, meaning that no wrapping will occur - apart from on "The Carphone Warehouse", which isn't a problem because it's on its own and is in a larger cell anyway. However, the text size was reverted because "it still wraps the text". I obviously can't see what Msalmon sees, because we're on different computers, but with the nowrap template, it should only have been "The Carphone Warehouse" that wraps.

As for the colours used in the table, yes some are too similar. Boys and overs, and especially girls and unders, are probably too similar. However, we are using colours to state which category a contestant was in. We should use text to convey this information for people who are colour blind or use a screen reader - again we have to cater for these people. We could leave the colour in if we were to add a symbol for each category, but my preference would be to remove all colours. I also think we could remove 2nd and 3rd place, because only the winner is really important since they're the only ones guaranteed a prize. We could then add a column for the category after the winning mentor category. I know that's "controversial" though. What do you all think? –anemoneprojectors– 10:55, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from with regards to the font so I have increased it to 90% so it doesn't wrap all the text (apart from The Carphone warehouse which doesn't matter). And yes maybe we could get rid of the key like you said. --MSalmon (talk) 11:16, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
More nowrap templates have been added, that can only be good I guess. Does anything wrap when you view it at 95% (you can just preview it or look at the larger-texted version in the history), other than The Carphone Warehouse? To me, 90% and 85% look the same size. But that's probably just me. If 95% works I'd favour that. I actually thought it looked a bit nicer with centred text as well.
I know people like to make tables look pretty with colours, and there's nothing really wrong with that as long but we really should use some other way to let people know who was in what category. That's one reason I suggested removing 2nd and 3rd place and adding a category column, but I don't think most people will want to do that. The only other way I can think of is to add symbols after (or before?) the names like *†¶‡#, but that just looks weird to me. –anemoneprojectors– 13:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
To me 95% wraps most of the text, whereas 90% doesn't apart from a couple (but others may have different sized screens than me)--MSalmon (talk) 14:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
But the nowrap template should stop that from happening, that's why I'm confused. –anemoneprojectors– 19:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, not all of them had nowrap on them --MSalmon (talk) 20:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
No but the longest entry in every column has is, so each column should be wide enough to stop any text from wrapping, even that without the nowrap template. –anemoneprojectors– 21:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
90% & 95% look the same to me even with the nowrap --MSalmon (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
But does any the text wrap at 95%? –anemoneprojectors– 22:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 06:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

– Correct me if I'm wrong but I honestly don't think these should've been changed. Do we have to follow the guidelines for EVERYTHING? It really feels like a case of WP:Ignore. It looks too long and having just the country is easier to type. Same as with other shows like Big Brother, The Voice and Popstars as well. Unreal7 (talk) 11:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Music v Karaoke

The competitors are not musicians. They are singers. Furthermore they do not write their own pieces, thus the show is a karaoke competition. I have nothing against such shows, but do feel the term "music contest" is hard to justify. 82.29.219.87 (talk) 14:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

It's essentially a singing competition, but calling it "karaoke" would be considered derogatory. Some contestants also play guitar or piano during their performances, and some also sing their own compositions. –anemoneprojectors– 14:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Those who play instruments or pen their own tracks are very much in the minority. Can we agree to change it to "singing competition" then? You're right that it's a better description.82.29.219.87 (talk) 16:19, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, thought I was logged in already Mongoletsi (talk) 16:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
The X Factor is arguabably about more than just the singing. To say "The X Factor is a British television singing competition to find new singing talent" would sound unprofessional. As singing is a part of music, and music is involved, and The X Factor is more than just singing, and it already says it's to find singing talent, then I think it's fine to leave it as "music competition". –anemoneprojectors– 17:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
So I can't change it to "vacuous bullshit with little artistic merit, purely for lining the pockets of Cowell et al"? Didn't think so ;) Mongoletsi (talk) 19:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Only if you can find a reliable source to back it up :-) –anemoneprojectors– 23:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Season 11 Judges

Will someone semi-protect this page until the auditions start and the judges are confirmed.--Ditto51 (talk) 16:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Judges 2014

Too much speculation going on, no updating the "confirmed" judges until confirmed by themselves or ITV? As far as I'm aware neither Cowell or Cole have stated whether they will return and neither have ITV.

  • Louis Walsh,Mel B, Cheryl Fernandez Versini and Simon Cowell has confirmed for 2014 needs to be the new judging panel line up.Zorander01 May 28th 2014

Contributer111 (talk) 17:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The Xtra Factor

Is The Xtra Factor notable enough to have its own article? Other spin-offs like The Apprentice: You're Fired, Strictly Come Dancing: It Takes Two and The Voice: Louder on Two seem to be. Unreal7 (talk) 12:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Protect

This page and the Season 11 page should both be protected until the series begins in August/September, otherwise it will just be continuously spammed with people changing the judges. The Infobox is also plagued with unwarranted and unneeded spam edits.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 18:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree because people keep updating Forsyth's years on the show when he is still going to be hosting Christmas and CIN specials --MSalmon (talk) 14:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Judge's in 2007

Why are there 5 in the Infobox?--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 06:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Judges and years

I don't get what why alphabetising should come into it. I thought it would more sensible to have them in the order they left, regardless of what letter their name starts with. Also since Cheryl Cole has returned shouldn't she be at the top? Unreal7 (talk) 13:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Assuming you're talking about the infobox, it's supposed to be the order in which they joined, so Walsh, Cowell, Osborne, Friedman, Minogue, Cole, Barlow, Contostavlos, Rowland, Scherzinger, and Mel B is the current and correct order. I thought this had already been discussed. –anemoneprojectors– 13:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism Clearance Needed

Second paragraph lists Jimmy Saville as an original judge in place of Sharon Osbourne. Presumably missed vandalism. Cannot edit myself due to protected article status. --Serendipityjpm (talk) 00:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done Thanks 5 albert square (talk) 00:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2014

In the judges categories and contestants section, in series 11, put Stereo Kicks and Stevi Ritchie in small font. 5.67.55.192 (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 00:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2014

In the judges categories section, in series 11, make Lauren Platt in small writing. 90.213.204.194 (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2014 (UTC)Regan

Done Stickee (talk) 00:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Series twelve judging panel

It should be said, on record, that the only confirmed judge for the twelfth series is Simon Cowell. All other information concerning Cheryl, Mel B and Louis Walsh is speculation, which is not included on Wikipedia. Please wait until official word and confirmation from ITV. Walsh has gone on record, which is cited within the article, to state his desire to depart the series, but his departure is purely speculation at this point. So please, wait until official confirmation comes from ITV and producers to avoid fancruft editing of unsourced speculation, which again, is not included on Wikipedia. livelikemusic my talk page! 20:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Tulisa

Is Tulisa returning?the answer is YES! She will be with Will Young, Simon Cowell and Cheryl. Make a post with the title as I'm rightif you agree with this post, Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.120.245 (talk) 16:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Judges Grid

I noticed this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_X_Factor_(UK_TV_series)&diff=666219326&oldid=666159911 by AGoodDoctor when I was checking the revision history. The edit was soon reverted. I think that grid is not a bad idea. I will give this a 24 hours heads up before I put it in. Thank You -- JohnGormleyJG (✉) 10:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it's just a messy way of repeating information that's given in four other parts of the article already (series overview table, judges and presenters section in text, judges photo gallery, judges categories and contestants table). Moreover, pretty coloured squares should never be used as a replacement for actual text (per WP:ACCESS). –anemoneprojectors– 10:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Small text proposal to alter table.

In a number of places the text does not satisfy WP:ACCESS, where text must meet a minimum sizing requirement. Reading the table The_X_Factor_(UK_TV_series)#Series_overview is not only stinging to the eyes it is a blatant failure of WP:ACCESS. There's also too much information contained within. I suggest the following revision:

Series Start Date Finish Date Finalists Winning Mentor Presenter(s) Judges Sponsor
Winner Runner-up Third place
One
Winner Runner-up Third place
  • G4
  • (Groups)

What do we think? → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 01:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

It's fine by me, but would the colours still remain? --MSalmon (talk) 08:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
its optional, personally I dislike the colours and think they provide too much information (particularly) if we opt for categories in brackets below the contestation. `→ Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 09:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
MSalmon. Pretty sure that is the point, to get rid of the colours which is why he has a second suggestion on how to keep the categories within the boxes--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 20:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Also I do not agree with the proposals as it makes the information harder to understand--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 20:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
the main things that have changed are that the small text has been reduced and the guest and main judges columns have been merged. I dondon't see why that is harder to understand. Either way, it has to change as it is currently a violation of MoS for accessibility and frankly it is difficult to physically read the information becaue the text size is small. Also colours convey additional information which is not accessible to partially or zero-sighted individuals or to those with colorblindbess. These tables should be a summary. If you want more information you can scroll down to individual sections about each series or go to the series page. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 00:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
The layout is fine and if you can't read the table then you may need glasses or to not be zoomed out on your browser. Also the judges and guest judges are separate because it allows us to do what we did with Seasons 1, 2 and 3 where the judges remained the same. As they remained the same we combine the cell on all rows while the guest judge was only on Season 3, as such if they were put in the main column it would just add main judges's names to the table more times than are needed.
I'm partially sighted and can see it fine, people who are zero-sight (if that means blind...I'm not sure) can't see the page as a whole so by that argument all of wikipedia breaks the MoS. And Colour-blind, everyone can see black no matter what it is on so the only thing they are missing are the categories that the winner/runner-up/third place was a part of.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 06:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I dont approve of your assumption yhat I need glssses or that I need to zoom in on my browswer asi have near perfect vision. The MoS for style and accessibility states that whereever possible one should avoid the use of colour where colour is the sole method of conveying information anf there is a movement across wikipedia to remove unecessary small text. Redesinging the table so that text is not shrunk is a huge improvement and the only hindrance at the moment is having two separate columns for the judges. Also it causes issues on smaller screen deviced. This can be overcome in lots of ways. If you dislike my proposed table I am happy to tweak it but really id like to see the colour and small text removed. If you give me chance I'll do a mock up of the whole table in my new format in a sandbox and you can tell me if you still feel its unreadable. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 11:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Ditto51, I've mocked up an expanded version of the new table (I added the judging categories for the first row as an example) here Talk:The X Factor (UK TV series)/newtableformat. Are you now going to honestly tell me that this is more difficult to understand and harder to read than the current table? → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 23:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Series Start Date Finish Date Winner Runner-up Third place Winning Mentor Presenter(s) Judges Sponsor
One 4 September 2004 11 December 2004
  • G4
  • (groups)
Simon Cowell Kate Thornton
Nokia
Two August 20, 2005 (2005-08-20Tdf-yes) December 14, 2005 (2005-12-14Tdf-yes) Shayne Ward Andy Abraham Journey South Louis Walsh
  • Simon Cowell
  • Sharon Osborne
  • Louis Walsh
Three August 19, 2006 (2006-08-19Tdf-yes) December 16, 2006 (2006-12-16Tdf-yes) Leona Lewis Ray Quinn Ben Mills Simon Cowell
Four August 18, 2007 (2007-08-18Tdf-yes) December 15, 2007 (2007-12-15Tdf-yes) Leon Jackson Rhydian Roberts Same Difference Danni Minogue Dermot O'Leary
The Carphone Warehouse
Five August 16, 2008 (2008-08-16Tdf-yes) December 13, 2007 (2007-12-13Tdf-yes) Alexandra Burke JLS Eoghan Quigg Cheryl Cole
  • Simon Cowell
  • Louis Walsh
  • Dannii Mingoue
  • Cheryl Cole
 Talk Talk
Six August 12, 2008 (2008-08-12Tdf-yes) December 13, 2008 (2008-12-13Tdf-yes) Joe McElderry Olly Murs Stacey Solomon Cheryl Cole
  • Simon Cowell
  • Louis Walsh
  • Dannii Mingoue
  • Cheryl Cole
Seven August 21, 2008 (2008-08-21Tdf-yes) December 10, 2008 (2008-12-10Tdf-yes) Matt Cardle Rebecca Ferguson One Direction Dannii Mingoue
Notes
  • ^[A] Paula Abdul served as a guest judge for London Auditions.
  • ^[B] Brian Friedman served as a guest judge for the London auditions, but was re-assigned the role of creative director and was replaced by former judge Louis Walsh. He was originally recruited to be a permanent judge.
  • ^[C] During the auditions and bootcamp, several guest judges served as temporary replacement for Dannii Minogue, who was not able to attend due to being pregnant. Geri Halliwell served as guest judge at the Glasgow auditions; Natalie Imbruglia at the Birmingham auditions; Katy Perry at the Dublin auditions; Pixie Lott at the Cardiff auditions; and Nicole Scherzinger at the Manchester auditions and bootcamp.
Okay, so the colours aren't needed by the Guest Judge Column has to stay on the table, that way it is easier to see who was main and who was Guest.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 06:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Ditto51 im not sure you could have a separate column for guest judges without making the table too big to appear on the screen. At the end of the day, I would think that sacraficing a separate guest judging column for full text size is more desirable outcome. Plus in terms of WP:ACCESS, when using screen reading technology, having a heading in and then each og the guest judges will have great data granularity which is the most desirable of outcomes. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 12:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I have to say this is a massive improvement in my eyes. Anything that gets rid of colour in tables and fits in with WP:ACCESS should happen. –anemoneprojectors– 15:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Is there any reason why this hasn't been implemented? It's a major improvement to have full-size text and no colour. –anemoneprojectors– 10:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Infobox Years.

The years should not be includes in the infobox for the judges, presenters ect. The Template:Infobox Television in the section Judges, Presenters clearly states that "Years and/or seasons should not be included." This is because it expands the infobox too much and makes it hard to read. The point of the infobox is quick information and the key facts. The years are already listed below. Also do not rearrange the judges order as it says in the same template "Organized by broadcast credit order, with new main cast added to the end of the list". In the first season Simon Cowell was credited ahead of Louis Walsh so Simon gets listed ahead of Louis Walsh. Not to comply with this is against Wikipedia guidelines, if you continue to revert this you may get blocked. Thank You -- JohnGormleyJG (✉) 08:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with this. –anemoneprojectors– 14:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, the infobox looks too messy and overcrowded with this. -- JohnGormleyJG (✉) 17:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Are you kidding me?! The infobox does not expand one pixel, nor does it make it hard to read. Pictures, numbers, and words in an article make it easier for readers to find key facts in the ways they prefer. 370 characters is a ridiculous thing to argue about, when just about every reality show has been doing so for years. For example, American Idol has had years in its infobox for nearly a decade(see 13 February, 2006 edit). By the way, the PICTURE of The X Factor at the very top of the infobox is what makes it so big, not the years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcticgriffin (talk • contribs) 02:06, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I suggest that anyone who doesn't agree, joins the discussion at Template talk:Infobox television#Years for judges (Idol, X Factor). Discussing it here is not going to change anything, because the guidance is set out in the template documentation, not here. –anemoneprojectors– 15:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2015

105.229.222.62 (talk) 15:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Not done: No request Cannolis (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Cheryl Fernandez-Versini

In this article, which Coles should be changed to Fernandez-Versinis? Should it be all of them? For example, in the judges section, it talks about Cheryl Cole, and then says Fernandez-Versini returned for series 12, without saying Fernandez-Versini is the same person as Cole. –anemoneprojectors– 14:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on The X Factor (UK TV series). 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:

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

checkY 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 14:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2016

Location Fountain Studios (2004-2016 fountain studios closing down) 2A02:C7D:1FA4:F200:9DE5:EF75:A680:176B (talk) 13:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Terra ❤ 15:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2016

On 31 March 2016 it was announced that Fountain Studios where The X Factor broadcasts it's live shows from will be closing down in 2016 due to the studios being sold (£16m) and will be demolished. Series 13 will be the last series to go live from the Fountain Studios where it's been home to The X Factor for 12 years, It is still unknown where the show will move to for the next series.[1] 2A02:C7D:1FA4:F200:F419:466A:5FFC:B26E (talk) 19:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://metro.co.uk/2016/01/16/fountain-studios-home-to-the-x-factor-and-bgt-sold-for-16-million-5627286/
Not done: According to ITV News "The new landlord has agreed to let the studios stay in business for up to five years but a clause in the lease means the deal can be terminated with six months notice after 2016.", so it is not certain yet that the show will be moving. Until there are better references stating certainly that the show is moving to another studio, we shouldn't be speculating. fredgandt 10:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Judges' categories and their finalists

Please can you return the section (Judges' categories and their finalists) back to the original layout? It currently looks mismatched with judges changing places with each other. The original layout kept consistency even with returning judges in later series.

Simon Cowell and Gary Barlow were in the first column, Sharon Osbourne, Cheryl Cole/Fernandez-Versini and Tulisa Contostavlos were in the second column, Louis Walsh and Nick Grimshaw were in the third column and Dannii Minogue, Kelly Rowland, Nicole Scherzinger, Mel B and Rita Ora were all in the fourth column. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.78.92.169 (talk) 21:23, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

A consistent approach to naming contestants?

I've started a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television on whether we should have a consistent approach for naming participants in reality/competition shows. Your input would be welcome. Hzh (talk) 23:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

The discussion to make it a consistent is carried into here Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/August 2016 updates/Cast and characters section#Names for reality/competition shows participants. As it may affect how the names of the contestants and judges should be used in articles on X Factor, your opinion would be welcome.

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2017

49.48.249.87 (talk) 08:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. anemoneprojectors 09:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

The X Factor usually has at least one "novelty act" or "joke act" in the live shows.

The site states the following: Novelty acts Alongside the more serious acts who are contesting to win the competition or gain enough exposure to secure a future recording contract, The X Factor usually has at least one "novelty act" or "joke act" in the live shows.[20] This helps to boost ratings and add some fun into the live shows. Some of the popular 'joke acts' to appear on the show include Rhydian Roberts, Johnny Robinson, Rylan Clark, Diva Fever, Chico Slimani, Kitty Brucknell, Wagner and Jedward.[21]

Of the ten performers listed in the Telegraph newspaper [21], eight are mentioned on this site and two are omitted (2 Shoes and Stevie Ritchie).

As a BLP issue, one newspaper has identified "Kitty Brucknell" as a "novelty act", but this does not make that a neutral point of view (NPOV). Kitty Brucknell is a successful singer with her own wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitty_Brucknell There is no suggestion there that she was a joke act or novelty act on X Factor. She was eliminated in week 6, which implies that she was not a "joke act".

I would like this entry to be corrected by having "Kitty Brucknell" removed from the above paragraph.

Thanks,

Jim

21. Hogan, Michael (25 October 2016). "The X Factor's 10 best novelty acts: from Rylan Clark to Chico". The Telegraph. Retrieved 26 May 2017.

Jpljpljpljpl (talk) 01:41, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:28, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The X Factor (UK TV series). 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) 03:16, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2017

Jakesamuelsandy (talk) 23:49, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 23:57, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Judges Overview

Something like this for the judges section? Found an old template in the article history and thought it looked good as an overview. Similar to the "Britain's Got Talent" page.

Key
  Main judge
  Guest judge
  Contestant
  No appearances
Judge Series 1 Series 2 Series 3 Series 4 Series 5 Series 6 Series 7 Series 8 Series 9 Series 10 Series 11 Series 12
Simon Cowell
Louis Walsh
Sharon Osbourne
Dannii Minogue
Cheryl Cole
Gary Barlow
Tulisa Contostavlos
Kelly Rowland
Nicole Scherzinger
Mel B
Rita Ora
Nick Grimshaw
Paula Abdul
Brian Friedman
Geri Halliwell
Natalie Imbruglia
Katy Perry
Pixie Lott
Alexandra Burke
Leona Lewis
Anastacia

Just something to consider. 86.183.69.94 (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

We don't need this. The information is already presented via the infobox, lead section, series overview section, judges and presenters section, judges gallery and judges' categories and their finalists section. It doesn't need presenting in a way that goes against WP:ACCESS. AnemoneProjectors 12:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Just include the main judges.Ja 1207 (talk) 06:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
We still don't need it. Also, it goes against WP:COLOUR. anemoneprojectors 18:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
However the judges gallery isn't very clear. A table conveys information much more easily than a gallery. Nozzle02 (talk) 21:18, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Crypto Fair Play New online casino. PROVABLY FAIR GAMES! Новое честное онлайн казино! In online gambling provably fair describes an algorithm which can be verified for fairness on the part of our casino games. We publish a method to verify each transaction in every game. Once a game has been played, the player can evaluate the outcome by only using our published algorithm, the seeds, hashes and the events that went through during the game. The benefit of a provably fair system is that third-party verification and auditing is unnecessary. Results of bets for which the outcomes are mathematically predetermined are harder to scrutinize, thus the system can add a degree of trustworthiness to a gambling operation. You can click and play any of the CryptoFairPlay Games below: https://www.cryptofairplay.com/3228 Write to me fairplaymatrixworld@gmail.com and I will provide you with a free coupon for 0.0005000000 for an introductory game in our online casino! Withdrawal of winnings from 0.1 BTC. If you win a free coupon over 0.1 BTC, you can withdraw your winnings to your wallet. Напишите мне на почту fairplaymatrixworld@gmail.com и я вышлю Вам Купон бесплатной игры для ознакомления с казино Сryptofairplay. При выигрыше на бесплатный купон свыше 0.1 BTC Вы можете свой выигрыш вывести себе на кошелек.

PlayYourBet https://www.PlayYourBet.com/en/3228 New Online casino top slots and games selection We believe that there are never too many online slots! At PlayYourBet we made sure to provide an unmatched selection of top online casino games. PlayYourBet is a perfectly secure online casino with some of the best games on the net. It doesn’t matter if you are a low roller or high roller, just play regularly and you will always reap the rewards. If you have any questions then you can easily get hold of a professionally trained support team either by sending them an email or by launching the live chat feature. You’ll get an instant response and you will always be responded to in English Best online casino for new or expert casino players! PlayYourBet online casino is available on both desktop and on the go with any mobile device. It’s operated by a highly professional and experienced team. PlayYourBet is certified by top gambling authorities and fully protected by 128-bit SSL encryption technology. No matter what type of player you are, will find everything you need for the ultimate online gambling experience. Our real money online casino games collection is huge and comprises both video and classic titles. The games entertain a range of themes, from fantasy to nature, to ensure there is always enough to suit every flavour. Most of the games offer an exciting and lucrative bonus features and of course there are lots of free spins up for grabs. Gigantic New Player Welcome Package and Daily promotions! We increase your chances to hit it big with a cool €5000 in new player bonuses! As a top online casino, the fun never ends… PlayYourBet online casino offers reload bonuses and free spins offers on a daily basis. Whether you’re a high roller or a low roller, our bonuses and free spins will make a big difference in improving your odds. We offer a special VIP program, but there are also low entry options for new members and casual gamblers. The most common form of rewards are our exclusive daily promotions, free bonuses or free spins that can be transformed into huge wins.

EARN ONLINE We will help you build an online business you can work from anywhere in the world. Your success is our goal! https://www.fairplaymatrix.com/3228

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_X_Factor_(British_TV_series)/Archive_2&oldid=1229973968"