Talk:The X Factor (British TV series) series 7/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about The X Factor (British TV series) series 7. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Listing songs performed in advance

WP:BALL says: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." Several songs that were listed earlier in the week and considered confirmed by reliable sources turned out not to be correct. Whether the inaccuracy was due to rumours being taken for fact or because, as we were told on the broadcast of the show, some song choices were changed at the last minute does not matter much. What does seem clear is that until the singers walk out on the stage and start to sing we cannot know with the near certainty Wikipedia policy requires what song they will sing. I would recommend, as a result, that it would be a proper observance of WP:BALL to not list songs in advance of performances for future weeks.142 and 99 (talk) 00:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Only two songs changed this week from what we had already written, but that's because they changed the songs, not because they were false rumours. We can know with absolutely certainty though, because The X Factor always confirms the song choices in advance (on the day). Anemone Projectors 01:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, One Direction's song changed, Wagner's song changed (was it really ever "Relax", or was that just a rumour?), Mary's song changed, Belle Amie's song changed, and Treyc's song changed (was it really ever "Stairway To Heaven", or was that just a rumour?). So of twelve performers, five - almost half of them - either changed songs or their songs were falsely reported. That suggests to me that until an official and complete song list is released on the day of the performance, anything else is not certain enough to count as "almost certain to take place". 142 and 99 (talk) 02:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

When I updated the official list I only had to change Treyc's song. Before today, only two songs were listed, Mary's and Wagners'. We hadn't included songs that hadn't been confirmed reliably. Yes, Wagner's did change, but it was "Relax" because the source was Sinitta who works on the show. Mary's was confirmed by Louis Walsh on TV the night before. Before this week we've always been completely accurate, and usually song choices don't change, it was just that the theme was really bad this week. Not saying we should ignore WP:BALL, I'm just defending what we've been doing until now. And I don't think we can stop people adding songs when they are reliably sourced. Usually songs don't leak before Saturday anyway, and choices are highly unlikely to change on a Saturday. Anemone Projectors 02:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that it is not necessary to report something that has not actually happened yet. At best, it is a speculation that adds nothing to our knowledge. I prefer waiting until it actually happens frankly on stage. werldwayd (talk) 17:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Once the list of songs is confirmed by the official website it won't change. I'd rather add it when it's available and then spend a little time getting the order right, rather than having to change the order as well as add the song. Do you also think we should remove week 4's theme and performers even though they were both confirmed on the show? Anemone Projectors 18:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I not only agree with Werldwayd about waiting to list songs, I also think themes and performers should not be listed in advance. At best, it could be said "On such-and-such a date it was announced by so-and-so that the theme for week X would be what-cha-ma-call-it and who's-it was announced as a guest performer". That, at least, is true even if there are changes. After the song clearance controversy with Susan Boyle for America's Got Talent and knowing how singers can cancel appearances at the last minute for health and other reasons, I'd say any guest performances are not certain until they walk out on the stage and ~~mime~~ sing. 142 and 99 (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

So something like "Theme: On The Xtra Factor on 24 October, Cowell and Walsh confirmed a Halloween theme" and "Celebrity performers: O'Leary announced on the week 3 results show that Rihanna, Bon Jovi and Jamiroquai would be performing. Digital Spy reported that Rihanna would perform "Only Girl (In The World)"."? I still think we can list the songs once they've been confirmed on the day. Otherwise during the show there will be no end of reverting. Anemone Projectors 18:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The first sentence of the 2012 Summer Olympics page currently reads, "The 2012 Summer Olympic Games, officially known as the Games of the XXX Olympiad, are scheduled to take place in London, United Kingdom, from 27 July to 12 August 2012." That seems be a good model for listing future events (if they are to be mentioned at all) and similar to what you suggest for this page. Waiting until the day of the show to list song choices of contestants also seems reasonable enough.142 and 99 (talk) 18:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

(undent) I've put that in now, feel free to reword it as you see fit. Would it be possible to do that kind of thing for the songs or is it still best to wait until confirmed by the official website on the day? Anemone Projectors 19:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Final showdown in weekly song summary

I noticed earlier that we've used the colour blue for the person who is in the final showdown but is safe. Since we don't have a colour for safe, should we still use the colour? I'm confused. Anemone Projectors 21:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Nadine Coyle

Nadine Coyle will be performing her new single 'insatiable' on the 7th Nov results show, can you add this please. THANK YOU!! --90.211.126.75 (talk) 01:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Got a reliable source for that? Anemone Projectors 01:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Bewitched

The song "Bewitched" was recorded by Steve Lawrence, but linking to his Wikipedia page gives that recording undue weight. He released it in 1965 as the B-side of a non-album single, and that single did not crack the top 100. In other words, the recording was of virtually no consequence at the time. Furthermore, in 1965 Peggy Lee also recorded it. So it's not even clear that Lawrence's recording was the first version (with lyrics - we know the song as an instrumental precedes his recording). The reason his name is associated with the song is because in 2005 his version was on the Bewitched film soundtrack.

Both of the men who wrote the song (Howard Greenfield and Jack Keller) have Wikipedia pages and the TV show has a page as well (Bewitched). The most informative link to include is probably the on to the TV show, since it will answer the question someone might have if they don't know what the song is from just the title. But it might be better to list the song like this: "Bewitched" (by Howard Greenfield and Jack Keller). But both are better than linking to Steve Lawrence's page.142 and 99 (talk) 18:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was better to link to him as he was the original artist. I didn't want to link to the TV series since the theme tune is purely an instrumental version. If you're against linking to Lawrence, I'd rather have no link at all. Anemone Projectors 22:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather have no link at all and, as I mentioned before, we do not actually know who the "original" artist is. Lawrence released "Bewitched" as a B-side some time in 1965. Peggy Lee recorded it in 1965 (and one webpage I found said February of 1965), so Lee could well be before Lawrence. But neither version was notable when they came out so mentioning neither is better than mentioning either. Let's go with no link.142 and 99 (talk) 22:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. But someone really should make an article for the song, right? Anemone Projectors 22:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

A page for the song? Meh. It's just the theme to a TV show that had two non-notable recordings 45 years ago, one of witch was on a non-notable soundtrack to a below average movie five years ago. That (and the two appearances on X Factor) are not much to build a page around, but I won't object if someone really wants to do it.142 and 99 (talk) 22:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

lol well it would give us something to link to :-) Did Ella Fitzgerald do a version? Some website posted yesterday that Katie was doing "Bewitched by Ella Fitzgerald" (maybe they were thinking of Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered). Anemone Projectors 22:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Results Table

I don't think the results table is big enough as I don't think you've added enough weeks to fit in 2nd and 1st place. Please consider. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.5.250 (talk) 14:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The Rsults Table is correct --MSalmon (talk) 14:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

There are no weeks missing. It runs for 10 weeks. However, another two double eliminations are expected, so you have to take those into consideration. Anemone Projectors 19:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

OK. I didn't realize. Thanks!

A few things - results table and song credits

(Yes I know this has already been discussed to death) I've had a thought - the results table only goes up to week 10 - that's fine if there are 10 weeks of shows but it hasn't actually been confirmed how long the show will run for - it was even speculated at one point to run until Christmas day which would make the show 12 weeks. For an article that seems so keen on not holding any information this is speculation or could be misinterpreted - it seems to be very heavily based on the format of previous series articles.

On this theme I'd like to revisit the song credits as the article's format seems to be so heavily based on previous articles I still find it really strange we have no song credits. I appreciate that previous articles are often not a good basis for a new article, however for the sake of consistency within this series of articles it would make sense to include song credits as they have been there for series 1 thru 6 and also for the international versions... Eddyegghead (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

We removed song credits because there was no single angreed format of whether you should list the original performer or the performer who is best known with the song. Also it is sometimes difficult to distinguish the two and there are also issues with sometimes identifying which version of a song was actually sung. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 22:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate that, as I said, but I'm talk for the sake of consistency as all previous UK series and international versions credit the original artist. Eddyegghead (talk) 22:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

If consistency is the issue, then we removing artist credits from the other pages is as good a solution. It's a better one, as far as I am concerned, since listing artists is problematic for many reasons (already discussed). I'm afraid you'll need a better argument than "for the sake of consistency" on this point.142 and 99 (talk) 22:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

A much more time consuming one but still a solution I agree - I don't care which way round it's done but I think we need to do something. Eddyegghead (talk) 22:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Not at all time consuming. I'd be willing to do it all myself, in fact, if other editors agreed with the solution. I fear, however, that on those other pages there are editors with different views. But I do not see why consistency is so important.142 and 99 (talk) 22:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I was planning on editing the first 6 series articles to match this one - removing credits and making the results table match - but if anyone else wants to help that's fine by me :-) Anemone Projectors 23:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Anemone, just say the word and I'll edit out all the artist names from the X Factor series 1 to 6 pages.142 and 99 (talk) 23:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

If you do that, I'll do the results tables! Oh and as for the show being 10 weeks long, the voting terms did say it would last 10 weeks, but since they decided to change their minds over double eliminations, they took away the week numbers from that page :( Anemone Projectors 23:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The final should be on the 12 December 2010 because the Xmas Chart is the following week (18th) so they have to get the winners single out in time --MSalmon (talk) 23:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Ratings

I don't really like this section. I think we should only be using the official ratings from BARB because overnights aren't official. We could still use the overnights for audience share and ITV1 HD though. Any thoughts? Anemone Projectors 23:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I've never agreed with the use of 'non-official' overnight ratings. We don't always know the source of these and they are estimates. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 18:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Digital Spy explains their sources fully, however I still think we should only use the official ratings from BARB. But we would still have to use overnights for ITV1 HD. Do you think the prose should include every episode? It's a lot of numbers and I think it's quite boring to read. Anemone Projectors 20:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Prose should only ever contain the first episode (auditions), first live episode and finale. Any other interesting spikes or deflations should be mentioned that's it. We should move away from over repetition of facts. Prose is always there to provide commentary or info not conveyed in the tables. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 21:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll have a go at changing the information in the table then :-) I also think the highest rated episode should be mentioned in prose (judges' houses 2) Anemone Projectors 22:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah =) -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 00:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

How do you feel about ITV1 HD overnights being in the table? Anemone Projectors 22:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Depends. I'm not that fussed. If he have the official HD figures then no. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 00:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Only overnights for HD. So without it, HD won't be mentioned at all. I'll also have to remove the peak figures because some of them turned out to be lower than the official rating (plus half the time the peak isn't reported). Anemone Projectors 00:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I would leave HD overnight but like you said remove the peaks if we're only reporting official numbers anyway. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 00:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Leave it in or leave it out? lol Anemone Projectors 00:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Left it out. Have a lookie and see what you thinkie. I was considering a note for the two missing ones and putting the overnight rating in the note... Anemone Projectors 01:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Too early?

On the Xtra Factor Simon Cowell said that to coincide with JLS' children in need single "Love You More" they would be peforming on the show with Westlife and Take That also performing. Is this confirmation that week 6 will be the "Boy-bands" themed show Cowell spoke of? and is not then confirmed that the performers for 13/14 Nov will be JLS, Westlife and Take That? or is that too WP:CRYSTAL/WP:OR -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 18:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Simon just said that JLS, Westlife and Take That would appear together, he didn't say when or that it would coincide with anything. Someone said "Take That are coming back" and Simon seemed to think he meant "on The X Factor". Then when he realised he slipped up, nothing more was said. So I think it's a bit CRYSTAL and a bit OR. Though I have seen sources for (a rumoured) "boyband week". I've also read that Prince is to perform at the final. Anemone Projectors 20:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Cher's performance of Avril Lavigne

Cher performed the Dr Luke Remix of Girlfriend, the rap lyrics were lifted from this mix which is rapped by Lil Mama. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.136.224 (talk) 16:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Winner's single

Is their any references of what the Winner's single is yet? It is normally announced around about this time. --SATURDAYmight. (talk) 18:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I read a few days ago that the five finalists had recorded a different song each as the budgets had been increased. Anemone Projectors 21:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Here it is. I didn't add it as it's only "reported" and not "confirmed". Anemone Projectors 21:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Week 9 judges' votes

How do we deal with it in the results table since it was vote to send to the final not vote to send home? Anemone Projectors 21:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Mabye add a note somewhere? --MSalmon (talk) 21:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I've got an idea, gonna put it in, see what you think. Anemone Projectors 21:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok --MSalmon (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Problem I can see with that is the row is labled "X vote to eliminate". 77.102.254.175 (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

My idea solved that. Anemone Projectors 21:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I would leave it like that for now and direct people here to discuss it then change it if necessary --MSalmon (talk) 21:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)But now it's not clear what they were voting. Just saying "X's vote" doesn't say whether they were voting to eliminate or to keep in every week. Would it not be better to just flip which name they said? If they voted to keep X then they voted to eliminate Y. 77.102.254.175 (talk) 21:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It is clear because I added a row saying "Judges voted to". Anemone Projectors 21:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Personally I think it would be better just to leave it as it was and have it vote to eliminate all the way through. I think the table looks a bit messy with the extra row stipulating whether it was a vote to save or eliminate. Raider655 (talk) 21:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it looks messy but I do think it's wrong to say they voted to eliminate when they didn't. Anemone Projectors 22:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter either way though. Every week they vote against an act and in favour of the other. It's the same exact thing just worded differently. No one reading the table is likely to care either way. Raider655 (talk) 23:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I still think we should reflect the way the votes went rather than swapping them just because it's different and it suits us to do that. Anemone Projectors 23:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Well except that Louis said he was sending Mary through and sending Cher home so he in effect voted in both ways. Also along these lines - there is still nothing to suggest that there won't be another final showdown next week, i.e. on the Saturday night taking 3 acts through to Sunday, and although this is fairly unlikely, I think that section saying 'no judges vote' should be removed for now as there is no evidence to suggest either way (crystal ball). Eddyegghead (talk) 23:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It seemed like he misunderstood the change. It was silly to change though. Yes I'll remove the no judges' vote again. I put it back because someone said that Louis Walsh had said on radio last week that there would be no judges' vote this week. Anemone Projectors 00:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems really superfluous to me. When the judges voted to send Cher through, they were essentially voting to eliminate Mary. Can't we just leave it the way it was for the sake of simplicity and uniformity?86.147.71.90 (talk) 00:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Simon Cowells letter

This article quotes Simon Cowell as saying "a lot of nonsense about nothing[147] as there has always been a final showdown where there are five contestants remaining" in response to criticism of the semi final. I think it would be worth mentioning that this is a lie as according to the Wiki article for last years series, there was not a final showdon with 5 contestants. Or word it better.90.196.231.119 (talk) 16:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll reword it. Anemone Projectors 18:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Just read around and that is what he actually said. There is no menton of how this is wrong for series 2, 4, 5 and 6, as those series DID NOT have sing offs for 5 contestants90.196.231.119 (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I put exactly what Simon said. I don't know how to say he's wrong without straying into original research because there are no reliable sources (unless you can find a report saying he made a mistake). Anemone Projectors 21:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Chloe mafia

The article about contestant Chloe Mafia should be included in the controversy and critiscism section. As she gained alot of notable media attention due to her appearence on the show — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmcric (talk • contribs) 12:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

We discussed her at the time (see archive 1) and decided that the only thing we could possibly mention would be her lateness, which isn't worth it. Her personal life isn't really an X Factor controversy. Anemone Projectors 13:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Gamu Nhengu

As Gamu has released a single, i think it should be added in somewhere on here, as it is to go head to head with the winner's single, also i think she should have a page opened? --L.Geee (talk) 01:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

If her single becomes notable then yes, she can have her own article, but no reason for that to be mentioned here. Anemone Projectors 01:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Audition songs

Apparently, the three remaining finalists will be singing the songs from their auditions. Matt will sing 'No Good', Rebecca will sing 'A Change is Gonna Come' and One Direction will sing 'Torn'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.109.169 (talk) 14:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source? We don't add the song list, and usually not the theme, until it's officially confirmed by itv.com, or announced on The X Factor, The Xtra Factor or The F Factor. Anemone Projectors 14:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Weekly Results Tables

I've just noticed that each week the table of songs and results has the title "A summary of the contestants' performances on the 'X' live show and results show, along with the results." Seeing as there are two live shows each week, this is slightly misleading, especially now that the 2 tables for the final have the titles: "A summary of the contestants' performances on the tenth live show, along with the results." & "A summary of the contestants' performances on the final live show, along with the results." I think we should change this to: "A summary of the contestants' performances in Week X, along with the results. Certainly for the final, something much clearer needs doing, I'm just mot sure what yet... Eddyegghead (talk) 17:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, it was just something done quickly at the start. I don't really like "A summary of the contestants' performances in Week X" though. Thing is, we call the performances show "Live show X" and the results show "Results X". When it comes to the final, both shows are for performances and results. Something like "A summary of the contestants' performances on the nth live performance show along with the results from the following results show" is a bit long. Anemone Projectors 18:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way I don't think "nth live show and results show" is really misleading because it's stating they are the performances and results from both shows in week n. Anemone Projectors 18:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

One Direction's winner's song

I don't see why we can't list both reported songs since we are saying what's been reported. Nothing has been confirmed, for all we know, all the songs could be wrong. Anemone Projectors 18:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a real time blog. We get no bonus points for getting the information faster. But getting the information right is essential. Ultimately, the fact that media reports have claimed that the winner's song is one thing or another is information that is inconsequential to this article. That is why those claims are always removed right after more reliable sources are found. It is what will happen with the other contestant's winner's songs info in just a few hours. So the mere fact that media reports claim that a song will be such-and-such are not important. Those reports only have value (if at all) if they can give accurate information. In this case, we know that they cannot. The media reports conflict, so clearly they don't know what the song is. So just as we have been waiting for the official song information each week to be posted by the official X Factor sources, we should wait here. The idea that we must post something as early as possible is absurd for an encyclopedia. Just wait a couple of hours and all mysteries will be revealed and can be reported. Accurately.142 and 99 (talk) 18:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

So why not remove all the reported songs? I don't see the problem as we're not saying THESE ARE DEFINTELY GOING TO BE THE SONGS, we're saying these are reported to be the songs. Anemone Projectors 18:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I suggested removing all reported songs prior to the show months ago. You said that you wanted to post the contestants songs when the official X Factor site named them rather than just what the media reports said they would be, which is what has been done since then. It was a reasonable compromise, since (as you said at the time) the official reports come the day of the show and are proven to be reliable while the media does get it wrong from time to time. There is no reason to change this method. I would prefer that all the winner's songs were removed for now, but I just did not think it worth the fight I would likely get. But in the case of One Direction, we really don't know what the song will be and neither does the media so it should definitely not be named yet. But consistency (with past month's practice) would require that all winner's songs be removed until an official source is available. I would strongly support doing that. 142 and 99 (talk) 18:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

We can remove the winner's songs if you really want to. It's normally announced a few weeks in advance, but there hasn't even been official confirmation this time. ITV.com aren't even reporting tonight's songs. Sorry for my shouty edit summary by the way. Anemone Projectors 19:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think we should remove them. I'll just comment out the section. 142 and 99 (talk) 19:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Just as an extra, what's the difference between Alphaville's "Forever Young" and Mr Hudson's "Young Forever"? Anemone Projectors 18:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The chorus is the same and the verses completely different, both lyrically and musically.142 and 99 (talk) 18:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

If it's not confirmed by the time they sing it, I won't be able to add it to the article, unless I learn the lyrics to both songs :D Anemone Projectors 19:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, if the boys break into a rap, then you know it's probably Young Forever. Might I suggest looking up both on YouTube? And check out Bob Dylan's "Forever Young" while you're there. Heck, it might even turn out to be Madness' "Forever Young" for all we know! 142 and 99 (talk) 19:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't get on YouTube until midnight. I doubt they're going to rap. We're only going to hear two of the songs performed, so... I dunno. I think we should leave it as it was for now. Bob Dylan and Madness's songs haven't been reported, why would it be those? :S Anemone Projectors 19:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I doubt they will rap as well, but our assumptions are only predictions, not facts. I mention Bob Dylan and Madness (and one could add Rod Stewart as well) becuase the title "Forever Young" has been used many times by many famous songs. So since the media reports are conflicting based on the title (and they even only agree on the two words of the title, not even the order of those words) it is possible that they are all wrong based on someone leaking information based solely on the title and making an assumption themselves. But once the show goes on and they perform, it will be clear enough which song they do. So for the sake of accuracy, it is best to wait.142 and 99 (talk) 19:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Cool beans. Anemone Projectors 19:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Now we'll never know!!!!! Anemone Projectors 20:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't play this yet but here it is [1] Anemone Projectors 22:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

So I'm pretty sure it's "Forever Young", can anyone confirm? Anemone Projectors 01:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

No question. That's "Forever Young". A more anal editor might point out that (1) there is no way of knowing for certain that this YouTube clip is actually One Direction singing and (2) even if it is really them it would be synthesis to conclude that this confirms the media reports saying that they would release this as a single had they won, but that would be a very silly worry.

Now all you have to do is find out what song was chosen for Mary and if she actually ever recorded it. :)142 and 99 (talk) 03:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Some journo did say what Mary's song was on Twitter but I took no notice, assuming it would come out in a reliable source :S So I can't remember. Anemone Projectors 08:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

One direction placing

Shouldn't one direction be put as third in the weekly summaries, instead of eliminated as the result?

And Cher marked as fourth. This is how previous years appear to be done for the final —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.231.119 (talk) 21:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

1D's been fixed, but I don't think we should put Cher as 4th because it was an elimination round. Anemone Projectors 21:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

wasn't it the semi-final?? 77.97.110.57 (talk) 21:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Last years saturday night show had an elimination round, and in the wiki page for that Stacey Soloman is marked as third.90.196.231.119 (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

We're not basing this year's on last year's. Anemone Projectors 21:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

me again. on stv, they say it is the FINAL WEEKEND, and the official x factor itv site states cher is fourth, therefore Cher is fourth. how can you argue with that?!?!?! also, this year can't be different from last year, or the previous years, unless every year has been done differently?? 77.97.110.57 (talk) 22:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

She's fourth, Mary's fifth, FYD's 15th... we still say eliminated. Anemone Projectors 23:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Xtra factor

Could we list the judges perdiction in here somewhere for this and other series, also a new section on the f factor spin off show.--Cooly123 22:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

No need to add judges' predictions, never been added in previous years. It doesn't affect the outcome and is only done for fun. Anemone Projectors 23:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Major Discrepancies in Percentages in table

If AnemoneProjectors is going to copy percentages from the programme results sheet, he should ensure that all are transcribed correctly (2 have been fixed). In addition, the votes that make up the %'s to 100.00% were not included or commented on within the table i.e.: week 10 round 1 - 1 set ommitted; week 10 final - 2 sets ommitted. Whilst I have made a note in the article, I will leave it to another to edit the table to deal with this major statistical discrepancy. Gavin Lisburn (talk) 00:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

People make typing errors. No need to be so rude. Anemone Projectors 01:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

No intention to be rude, but you do seem to dislike editors making changes here. This is evidenced by the number of reverts you make. It makes it look as if you regard the page as your personal page. By the way, the numbers are still incorrect for week 10 freeze 2 - 1 set ommitted. Gavin Lisburn (talk) 01:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, wouldn't it make more sense to correct the errors without telling me about them? Anemone Projectors 01:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Just out of interest, would it be considered original research (or something similar) if we calculate what the percentages of the final 3/2 are, without the already-eliminated Cher and One Direction? As the number of votes they got aren't increasing with every vote count, they should be easy to deduct. By my calculations, the final 3 would be 42.67% for Matt, 35.14% for Rebecca and 22.20% for One Direction; adds up to 100.01% but that's due to rounding the percentages to 2 decimal places. The final 2 would be 53.59% to Matt and 46.41% to Rebecca. 2.121.111.126 (talk) 01:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Erm.... possibly. I think it's interesting to know but not something that's includable. Anemone Projectors 01:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

2.121.111.126, your calculations are accurate, but the report of the vote results are a bit like election returns. It is best if the article just report the official data and let people do their own calculations with it if they wish to do so (and know how). It does seem a bit odd that they included the votes for contestants who had been eliminated, but there might be some technical (possibly legal?) reason to do so.

For anyone interested, the reports of the votes for Cher and One Direction do actually give some other interesting information. They show that during the voting period after Cher was eliminated and before One Direction was eliminated that 2.89 times as many votes were recorded as were recorded before Cher was eliminated. Additionally, after One Direction were eliminated 63.28% more votes were cast over and above the total that had been cast up to that point. In other words, for every 1 vote cast before the first freeze, 2.89 were cast between the freezes and 2.46 were cast after the second freeze.142 and 99 (talk) 03:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

15,448,019 Votes - Revenue, Profit & Charity Contribution

Now that the programme has released voting figures, the article needs a section on votes, revenue, profit, charity contributions (if any). Gavin Lisburn (talk) 01:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The votes are mentioned in the lead. I put them there as there was nowhere else to put them. Do you have information on revenue, profit, and charity contributions? Anemone Projectors 01:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I've added a section for votes and revenue, though no mention of profits. Charities apparently did not benefit (this would have been announced during the show). Anemone Projectors 00:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Viewers on ITV1 HD?

Is there a reason why viewers on ITV1 HD aren't included in the table? 87.115.107.150 (talk) 19:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Because we only have overnight ratings for that channel, which are not official ratings. Anemone Projectors 20:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

http://www.barb.co.uk/ --> Viewing Figures --> Weekly, Top 10s --> click on I then go to ITV1 HD. Simples. D.M.N. (talk) 21:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I will add. Anemone Projectors 21:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Tour

Would it be appropriate to add details of the 2011 live tour to this article? What information do we have about the tour? Anemone Projectors 13:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Opening sentence

The pages on the first six series all start with "The first/second/third/fourth/fifth/sixth series of The X Factor started on (whenever) and finished on (whenever), but series 7 opens with what The X Factor is about and then info about the series after. Why?

Because it gives additional context to readers who are unfamiliar with the subject. Anemone Projectors 22:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Table captions

I just summarized the table captions, per the accessible data tables tutorial. While they should remain accurate, they were overly verbose and thus rendered useless in practice.

I already raised this issue at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Discographies/style#Table captions: short and efficient, where a complete explanation is provided. If something remains unclear, or needs to be debated, please go ahead and ask. Cheers, Dodoïste (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, saying "Contestants' performances on the nth live show" is incorrect because there are two live shows per week, and results are there, not just performances. –Anemone Projectors– 11:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you referring to the "Final showdown"? If so, I was going to suggest to move it in a separate table anyway, per advice at the accesssibility toturial.

In a table about the contestant's performance, it is expected to find the results. Blind people are not that different from us. Most readers won't find a 23 words long table caption helpful, nor would blind users. See the tutorial from WebAIM experts. In their table, they simply used "Shelly's Daughters" as a table caption. They did not use "Shelly's Daughters, sorted by age, name and birthday date". A table caption is not meant to duplicate the headers that comes after it. It is only supposed to help users roughly determine what the table is about. Cheers, Dodoïste (talk) 21:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is what I suggest concerning the "Final showdown". Cheers, Dodoïste (talk) 21:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes the final showdown is on the following night's live show. We can do what you suggested, but I'd prefer it if the columns were the same width, it just looks a bit weird to me. –Anemone Projectors– 22:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure, it would improve readability and consistency. How about this? Cheers, Dodoïste (talk) 23:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

That looks loads better. Would you mind doing the rest? :-) –Anemone Projectors– 23:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The X Factor (UK series 7)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 13:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

1. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct? Done - Certainly

2. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation? Not done - Take a look at words to watch and list incorporation. Across the whole article.

3. It provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout? Done - However, there is an invalid ref tag. Check the references at the bottom of the page.

4. It provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines? Done

5. It contains no original research? Done

6. It addresses the main aspects of the topic? Done - Certainly

7. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail? Not done - Very long, too much detail like ratings. Maybe cut down the article as it is very long.

8. It represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each? Done

9. It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute? Not done - A few edit wars?

10. Illustrated, if possible, by images: Done - Some of bad quality/angles.

(a) Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content? Done

(b) Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions? Done - Again, could be better.

Pass or fail? Placing on hold for issues to be addressed.

Hi, thanks for reviewing this. Unfortunately I have no internet access at home and only have one hour per day at the library, so I will be unable to do a lot. I have asked a couple of people if they would help out but if you could be more specific then it would be very helpful. If there are only minor things, would you consider possibly fixing them yourself? I'll come back tomorrow and see what I can do. –anemone projectors– 13:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I mean, all you really need to do is:

Change the ref tag, maybe improve the images, cut down the article length, a few words are not supposed to be used according to the manual of style, however, there is very few of them so this isn't compulsory. Ok? Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 14:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't see an invalid ref tag, which number is it? –anemone projectors– 11:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

You fixed the ref yesterday, when you reverted the addition of the original artists. - JuneGloom Talk 12:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- Oh good. –anemone projectors– 14:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

As for images, the studios one isn't great, but it's the only one we have on Wikimedia. The same for Matt Cardle. The others seem perfectly fine. Searching Flickr gives no alternatives that could be uploaded. I don't think I'd have time to cut down the article length with the limited time I have online at the moment. –anemone projectors– 12:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

It could be cut down by putting the live show details in a seperate article.RaintheOne ^BAM 12:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's a very good idea. –anemone projectors– 14:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

If the second opinion request is on the separate article, then I agree that that's a bad move. Keep it all in one. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Good, I will pass the article now. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 13:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion - One Direction

I personally think One Direction should be mentioned in the lead, their the global breakout of 7th series. thoughts? AdabowtheSecond (talk) 00:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)