Template talk:Britain's Got Talent

This template 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. For how to use this banner template, see its documentation.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles

United Kingdom

This template is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles

Escala

Shouldn't they be added in as well? since Faryl is there they must be there as well. Mista koo (talk) 12:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Johnston (Singer)

He was third, I have just started an article on him, and he is clearly going to be offered a deal so I think he should be included on the template. If Faryl is in the template, then so should he. Thenthornthing (talk) 09:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added him to it.--Hiltonhampton (talk) 12:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Thenthornthing (talk) 12:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Color Scheme

Keep the olor scheme the way it is, don't bring personal taste into account. It's in keeping with the logo and title sequence.--Hiltonhampton (talk) 12:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's personal taste, I think it's mroe common sense. The black on blue is hardly readable! Thenthornthing (talk) 12:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Faryl Smith

As she now has recieved some coverage independent of the show, I feel and article on her is warranted and have restored and worked on the old version. I am adding her to the template. J Milburn (talk) 21:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Boyle

Had enormous international coverage as a result of the show. Holkingers (talk) 08:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any contestants for which we have an article are notable. The template exists to assist navigation to such articles and so they should all be included. We do not need to debate each entry unless and until the number of entries becomes too large and cluttered. We're a long way from that still. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The argument is whether they are a notable part of 'Britain's got Talent' at the moment. Shaheen is notable for his acting rather than passing a first round audition and Hollie has simply passed a first round audition, DJ Talent the same. Holkingers (talk) 09:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is determined by the amount of coverage they get. Anyway, showing them as current contestants seems good as this will be helpful to our readers. Not sure that we need a link to the third series though as there's already one at the top. Perhaps that could be retitled Current rather than 3 to make it stand out. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other notable former contestants→Notable alumni

"Notable alumni" would condense the row to one line and it's as descriptive as "Other notable former contestants" anyway. Should it be changed to "notable alumni" like American Idol and Australian Idol, etc? Alex Douglas (talk) 03:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Season 1 Runner Up

Just to confirm, it was Damon Scott, not Connie Talbot, because ive seen it changed a few times. :) (Kyleofark (talk) 19:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Dispute

With regards to dispute See Here and edit wars. There needs to be a consensus on what should go in the first series runner up bit. Considering they only announced Paul Potts as winner. Suggestions on the explanation needed to clarify that there was only a Winner given in series 1. 2nd / 3rd came in from series 2 onwards and maybe that at the time all loosing finalists were called "runners up" . I don't know how best to reference the show episode and the official videos on the ITV site like http://talent.itv.com/videos/video/item_200049.htm.

--Holkingers (talk) 13:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any sources stating that no runner-up was selected in series 1? (For that matter, are there any sources stating the opposite?) Sources would make this affair much easier to resolve, and help people like me who didn't see series 1 ;-) Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 13:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will look for good evidence that we can use on Wikipedia, I have searched the press articles in the day after and they only refer to the Winner and those who lost out rather than any mention of 2nd or 3rd, completely different than series 2 & 3 reports. The internet videos of the results show show them all being asked on stage and Paul Potts announced, in series 2 and 3 the top three are asked to remain on stage and they give 2nd and 3rd, silver and bronze positions effectively.--Holkingers (talk) 13:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It occurs to me that it might be worth looking for sources around series 2, since that's likely to be when deviations from series 1 will most likely be mentioned. I'll have a hunt too, if I have time later. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 13:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good thinking--Holkingers (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but I can't find anything so far! Plenty of post-series 2 references to second- and third-place, no post-series 1 references to anything other than the winner, but nothing that explicitly states that. I'll keep looking - some commentator must have picked up on it. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I propose changing "Runners-up" to "Second Place" as per WP:BrE. In the UK we commonly call anyone who isn't the winner as one of the "runners-up". Examples - Escala called "runners up" in the Telegraph Newspaper [1], seven runners up in the Daily Mail [2] The fact that Connie, Damon or for that matter anyone else has been referred to in a source as "runner up" doesn't give adequate proof they were 2nd. --Holkingers (talk) 14:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with above. I was just wondering wtf Connie got tagged as 2nd place just after my I seen the final video on youtube. 128.12.90.195 (talk) 04:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A video that shows the announcement of the winner shows the 5 contestants, then the announcement of Potts as a winner. No runner ups mentioned. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqWvuMJV0Yw —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.65.76 (talk) 04:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I rememeber reading at the time that Damon Scott had come second in an article, but I think that it should just be left if theres no source. I think Connie Talbot was the ASUMED runner-up at the time, because she was tipped by most to actually win, I dont think there was ever any confirmation that she had come second. All they announced on the show was that Paul Potts had won. :) (Kyleofark (talk) 22:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Series 4 template

NB The Cheeky Girls were not in the final. Update list and remove vandalism! —Preceding unsigned comment added by WilberforceHope (talk • contribs) 22:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF. My edits are not vandalism and I'm pretty insulted that you would say they are. The Cheeky Girls were contestants. It doesn't say "finalists", it says "notable contestants". Anemone Projectors 23:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Series 6 and 7 template

Can anyone advise as to why Amanda Holden is listed as a former judge? She definitely judged season 6, and it's been announced that she'll be back for season 7 (all four judges will remain the same).Grover (talk) 08:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of "Other Notable Contestants"

This is for not only this template, but all templates covering a international television edition of the Got Talent franchise. Under the section in this template denoted as "Other Notable Contestant", how should this field be defined by editors? Please answer with the following; more than one choice may be given, but please explain your reasoning:

A The contestant made a notable career for themselves before appearing on a Got Talent programme.
B The contestant became notable for their performance during their appearance on a Got Talent programme.
C The contestant became notable for beginning a career after appearing on a Got Talent programme.

The need to define this section is due to the amount of Wikilinks being used in templates crafted with this section, such as Template:Britain's Got Talent and Template:America's Got Talent. Its need clear clarification to editors how this should be defined as in terms of relevant articles/subject matter. GUtt01 (talk) 14:23, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

D, the individual was a contestant and we now have an article about them. We shouldn't care when or why the individual became notable; if we say "Other notable contestants", that means they were once a contestant and are, as of today, notable by our standards. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:00, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That's not a choice, because that doesn't clarify the notability at all. If you say "by our standards", that infers we are saying it is notable from fixed viewpoint, not a neutral one. Furthermore, how exactly they are notable in the programme has to be made clear - was it something they did before appearing; was it something they did when they appeared; or did they become notable after appearing on the program, in terms of other performances in other areas and such like? GUtt01 (talk) 19:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Why does it matter? Isn't option D, as proposed by User:Seraphimblade, the same as the combination of A, B, and C as proposed by User:GUtt01? Is there a reason why we need to differentiate, or has there been an issue about someone, or what? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:33, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: The issue is what is the notability about them in relevance to the Got Talent edition they performed in - how we define that is important. Yes, a person is notable for an article, and if there was not a section for Winners, Runners-up and Third Place, then putting down notable contestants would be easy to do by linking to articles of respective performers who contributed to the program's success or went on to develop a career/continue to bolster their career. But because we got those sections already, we need to be clear on defining what "Other Notable Contestants" should reflect in the template. The above user says that what is notable is that they were once a contestant, but that is not notable enough for them to be included in the template unless there is a clear definition beyond just being a contestant. GUtt01 (talk) 08:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

D - any notable contestant, regardless of when notability happened. I've been thinking of this since the bot summoned me, but I still fail to see the value of this RFC. The relationship between BGT and the notability of its contestants doesn't really need to be defined. Comparable to alumni lists for universities, or templates for award recipients who could be notable for other reasons. A,B,C are too limiting. Urve (talk) 19:56, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

D: I fail to see why there should be any differentiation beyond "winner, runner up, third and other". In my opinion, if they're notable and were a contestant, it doesn't really matter why - they should be listed. Also, per Urve, alumni lists for universities and schools don't list any ties beyond "they went to this school and are now notable" - why would this be different? Remagoxer ^(talk) 08:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]