Jump to content

Talk:Adam Lambert/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Aiken - not Aitken.

"...as gay after they won. Aitken, the..." If you're going to protect a page, at least use correct spellings. There is no T in Clay Aiken. 83.71.41.125 (talk) 16:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, good call. -- Banjeboi 21:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Unexplained removal of columns

This needs to be discussed -- and explained -- here, if you wish for it to stand. I can see no logical reason for it myself (just take a look at the other Idol articles) but feel free to explain your rationale. Unitanode 17:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Knock it off. This was explained in both the edit summary (twice now) and on the talkpage here. It is trivial and redundant information. That the other Idol pages are also sloppy doesn't mean this one needs to be. See David Archuleta#Performances - the same user argued unsuccessfully to keep that information there and was refused each time. I took that article to GA status. -- Banjeboi 17:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
You need to discuss large changes like this -- and find consensus, which you don't have -- before making them. Clearly, you're convinced your're right. That doesn't mean you are. Until you gather consensus for this removal, it is unacceptable to continue to do it unilaterally. Unitanode 17:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Wrong. First off this is hardly a big change. secondly including material is what needs to have consensus when it is disputed. Can you show any reason whatsoever to include the order in which he sang? Exactly, it's fine for a fansite but not an encyclopedia. Then there's the whole column devoted to if he was safe or not. Guess what? The lede gave away the ending - he was the runner up. What remains encyclopedic is the rest. Those extra columns were tolerable, barely, while the show was running but we all now know the end result. You still could apologize for calling the removals unexplained and vandalism. -- Banjeboi 17:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Large changes need consensus, whether removals or additions. You do not have this. Additionally, I made it clear in both my edit summaries on the actual article, and in my striking the above that I was hasty in my judgment. I viewed the unexplained removal of 2000+ characters from the article as vandalism, when it was not. Unitanode 17:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I think it's quite debatable that these are large changes at all but now that you are adding this content please defend including either column as encyclopedic. -- Banjeboi 18:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
The status quo is that the columns are there. It is on you to defend the removal. I've made my views known, as has Aspects. Let's see what some of the other regular editors of this page think about it. Unitanode 18:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Your reasoning seemed to consist only of "unexplained" and "vandalism", which is false, and now, that it hasn't been deleted before (status quo). Can you explain why the order number column should be kept, and if possible any reliable source that backs up that the order is meaningful and noteworthy? Then please explain why a "results" column isn't completely redundant to - In May 2009, he finished as the runner-up on the eighth season of American Idol. - which is prominently in the lede? Absent any compelling reasons to keep this information, which seems more suited to a fansite, I think it must again be removed. -- Banjeboi 18:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Last post here, until we hear some other opinions. The status quo is that the columns exist. You have to explain why it should be removed. Your reasoning (basically consisting of, "It was removed on David Archuleta", and "I really don't think there's any point in it being there", in my view) is unconvincing to me. Let's see what others think, before removing it again, or commenting further. Unitanode 18:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Sorry, but we don't use revision and suppression to build consensus. You are suggesting I should not comment here after insisting that I do in the first place, interesting. Since you have now deleted my response on your talkpage allow me to keep the comments transparent here. You asserted that the David Archuleta article didn't have discussion or consensus but you now have links that show otherwise. And those discussions, now that you see they do exist are about this exact subject - the inclusion of columns about performance order number and "results". And *shock* who is the exact editor who I had to have this exact conversation with on those talkpages about this exact issue? Why it's Aspects, the same editor who first reverted me.
      But now you are the editor adding these columns so please explain why this content should be kept. My reasons have been the same but I will spell them out.
      "Order" column - this tells our reader what order Lambert sang in out of all the contestants that week. This seems trivial at best and possibly original research that we are suggesting the order number has anything to do with anything; absent any relaible sources that the order number is truly notable this column should go.
      "Results" column - completely redundant. This information is in the lede so adding a "yes, he also moved to the next round" is just unneeded. -- Banjeboi 18:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
      • One comment: you are makely inaccurate assertions about what I've written. I never asserted that you didn't have consensus at the Archuleta page. My quote was, "I couldn't find anything where you gathered consensus there, though I well could have missed it." Even still, discussion at a different article doesn't have any bearing here, especially when there's multiple precedents for the status quo. You're being very uncollegial here, what with your incorrect claims about what I've asserted, so I'll take my leave now, and let others deal with this. Unitanode 18:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
        • I apologize if I mischaracterized what you wrote. See how easy it is to apologize? I fully realize that most of the other Idol articles have the same useless and - I've avoided using the word - WP:Cruft-like content. That doesn't mean that the Archuleta or this article should also be degraded. Wikipedia:Other stuff exists is a bad reason to include something as a general rule. You seem unwilling to have a more reasoned discussion with me on this and I don't want to violate 3rr so let's hope others who you may be willing to listen to will offer some insight. -- Banjeboi 19:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The "Original artist" for "Ring of Fire"

While Anita Carter may have performed it first, "original artist" usually refers to the artist who brought a song to prominence. Please explain here why that shouldn't be the case here on WP. Unitanode 07:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Please provide a source for your definition of "original". The he American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language gives "Preceding all others in time; first.". Collins Essential English Dictionary gives "first or earliest" Wictionary gives "An object or other creation (e.g. narrative work) from which all later copies and variations are derived".
Oh and merely to attempt to stop the nonsense edit warring: Is being a featured "pick hit" in Billboard magazine "prominence" enough for you? KillerChihuahua?!? 12:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't really need to say any more, as KC has already nailed it, but yes, if you're trying to change the meaning of a word with an unambiguous definition, the burden is on you to show why that's legit[. Nonsense. — Bdb484 (talk) 14:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Why is it necessary to use words like "nonsense" in a rational discussion? We're all doing our best to improve this place, after all. Unitanode 14:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't classify the argument "original means second" as especially rational, but if it offends you, you have my apology. Either way, you responded to the wrong part. The slot in the chart is to denote the "original artist." You're arguing that it should contain different information. You have not substantiated your argument. It is not yet appropriate to restore your change, and you have been warned on your talk page accordingly. Let's get some consensus before you continue edit warring. — Bdb484(talk) 14:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Setting up a straw man isn't particularly helpful either. Please find a diff where I said "original means second" or redact. My argument has been that "original artist" seems to always refer to the artist who brought the song to prominence, which RSM agrees with. Unitanode 14:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps a better phrasing of your argument is that in this instance you claim that "original artist" means "second artist." Either way, it's still obviously false, which is why RS doesn't agree with you. They said the song was a Johnny Cash cover, not that he was the original artist. Your argument about the meaning of "original" is not substantiated by the source you've provided, which does not use the word at all. And even if it did, this would be a great time to make an exception, because RS would clearly have made a factual error. Furthermore, Lambert himself said that night that Cash's version was not the version he was covering, but rather "a different version, has kind of like this Middle Eastern flair on it." In all likelihood, he's talking about Kristen Miller's version, off of Strange Little Valentine. — Bdb484 (talk) 15:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
(You still have "original means second" in quotes.) A "Johnny Cash cover" means what? From Audioenglish.net, a "cover" is "A recording of a song that was first recorded or made popular by somebody else." My reference is solid. I'm more than willing to compromise here, if you find an equally solid reliable source that calls it an "Anita Carter cover." Or what if we just -- in the interest of collegiality -- put BOTH people's names there? Unitanode 15:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Your focus on the meaning of "cover" is a nice piece of misdirection, but not one that I'm falling for. The column that you're edit warring over is headed "Original artist." You are still arguing that "original" in this context means "second." I am still not buying. — Bdb484 (talk) 15:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
<--outdent
It was you that brought up the term that RS used, not me. And the definition of "cover" is directly related to the discussion. If you "cover" a specific person's song, what does it say about that specific person? They were the "original artist" or the song you covered. I've found a reliable source. I've buttressed it with a little bit of (pretty convincing) Ghits research. Will you meet me somewhere in the middle? Unitanode 15:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Rolling Stone is referring to a cover of a song Cash popularized. They make no assertion that Cash was the original artist, nor do they offer a definition of "original" which differs from the dictionary definition. Rolling Stone also refers to 'a cover of Waylon Jenning's Always on My Mind', making it abundantly clear they are referring to the most popular recording, not the original recording. The article Ring of Fire gives Anita Carter as the original artist. Original means first; Anita Carter recorded the song her sister wrote a full year before her brother in law Cash recorded it. Her recording was successful enough to be listed as a featured "pick hit" in Billboard magazine. There is no argument that Cash's version is more popular; however, the column label is not "most popular version" it is "Original artist". You have failed to garner consensus for this edit, and you have failed to provide requested cites. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
    I think I see where you're coming from, KC, especially with regards to the Waylon song. I still think the RS ref may be enough for a "Anita Carter/Johnny Cash" listing there. What are your thoughts on this? Do you feel that the column title is to be adhered to with a strictness that forbids acknowledging that the Cash version is the only version that most people know? Unitanode 17:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
    I favor accuracy; the column is labeled "Original artist"; hence, I suggest we stick to putting the original recording artist in that column, yeah. I see no reason at all to put inaccurate information on Wikipedia. The song title is linked; if anyone is confused, or curious, they can find easily that yes, this is the same song Johnny Cash had such a hit with. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
    That's fine with me as well, then. My only concern was with some "Reader X" that drops by and thinks, "What the heck?", but if you don't see that as an issue, I'm satisfied with your explanation. I really am confused by your "keep a cool head" comment below. I have scoured our interactions, and I don't see any place where I've lost my cool. Unitanode 17:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Warning left by BB at my page that belongs as part of this discussion, so I'm moving it

It looks a lot like you're engaged in an edit war at Adam Lambert, with respect to the dispute over who originally sang "Ring of Fire." Rather than reverting, then admonishing everyone to back off until they've convinced you, it might be better to leave things intact until consensus is reached on the talk page.

I suspect that I may just get a sassy and dismissive reply to this, but I'm just covering my bases, if you know what I mean. — Bdb484 (talk) 14:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Are you serious here? I put Cash back in with a reference, and you're going to warn me about edit warring? And how does treating me like a petulant child ("nonsense" and "sassy reply" particularly) help at all? Keep this at the Lambert talkpage please. Unitanode 14:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd say you nailed it, Bdb484, I'd call "Are you serious here?" sassy and dismissive, indeed. Also, referring to concern about the response you might get "treating me like a petulant child" is further indication that Unitanode might want to learn to keep a cool head. IMO this whole section should be on the user talk page, it is not in any way a discussion regarding the content of the article - Unitanode, what is your rationale for moving it here? KillerChihuahua?!? 17:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I feel like I've stayed quite cool during this disagreement. I've not attacked anyone, and I've refrained from responding in kind when attacked. I'm not sure where your "keep a cool head" comment comes from, but I don't think it's warranted at all. My rationale for moving it here is that I wasn't edit-warring (I added a reference when I restored it, and didn't just blind revert), and I have been attempting to discuss it with you two. This seemed little more than an extension of the discussion here, so I moved it. Unitanode 17:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Your disagreement about whether you were edit warring or not has no bearing on whether this belongs on your talk page or the article page. Its about your behavior, not the article, so it belongs on your talk page. Its as simple as that. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
It's not disagreement, it's objective fact. What I was doing was not edit warring. It belongs here or nowhere, but not at my talkpage. Unitanode 17:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Summary of the facts.
  1. Asc85 made an edit replacing Carter with Cash.
  2. KC reverted his edit, with an explanatory note citing the column title.
  3. I restored Cash, with an edit summary describing why I felt this was best.
  4. Bdb reverted with a somewhat snarky edit summary mimicking my use of the word "parlance."
  5. I reverted to the Cash version, with an edit summary asking that we take it to talk.
  6. KC reverted with an explanatory edit summary, that caused me to research further.
  7. I did some research, posted to talk and added back Cash, with a reference to support it.
  8. The article stabilized, until KC switched it back to Carter, which I am perfectly amenable with, as per our above discussion.

How does the above sequence of events make me some kind of edit warrior, in need of a warning on my talkpage? Even in our discussions, I've remained calm. I really would like an explanation for how you feel I have not remained calm during this content discussion. Unitanode 17:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

You by your own synopsis reverted back to Cash three times in a day - adding a reference one of those times, a reference which did not support your assertion. That is the 'definition of edit warring, and you could have been blocked for it. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay, this is my last post on this topic. I made three edits relating to the issue, one with a reference that I felt supported it. You disagreed, we talked it over, and I came around to your view. You made two reverts three reverts as well, in the same time frame, which were simple reversions, with no references added or anything like that. How does that make me guilty of "edit-warring" and you not? Answer: it doesn't. I wasn't "edit-warring", and neither were you. We were having a content dispute, that we eventually worked out. I'm not sure why you want to keep banging the drum that Bdb's "warning" was appropriate, but it was not. (Oh, and you've never bothered to explain your "remain cool" comment, even though I've asked you to do so numerous times. At no point have I lost my cool to any degree during this discussion.) If you wish to argue about that, and post again here regarding it, I'll give you the last word. Unitanode 15:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
You are adding straw men; this is going nowhere. This is over so far as I'm concerned; I'm done. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 16:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Man, I am sorry I caused such a huge controversy with my original "Ring of Fire" edit! I wasn't trying to cause mischief, and rather than re-start this argument again, suffice to say I agree with Unitancode. But I guess there's some issues (both in Wikipedia and outside of Wikipedia) that I would dig my heels in on. This isn't one of them. Asc85 (talk) 23:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
You didn't cause this; you made one good-faith edit and did not war over it. What do you agree with Unitancode about? That "original" means something other than "first"? If so, please provide a source for that assertion. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Why is it necessary to wikilink artists in the table that have already been wikilinked earlier in the article? Isn't this an example of overlinking? Unitanode 19:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

No. overlinking would be using the same link twice in a section or using the same link in every section but more than one link per article is fine; especially on a list. -- Banjeboi 23:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay, then. Reading WP:OVERLINK, there definitely does appear to be some wiggle room. Thanks for the reply. Unitanode 15:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Adam did not sing with Queen durring the finale, he preformed with Kiss

under the headline Post-Idol, it is stated "...Rock group Queen, with whom Lambert performed on the season finale..." when actually Adam performed with Kiss. Here is a link to the American Idol web page with video footage of the finale: [1]


Just want to help keep this accurate. Thanks for your time, Kourtney S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.8.101 (talk) 22:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate the note - I think they may have performed with both bands. They certainly did "We Are The Champions" with Queen though. -- Banjeboi 12:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Section for award/nomination

Lambert is nominated for two spot in the "Teen Choice Award":
  • Red Carpet Icon - Male
  • Male Reality/Variety Star

I have notice that this was added to Allen's page already but not over here. And also, someone from above also mentioned something about the another award. If you need citation then it is from the website of "Teen Choice Award" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karius13 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Completed, sorry for bothering you guys without realizing that I can edit it myself. - Karius13


Expand Post-Idol Upcoming Album Quote

The Quote Says He has said that he plans to create a multi-genre album calling it a "rock-pop-electronic-dance thing..." The ... I Added In Means Theirs Additional Information That Quoted It Wouldn't Be Like That No Boundaries And He Wants Involvement. Most Music Sites To Not State The Whole Quote And I Found One That Did But I Can't Find It Under 1,000+ Web History Links And Would Like Help Finding The Whole Interview So People Can Be Informed About Adam's Next Step Which Interests A Lot Of People.

Confirmation of sexuality

http://omg.yahoo.com/news/adam-lambert-finally-confirms-i-m-gay/23594?nc

Birthplace

I think we should include how he was born in Indianapolis, and moved when he was very young to San Diego, due to his the relocation of his father's job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beachheat04 (talk • contribs) 04:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

If you find a reference/source stating that, than that'll be great! ATC . Talk 03:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

performance on CBS morning show

lambert did a live performance on the cbs morning show, whatever it is, a while back. he covered a song that was used in commercials for an x-box game. i don't think it was "mad world" but could have been. can anyone tell me the original song & performer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.107.222.210 (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

When was the performance? You might try searching that morning show's website and youtube. -- Banjeboi 10:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Are the "Order #" and "Results" columns in the performances section needed or encyclopedic?

Two editors have been reverting my removal of the "Order #" and "Results" columns from the Performances section. The "Order #" seems appropriate enough for a fansite of the show but certainly not for an encyclopedia article. It suggests that the order number had something to do with something but Wikipedia is the only one suggesting this so that seems like it's original research as well as being trivial. Many, most?, of the other Idol pages also have these extra columns but that doesn't mean that the David Archuleta, which I overhauled (also removing these columns) and took to GA status, or this article should also be degraded. Wikipedia:Other stuff exists is a bad reason to include something as a general rule.
Then we have the "Results" column which scertainly seems completely redundant to - In May 2009, he finished as the runner-up on the eighth season of American Idol. - which is prominently in the lede. Absent any compelling reasons to keep this information I think it must again be removed. I'm sorry to do an RfC on this - I'm not seeing another option here. -- Banjeboi 19:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Question: As I could certainly be swayed here, is there any evidence that removal of those columns had any bearing on the Archuleta article reaching GA status? I ask, because that seems implied by your initial statement here. If it did, then I'd be much more likely to support removal of the columns. If it did not, then why is it so important that we need to overturn years of precedent on other Idol articles? Unitanode 14:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
    • That's a great question but GA standards are not the highest so one reviewer might question the issues as I have whereas someone else may simply dismiss the concerns. The more relevant guidelines would be for a FA article which would never allow that to sneak by. I'm not suggesting that all the other content is up to par here just that those two columns need to be removed. Let me also state that while the show is in process I would tend to side to leaving the columns even though they are "crufty" because it's the kind of reality show information that isn't worth fighting over and policing just to remove those then would seem a waste of time. Now the show is over they really should be removed from all of the articles but I'll let others look to doing that. -- Banjeboi 15:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I changed the Resolved to Unresolved because no outside editors contributed to the RfC and there was no resolution to be found in this discussion. Also I am going to revert the deletion that was based on a non-existent resolution. Aspects (talk) 19:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Please gain consensus to re-add them then before you do so - the burden is always on those who wish to introduce or re-introduce contested content. You edit-warred here just as you did last year on another article in this exact same issue. There is no basis for including this redundant and crufty content. And apparently no one is actually willing to defend its inclusion just the idea that we should respect process, which I did and you must also. Please gain consensus for including these columns they really seem to suggest some original research (order #) and are repeating the quite obvious information in the results column that is already in the lede. -- Banjeboi 02:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Per the discussion above and no outside editors adding their opinion in the RfC, the consensus was to keep the columns. You are the one who failed to gain a consensus to delete the columns. Since consensus has never changed, I do not need to gain consensus. Aspects (talk) 02:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
No, the issue remains the same, this is contested content. The burden always is on those who wish to add or re-add contested content. The only reason stated above is precedent so perhaps you could convince by showing GA or FA Idol BLPs that include this. There is also a new content board that could quickly suss this out. -- Banjeboi 02:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

{outdent} Per your last edit summary "rv, sorry, see WP:SILENCE; you edit-warred forcing me into doing an RfC for a month and didn't participate. To reinstate disputed content please gain a consensus to re-add this". WP:Silence would actually work on the side of keeping the columns. Once you started the RfC no other outside editor intervened, meaning none of them thought the columns needed to be removed. Before the RfC I only reverted your removal twice, the first after your BOLD edit and the second during the discussion phase where you did not have consensus for the removal. I still do not understand how you can keep telling me to gain a consensus, when there was a consensus to keep the columns and was not changed during/after the RfC. You are editing against consensus and asking me to gain what is already here. Aspects (talk) 19:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

  • I do concur with Aspects here. From WP:SILENCE: "You find out whether your edit has consensus when it sticks, is built upon by others, and most importantly when it is used or referred to by others." It has not "stuck", nor had anyone "built upon" it. There's no consensus for removal, so please quit removing them until you build such consensus. UnitAnode 19:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Um, no you cannot revert war against removal, and then avoid dialog on an RfC and then revert war again. If you two have no actual reason to include this information then just admit it and move on. I'll see if we can start to clear this non-sense away. -- Banjeboi 21:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
      • I've made one, policy-supported reversion. This is hardly "revert warring." Please do not accuse me of such again. Also, the general tone of your posts here is quite unfriendly, and thus rather unhelpful. UnitAnode 21:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Funny, I feel very similar to your actions on this. -- Banjeboi 22:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
          • Where have I been rude to you in any way? UnitAnode 22:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
            • I feel you've been dismissive of my concerns and work throughout this process. If we do get these removed I'll commit to getting the article to GA which is what I have been hoping to do this whole time. -- Banjeboi 02:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
              • I just noticed this. I've been in no way dismissive of your concerns, unless one counts posting sources showing you're wrong as "dismissive." I also have a very large problem with your last statement here, as it seems to state that unless you get your way on these columns, you're not going to try to get this article to GA. That is, of course, your right, but it seems a bit churlish to me. UnitAnode 14:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
                • We'll have to agree to disagree a bit here but no, taking an article to GA takes time and lots of work, I see no reason to invest my energy here when the article is degraded as such. I would feel the same if we included what outfits he wore each week or endless comments about what each judge said each week. Completely unneeded and trivializing. Post ot on a blog fine, but Wikipedia is not a blog. -- Banjeboi 15:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Straw vote

Please register your opinion on whether these columns should be left in the article or removed:

Support keeping (please add your reasoning)

  1. There is nothing at all "unencyclopedic" about these columns. They actually are informative, in that they reveal that Adam was once in the Bottom 3, and "Note #2" also reveals information about the advancement of candidates that would otherwise not be dealt with in the article. The status quo is that the columns exist. An ironclad case (as well as consensus) must be built to remove them. This does not include pointing to the Archuleta article, as nearly all of the non-Archuleta AI contestant articles actually include these columns. With the informative nature of these columns (which lends to their "encyclopedicity", you might say), the precedent set by nearly all of the other contestant articles, and the lack of anything remotely resembling consensus for removal of them at this article, they should stay. UnitAnode 21:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
    That he was once in the bottom three can easily be injected into the prose section as can any other non-trivial information we wish to include. And no the burden to add or re-add content is always on those wishing to do so. Nothing but the two of you edit warring and giving no reason based in policy is why I still think there is no consensus to keep them. -- Banjeboi 21:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
    I know you wish that the burden was on those wishing to keep it, but it's just not. The article was stable for months, chart-wise, before you removed it. The person making a large change has the burden of proof as far as marshalling evidence and gathering consensus goes. UnitAnode 22:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
    WP:BURDEN speaks to this. -- Banjeboi 22:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
    Actually, it doesn't. The above speaks only to materially likely to be challenged because of lack of sourcing. It doesn't speak at all to the wholesale removal of columns of a chart. Unless you're challenging the sourcing of those columns, WP:BURDEN doesn't support your assertion at all. UnitAnode 22:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
    Fwiw, my reading of WP:BURDEN is that, as a redirect to a section of Wikipedia:Verifiability, it's not relevant to the issue, which is about whether or not the detail is encyclopædic and useful or not, imho. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 23:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
    The burden is to show this information is noteworthy enough to be included; the concept is that contested material needs to have consensus to be restored. -- Banjeboi 02:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
    No, the burden is on the person making a large change. I've demonstrated clearly that the columns are neither unencyclopedic or original research. You're not actually challenging the factuality of the information contained in these columns, which is what is required by WP:BURDEN. You're basically challenging the aesthetics of them, which is fine, but it's on you to develop consensus for your change. UnitAnode 12:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
    I think you're reading the letter of the law and avoiding the spirit of it; we have things like Burden to insist that those looking to insert and re-insert disputed content have consensus to do so. Redundant information is always unencyclopedic and original research certainly is. The strongest reason for keeping remains other-stuff-exists and I-like-it the hallmark of unencyclopedic content. -- Banjeboi 14:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  2. Weak Keep. The information Unitanode pointed out is encyclopedic and necessary. I think the information could be reworked into prose, as it does kind of look like week-by-week analysis (which is not cool) but as it stands, the columns should stay. BOVINEBOY2008 21:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
    I can see your point, but I would point out that prosifying it would potentially lead to mammoth sections about advancement, bottom 3, etc. in many of the similar articles. Also, I'm not certain, but I don't believe these type of charts are generally frowned upon, are they? UnitAnode 21:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
    Actually it wouldn't. There is maybe one sentence that would need to be added replacing all that. -- Banjeboi 21:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
  3. Keep I find the table form very useful actually including the order # and the result. It helps as it puts it all in a nutshell. I don't think a narrative description in a sentence or two has the same impact as a line by line progress report so to speak werldwayd (talk) 23:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
    Just for my curiosity then, how does the fact that he passes every week illuminated by having a whole column devoted to it? And we are only eliminating the two useless columns, the rest is fine and actually encyclopedic. -- Banjeboi 01:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  4. Week Keep. The table form itself is easier to understand than prose would be. I think the Result column is encyclopædic and useful (imho); the Position column is arguably useful in how it might have affected his vote-share, but I can't honestly say I care either way whether or not it stays; but I don't see that it does any harm it being there, given the table format. Fwiw, my interest in the article has mainly been as a WikiGnome whilst watching American Idol; I do very little work in the subject area, so I'd consider myself a relatively disinterested opinion, if it makes any difference to anyone. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 23:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
    Could you clarify how the results column is actually encyclopedic? The lede states he is the runner up, what does the result column add to that? I think you answered your own question on the Order # column - "how it might have affected his vote-share" - this column infers a novel conclusion that the order number is somehow relative but Wikipedia and maybe some fansites are the only ones suggesting this. That's the original research concern. I could be swayed if we had reliable sources definitely stating that his order number helped or hurt him, I just don't see it. -- Banjeboi 01:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
    If you're really able to be swayed then here's two references that deal with the value of performance order. There are lots of others out there, and it's not OR or "cruft" to have a chart that includes "performance order." UnitAnode 01:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
    Both those source are to the same writer and all it supports is the idea that the last singer of the night might get more votes. Sorry, I looked but that doesn't sway at all, I can't even justify adding a sentence explaining he was the last singer three times because we don't know if that actually affected anything and even your source states we don't know why people voted the way they did, still seems inferring a novel conclusion which is original research. -- Banjeboi 01:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
    There are hundreds of sources talking about how early spots and late spots affect voting. I would start posting them, but as you're simply dismissing the first two I posted out-of-hand, I don't really see the point in doing so. UnitAnode 01:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
    I did not dismiss anything out of hand. I read them both and they only support that the last person to sing might get more votes - that's not compelling. -- Banjeboi 02:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  5. Keep I feel the information is encyclopedic. Saying he got second place in the opening paragraph does not let us know he was in the bottom 2, which in fact is not listed anywhere in the article other than the table. The delete arguments to me do not make sense. WP:UNDUE for the whole table when a large portion of what has made Lambert famous is his performances and their results on American Idol. The results are not WP:Original research, they are taken directly from the season's article page which were taken directly from the original source. If there was a case made for the performance order=safe/not safe, then that would be original research. I also find the argument that the columns are fine while the competition is going on, but after it is over they are suddenly "cruft", either they are "cruft" the whole time or they are not. Aspects (talk) 01:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
    The being in the bottom two is the one thing that could be put into a sentence. The Order # is the original research. And they are cruft the whole time, eventually they will all be removed and this crufty information if anywhere will be on the show summary page. -- Banjeboi 01:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
    Please stop calling it "original research." It's simply not true. Against my better judgement, here's more examples, as well as a simple Gnews search[2] that would have shown you it wasn't OR. UnitAnode 01:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
    Oh my. The first source is unreliable. The second quotes a blogger as saying "The performance order is very important to people," and "The last singing slot of the night, she said, usually translates into high vote totals." That would support that some fans of the show believe the last slot garners more votes. Third source is unreliable. The fourth link is a Google search with a lot of false positives. You've only strengthen the first sources from above but that has no bearing on this article and logically would be disproved if singers are eliminated even though they were the last singers. And we only have the fans who think it influences the voting. Still original research. -- Banjeboi 02:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
    Okay, I'm done. Apparently, you won't find any source reliable -- though blogs are not inherently unreliable in any way -- so I won't waste any more of either of our time. UnitAnode 02:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
    That is a completely false characterization. I've looked at every source you offered and none of them support that listing the order # here in anyway is encyclopedic. The closest you get is showing that the producers avoid putting someone 1st or 2nd two weeks in a row and that some fans think the final spot garners more votes. How is any of that helpful to this article? It really isn't. -- Banjeboi 02:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  6. Keep Unless it's grammar is bad or needs to be re-worded, etc... I don't think it should be removed for two reasons:
    1. It explains the ordering of the contestants, unless it is "un-encyclopedic" (as stated above).
    2. Every other American Idol contestant has the same exact table with those exact sections, e.g. check out the Kelly Clarkson article; unless you plan to make every contestant's articles the same, my opinion is, it might seem a little awkward... :) ATC . Talk 03:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
    • The problem is that we present the order # as being meaningful when no reliable sourcing supports that, thus it remains an WP:Original research issue. I'm well aware that most of the other Idol articles have these and they were added by the same people each round. And kept there - and they are the same issues on all. The Kelly Clarkson column - um she's the winner, that column is redundant as it presents no new information whatsoever, it repeats it. She won, no need to belabour the point in a column devoted to saying she passed each week, we aren't idiots. -- Banjeboi 04:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
      Actually, unless you just choose to completely disregard the multiple sources I've presented throughout this discussion, your assertion that "no reliable source supports that performance order is meaningful" is just categorically false. As you're clearly dismissing my findings in this regard, I'll leave you to it here. Those parsing this discussion can see what's happening here for themselves. I would ask that you not undertake a campaign to remove these columns from other AI contestant articles without a clear consensus to do so, either developed at the AI wikiproject, or at each individual page. Regards, UnitAnode 05:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
      The sources you have presented on this page so far do not support your assertion at all, in total they support that some fans believe the final performer gets more votes and that the producers decide the order except on the final when a coin was flipped. The producers try not to repeat using the same singer as first or second several weeks in a row. Absolutely none of your sourcing even suggests that that the order # columns as we present them here are anything but suggestive of something that is not original research. There is no sourcing as of yet to indicate we are presenting encyclopedic information verses fancruft. Please don't pretend I'm dismissing your concerns in any way, if there is something to actually indicate this as being useful or meaningful I am eager to see what that could be. I hadn't though of a campaign to rid these columns from all AI BLPs but that seems like an excellent idea. -- Banjeboi 07:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
      This article is about an American Idol contestant. The sources used are not going to be found in academic journals and scholarly studies. They're going to be found in well-respected blogs and newspapers. If you won't accept these as reliable, then nothing I could post would convince you. UnitAnode 13:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
      Encyclopedic content will be and is found in reliable sources. Some blogs are reliable the vast majority are not, as a general rule if you need to use wobbly sources then the content should be left out. I will accept any reliable sources by Wikipedia's standards, I will reject any that Wikipedia rejects, seems reasonable really. If you have any reliable sources then please present those. Otherwise I think we really should escalate this and get more experienced editors familiar with policies on sourcing to have a look. -- Banjeboi 14:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
      I am posting all of these sources to disprove your spurious (and it is spurious) claim that including the PO column is in some way "original research." It's clearly not. Blogs are discouraged as sources on BLPs only when they're used to source potentially controversial claims about the subject of that article. For instance, if a claim about Adam's sexuality (before he officially "came out") had been sourced only to a blog, it would have been unacceptable. Validating the inclusion of a column in a chart is in no way controversial, and thus blogs aren't inherently unreliable as a source for such. UnitAnode 14:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
      We use reliable sources to prevent us from presenting false and misleading information, like that this Order # is in any way relevant to anything. Blogs, if reliable can be used, many of those you posted are not but you don't have to believe me we have more experience editors who can confirm this. As of yet you've not presented a single source that upholds this content as being notable for inclusion here or meaningful in any way, at all, except to fans of the show. This isn't a AI wiki, it's the world's encyclopedia, we have higher standards for what we write here. This content degrades this article. -- Banjeboi 15:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
      Okay, this is descending into the absurd. Now the content "degrades this article." Per this, I must say, that's just patent nonsense. UnitAnode 15:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
      Well maybe we should just put a [citation needed] tag there, and keep it because the table describes Lambert's performances week-after-week. I think that the disagreements between you two is unnecessary disputing, and we should just keep it a debate. But, it will be good in the meantime to look for reliable sources. The best, ATC . Talk 17:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Not really, no one disputes Lambert was the 1st and 6th performer in the Top 4 week, the issue is that it's meaningless information and we present it as if it's meaningful or important to anyone but fans of the show. Sorry look at the AI bios from years past, does this really add anything at all to understanding the subject of the article itself? I didn't think so. By adding trivia such as that to articles we degrade them and thus our reputation as an encyclopedia becomes more of a glorified fansite with a touch less gossip. Do we include Lambert's favorite ice cream flavour and who he has celebrity crushes on? No. Why? Because it's bloaty trivia which degrades the article. It adds nothing. -- Banjeboi 19:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
      Actually, I didn't pay too much attention to when I looked at the particular columns. Now, I'm not sure what side to choose on the "Straw Vote" because, I think the "Order#" is extremely unnecessary—it is too specific to list, but the "Result" column, I think is important to list—wait I looked and changed my mind again, because you could tell weekly that the contestant made it through to the next round—it is too specific as well. ATC . Talk 20:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  7. Weak Keep - I'm hesitant to inject myself into this heated discussion, but since I was asked by Benjiboi to contribute to this poll, I will do so. I've tried to read the comments on this issue, and I think my head's about ready to explode. I can see arguments on both sides of the fence. However, I've voted on the "Keep" side primarily because it was there to begin with, and I don't see a compelling reason to remove it. If those columns were not originally there, I'd probably leave them off, but since they already are, and they are also in similar Wikipedia articles, heck, just leave it in. Maybe I just don't read the Discussion sections too much in general, but Adam Lambert's entry seems to provoke strong feelings on formatting decisions, for whatever reason. Asc85 (talk)Asc85 (talk) 13:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
    These columns actually add nothing for our readers to explain ... nothing. We known how he finished in the competition ergo that column is completely redundant; as for what order he performed in? It adds no encyclopedic information at all. The sourcing helpfully provided doesn't support its inclusion, we could esasily add a column of what outfits he wore each week but that information as well would be trivial. It makes us look look trivial for keeping it in. -- Banjeboi 02:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
    • We know that this is your view. You've made that abundantly clear. However, you've failed to develop consensus to remove them, and in fact, there seems to be consensus that they belong. Even if there weren't such consensus, status quo is that they're in, and consensus must be developed to remove them, however trivial you may find them. UnitAnode 02:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
    You still seem to be advocating a position not based in policy; if status quo was uncontested that may seem fine but we are always looking to improve our content. The status quo here is being contested as not encyclopedic - it is of fan interest which is not encyclopedic. We are conferring some meaning to the overall performance order when even the sources you have provided do not support that assertion. If they did I would happily work with whomever to rework that information to indicate why Lambert's order position affected his voting results. No one seems to have that information except maybe the producers and they have not revealed that meaning or novel synthesis. I will not relent in removing what I see as a degradation of the article in an effort to improve it. If we include this why don't we also include every judges' comments and what he wore each week? -- Banjeboi 02:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
    You seem to be trying an end run around the fact that you can't develop consensus for your interpretation (and it is your interpretation) of policy. If you tried to remove it now, you would be way out of line. UnitAnode 03:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
    Please don't - again - assume bad faith against me or my motives. I'm glad this RfC has finally gotten some attention and even a separate thread that confirms there really is no basis in sourcing for what seems to be original research. I was happy to be proven mistaken in my beliefs and am equally happy that my hunch that this is unfortunate bloat that is unneeded and unencyclopedic is confirmed. This will help in developing a plan to remove such columns from all AI biographies and I will be pleased when it happens as it will indeed improve those articles. Until then we'll look like a fansite and that's sad really. 12:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
    It's not assuming bad faith to point out the obvious. You've made it clear that your goal is the removal of these columns from all AI biographies, and it's apparent that whatever I post by way of sourcing will be dismissed. Saying so is not an assumption of bad faith. It's simply stating the obvious. The only thing this RfC has shown is that there's not much support for your view. UnitAnode 15:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  8. Keep Per above post by Asc85. I could not have said it better myself! Airplaneman talk 17:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
    Responded above. -- Banjeboi 02:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Support removing (please state your reasoning)

  1. Remove. Completely unencyclopedic; the "results" column is redundant, we state "finished as the runner-up" in the lede there is simply no reason the repeat - "yes, he also made it past this week" in each entry. It's disrespectful to our readers' intelligence. The "Order #" column suggests we think the order in which he performed is in any way notable when no reliable sources suggest anything about this ergo is WP:Original research. We might as well detail what outfits he wore each week and insert endless judges comments - we don't because this is an encyclopedia and that two editors are stonewalling on this unfortunately casts real doubts on what else is out there they feel needs to be included. I'm sorry but this is not a fansite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjiboi (talk • contribs) 16:21, August 8, 2009
  2. Remove Seems WP:UNDUE and something that should be in the American Idol article instead of here. Nothing in it that can't be said in a paragraph. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 21:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
    What part of WP:UNDUE were you thinking it violates? UnitAnode 21:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
    The part that says content should be presented in proportion to the prominence. That whole table, to me, is undue weight when it could be condensed into a single paragraph. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 21:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
    While I disagree with how you're interpreting that passage, I can see how you might come to that conclusion. Perhaps you could draft a possible paragraph, and post it in a sub-section below? I'd be interested to see what it looked like. UnitAnode 22:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
  3. Remove Clutters table unnecessarily. "Results" is redundant, and "Order" is a violation of Original Research. Neither contain particularly encyclopedic information. Absolutely no reason to have this cruft here, sorry. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 21:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
    "Results" contains information ("Bottom 3", "Note 2", etc.) that isn't contained elsewhere, so I don't see how that is redundant. Also, "Order" is no more OR than a plot summary is OR in a book article, in my view, and that information isn't contained elsewhere, either. UnitAnode 21:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
    Are you planning to argue with everyone who disagrees with your view? KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 22:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
    The talkpage is for discussion. Discussing is not precluded, even in the confines of a straw poll. UnitAnode 22:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
    Then make a freaking discussion section for the straw poll, as it is the straw poll will be impossible to read and full of your redundant arguments. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 11:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
    Actually, no, it isn't "impossible to read" this straw poll, simply because I've engaged in discussion with various other users. We have specific formatting tools that actually make polls quite readable, while still allowing for threaded discussion. As you've made it clear you don't actually want to discuss this, though, I'll leave you to it. Cheers, UnitAnode 11:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

A song called "Adam Lambert"

It's on iTunes, by Sin Synthetic...it's supposed to be through a stalker's eyes. Is it worth mentioning in Adam's wikipedia page? -Peaches —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peaches732 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Do any sources claim it's notable? If not likely best to leave it alone. -- Banjeboi 10:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

That is true—I saw it on the iTunes Store—though it would have to be referenced (as Banjeboi said) and also would not be necessary to put in THIS Adam Lambert article, since it is two completely different Adam Lamberts'; you may feel free to add it to Wiki by adding: (song) - in the title of that article, a disambiguation page, and a hatnote. All the best, ATC . Talk 03:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adam_Lambert/Archive_2&oldid=1080495261"