Talk:The X Factor (British TV series) series 8

Louis Walsh

Louis hasn't been officially confirmed yet, has he? As far as I know, NONE of the judges have been officially confirmed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.62.0 (talk) 11:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

He certainly hasn't left the judging panel.[1] –anemoneprojectors– 12:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

But how do you know? I'm just curious, as there's been no official word on any member of the judging panel so far. ITV have yet to even say anything about Dannii. & before you say it, I know she confirmed it herself, but that's not the point. ITV gave Cheryl some kind of goodbye & good luck message for the US job, but nothing so far on Dannii. We know nothing. 77.97.62.0 (talk) 15:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Well it looks like the official announcement is about to come [2] –anemoneprojectors– 16:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

GO! [3] –anemoneprojectors– 17:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The Xtra Factor

Apparently, Olly Murs and Caroline Flack will be confirmed as the presenters tomorrow. So get ready. –anemoneprojectors– 19:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Page tidy up

I have been looking at The X Factor (U.S. season 1) and it seems that the article there seems to be far more reader friendly in putting across the information. Possibly this article should follow the same format as the U.S one with tables detailing the different auditions as opposed to the paragraph currently in this article. I am happy to make the changes - but anyone else got an opinion about this? Uvghifds (talk) 16:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

This page is currently based on The X Factor (UK series 7). We felt that prose was prefered over tables and lists in most cases. The article is currently a GA nominee, so when that comes to be reviewed, some changes might be made and this article could be changed to reflect that. But personally I prefer it being in prose than tables. The article will contain several tables once the series ends, so I think the fewer tables, the better. –anemoneprojectors– 17:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, personally I prefer the tables but if others prefer the prose then thats fine.Uvghifds (talk) 17:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Backstage cameras?

Is there need to mention the backstage cameras? http://www.xfactorcentral.net/news/uk/x-factor-auditionees-caught-stealing-backstage.xfc http://www.xfactorcentral.net/news/uk/backstage-cameras-catch-auditionee-taking-drugs.xfc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.157.233 (talk) 21:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Styling budgets

Not sure if this is necessary to mention in the article, but perhaps we could mention the judges' styling budgets. [4] –anemoneprojectors– 11:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Viewing figures

The BBC just reported the initial viewing figures for the first episode (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-14606945), add to the article? Omnisci88 (talk) 12:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we normally have a section for reception, which includes viewing figures. See last year's article (which is now a Good Article). –anemoneprojectors– 13:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Behind the scenes filming?

I notice there is no mention of the behind the scenes filming that has been reported, and the fact that at bootcamp, contestants were urged to drink and party, and the following day, several were axed before performing. Is this worth mentioning? I think so as it's a change in format, especially if they're going to be filming the finalists in their house, Big Brother style. A bad move in my opinion. There's also been a lot of controversy reported since the auditions started. –anemoneprojectors– 13:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it's worth mentioning if footage of it actually appears on the show, but I agree with you that it's a bad move. They should focus on the singing in my opinion, and leave the scandals to Channel 5. Omnisci88 (talk) 23:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

After I started this discussion I noticed someone had already asked about backstage filming. Let's wait and see then. –anemoneprojectors– 11:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

First proper controversy

86 people have complained to Ofcom about the sight of Frankie's bottom on a family show. This can be added as it has been shown on TV! –anemoneprojectors– 14:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

This still needs to be added. I think other things can be added as well, like the Ceri Rhys controversy, and maybe even the Luke Lucas one. Depends what people think. But complaints to Ofcom definitely need adding. –anemoneprojectors– 10:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Brian Friedman

I read this morning that Friedman has been replaced by Elizabeth Honan. Worth mentioning. –anemoneprojectors– 14:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The word 'replacement'

I'm not sure it's a good idea to be saying that Kelly Rowland 'replaced' Dannii Minogue or that Tulisa 'replaced' Cheryl Cole. We don't actually know who was brought in to replace who - it's just what people and the papers have assumed. Really they are just 2 new judges on the panel filling the slots vacated by the previous judges. 92.26.208.54 (talk) 00:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Three judges left and three judges joined but I don't think we should specifically say anyone relaced any individual judge. –anemoneprojectors– 14:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Bootcamp

"It was a five-day bootcamp stage, which featured dance classes, workshops, song-writing sessions given by special guests and lightning auditions" - now that the shows have been broadcast, none of this seems to actually be true -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

They would surely have shown that, like they did last year with the dance classes. The workshops may refer to when the groups were put together, but anyway it should probably be removed. –anemoneprojectors– 10:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Results table

I don't wanna edit war but where %s were changed to 5, they don't add up and columns are probably too narrow now! Just saying. –anemoneprojectors– 13:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean (and what happened to the colour key)? --MSalmon (talk) 13:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The key can be hidden until it's needed. The columns aren't the right widths as you had them using 5% instead of 7%. –anemoneprojectors– 10:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Table markup

I've removed the table from the article, as it seems silly to have an empty table sitting on a page for a week. It's currently at The X Factor (UK series 8)/Results table. matt (talk) 17:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Why not hide it instead of removing it --MSalmon (talk) 17:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I thought about that, but the table is a lot of markup (lots of empty lines or single-char lines) that I just found made the edit window messier. I've got no objection to anyone moving it back and commenting it out, but I thought it served little point sitting in the article for a week. matt (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but where are the names of the 16 finalists going to be added if there is no table? --MSalmon (talk) 18:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Original artist column

Just a thought, maybe we could add an artist column to the table. Just so that people know which version of a song was being sung. David (talk) 19:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Amelia Lily

I'm pretty sure that the "Lily" in Amelia Lily's name is her middle name as her brother is Lewis Bradley (speaking of which, shall we make a note of it?). Thus, will she be referred to as Lily or Bradley in terms of her last name, and why is she always referred to by her full name on the show? I've never heard a single person say Amelia alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.30.171 (talk) 20:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

At her audition she was credited on screen as Amelia Lily Oliver, but clearly either she or the show's producers have decided to bill her as "Amelia Lily", in the same way that Wagner last year was simply "Wagner". And it's not true that nobody on the show has referred to her simply as "Amelia", the judges have called her that almost exclusively.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Judges houses performances

Do we really need to know what each act sang at the judges houses stage, it wasn't there last year so why do we need it this year? --MSalmon (talk) 17:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
The aim of wikipedia is to provide as much information as possible. I think it is also a reader friendly process of describing Judges Houses. --109.77.42.57 (talk) 19:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

No, that isn't the aim of Wikipedia. –anemoneprojectors– 13:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

As above, wikipedia is not an extension of the X Factor website. Relevant, notable information about the subject, not every dreary last detail. If you start including irrelevant things like what they sing in the judges' houses you may as well include what they wore. Teppic74 (talk) 23:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Why do we need to know what they sung at the live shows, yet we've performances with the songs. --109.77.42.57 (talk) 22:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The perfomances at judges houses wasn't used last year so why should we need it this year. --MSalmon (talk) 21:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Nobody went to the bother last year but we could do it from now on. I think it not being done beofre is not a reason for why it shouldn't be done. It's not that big a deal that it's there. And also as it is a singing competition, does that not make the songs they sung at judges houses relevant.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.248.64 (talk) 21:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you know who originally sang the songs? --MSalmon (talk) 22:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

If that was relevant why are the original artists' names no longer beside the song — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.248.64 (talk) 23:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem with this is each contestant performed two songs, that we know of, but only some second songs were shown on The Xtra Factor (others were the same performance shown again), so it wouldn't make sense to just list one sing if they performed two. And how do we know they didn't perform three songs? I don't think we need to include this. It's not like the viewers judged them on these performances. That's what happens in the live shows. But we no longer include original artists since a huge discussion last year because it's too often disputed and is mostly irrelevant to the performance. –anemoneprojectors– 11:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Cher Lloyd and Katie Waissel would agree that the public do not judge those performances at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.248.64 (talk) 16:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Viewers can obviously judge for themselves, but they have no say in the elimination at that stage. That's what I meant. And as ShimmeringScarab says below, it's misleading to only list a single song, and the full list of performances is unknown to us. –anemoneprojectors– 15:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The performance table stays as it is relevant as this is a singing competition in question. The fact that the tables haven't been done every other year is not an adequate reason for it not being there — Preceding unsigned comment added by XtraT (talk • contribs) 20:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Your performance table is misleading because it gives the impression that the acts were chosen based on ONE song alone when that that is not the case. Each act performed a minimum of two songs and the complete list of songs at the judges' houses have never been publicly divulged in the history of the competition. --ShimmeringScarab (talk) 20:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

User:XtraT is re-adding the judges houses performances, I have left them a message on their talk page User talk:XtraT basically telling them to stop it and see the previous series. Thanks Fatty2k10 (talk) 09:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The Twist

I saw that AnemoneProjectors removed the little explanation of the twist from the first live show because of the source, but it was true & was officially announced on their website on Thursday evening: http://xfactor.itv.com/2011/news/story/read_theme-revealed_item_100094.htm 77.97.62.0 (talk) 00:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

No reliable source was provided, as explained. Teppic74 (talk) 18:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Duh, I mentioned that when I posted this. I was just providing one. 77.97.62.0 (talk) 20:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added the source now. –anemoneprojectors– 15:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Judges replacement

I can see this has already been discussed, but the agreement has been completely ignored by some users. I believe we should NOT state a judge has replaced any previous individual judge. It was speculated by the media that Tulisa would replace Cheryl as she is the young judge, but that is all speculation. Freemantle, Syco, ITV, the producers, judges...no one on the X Factor have publicly said Gary has replaced Simon, Tulisa has replaced Cheryl and Kelly replaced Danni. Therefore, I believe it should be said the 3 new judges joined the X Factor as 3 previous judges did not return, not state "assumed" individual replacements. Hopefully we can sort this out and keep it to 1 style without constant changes from all different users, (as currently seen in the photos and judges summary). — ImanAtwal 20:48, 9 October 2011

Agreed, and I have and will continue to remove mentions of replacements. –anemoneprojectors– 12:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Tulisa

During the credits Tulisa is credited only by her first name. We she have her name appear as it is credited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XtraT (talk • contribs) 07:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

We're an encyclopaedia and this (I think) was previously discussed. We use her last name. –anemoneprojectors– 12:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

First names are only allowed to be used when there is a consensus that the person uses that name alone and is universally known by that name (e.g. Madonna). The media and the X Factor website refer to her with her full name, so please stop changing it. Teppic74 (talk) 13:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

But in relation to the X Factor only, her first name should be used as on the a X Factor she's credited by the name "Tulisa". When her name is relevant anywhere else she should be credited by her full name.

User:XtraT—Preceding undated comment added 15:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC).

It's irrelevant what the X Factor does. Wikipedia is not an extension of the X Factor website, it has its own rules about what is encyclopaedic or not, and there's absolutely no confusion by using the full name that everybody else uses. Teppic74 (talk) 22:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Her last name is hard to spell and pronounce anyway, nor have I seen the show refer to her by her full name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.30.171 (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

It's neither hard to spell nor hard to pronounce. –anemoneprojectors– 11:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I do think though the show have never used her second name and since it's so long, we should revert to using her first name — Preceding unsigned comment added by XtraT (talk • contribs) 20:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

It has already been said - wikipedia is not the X Factor website, and her name is certainly not "too long". Also, do not reformat talk pages unnecessarily. Teppic74 (talk) 22:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Why was this moved to the bottom of the page? –anemoneprojectors– 12:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Saved by/Not saved by

Do we really need to say which judge saved which acts last night? We know who mentors which acts and we know they were saved/not saved by their mentors... so it seems unnecessary. Also, Should we change "[Name]'s vote to eliminate" to "[Name]'s vote" as last year and list the three that they saved, as it was done by saving and not by eliminating? It would be much truer. –anemoneprojectors– 12:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I've done it just to see what people think. It's a bit tall having the three names... could we split the cells? –anemoneprojectors– 13:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I know the judges voted to save three acts but couldn't we leave it as a vote to eliminate for now? --MSalmon (talk) 13:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I not sure if voted is the right word. They eliminated the acts, it was not part of a vote. I have changed the judges table because of this. If you disagree revert.--XtraT (talk) 21:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I think leaving as it was (voting to eliminate a single act) would be best. The table just looks a bit of a mess with 3 names each. 77.97.62.0 (talk) 21:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it would be better to put it back to just a single name, the one they eliminated. We're going to have a problem by the way if we keep using "nowrap" on names - by the end of the series, the table won't fit on the screen. Remember, everyone's screen is different. I can't really agree with the removal of the word "vote" as now it doesn't make clear what the actual rows mean! –anemoneprojectors– 13:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

"Results summary" table.

I think its time to make each contestant take up just one line within the table rather than two, this could be done by making the "Eliminated (week x)" take up just one line.

Instead of this;

Weekly results per contestant

Contestant	Week 1	Week 2	Week 3	Week 4	Week 5	Week 6	Week 7	Week 8	Week 9	Week 10
										Round 1	Final
Jonjo Kerr	Not saved	Eliminated (week 1)

We would have this;

Weekly results per contestant

Contestant	Week 1	Week 2	Week 3	Week 4	Week 5	Week 6	Week 7	Week 8	Week 9	Week 10
										Round 1	Final
Jonjo Kerr	Not saved	Eliminated (week 1)

This would make the article easier to use, and make it easier for visitors to scroll down the article. With there being 16 contestants now a big clunky table would look messy.12bigbrother12 (talk) 19:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I personally like the idea of having 'Eliminated (week 1)' all on one line as it would make the table neater, but you could see what other editors say and if they agree/disagree because your idea hasn't been used before and we do try to be consistent with the previous series. Thank You Fatty2k10 (talk) 22:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

How about having Not saved on two lines? --MSalmon (talk) 22:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

At the end of the series, they'll all be on two lines because we'll have voting percentages, so I think it's better to leave it as it is, as having some different ones won't look as good. See last year. –anemoneprojectors– 13:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that Final should not be the second tab under week 10 as week 10 is the final. The second tab is the second stage of the final I am reverting this--93.107.206.248 (talk) 17:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Live Shows

Each results show featured a number of guest performers. Series 7 Winner Matt Cardle and Cee Lo Green performed on the first live results show and The Wanted and Katy Perry performed in the second week. The third results show featured performances from Bruno Mars, Kelly Clarkson and Professor Green & Emeli Sandé.

Jlaws1994 (talk) 15:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they are in the article so what's your point? --MSalmon (talk) 15:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

✗ Not done since no question and no reference for the change. mabdul 17:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Live Shows

2010 Contestant Cher Lloyd and Nicole Scherzinger will perform in the forth live result shows

Jlaws1994 (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

✗ Not done per above: "no reference for the change". mabdul 19:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Rhythmix/Little Mix

Just wondering if we ought to change "Rhythmix" to "Little Mix" throughout the article (other than where we explain the name change). Thoughts anyone? It would be more consistent at least. –anemoneprojectors– 14:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I think we should only change it to Little Mix after today, because they were known as Rhythmix before the name change--MSalmon (talk) 14:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I suppose since we've explained it, and the big table has both names, it should be ok as it is. –anemoneprojectors– 14:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree --MSalmon (talk) 14:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the bits about Rhytmix/Little Mix and Nu Vibe from the Week 4 section as it is not really needed. We can add a note at the bottom of the performances table to mention that Little Mix were previously known as Rhytmix and as for the bit about Nu Vibe it is already mentioned at the start of the Live Shows section so we don't need it twice (the bit about Rowland I have left as it is relevant).--MSalmon (talk) 09:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that as well, as the band changes aren't to do with week 4 specifically, but the live shows overall. –anemoneprojectors– 13:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Week 5 Guests

Hi, it appears that people keep adding that Florence and the Machine are going to appear on the results show for 6 November alongside JLS, if Florence were going to perform Dermot would have said so at the end of last nights (30 October) show. So, unless a source is found it will be just JLS confirmed for now. Thanks. --MSalmon (talk) 15:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Superstition/Need You Tonight

Did Marcus sing lyrics from "Need You Tonight"? I don't recall him doing so, in which case we should just put "Superstition". Just because it sampled "Need You Tonight" musically doesn't mean her performed it. He didn't. If he did, then a source wouldn't be a bad thing. –anemoneprojectors– 15:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The Final Result

Dermot before the judges' vote says "it's time for the final result". Therefore should the heading over how the judges voted not be The Final Result , I also have a sub heading judges vote to eliminate so a reader will know they are voting for the act they want to eliminate. If you disagree reply before undoing.--109.78.248.168 (talk) 16:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

What is wrong with the way it is now (like it has been for every series)? --MSalmon (talk) 18:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying anything is wrong with it but I think this is better--XtraT (talk) 18:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not called "the final result". What you are trying to do is messing up the page. It's the judges' votes because it's where the judges vote. –anemoneprojectors– 13:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Club classics?

Was the theme not "floor fillers" this week? I haven't seen Saturday's show yet but I remember last Sunday Dermot saying "floor fillers" and it was only on The Xtra Factor they were saying "club classics". Also on This Morning today they were discussing the "floor fillers" theme. However, a new source will be required. –anemoneprojectors– 13:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I have seen Saturday's now and it was introduced as "dancefloor fillers". –anemoneprojectors– 14:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Frankie's ejection

I have removed the write up about this because it was a copyright violation of this report but was also unsourced. Secondly, in the results table it says he was ejected in week 6, though technically this isn't accurate as we are between weeks 5 and 6. Also, I don't know if we really need a whole new row for this above the final showdown. –anemoneprojectors– 14:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

See Series 4 as an example when a contestant withdrew, so ejected would be the same --MSalmon (talk) 14:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I looked there but is it really needed? And it wasn't technically in week 6. Also we desperately need a controversy section, as I have said before. –anemoneprojectors– 14:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we can put it elsewhere in the table? --MSalmon (talk) 14:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I dunno, it looks a bit odd to me but it can stay if it's needed. Is there a better colour we can use though? –anemoneprojectors– 14:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it can stay for now until the end of the series then decide what to do --MSalmon (talk) 14:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

That's fine with me. But should we say it happened in week 6? –anemoneprojectors– 15:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

It already says Week 6 in the Results Table --MSalmon (talk) 15:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah but week 6 starts on Saturday and ends on Sunday, it hasn't happened yet. I dunno, am I being weird? –anemoneprojectors– 15:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

We are in Week 6 right now, which started yesterday (Mon 7) --MSalmon (talk) 15:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Results Summary

Should there not be a column for the return vote?--109.78.250.144 (talk) 13:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

No, the extra column will look out of place, a note at the bottom of the table should be fine. --MSalmon (talk) 13:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

What happens if the voting percentages are released after the series? Even a returns vote table above the week 6 performances if they release the voting percentages after the series — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.107.70.234 (talk) 23:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

It should be included, that's why I put it there. You can alter it but please don't remove it. It's part of the results summary, and it has a voting pecentage. –anemoneprojectors– 15:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I have changed it around a bit to make it easier to read and neater. Please change if necessary. --MSalmon (talk) 13:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

To be honest I assumed it would have been added over the weekend. You've certainly made it neater. Maybe we need to come up with a replacement word for "eliminated" because Amelia Lily wasn't eliminated in week 6. –anemoneprojectors– 13:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I know she wasn't eliminated, but isn't that what the different colour is for? --MSalmon (talk) 14:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah but the row is still labelled "eliminated". –anemoneprojectors– 14:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, what about Final Result or something? --MSalmon (talk) 14:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, not sure I like that. This is why I made another row for Amelia's return... if we combined them, we'd have to put in each cell if the person was eliminated or if they returned. –anemoneprojectors– 15:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

See Big Brother 2006 (UK) when there was a vote to return which was a different colour but the row still said Evicted. --MSalmon (talk) 15:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess we can leave it as it is. At least for now: someone might come up with a better idea. –anemoneprojectors– 14:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

May I comment on the layout and the thought behind the table for the Results Summary - it's systematic and logical. It simplifies a fairly complex process to describe in paragraphs. To me it's similar to Harry Beck's Design for the London Underground Map - Well done! SouthernerinNorth90.193.230.1 (talk) 00:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Movies table

As shown in The X Factor (UK series 6) a table for the Movie of the origin of the song was shown, I think one should be included for consistency. --Jennie | ☎ 10:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

It was already there when the blank table was added during last week. –anemoneprojectors– 15:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

It's fine now - someone removed it before Sunday's show --Jennie | ☎ 16:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I see :) –anemoneprojectors– 15:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Ratings on +1

Does anyone know if the official BARB ratings for ITV1 include the viewers on ITV+1?--EddieBernard (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

No, they do not, only ITV1. Do you want to include ITV1+1 as well? It would make it very cluttered, it's like listing ratings for every repeat on ITV2... –anemoneprojectors– 14:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. Was just curious really. Maybe the viewings on +1 are making the ratings look worse than they actually are! The +1 viewership always seems fairly healthy when the overnights come out. --EddieBernard (talk) 21:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Unless people watch twice, on ITV and then again +1, then it might be worth including in a separate column. We already include ITV1HD separately. Is there a HD version of ITV1+1?! –anemoneprojectors– 13:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Fuckin' Perfect

There is no Pink song called "Perfect" The song is called "Fuckin' Perfect". Media outlets that refuse to use the word "Fuckin'" will sometimes spell it using asterisks or will omit the word, but that is still the title of the song. According to Amazon, where you can buy Pink songs, there is no Pink song called "Perfect". You can buy "Fuckin' Perfect" or "F**kin' Perfect" or even "F**kin' Perfect (Perfect)", but no "Perfect". The asterisks are just a concession to censorship and "Perfect" does not exist, so the song should be listed here as "Fuckin' Perfect". Listing it as "Fuckin' Perfect (censored version)" would probably also be acceptable. 142 and 99 (talk) 21:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

No, if you actually click through onto the Wikipedia article for the song, it quite clearly states in the first sentence that the title for clean versions of the song (which Misha sang) is simply "Perfect". Eddyegghead (talk) 21:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and also the source that is provided lists Perfect (the clean version) --MSalmon (talk) 21:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

If it's sources you want, The Daily Mail said she performed "F**kin Perfect."[5] The Hertfordshire Mercury also agrees.[6] OK Magazine says she performed "F***in Perfect."[7] Those are three censored ways of representing the title "Fuckin' Perfect". They could have said she sung "Perfect" if they thought so, but they didn't. So that's three sources that say she did not sing "Perfect". 142 and 99 (talk) 22:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that's not true. What it does say on that page is "also known as 'Perfect'". To say that it is known as "Perfect" could mean nothing more than thats how some people refer to it, not that it is an official title. Since Amazon does not recognize "Perfect" as a proper title, if anything the page for the song is wrong and needs to change. Do you have a source other than Wikipedia that "Perfect" is an official title? I would think that the folks trying to sell the song would know if it was. 142 and 99 (talk) 21:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Since when is Amazon the be all and end all? It has been referred to, as stated, in the source on the ITV website as "Perfect". Eddyegghead (talk) 22:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say it was "the be all and end all". Merely that it was a more authoritative source than an unsourced claim on another Wikipedia page. By Wikipedia's spurcing standards, it is more authoritative. Also, ther ITV page does list it as "Perfect", but I have provided three other sources that disagree with that title.142 and 99 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC).

We should go with what sources reported that Misha sang, and not fucking swear in our fucking Wikipedia article :-) –anemoneprojectors– 16:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Kellyrowland3.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Kellyrowland3.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Tulisacontostavlos23.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Tulisacontostavlos23.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Celeb duets

Since we know it's now not "celebrity duets" but duets with mentors, do we still feel the need to list the mentors, as we already know who they are? It's not like they don't already appear each week, so they're not "special guests" or anything like that. –anemoneprojectors– 15:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't now if they should be added, but I agree and have removed them now --MSalmon (talk) 15:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Images

Just because we don't have a fourth image for Tulisa does not mean we shouldn't have images of the other three judges. GimliDotNet (talk) 17:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Final show: all finalists except frankie performed?

I wouldn't like to change this without being 100% sure, but I don't recall seeing (off the top of my head) Nu Vibe or any of the first four eliminations except Two Shoes (including Amelia) in the medley performance. Can anyone confirm? U-Mos (talk) 15:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

They were all there I believe (incl. Goldie and except Frankie) --MSalmon (talk) 15:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I saw them all during the winning performance so they would have been there during the group performance. –anemoneprojectors– 13:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Voting %

I can't see a reference for the final voting percentages. It needs adding to the bottom of every column in the table. –anemoneprojectors– 15:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

It is there, it is under Week 9 & 10 columns --MSalmon (talk) 15:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

ok, it needs to be everywhere :) See last year –anemoneprojectors– 16:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Just something off-topic, the images of the 4 judges could be two at the top and two at the bottom instead of 4 across? --MSalmon (talk) 16:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah that would be better. Four images isn't so bad but five makes it really bad, especially on these library computers. –anemoneprojectors– 12:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

More Voting that doesn't add up

For crucial week 10 final result, the numbers don't add up Little Mix 48.2% and Marcus 42.8% -- That makes 91% not 100% - Please verify werldwayd (talk) 14:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

See the note at the top of the column. It says "The voting percentages in week 10 for Sunday round do not add up to 100%, owing to the freezing of votes. Amelia Lily received 8.9% of the final vote". I'll move the note for clarity. –anemoneprojectors– 13:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

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

An image used in this article, File:Kelly Rowland Walmart Soundcheck cropped.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Kelly Rowland Walmart Soundcheck cropped.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Controversy section

The issue about the apparently unfounded bullying allegations has been rumbling on the Misha B article Talk page. It came to my attention that the issue in the The X Factor (UK series 8)#Controversy section seems to be given undue weight in comparison with Cocozza'a ejection from the series (which seems far more serious). Either the extensive paragraphs on bully-gate need to be trimmed, or the paragraph about Cocozza needs to be augmented (probably a bit of both). There's also a mention above about Cocozza showing his rear end and attracting complaints - maybe this should be added as a controversy too? Sionk (talk) 17:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I have trimmed bullygate down by about 1500 red minus thingies, while maintaining a NPOV. A BLPN admin removed the identical twin section from the Misha B page. They may recommend removing it from here too...Zoebuggie☺whispers 23:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The Misha bit may need a re-edit following Tulisa And Louis comments today

http://www.independent.ie/entertainment/tv-radio/louis-walsh-stands-by-x-factor-misha-b-bully-comments-3202847.html

http://www.her.ie/story/misha-b-the-bully-louis-walsh-stands-by-his-words-336032

but also http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/x-factor/9482303/X-Factor-2012-10-ways-to-make-it-good-again.html Talk:The X Factor (UK series 8)

Its not totally clear to me what the paper is reporting is what Louis and Tulisa are actually saying, or for what purpose ;)...Zoebuggie☺whispers 17:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

It's clear to me what's going on. The judges are trying to create a bit of publicity and friction, to advertise the new series in Ireland which begins this week :) Sionk (talk) 19:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Yup thats what I thought..lol.. but I was weary of saying so:)...Zoebuggie☺whispers 20:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Why change the name of this sub-section to "Other issues"? I've changed it back to "Controversies", which explicitly decribes what this section includes/excludes. Sionk (talk) 10:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

When discussing the controversy section on the Misha B page a couple of editors giving me advice indicated it was a not a good word to use. Though it may only relate to individuals I guess?...Zoebuggie☺whispers 10:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't like "other issues" as it's confusing, but didn't really want to change it back. But I do prefer "controversies" because the show is actually called "controversial" in the media, and as you say I'm pretty sure the advice given about Misha's page was only because she's an individual, but this is a tv show. –anemoneprojectors– 11:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Just wondering, what is the rationale for including "Controversies" as a sub-section of "Reception"? Sionk (talk) 13:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:The X Factor (UK series 10) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The X Factor (UK series 8). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://xfactor.itv.com/2011/news/story/read_the-x-factor-voting-numbers-revealed_item_100293.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:29, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The X Factor (UK series 8). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120107204142/http://xfactor.itv.com/2011/news/story/read_the-x-factor-voting-numbers-revealed_item_100293.htm to http://xfactor.itv.com/2011/news/story/read_the-x-factor-voting-numbers-revealed_item_100293.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.itv.com/presscentre/pressreleases/programmepressreleases/littlemixnamedthexfactorwinners2011/default.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140701091700/http://www.barb.co.uk/viewing/weekly-top-30?_s=4 to http://www.barb.co.uk/viewing/weekly-top-30?_s=4

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The X Factor (UK series 8). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121214014705/http://www.barb.co.uk/viewing/weekly-top-10 to http://www.barb.co.uk/viewing/weekly-top-10
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121214014705/http://www.barb.co.uk/viewing/weekly-top-10 to http://www.barb.co.uk/viewing/weekly-top-10

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:46, 5 June 2017 (UTC)