Talk:America's Got Talent season 2

Do we really need...

A listing of every televised auditioner? It's a bit of a overload. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 18:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

We're just following the example set for other reality competitions such as American Idol. Thousands of people auditioned, and dozens presented their act onstage for the judges that were only shown as rapid-fire video bites. However, in order to illustrate the variety of talents that auditioned, this article lists only those who achieved their 15 minutes of fame by having their name publicized and their act discussed by the judges on international television. GUllman 22:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes but American Idol's articles no longer have that. See this and this. The problem is that this generally isn't even 15 minutes of fame. Especially if everyone shown is listed. It's clutter and I don't think it's necessary. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The specific precedent is currently set at the season one page, where all acts appearing in the three preliminary rounds for that season are mentioned. If we change how season two is laid out, then IMHO season one should be similarly changed. Also note that, while season 1 had three weeks of preliminaries, it appears that season 2 will have five weeks of them, resulting in an even longer page if the season 1 formating is kept. I don't have a very strong opinion on the actual formatting used at this point, but felt those were a couple of points that ought to be injected into the conversation. - TexasAndroid 12:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I organized some of the precedent in season 1, and I cannot agree that it should be maintained. A major difference between AI and AGT is: in AI, singers are compared to other singers, but in AGT, singers are compared to bands, comedians, magicians, dance troupes, and so on. There should be a way to cover the variety of acts that are presented during the audition round, but including every one of them is too much. I cannot make a determination of which of the preliminaries are notable because that would be original research. For the audition shows, perhaps only the audition round acts that were rejected should remain. (Like AI, AGT contestants must have performed in front of assistant producers—with cuts being made at that point—before moving on to the televised "audition round." But I cannot find any reliable sources to confirm that, and that is important to find out.) I will revisit the season 1 article within the next few days to see what improvements could be made to accommodate future seasons (revamping the ghastly legend is one of the tasks). Tinlinkin 19:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd go with Tinlinkin here. No reason to list every person. And just because it's used for season 1 doesn't mean it's a good thing to do. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 13:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I said not to list every person at this point in the current season. While the series is in progress, it's still important to keep track of who's in the running as well as whoever is eliminated. I was expressing redundancies in sections when the season ends. The final product at the end of the series should be the eliminated audition acts are listed in the relevant "Auditions" section, the eliminated semifinalists are listed in the relevant "Semifinals" section, and so on. Tinlinkin 14:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Question. What makes the acts who auditioned notable? Just being on tv doesn't automatically make you notable. That's the problem with listing everyone. Not only that but the audition section is completely unsourced. There is just no reason to list every auditioner when none of the other talent show type reality show articles do it. It's overkill. All of the recent Idol articles don't list them. The So You Think You Can Dance article doesn't list every eliminated contestant. Ditto On the Lot. And it's for the same reason. Not every auditioner is notable. And nothing is sourced. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 20:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I agree that most contestants in the audtion round who don't advance are not notable. I would be fine with deleting those contestants (and those audition sections in the final product if my plan below is adopted, but the sections have to remain while the show is in progress). Those acts are interesting, and some are outrageous, but "interesting" is not the same as notable and many of these contestants do appear only to get their slice of national attention. There are not many of these contestants, however, and the article would still remain a bit bloated if we plan to cover the remaining 71 semifinalists. I don't think many of the semifinalists are notable, either, but I object to making an editorial decision to determine which ones are–meaning deleting certain semifinalists and keeping others. Tinlinkin 07:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing is the episodes themselves. Same way as most other reality show articles that detail what happened in the episodes, let alone other types of TV show articles. If you are condeming this one article for not listing sources other than the episodes, then you are condemning a huge percentage of the TV show articles on the project. As for the reasons for listing off the eliminated persons, someone else explained earlier that it's to show the diversity of the acts on the show. Just how many different types of acts are shown. As for their notability to be listed, a lot of reality show articles use a level of notability on the show's own pages that would never get the contestants their own articles. The Survivor series articles detail all the eliminated contestants, and how/why they were eliminated, even though only 2-4 contestants each season generally end up notable enough to have their own articles. Noone is arguing that these people are, in general, notable enough for their own articles. But in an article specifically on what happens in the current season of this show, I think that they are notable enough to be listed. Just my $0.02 on the matter. - TexasAndroid 21:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I'll go do something else. The next person who comes by probably won't be as nice and will remove the auditioners who were eliminated as well as do major surgery on this article along with season 1's. This article does not and should not exist in its own universe. Comparing it to Survivor is faulty because on Survivor, those people are finalists. They have made it through off camera auditions and all of that. Not only that but they are on for complete episodes. That's a bit different than a person who is going to be on tv for 5 minutes (or less). --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 21:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The catch-22 here is the show's format. A "finalist" in AGT (as defined from season 1) is a contestant who would appear on the final 2 shows, and for two weeks before then. A "finalist" in other programs will appear continually in multiple weeks. That distinction should be a red flag that this programm cannot be simply compared with other reality competitions. If all eliminated semifinalists are removed, then there is almost no point to have season-by-season articles–the article would be too short. There are several eliminated semifinalists that have articles, such as Leonid the Magnificent, Mark Faje, Michelle L'amour, Desperation Squad, and N'Versity. Perhaps eliminated semifinalists should be treated with brevity; that's something I would go along with. And that means I will likely make changes to the proposed article format below. Tinlinkin 07:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Disconnect

The first Auditions section shows five sets of auditions, including Boston and Atlanta. Last nights New York auditions are not mentioned at all. So we have an obvious disconnect between the sections. We know that only four sets were shown. Is it somehow possible that the other two happened, but were not shown? Or is the old information on the five audition sets incorrect? And if it's incorrect by adding two auditions that never happened, is any of it valid, including dates on the auditions we know did happen because they were shown? - TexasAndroid 14:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not see last night's episode, but a similar situation occurred last season. Atlanta was listed as an audition city prior to the first episode, but there were no televised claims of auditions from Atlanta. That issue is still unresolved, to my knowledge. Press releases from NBC Universal [1] appear to be the only source of verifiable information coming from internal production. The first press release of the second season also listed Branson, Missouri, Las Vegas, and San Francisco! I don't know how to address this. Tinlinkin 15:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

One solution is to remove the section. If the information is in clear conflict with the show as broadcast, then I would say we should think about just getting rid of it. In it's current state, in clear conflict, I would say that it is mostly useless.

Another possibility might be to see if each audition can be separately verified in archives of the local media. For instance, I know that the San Antonio auditions for the most recent season of American Idol were extensively covered in the local San Antonio media. AGT is not AI, and San Antonio is not New York, but there might be at least some independant verification possible. - TexasAndroid 16:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I would lean toward the first suggestion at the moment. If you or someone else can find something definitive from the local media, more power to you. With all due respect, my current and future involvement with AGT will be limited to ensuring a smooth transition with the format change (if consensus is reached there). Tinlinkin 17:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

New article format

Although my attention has been elsewhere, I have not backed down on my promise to revisit the season 1 semifinal rounds and after. I already made some changes: I removed the "judges' choice" from the tables.

My intent is to remove the bulky tables entirely. (What are your opinions on the tables?) And in accordance with the above, contestants would be listed only in the sections from which they were eliminated. The section header structure would remain the same. I don't think the order of appearance is noteworthy, but the 3 checks from the judges probably is.

My format is adapted from American Idol articles (for example American Idol (season 6)). Sample entries follow:

---

In Semifinals Part 2 section:

• Sugar n' Spice is a pop music family group.
  • Los Angeles auditions: The group's auditions were not televised.
  • Semifinals (Part 2): [description of performance] —Eliminated by viewers
• PBM is a band from Detroit, Michigan. Their music was a combination of rock and reggae, also known as ska or ska-punk.
  • New York auditions: Morgan liked the band’s energy but wasn’t a big fan of the lead singer. Hasselhoff and Brandy wanted the band to come back. Brandy challenged PBM to prove Morgan wrong next time they hit the stage.
  • Semifinals (Part 2): The band was not selected to perform on stage. —Eliminated by judges
• The following acts did not have their auditions televised and were eliminated by the judges in this episode: Rabbi Baptiste (Los Angeles), The Hemphill Kids (New York), K Turbo (Chicago), and Clarence Donaldson (New York)

In Wild Card section:

• Nathan Burton is a magician.
  • Los Angeles auditions: Burton performed the Bowl-A-Rama magic trick, making a bowling ball appear from a drawing in a large sketchpad. Then, he did a disappearing act involving the "Microwave of Death".
  • Semifinals (Part 3): [description of performance] —Viewers' runner-up
  • Wild Card: [description of performance] —Viewers' runner-up, eliminated
• Bobby Badfingers is a "professional finger snappist" from San Francisco, California.
  • Los Angeles auditions: In addition to snapping fingers at a fast rate, he danced to classic 1950s rock. He was the first person to advance to the second round.
  • Semifinals (Part 2): [description of performance] —Eliminated by viewers
  • Wild Card: Bobby Badfingers was the choice of Piers Morgan. [description of performance] —Eliminated by viewers, bottom 3

In Finals section:

• Taylor Ware is a singer and yodeler.
  • Chicago auditions: The judges were blown away by her performance. When Ware revealed that she learned all her yodeling from a tape and instruction booklet, David Hasselhoff replied, "You are a good student!" All three judges voted yes.
  • Semifinals (Part 1): [description of performance] —Viewers' choice
  • Finals: [description of performance] Her celebrity coach was Tom McBryde, a country music arranger. —Fourth or fifth place

---

Something that was lacking from the Season 1 articles was the descriptions of performances in the semifinal rounds and after. This format should solve that problem for future seasons. Comments? Tinlinkin 16:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks interesting. Trying to get my brain around how it would work on a progressive basis. Correct me if I'm wrong about any of this.

Now that the prelims are over, for each future week, all contestants who compete in that week are migrated down to the new week, showing their Move On, or Eliminated status for that week, and adding new commentary about their specific appearences. By migrating, instead of creating new sections for each contestant, they each have a history of thier time in one place. By the end of the 2nd round, all contestants currently in the "Advanced" sections of the prelims should have been migrated down to the 2nd round, leaving only the Eliminateds in the first round section. Then, when the 3rd round begins, the process is repeated, migrating each week of the third round down those that compete in that week's show. Wash, rinse, repeat until the finals. Does that sound pretty close to what you had in mind? - TexasAndroid 17:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

That sounds about right. :) Tinlinkin 17:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. We have 2 weeks now to get other opinions (no episode next week), but baring any major objections, I would say we go with that when the call-backs start. - TexasAndroid 17:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added citation links referencing the current data directly to the episodes. This is nice now, but it will be even nicer as we start migrating data down as further episodes are broadcast. The current references are formatted:

<ref name="ep1">{{cite episode
| title = Dallas auditions
| episodelink =
| series = America's Got Talent
| serieslink = America's Got Talent (season 2)
| airdate = 2007-06-05
| season = 2
| number = 1 }}</ref>

But the key thing is that the full data reference is only needed once in the entire article. After that, to again reference the same episode, you just need to add the tag <ref name="ep1"/>. So, as items start to migrate away from the section for the episode that they originally appeared in, just add the smaller tag to each migrated item, giving the right episode number, to correctly reference the migrated item to the episode that it appeared on. - TexasAndroid 17:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The referencing is a good idea in principle (and as required by WP policies). But, of course, they are implied by the mere mention of audition episodes, semifinals episodes, etc. I usually like to see timepoints if those TV episode reference templates are used (e.g. approx. 17:41). But for an article like this, it is rather unnerving to do that for every entry. I could go with something like between 0:00-30:00, but since that appears to be nonstandard, I am not endorsing that. When possible, third-party (non-NBC) reliable sources should be added in addition. Reality TV World is definitely helpful, and other sites are available for recaps. TLK^'in 14:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

So recaps are valid as official references? I know I use one of the recap sites often as an info source, but I was not certain it would qualify as a reliable news source. www.realitynewsonline.com is the one I use. If it's recaps are considered to be up to par, I would gladly add them as citations. - TexasAndroid 17:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Who made it into the 35

There is, apparently, a good bit of confusion on various fan-sites and boards of exactly who made it into the 35 person "short list". The show was far from clear on exactly who made all 35 slots. The list currently on this page is based off of the list that someone else posted before I started, with a few I got from another list. We've got 32 or 33 names. I've since seen a third site with 36 names that they say may have made it.  :) In theory, it would be possible to make 3 lists. 100% certain they made it (shown definitively in a group that made it through), 100% certain eliminated, and uncertain. Theoretically. OTOH, we are only a few hours from part 2 of the call-backs, and hopefully who made the 35 will be a whole lot clearer once that episode airs. So, IMHO, I say wait for tonight's episode to clear things up a bit, and make any adjustments after that. - TexasAndroid 17:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

As I expected, this is pretty much moot now. I still don't think we really know everyone who was in the 35 short list, but we do know the final 20, and from this point forward those are the important ones. - TexasAndroid 16:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Byrain Wynbush

Don't have it in front of me, but I believe he was ELIMINATED from the top 20, not passed through. Can anyone replay and check this? MrDiGeorge 04:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

He did not make it to the top 35, being eliminated Tuesday night. I'll work over the lists in a couple of hours, when I have more time. - TexasAndroid 11:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. I suspect Wynbush was being mixed up with Robert Hatcher, who we saw very little of, but who has made it to the finals. - TexasAndroid 16:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that- I was working partly on the fly and partly from a list provided by someone on the NBC message boards, who made that error. Good catches and good clean-ups. Sorry if I was a little lax, but as I said, "on the fly." (And add me to the crowd who believes the editing on this show is way confusing.) ChrisStansfield 03:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe he made it in the top 35, but eliminated top 20. I again, deleted it from my DVR. Anyone to check this again? (Sorry!) 24.193.147.152 05:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

There's a recap of Tuesday's episode here. About halfway down it mentions Byrain being eliminated Tuesday, which is exactly how I remember it. He did not appear at all on Wednesday's episode. - TexasAndroid 11:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Better descriptor word?

• Luigi aka Boy-Shakira

*Las Vegas Callbacks (Part 2): Passed through, to Hasselhoff's apparent amazement.

I dunno, it appeared to me that Hasslehoff was...dumbfounded? Disgusted? Shocked? Amazement really doesn't seem descriptive enough to how he reacted.--293.xx.xxx.xx 06:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Is there an appropriate way to address in the main article the fact that Hasselhoff is clearly made uncomfortable by acts who cross dress or are overtly gay? Every tantrum he's thrown so far has been in response to those types of acts. Contrast that with the two British judges, who have no problem with "camp." ChrisStansfield 02:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Citing Sources?--293.xx.xxx.xx 05:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, if I were to do so, I'd cite the episodes in question themselves. As I do not currently have access to the videos of the episodes or transcripts in which to point out the specific instances, I am reluctant to do so. However, anyone who can sit down with those and cite it is welcome to do so, IMO. ChrisStansfield 18:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Any attempt to explain his reaction would be conjecture or original research; you can only quote what he said himself, and I don't think he ever explicitly gave his reasons. I wouldn't assume he's uncomfortable by flamboyant acting -- the last job Hasselhoff had just before this season started was playing a gay character on stage in Mel Brooks' The Producers. GUllman 20:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I'm well aware that "any attempt to explain his reaction," etc would be OR...there is absolutely nothing illegitimate, however, about citing his tantrums in the first place and pointing out the nature of the acts he was reacting to- readers can then draw their own conclusions. I also think it's perfectly relevant to the article to cite these intstances of 'walk-offs," since they were heaviuly promoted in the advertisements to the show and are obviously considered a "draw" by the creators of the show itself. Finally, playing a heavily stereotyped Mel Brooks-style gay person is hardly an indicator that someone is comfortable with gay people; in fact, it could be interpreted as quite the opposite. (Have you ever even seen The Producers?. ChrisStansfield 15:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Vote for the Worst and Boy Shakira

VFTW, the web site that tries to keep what, in their opinion, is the worst candidate around on a number of American reality shows, has now endorsed Boy Shakira as the AGT contestant that they intend to work to keep around for a while. (This is listed on the VFTW article and on the front page of the VFTW web site.) I'm wondering then whether this deserves any mention here on the AGT page, particularly in the Boy Shakira section. Anyone know how the AI season pages have tended to handle the VFTW endorsements over there? Ignore them? List them? - TexasAndroid 15:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Since VFTW has been referenced by news outlets who do stories about reality TV, I don't see any reason to object. That said, "AGT2" is not exactly as high-profile as Idol was, so it may be better to wait and see if anyone else picks up on it. I tend to be fairly inclusionist, I'm curious as to how others feel. ChrisStansfield 15:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

For now, I have it in. I today did something I've been wanting to do for a while, which was to give each of the remaining contestants a "General" bullet point in addition to the bullet points that they already had for their individual appearences. This created a better things for the general descriptions of the acts, and let the episode bullet points focus on just the individual appearences. But this also created a proper place under Boy Shakira to reference the VFTW endorsement, which really had no proper place previously when all we had were the episode by episode bullet points. - TexasAndroid 15:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Julienne Irwin and At Last

An anon has added a reference that, in the Las Vegas callbacks, Julienne Irwin performed Etta James' At Last. Does anyone know for certain if this is true? I remember that she was only seen breifly in a montage, and have no recollection of what song she performed, if we even heard what she performed, but this seems a little bit out of place for her (Irwin's) country style. It's also the same song the ventriloquist Terry Fator performed in the preliminaries. So I'm a little suspicious of this factoid, but really cannot firmly say that it is wrong. - TexasAndroid 15:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Video links

I've added in reference links to the performance videos for the remaining performers. These are all links directly to the NBC web site, and so there should be no copyright problems, as they are not youtube videos or such. There are a lot of them. But I feel that they serve well both as official references for the performance info to which they are linked, and for letting people just go see/hear the various performances. Does anyone see any problems with these? If not, then I'm inclined to continue with the linking to older performances from eliminated contestants. But I wanted to get opinions on what I have placed in so far before I continued. - TexasAndroid 13:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

No objections in a couple of days, I'm gonna link in more performances. - TexasAndroid 13:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The only problem is these links will likely become dead links when the next season premieres. I'm sure I cannot reference season 1 the same way. TLK^'in 11:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It's quite possible that the season 1 videos are still there, assuming anyone had the code numbers/URLs for them. Without those, there's no way of knowing short of testing tens of thousands of link numbers one byt one, which is to me far, far from worth the effort. As for the current season's links, they work for now. If they die when the season 3 page is set up, then they can be removed from the articles at that point easily enough. - TexasAndroid 14:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

So far, so good. The direct to video links still work for season 2. We shall see if that continues when they start putting up season 3 links but, for now, these links are still good. If they die out when season 3 starts, then they will need to be stripped out of this article, and any of the individual contestant articles that copy/pasted the video linkes sections. But I'm still crossing my fingers that they will remain availible. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Season 2 dates?

America's_Got_Talent states that season 2 was from June 5, 2007 to August 21, 2007.

However, the page stages "Broadcast from May 2, 2009– July 18, 2009". Even all the show dates are in 2009. Seems the dates are about two years off. Why is this? (127.0.0.1) (talk) 21:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

We've had a long-term IP vandal every now and then coming through and making such changes. I *think* he's changing things to the date of rebroadcast in one or another foreign country. Given that this is from a few seasons back, it's not being watched as closely any more, and this time his changes stuck for a couple of months. I've now reverted him. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

He got seasons 2, 3, and 4, back in December. Season 2 I was able to undo automatically. 3 & 4 had too much other edits in the time since to auto undo, and I had to do so manually. Annoying. I'll try to keep an eye out more often for reverting his edits. He's been doing this for years now, every now and then coming through and changing all the dates to the Singapore rebroadcast dates. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Round Chart

I thought I'd add some round charts to season 2 since it's the only season that doesn't have them. When I put in the chart for the first semi finals, it doesn't stay where it's supposed to but instead, appears at the bottom of the page. I'm new to Wikipedia so I have a lot to learn! How can I fix the chart so it stays in it's section? Spencerhaber (talk) 07:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)