Talk:The X Factor (British TV series)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

The fourth new judge

Someone keeps posting that 80s popstar Sinitta has been confirmed as the fourth judge for X Factor series four, however this is NOT true! ITV have NOT announced that she will be the judge, they have ONLY announced Dannii Minogue officially. Simon Cowell has repeatedly said that he wants the fourth judge to be male, NOT female, therefore its unlikely Sinitta will get the job. Please stop posting that Sinitta will be the judge as it is NOT true. NO evidence supports your argument!!

Leona "guff"

Correction, Lucy was the first female winner of the X Factor if you include Celebrity versions.

NO! Lucy didnt win "the x factor" - she won "celebrity x factor" - both were DIFFERENT shows!

The x factor is a talent search that rewards the winner with a 1 million pound recording contract whereas the celebrity version was all for charity, and followed a different format (and wasnt classed as a series). Therefore leona was indeed the first female winner of "the x factor"!''

Age Limit

What is the age limit of those who intend to audition?

I know that the age gap between various contestants is much wider than in Pop Idol and American Idol, but by how much? I've heard of contestants that exceeded 40 years of age!

There is no upper age limit for The X Factor (at least in the British version). People in their sixties and beyond have auditioned. I think the oldest person to audition was a woman in her eighties. --Daniel Lawrence 20:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Were the categories assigned at random?

I did a bit of maintenance on this page, and I left in the statement that the categories were assigned to judges randomly (though I added the word "supposedly" because I do not believe that anything said on this show can be trusted to be genuine).

However, I'm now wondering if this is correct. I remember the series 2 show in question, when the judges were called in to the producers' room, but I just can't remember if they DID say the categories were allocated at random, or whether the producers made the decision.

Minor point, but does anyone know the answer?

The producers chose in the second series, but it might've been random in the first series - they didn't go into detail then. violet/riga (t) 19:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

What information goes on what pages?

I have moved the "finishing order" list from this page to The X Factor UK series 2 as I don't think it belongs here (it certainly doesn't belong under "Controversy" anyway). My view is that the results and other series-specific info should go on the series-specific pages. A while ago I spent some time trying to remove duplication across the three X Factor pages, but now it seems to be creeping in again, with things like Louis' threat to quit and Simon voting off his own act now duplicated. The odd bit of justifiable duplication doesn't hurt, but I think we need to keep in mind that there is a specific page for Series 2. That's my 2 cents' worth for now! Matt 22:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC).

Controversy - Steve Brookstein's audition

I have removed the following text:

"In the biographic details on the website of the 2004 winner Steve Brookstein he appears to indicate that he was invited by letter to audition, something which appears to be out of keeping with the apparent format of the show."

The biographic details referred to, as far as I can tell, read:

"Weeks later I opened an envelope that had been delivered some time earlier. What I had thought was a circular turned out to be my audition time for The X Factor. It was in three days time."

I do not see how this is inconsistent with the apparent format of the show. It seems obvious that audition times have to be issued to applicants, and it is entirely reasonable that they should be sent out by letter. The implication that specially selected candidates were invited to appear, and that auditions were not genuinely open to members of the public, is not substantiated as far as I can see.

The British Comedy Awards 2005

I haven't been following these awards, so can anyone clarify why The X Factor won (or was even nominated for) at award at this event? I mean, it's not meant to be a comedy programme is it? Was the nomination tongue-in-cheek or something? Matt 00:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I can clarify, as I was watching the event at the time and so made the contribution in less than 10 minutes after the event. I believe, but am not completely certain, that the X Factor won best reality comedy show. It appeared at the actual award giving that the presenters were equally suprised and also pointed out the obvious error in giving them a comedy award. However, this did not stop them accepting the award ;) --The1exile 01:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

According to the BBC site [1], and also the Wikipedia page it was actually "best comedy entertainment programme".

Fair enough then; I wasnt paying a huge amount of attention. Make any amendments needed. --The1exile 11:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Old Trafford Audition 2006

I was there at the audition that day. I queued from 8.00am and didn't get into the stadium until around 4.30pm. There was very little information given, and the delay seemed to be due to the TV people stopping the 3mile que to film the crowds false cheering (those 'I love you Simon' etc signs you might see were given out by the production people). This meant I wasn't there to see Shane sing (which I'm not too bothered about) I'm shocked that he was miming! I've added that the auditions were done on the stand at Old Trafford, with the guy standing right in front of you and everybody able to hear you. Not ideal. I was with a relative who by the time he got heard (about 6.30) was, like many others, disheartened and fed up with the day. A single-location audition might have saved Simon Cowell some money and looked better on camera, but I found the whole experience most unenjoyable and the organisation disgraceful, as, I think, did many others. Further details/comments welcome

---
As valid a point that may be, this talk page is to discuss the article. Please reserve this with your personal blog. Joe dawg 9 (talk) 04:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Section on Old Trafford Audition

I'm deleting the section on the Old Trafford Audition. It's largely based on speculation, cites no sources, is largely irrelevant and seems to be one person's rant. There have been similar comments made about past auditions and it is already largely known that those who audition don't automatically see the three judges - this is nothing new and doesn't warrant an entire section. 81.156.21.229 18:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

New Judge

Was there a new judge? 80.229.241.200 22:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Paula Abdul, who appears with Simon on American Idol, appeared as an extra judge at some 2006 auditions.

Indeed? Is there a chance that this show, or at least, its format, will come to the U.S.? Despite X-Factor's problems in the U.K., with the credibility of Idol about to be flushed down the toilet in 2007 (with a trainwreck threatening to steal it), I think now is the time to consider bringing X-Factor across the Atlantic. -CookyMonzta (29 March 2007)

I can say that thats it wont go to america (Nope, Never, Not In a Million Years) and is impossible to at the minute, as Simon Cowells contract with American Idol states he is not to appear in any other Musical Talent Shows (IN THE US). 86.168.5.166 (talk) 23:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Mel B (Spice Girls) most recently became an X Factor judge in the UK version and there are rumours that she may return as a full time job in the 2013 version http://www.xfactor2013.co.uk/2012/11/mel-b-to-become-x-factor-insurance-for.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.250.223.206 (talk) 21:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

That's a blog so far from official, and as we know, the judges don't even know what's going on until the day before the auditions start. Rumours (whether widespread in the national media or invented by you on your personal blog) are not included on Wikipedia. –AnemoneProjectors– 10:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism?

It stars Netnsg as the first ever band to play instruments entirely made out of fruit - in the first paragraph... I assume that's vandalism! But I'm far from being an expert on this programme so I don't want to remove it...

jack Sven945 18:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

No, they really did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.8.226 (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The "blurb"

I removed this text at the top of the article because it looks like excessive disambiguation that is not needed. Links to the three seasons of the UK series of this show should be, and are, included in the article. The Battle of the Stars thing is, from what I've read about it, a celebrity special, and should also only be included in the article. The only valid link I see there is to the Network Ten series. I think it should be removed again, but I will only do so again if there is agreement to do so. jd || talk || 23:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I added this blurb at the top of the article a while ago because information was being added here that duplicated what was in the series-specific articles, and the set of articles was consequently getting into a bit of a mess. I spent quite a lot of time stripping this information out and merging it into the series-specific articles, but bits kept creeping back in. I gathered that people were failing to realise that there were separate articles for each of the series, and the prominent links at the top were intended to guide editors as to what should go where. I feel that the blurb you removed potentially served a useful purpose while at the same time doing nobody any harm, but since you feel so strongly that it should be removed I'm happy to leave it as it is and see if the problem recurs. Matt 02:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC).

problems with the Article which i have corrected

Chris Moyles came Third in the battle of the stars Rod stewart was also a Guest Judge on the x factor on the 21st of october

Live musicians?

What's the view on whether any of the musicians shown in the live performances - either the contestants when they accompany themselves, or the backing musicians that sometimes feature - actually ever play live, or whether they are always just miming? Matt 20:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC).

Of course they're live. If they were miming, they wouldn't forget the words or go off key. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Misunderstanding... I'm not talking about the singing, which as you say is obviously not mimed - I'm talking about the playing of musical instruments. Matt 17:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC).

Don't they normally use a backing track? The big band was live. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, normally they have a backing track, but sometimes they play instruments too. For example, in recent shows Ben played piano and one of the MacDonald Brothers played guitar. It seems quite believable to me that the big band was live (though I wasn't studying it too carfeully), but I'm less sure about these other cases. Matt 22:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC).

Euro X Factor prize

From the article, re "Euro X Factor":

"It was also stated that the convential £1,000,000 recording contract the winner recieves would be massively increased to £100,000,000 for "Euro X Factor"."

The Mirror piece here makes no mention of this. It does say, though, that "The new show could take the X Factor judge's Cowell's fortune past the £100million mark." A contract worth £100m seems a huge prize, even in today's world, so I wonder if there has been a mix-up here about what the £100m refers to? I added a "confirmation required" note to the article; please remove it if you are sure this info is accurate. Matt 21:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

Sinitta

Where has it been confirmed that she'll be a judge? Does any have citiation?

She hasnt been confirmed as a judge, its not true.

The X Factor Winners: Merge Proposal

The three winners already have their own articles, so is it a good idea to include all this detail in this article too? Could be a route to a lot of duplication. Propose merging the information into the individual articles and just retaining links from here. Matt 00:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

I think the X Factor winners section is fine as it is as long as no further information is added to it. The information given is directly related to the show and I think the public (expecially audiences unfamiliar with X Factor) would appriciate having a track record of the previous winners on the X Factor page. It is convenient for the public to read the article whilst on the x factor page, instead of having to click links to other pages which would take them off topic.

I suggest removing the winners section as it is duplicated, and if it doesn't already say who the winners were, it can be added. We should also remove the galleries of record covers and international logos, because it's not necessary and there will be issues with fair use. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 18:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The american idol and idols page includes all of these things, so why cant x factor?

Fair use problems, if those pages have similar sections they should be removed too but I'm not looking at those. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 14:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

No new judges announced

ITV have not announced any new judges so far. The Sun is not a reliable source of information. When the new presenter was announced ITV confirmed it almost straight away. Coxyappo 16:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

See http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2001320029-2007210332,00.html. "ITV has also confirmed Grease Is The Word judge Brian Friedman will be the fourth X Factor judge, as The Sun predicted last month.The dance coach, 29, joins Sharon Osbourne, Dannii Minogue and Simon Cowell when the show returns later this year."

- and, BTW, The Sun is no less reliable a source than any other newspaper. They do not print statements such as "DANNII Minogue has landed a £1million deal to become a new X Factor judge, TV Biz can reveal." unless they are pretty sure of their facts. Sure, sometimes they're wrong, but so are all media outlets.

- TubeTalk on Digital Spy went to the BAFTA's and said that the judges have been confirmed for a long time but will not be announced untill the first audition next month

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/a58173/i-am-a-dentist-i-am-not-rambo.html

Coxyappo 16:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Minor query

I just noticed the following statement, with regard to the judges' vote:

"Ties should not be possible, but in the event that a judge refuses to cast a vote the act who came last in the public vote is sent home."

The idea that a judge would really refuse to cast a vote seems odd. Anyone know where this fact came from? Has it ever happened, or ever been stated as being in the rules?

Apparently in series 1, Sharon refused to vote when two of her acts were in the bottom two, but Simon and Louis both voted the same person off. I seem to remember that she didn't want to vote at least once in the other two series but I think Kate Thornton always pushed her and she voted. I suppose Simon gets the deciding vote for series 4 in the case of ties, do we know this for sure? — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 22:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Right, thanks! Matt 00:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

To address two points here with respect to Series 4:

1. Sharon also refused to vote during Week 1 of the Final Showdown - again, because of two of her acts being in the bottom 2.
2. In the event of a tie, the result goes to Deadlock. In this case, whoever received the fewest number of public votes is eliminated. (This happened with Beverly Trotman in Week 6.)
--Joe dawg 9 (talk) 04:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Game show?

I notice that the genre field in the infobox, which I'm pretty sure used to say "talent contest" (or at least incorporate those words) now reads "Interactive reality game show". Is everyone happy that it's a "game show"? I must admit that's not a description I would use. Matt 00:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC).

Ugh, no it's not a game show, it's a talent contest. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 17:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I changed it to "talent contest". If it's a talent contest then it's necessarily "reality", and "interactive" to me implies more interaction than people just phoning in to vote, so I removed those words too. Matt 23:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC).

Dermot is Irish

Shouldn't his flag be the ROI flag, as he is Irish, although he was born here, both parents are Irish, and he considers himself Irish and not English. -- Chris as I am Chris 14:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

There's no reason to use flags at all. — AnemoneProjectors (?) 15:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'd lobby for their removal myself as they don't have any relevance to the subject of the article. If someone actually wants to know the nationality of Dermot O'Leary, why would they look here? (P.S. For the record, a persons nationality is dictated by their birth place only) ~~ Peteb16 09:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

British and Irish

I don't think it should be described as a "British and Irish show" simply because it allows Irish contestants and Irish viewers can vote. It's produced in the United Kingdom and should be described as "British". Any objections? — AnemoneProjectors (?) 16:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Reality TV star noteability guidelines

Hello, I've just created a seperate page proposing guidlines for noteability of Reality TV contestants and if they should have their own articles. I did this due to the mass number of articles being created and deleted on these subjects in recent months, and confusion among editors if they are in fact noteable or not. You can read this here. All edits and comments on the talk page are welcome. Thanks, Dalejenkins | 16:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC).

Lesbian Hug Cut

"Executive producer Richard Holloway once cut a contestant from the show because she had a girlfriend and was filmed hugging her during an emotional moment. Holloway told producers to edit her out of the show because, 'ITV audiences don't like lesbians'."

Can't find anything to back this up, should it be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enemysprout (talk • contribs) 19:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it. Unsourced contentious material relating to living people is not permitted in Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons). If a source is found, it can be restored. EALacey 12:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Judges' categories

Just looking at this section... what about doing a cute little table like:

×	Series 1	Series 2	Series 3	Series 4
Simon Cowell	25+	Groups	16-25	TBA
Dannii Minogue	—	—	—	TBA
Sharon Osbourne	16-24	25+	25+	TBA
Louis Walsh	Groups	16-24	Groups	TBA

? I don't think we need to say who came 1st, 2nd and 3rd in this section. It's an easier way to see who has and hasn't had what. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 21:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I like the table, I would just be tempted to put Dannii at the bottom because she's a new judge and the em dashes would look neater at the bottom. Jonny - Wiki edit Jonny 21:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

That's fine by me, I did that originally but decided on alphabetical order then. We can use the terms "Boys" and "Girls" for this series to keep it short as well. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 21:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

why are the winners not mentioned on this page at all??

just wondering why there is no mention of who won the x factor each year?

it seems silly to have a whole article about the show, yet not mention the winners.

i know they have their own individual pages, but what if i didn't have a clue about the x factor, or the previous years winners? i come here and NOTHING is mentioned!!!

again, there's also the individual pages for each series of the show, but that would entail looking at too many pages to find this info. it's not exactly a clear and concise page if it's not showing this info!!

a simple table under a winners section would be all that is needed. winner's name (obv including link to their page), year they won, their mentor. nothing fancy, but i think it is most definitely needed.

look at the american idol article. there's a table listing the winner (and the final conestants) for each series, so why not here? what i'm suggesting above isn't even that detailed, just the winners!!! the american idol article also links to each year's show, so don't start a debate saying, no it's not needed, as there's individual years pages...

it's poor article without this basic information. 194.221.133.226 13:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

edit - like the message above, re judges and the 'cute little table' that's what i'm suggesting!!!

Winner	Series	Mentor	Age Group
Steve Brookstein	1	Simon	25+
Shayne Ward	2	Louis	16-24
Leona Lewis	3	Simon	16-24
TBA	4	TBA	TBA

see, i've even coded it... lmao! 194.221.133.226 14:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The winners aren't mentioned????????????? I can't believe I never noticed. They definitely have to be, but I think it should be in the lead section, same as the American Idol page. I don't think a separate section for the winners is needed at the moment. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 20:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Lucy Benjamin Should not be with the winners

Lucy Benjamin Should not be with the winners at the bottom of the page, she should have her own category - eg

Celebrity Winners - Lucy Benjamin

because its misleading to think she won a normal series of it

Networks broadcasting The X Factor

I have deleted this section. It listed ITV1, UTV, STV and TV3 as the networks, and explained that ITV1, STV and UTV are part of the ITV network. That ITV and TV3 broadcast The X Factor is stated clearly in the first line of the article. Furthermore, anyone wishing to understand the relationship between ITV, ITV1, STV and UTV can do so by reading the ITV article, which is linked to from this one. Armada104 20:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:XFactorTitles.jpg

Image:XFactorTitles.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:TheXFactorBOTS.jpg

Image:TheXFactorBOTS.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 09:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Shaun

Should we include details of Shaun Rodgerson albums and sales in the subsequent tables as he was a contesetant in the show and that is why so many buy his records because of seeing him on the show? MotorSportMCMXC (talk) 20:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

CALLING ALL X FACTOR EDITORS

In light of the confirmation from ITV that Osbourne has quit the show, as well as the appointment of Holly Willoughby as the new presenter for The Xtra Factor, I think it is now time to create the Series 5 article. Are we all in agreement?

The X Factor to be Replaced by Pop Idol in Autumn 2009?

I just had a look at the Pop Idol article and it is suggested that Pop I dol is to make a return in place of X Factor, but there are no sources cited so I don't know how true this can be. Can anyone confirm or refute this claim? --mattymax 16:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Spoilers

Who in their right mind decided to tell people what catagories the judges got in Series 5, before they're relesed to the public? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.199.189 (talk) 14:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC) by chloe christena diana serena searita caittlin peters

Image copyright problem with Image:Series5xfactor.jpg

The image Image:Series5xfactor.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit banner

Could whoever added the {{copyedit}} tag and the "Migod this article is a mess" edit comment please give their reasons so that we can try to address the perceived problems? Thanks. Matt 02:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC).

• I disagree that this article merits a {{copyedit}} banner. Since there has been no elaboration about why it was added, I have removed it. Matt 02:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC).

Table doesn't really work for me

The green-and-red "Judges' categories and their finalists" table doesn't really work for me. The highlighting of the whole "Winning judge/category" cell in green gives the impression that all the contestants listed participated somehow in the victory (OK, the winner is in italics but that is hardly prominent, and is visually overwhelmed by the shading). The highlighting of the other cells as "Eliminated judge/category" seems unnecessary and adds to the impression that the contest is group-based, with groups being eliminated en block. All that's necessary is to somehow highlight the winning contestant and indicate his or her judge/group. Everyone else then by implication did not win. Unless everyone else is particularly set on this layout I intend to change it. I'm not sure quite how at the moment; ideas welcome. Matt 86.133.242.24 (talk) 18:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC).

• Since there have been no comments I have gone ahead and slightly rejigged the table... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.242.244 (talk) 18:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Albums

Hi

I've just gone through the BPI's list of certified awards, cross-referencing against the albums section in the article. A number of entries here did not tally with the officially results. For example, there's no entry for Leon Jackson. I suspect other acts may be in the same uncited boat.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 14:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

X-Factor UK Series Six

Hello, I think that there should be a page created for Series Six of The X Factor, which is starting August 15th. Does anyone agree with me? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.36.27 (talk) 07:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes i agree with you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.3.199 (talk) 08:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Probably not enough information is known about it yet to start a new article. AnemoneProjectors (what?) 10:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I'm sure there would be some information hanging about somewhere. The audition process will be starting next month, so I say why not! 83.70.79.249 (talk) 17:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It's unlikely many details of the series will be known before the end of May. There's no need to start the article now. It was already deleted by consensus because it was too speculative. Starting the article again now will only lead to the same conclusion. AnemoneProjectors (what?) 17:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• It's June now. Nearly July! It will be starting in approximately two months! Come on - there must be SOME information on it now! 83.71.47.225 (talk) 08:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

There's some information available now. Auditions have started, and we know they're being filmed in front of an audience (bad move, I think!), so perhaps a reasonable short article could be started by now. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 10:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Who's going to start the new article then? Don't forget to include the suicide threat controversy![2] AnemoneProjectors (talk) 10:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Interactive, reality

Can we have some opinions please about whether The X Factor is a "reality talent show", a "reality-based talent show", an "interactive reality talent show", or just a plain old "talent show"? To me, there is no sort of talent show other than a "reality-based" one, and "interactive" implies more than just dull old viewer voting. I took out these words and put it back to "talent show" but I see they've been added again. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.130.168 (talk) 01:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Talent show should be fine, although it is considered to be in the "reality tv" genre. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 14:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

the undefinable "something" that makes for star quality

I want to say "the undefinable quality" but don't want to say quality twice. Can anyone think of a better word? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Would "attribute" work? Or "characteristic"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.55.57 (talk • contribs)

I don't think so. Really I wanted to say "undefinable quality" and change "star quality" to something else. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 10:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Excessive detail?

An editor (Lil-unique1) has added a cleanup banner because he/she feels that the article contains "too much excessive detail". Although there might be one or two parts that could be condensed or omitted without diminishing the article much, I disagree that this is such a widespread problem as to merit a banner damning the whole article. I therefore propose that the banner is removed. Other opinions sought please. -- Matt 02:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.55.57 (talk • contribs)

• Since there have been no further comments I have removed the banner. Matt 02:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.9.200 (talk)

Pictures

This article is sorely lacking in visual relief in the form of pictures. All the images that have ever been added seem to have been removed by copyright zealots. Are there no pictures of the show that we can use? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.9.200 (talk) 04:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Winner's prize

There is a lack of references in general in this article, but one in particular is the £1million record deal. I did some searching and, at least for last years winner, that's not quite true. The winner gets a up-front payment of £150,000 and a record deal with Cowell's company. I would like to see some source which can relate this contract to the £1mil which is advertised and included in the article. Casey boy (talk) 19:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Leona Lewis won a £1million contract Cowell's company.[3] Perhaps it's changed, I didn't know and thought that's how it's always been. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The reconciliation between the £1m stated value and last year's £150,000 cash payment is explained in the "Post X Factor" section. I don't know whether the payment details were the same for Leona Lewis, but it seems quite likely to me that it operated in a similar way, and that the reference in [4] does not mean she was actually given £1m cash. The cash advance was probably much smaller. Perhaps we should explain in the opening section that £1m is nominal total value of the contract, including marketing and recording costs? 86.150.101.4 (talk) 12:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC).

Yes, that would help. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Flags

There's no need to have the flags beside the judges names, they're completely irrelevant to the article. 86.169.175.59 (talk) 00:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

X Factor has a less sucsessful 2009 in comparision to 2008

Should it be noted the the X Factor Finalists Track You Are Not Alone and X Factor Winner Track The Climb have spent 2 weeks in total compared to 6 for Haulluejah and Hero? Bob_thegamepro Bob thegamepro (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Series averages -- original research?

A table of average viewing figures (not added by me, I should make it clear) has been tagged as possible original research, even though it states that the figures are from BARB. I'm curious to know why has this tag been added. Is it disputed that the figures do actually come from the claimed source? 86.134.10.88 (talk) 03:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, it says the information comes from BARB but it doesn't actually reference a website or anything. Secondly, I don't think the BARB website gives actual series averages, so I think someone has found the ratings for each episode and worked out the average themselves. That makes it original research. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 11:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that calculating averages is original research (see also Wikipedia:Or#Routine Calculations). That just leaves vague sourcing, which, by itself, isn't OR. 86.146.46.12 (talk) 12:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC).

I always forget about routine calculations. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 12:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Summary table

This edit removed a summary table (not done by me) which I agree was hideous. However, I've been meaning for some time to do something similar, as this is really the key information that everyone wants to know first, and currently it is not terribly accessible. So, below is my improved version which I intend to add to the "Series" section of the article unless there are strenuous objections. The colours might need a little more adjustment. 86.133.48.144 (talk) 04:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC).

  Male contestant        Female contestant        Group or duo

	Air dates	Winner	Runner-up	Third place	Main host	Sponsor	Judges
Series 1	4 September – 11 December 2004	Steve Brookstein	G4	Tabby Callaghan	Kate Thornton	—	Simon Cowell, Sharon Osbourne, Louis Walsh
Series 2	20 August – 17 December 2005	Shayne Ward	Andy Abraham	Journey South	Kate Thornton	—	Simon Cowell, Sharon Osbourne, Louis Walsh
Series 3	19 August – 16 December 2006	Leona Lewis	Ray Quinn	Ben Mills	Kate Thornton	Nokia	Simon Cowell, Sharon Osbourne, Louis Walsh, Paula Abdul (guest)
Series 4	18 August 2007 – 15 December 2007	Leon Jackson	Rhydian Roberts	Same Difference	Dermot O'Leary	The Carphone Warehouse	Simon Cowell, Sharon Osbourne, Louis Walsh, Dannii Minogue, Brian Friedman (briefly)
Series 5	16 August – 13 December 2008	Alexandra Burke	JLS	Eoghan Quigg	Dermot O'Leary	The Carphone Warehouse	Simon Cowell, Louis Walsh, Dannii Minogue, Cheryl Cole
Series 6	22 August – 13 December 2009	Joe McElderry	Olly Murs	Stacey Solomon	Dermot O'Leary	TalkTalk	Simon Cowell, Louis Walsh, Dannii Minogue, Cheryl Cole

• Since there have been no objections, I have done this. 86.147.160.108 (talk) 21:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't spot this discussion, but actually I quite like that. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Order of "series summary" and "format" sections

I recently swapped the order of these sections so the format was described first. To me, this makes more sense as someone unfamiliar with the subject would want to learn about what the show is about before they find out what happened in individual series. I've been reverted twice with the argument that it the article was "stable for a long time", but to me that's not a good enough reason and you shouldn't revert due to "no consensus". Thoughts? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 01:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• I was the reverter. In my view, the lead section explains "what the show is about", and the overall format, sufficiently well for people unfamiliar with the subject to get the general idea (if it doesn't, then the lead needs fixing, not the subsequent section order). In my view, the next most important information is the information currently in the series summary section. In particular, I believe that many people will be looking for a quick reminder of the placings in all the series so far. The "Format" section is long and detailed, and I believe that only a minority of readers are going to read through it. Certainly, I do not buy into the argument that readers need to sequentially read through the "Format" section in order to then understand what the summary is telling them -- even if they previously knew nothing about the show. Anyway, let's see what others have to say. I'm happy to go along with the consensus. 81.157.197.148 (talk) 03:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC).

The lead section is supposed to be a summary of the entire article, and therefore should not affect the order of the following sections. The format of the show is more important than the series summaries, so should go first. Wikipedia articles aren't just for people who know the subject. It must be written for people who do NOT know about it, and assuming they are going to skip past huge sections of text is absurd. Anyone who wants a "reminder" of winners, placements, judges and presenters can use the table of contents to skip that part. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 13:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how this advances your argument. I agree that the lead should be a summary of the whole article -- I never said otherwise. This includes a summary of the overall format, and, as a consequence, the current organisation is satisfactory to people who are not already familiar with the format. If you really think that people read articles linearly, and that it is "absurd" to imagine they would skip large chunks, then you are, I'm sorry, totally wrong. I know you've done a lot of good work on this article, AP, but I just think you're wrong on this one. Sorry. 86.142.109.13 (talk) 20:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC).

Well I don't so let's wait for more opinions. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Personally I don't like the table at all, but putting it after the format section seems quite pointless when the next section contains a table with similar information. If it was to be moved down then I'd say it needs editted and could probably just be combined with that section. Sanders11 (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the summary table is a great benefit to the article. Can you explain what it is you don't like about it (ignoring, for the moment, the issue of where it is positioned)? 86.142.109.13 (talk) 21:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC).

I think there's too much on it. For example is the sponsor really that important? Or the presenter? Is it necessary to use colours to distinguish between the females and males? Surely if different colours are being used they should be used for all the different categories, not just some? The information on it is all covered in later sections anyway, I just don't see much purpose to it. It may just be because I know all that information so don't see it all that useful whereas someone who knew nothing about the show might.Sanders11 (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Sanders11 and think we should consider putting it back to how it was before. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

But earlier you said you liked it, AP. It seems to me that you are now siding with Sanders11 just because you aren't getting your way about where it should be positioned -- and you'd rather see it deleted altogether, to the detriment of the article, than lose that argument. 86.142.109.13 (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC).

Yes I said I liked it, but that was before I had fully considered it. I'm allowed to change my mind. Besides, prose is generally prefered to a list or a table. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, you're allowed to change your mind. The problem with the prose version is that, with six episodes, it gets so tiresome to read. I really do believe that the tabular version is so much easier for people to navigate and asssimilate. I honestly don't don't see how anyone could argue otherwise. We shouldn't get too hung up on some dusty edict somewhere that might encourage prose above lists or tables or whatever. We should be looking at "what is the reader likely to want to know?" and "how can we present that information in the most convenient possible way?". 86.142.109.13 (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The sponsor information was mentioned (and had been for a long time) prior to conversion to a table. You are correct that most of the information is elsewhere in the article, but the point is that there's so much material to read (or skip through) to get to it. The 1-2-3 placings, which I think are very important and of much interest to readers, are not mentioned elsewhere. I take your point about the colour coding. I tried to make it as subtle as possible (you should have seen the first attempt!). On balance, I think it's worth keeping as it highlights interesting and informative patterns (for example, that no groups have ever won). 86.142.109.13 (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC).

I've added green for the Overs, might need to name the categories slightly better though. I'm still not sure that summarising the presenters is that useful though? Also I'm worried that the lead should summarise the article, and this table seems to be doing a similar job? Sanders11 (talk) 21:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

We have a slight issue now with the age ranges, I think, because they changed between series. I haven't checked back to see exactly what happened when. To be honest, I would rather concede the point and lose the shading altogether than see it get this complicated. I think that "male solo / female solo / group" is as far as we need to go here. 86.142.109.13 (talk) 21:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC).

But you said the point of the colours was to show that it's interesting that a group has never won, by the same logic it should be interesting to see how successful the overs have been? Male and female could say under 25 then add a note explaining? Sanders11 (talk) 21:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I think all four categories do need to be included. I think the table is fine. It's just that after reading the lead section of the article, I wouldn't expect to see a summary table. I don't mind it staying in the article, just not there. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Yes, on reflection, I think you're right. If we do have any colour coding then it makes sense that it reflects the categories in the show. I was getting unduly concerned about the complexities of the category definition changes, but I think your suggestion of "under 25" covers all bases -- doesn't it? 86.142.109.13 (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC).

I've added a couple of notes, they don't look great but they do the job. Feel free to tweak and improve them :) Also I can't work out why under the Notes section they go "a" then "1", instead of "a" then "b", maybe someone with better wiki know how can fix that? Sanders11 (talk) 13:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

My own view is that this is all looking too complicated for this section of the article. Maybe we should, after all, just delete the colour coding? Or could we go back to the simple male/female/group colours? 86.152.243.186 (talk) 01:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

←The only thing the series summary section really needs to do is give links to each series, the dates each series ran and maybe say who the sponsers were. The rest is mentioned in other, more relevant sections (judges, presenters, judges categories). Please can we go back to prose instead of a table? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 01:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

In fact, the ratings section gives the dates. More duplication! I'm not saying the dates should be all the way down there, they shouldn't, but it's just not necessary to duplicate lots of information on the same page (other than in the lead section). AnemoneProjectors (talk) 01:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh c'mon AP. You've already agreed twice that the table is OK. First off you said you liked it. You should trust your first instincts. The 1-2-3 placings information is especially valuable, as is the history of the judging panel. This is just the sort of information that people want in easy-to-find form. They do not want to plough through pages of dense prose and click umpteen links to six different articles. The summary table is a Good Thing, trust me. It's just got, in my opinion, slightly too complicated with the colour coding, and in that respect my first instinct (above) was correct. Regarding the ratings table: the years obviously need to be mentioned, but I have no problem with removing the repetition of the air dates. Go ahead and delete them as far as I'm concerned. 86.152.243.186 (talk) 03:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC).

If I wanted to know who came third in series 4 of The X Factor, my instinct would be to go straight to the series 4 article. I know I've changed my mind a few times and I'm sorry about that but my final decision is that the amount of duplication is a very bad thing, and converting the table back to prose would be better. There was nothing wrong with it when it was prose before. Why don't we add placements to the "Judges' categories and their finalists" table and convert the summary table back to prose. It would reduce duplication and would give people the information you think they want on placements. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 12:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll take "decision" to mean "opinion"! It's not your decision to make, and we haven't had anywhere near enough input here to form a consensus. I think the summary table (with the exception of the over-complicated colour coding and annotation, as I mentioned) is a great benefit to the article. It's neat, concise and informative, and I really, honestly, truly, cannot begin to understand why you object to it. 86.161.41.254 (talk) 19:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC).

Judges

It says on the X-Factor TV series that Sinitta is taking Dannii's place as a judge until she gets back after the baby, is this true? As the judges have not been announced yet.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.252.24 (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not true. People are still making things up. As you said, the judges have not been announced. They haven't even been chosen yet. anemoneprojectors talk 20:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Guest judges section

I think there should be some mention in the judges section that there are guest judges for the next series, with the list of judges on the series 7 article when it is created. Especially the dates and locations don't need to be mentioned here. Also it's completely unsourced. AnemoneProjectors 19:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree it definitely needs to go in there series 7 article, not here - but I have found a source for you - http://www.unrealitytv.co.uk/x-factor/x-factor-2010-public-audition-dates-revealed/ and it is also available on Applause Store. EDIT: the only problem now is that Paula Abdul isn't mentioned anywhere... I think maybe we should have the guest judges section because there is also a link to the 'Guest Judges' section in the info box...User:Eddyegghead 00:37, 09 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.134.140 (talk)

The link can be removed, and Paula Abdul is mentioned in the judges section. AnemoneProjectors 22:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of The X Factor Fansite

We have nominated The X Factor Fansite, an article that you may have an interest in, for deletion. We do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The X Factor Fansite. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.   — Jeff G. ツ 03:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

X Magazine

A new X Factor magazine is going to be released weekly starting tomorrow - we should add this somehow. (http://xfactor.itv.com/2010/xmagazine/) AnemoneProjectors 17:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

we should wait until the magazine itself launches fully (i.e. a few days) and hopefully their should be some third party coverage too. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 17:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps under "Merchandise"? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 17:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

We could just add it under merchandise now and if anything new comes about we can expand on it. But we already have a quite good quote we could use. AnemoneProjectors 17:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

As long as the quote is from reliable sources I'd say go ahead then. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 17:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

They've updated the page (the one I already linked to) and the quote has gone :( It was from the editor, the same person who runs Popjustice. But we can still put it as merchandise. AnemoneProjectors 18:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Ooh just found this AnemoneProjectors 18:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Cheryl Cole Criticism

Worth mentioning? http://uk.tv.yahoo.com/news-extra/article/65306/cheryls-controversial-choice-sparks-fury.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.164.172 (talk) 20:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

This is being discussed on the series 7 talk page. AnemoneProjectors 20:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Heroes series 7 single

"Heroes" (song), ref for this song to be released? --L.Geee 17:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

It's just a rumour at the moment. AnemoneProjectors 17:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Though we're bound to know for sure soon as they apparently recorded the charity single today. AnemoneProjectors 18:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, this is a reliable source. AnemoneProjectors 18:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

infobox

It strikes me as a bit odd that the first name you see in Brian Friedman or whatever he's called - he hardly plays a major part in the show and has only been involved for a couple of series anyhow. Shouldn't the judges get prime mention as, really, who pays attention to Dermot (or Kate before him)? And if Brian gets a mention, shouldn't the vocal coaches like Yvie Burnett and Mark Dyedbeard and the others? They are just as important as Bribri, surely. 81.147.149.101 (talk) 20:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The order of the people in the infobox is set by the people who create and edit the infobox template, not this article, so I can't see that being changed. It doesn't really matter in my opinion. AnemoneProjectors 20:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

template

i think it would be a good idea to add in the template for the x factor a place for other participants that became relevant after the show... (similar than the template of the american idol, where there's a place for alumnis) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.83.203.4 (talk) 23:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

We have a template for that... {{XFactorContestants}} AnemoneProjectors 00:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

series 8 page?

Is there need to create a page for series 8? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.7.45 (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but probably not before the auditions have started. AnemoneProjectors 23:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Simon and Cheryl

OK, I'm going to start a thread about this on the talk page, given the front page of today's News of The World, I think this may cause a problem for the article.

In todays News of The World it said that the 2011 series of the show had reportedly been left in chaos because Simon and Cheryl have decided that they can't appear in both the UK and US versions of the show at the same time. However it wasn't so long ago that he said he was committed to both shows!

At the minute, the only reliable sources reporting this are NOTW, STV and Metro, however STV and NOTW are reporting word-for-word the exact same. Auditions start in 2 weeks time, if the article in NOTW is true, that would only give ITV 2 weeks to find 2 replacement judges. I'm inclined to say that unless ITV announce that the judging panel has changed we should assume that it's the same and leave the page reading that Simon, Cheryl etc are still active judges on the show.--5 albert square (talk) 19:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

We should wait for an official press release or something, not a tabloid report. We don't even know that Cole is going to be a judge in the US, as Cowell hasn't made his announcement yet. Also, he very recently said he would do both, no matter what. –AnemoneProjectors– 22:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

series 8

In light of the confirmation from ITV that Cowell and Cole has left the show to judge the American version, as well as Konnie Huq stepping down as presenter for The Xtra Factor, I think it is now time to create the Series 8 article. Are we all in agreement?

We didn't start the series 7 article until June. I feel we should wait until the full judging lineup is announced. –AnemoneProjectors– 11:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

According to the Mirror.co.uk, Gary Barlow has been confirmed as a judge here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.68.97 (talk) 14:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

But then if you read this, the News of The World, Simon is quoted as saying "I am confident Gary will sign a deal to become a judge within weeks". That's dated today. STV say here he's in "advanced talks". Given that NOTW have included a direct quote from Mr Cowell and STV are part of ITV who broadcast the show, I'd be more inclined to believe them over the Mirror. Doesn't sound like he's signed it yet to me. --5 albert square (talk) 14:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Gary Barlow

There are various articles coming out tonight saying ITV bosses are denying Barlow is a new judge and also that Cowell was misquoted when he said he had been confirmed - due to the conflicting reports shouldn't we just leave the judges as TBA until it is confirmed as we seem to be predicting the future here somewhat - wouldn't it just be better to say he is widely expected to become a judge????? Eddyegghead (talk) 21:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

If ITV are denying it then yes he should be removed. –AnemoneProjectors– 00:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Series 8 Auditions

Series 8 Audition has been confirmed to start on May 18th at Manchester according to digital spy, here. New artical opened? --SATURDAYmight. (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

According to TellyMix. Probably not the most reliable of sources. –AnemoneProjectors– 21:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Or maybe it is, I don't know really. I always try to avoid TellyMix as a source. I guess starting the article now couldn't hurt. –AnemoneProjectors– 21:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Add a judge timeline?

Judge		Series 1	Series 2	Series 3	Series 4	Series 5	Series 6	Series 7
	Simon Cowell (2004–2011)
	Sharon Osbourne (2004–2007)
	Louis Walsh (2004–present)
	Dannii Minogue (2007–2011)
	Cheryl Cole (2008–2011)

• Note: those in bold are current judges.

Just a suggestion. Stephenjamesx (talk) 12:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It looks pretty but it's not needed. The judges are mentioned four times already (twice in table format), we don't need a fifth. –AnemoneProjectors– 20:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

File:XtraFactorTitles.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:XtraFactorTitles.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. 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. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:48, 19 September 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) 07:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, we are an encyclopaedia, so we use her last name. –AnemoneProjectors– 13:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

New logo

Someone has added the new logo at File:TheXFactorTitles2011.jpg but it should be at File:XFactorTitles.jpg along with the history of the previous logos. Also, it's been given as sourced from both Fox and ITV and used for both UK and USA logos. It can't come from both, so which one was it taken from? Can someone recapture it from the UK show, completely ignore the American one, and put it on File:XFactorTitles.jpg instead? Thanks!!!! –AnemoneProjectors– 15:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

This has been done now –AnemoneProjectors– 14:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Running Time

I just noticed that running time for the show states 60-150 minutes. However, that is including commercials. If you look at any pages for American shows like Grey's Anatomy and The Good Wife, the pages show the running time without ad breaks, i.e. 41-43 minutes for US programmes. So for example, for this Sunday past X Factor episode which was 1 hour, running time was in fact 44 minutes if you take an average of 4 minutes per break. Similary a 2 and a half hour (150 minute) episode had 10 advert breaks so is in fact only 110 minutes long. So I really think we should adjust running time to 44-110 minutes. Eddyegghead (talk) 17:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we are supposed to remove the ad breaks. It's somewhere in the article or infobox guidelines. There was a report recently that the performances show on Saturday featured 30 minutes of adverts! –AnemoneProjectors– 14:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Page Protection/Constant Incorrect Editing of Judges

Surely this page should be protected. This is the second time this week that I have had to change the judges back to what they should be because people keep making false claims that Louis and Kelly have left when they have not. There has been no official statement saying anyone is leaving so can people stop editing the infobox and should we protect the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbbnbbb (talk • contribs) 14:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

History section?

The X Factor USA has a history section so should this have one as well or should the history be part of the main stuff at the top? –Unreal7– 18:37, 13 November 2011

It should be in a separate section. I don't appreciate people copying my signature though. –AnemoneProjectors– 11:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

1 million recording contract

Apparently this stopped a few years ago, anyone able to update the situation? –AnemoneProjectors– 14:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Article from October 2011: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/x-factor/8836492/X-Factor-drops-1-million-prize.html –Howabout90– 19:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 December 2011

I would like to edit :) Bigbruv2011 (talk) 05:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Then please become autoconfirmed--Jac16888 ^Talk 11:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Sidebar

One user seems very keen on pushing his own sidebar onto the article. We need to stop this constant edit warring that is going on, otherwise I am going to request full page protection until after the series has finished. GimliDotNet (talk) 19:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The infobox clearly states: "PLEASE STOP CHANGING THE INFOBOX", and thus, it should not be altered in any way, shape or form. If people persist then I agree with you, it should be fully protected. I like how the infobox is as it currently stands, and the consensus agrees.JackJackUK (talk) 19:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is achieved by discussion, not writing instructions to other editors in hidden HTML comments. If the sidebar was to be discussed here then it may be accepted because consensus can change. There are however far too many changes going on with edit summaries saying 'do not revert' etc., this is usually a sign that some people are assuming they own the article. GimliDotNet (talk) 19:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Well that's what I'm saying, it should be discussed before being changed. I'm not disagreeing with you lol. JackJackUK (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

It should be kept as it is. People are trying to separate the judges and presenters into past and present but this is totally unnecessary because the durations are stated. The other things I've seen people trying to do are all unnecessary or wrong as well. –AnemoneProjectors– 13:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Series 9 Page

When are we going to start it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by World Flying (talk • contribs) 12:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

When it has been confirmed. --MSalmon (talk) 13:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

We know they're due to start auditioning soon, I think, but we should wait until probably auditions start so that we know who the judges are and that the series is definitely happening. –AnemoneProjectors– 15:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

They are the producers auditions, but 3 of them are probably leaving, so, we should wait until it confirms its first judge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.20.98 (talk) 15:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)