Talk:The X Factor (British TV series) series 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Visits to judges' houses" round[edit]

The article says:

As in previous years, the judges welcomed the 6 acts from their selected category to their 'luxurious home'...

I could be wrong about this, but I don't recall it being claimed in the shows that the places they visited were actually the judges' homes. Have they dropped that pretence now that the cat's out of the bag? (Like we all didn't guess anyway....!)

Austin Drage[edit]

Austin Drage is openly gay. Many times this has been admitted. Now as a contestant on the X-Factor everything to do with Austin being gay has been removed from wikipedia. I would like to know why as being gay is not a crime. Do ITV bosses have control of Austin's wikipedia entry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nsau89 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Find a reliable source and I'll add it in. Dalejenkins | 19:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a different subject, Austin had a seprate Wikipedia page, what happened to it? When I type Austin Drage it just redirects here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.1.77 (talk) 08:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's still a no-one. Maybe if he wins he'll get his own page. 81.158.104.179 (talk) 19:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surnames[edit]

I don't see the point of calling them by their surnames - they're not even celebrities yet, and it does sound a bit cruel...First name terms in my opinion is better 217.43.1.77 (talk) 21:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


It says their Surname on the Show. So it should be kept. 82.40.85.35 (talk) 02:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think you get what I meant, you said that it displays their full name. I'm talking about people calling them by their surname only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.1.77 (talk) 13:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:MOS. Dalejenkins | 16:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Song Hero[edit]

The song Hero on the third show did not appear to be sung live. 84.70.37.61 (talk) 21:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)kabbes[reply]

  • It certainly didn't look live to me. I'm not convinced that Girls Aloud sang all of their song live on last week's show either. I think that some of the lead vocals were live, but the backing appeared to be mimed. Another Matt (talk) 03:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Eoghan Quigg[edit]

Write what you think about Eoghan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.212.218 (talk) 13:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Read WP:FORUM. Dalejenkins | 18:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

table[edit]

shouldn't we, in deadlock, put the percentage that the losing act got of the vote? At the moment, it seems incomplete. ATMarsdenTalk · {Semi-Retired} 21:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do they specify what percentage they got? I haven't noticed that Elpasi (talk) 22:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think they did in wk2, not sure otherwise. ATMarsdenTalk · {Semi-Retired} 20:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Song/album titles[edit]

Plase would someone make sure that the article adheres to Wikipedia's Manual of Style, with particular reference to titles of songs/albums? I would do it myself, however I often find myself away from a computer for weeks at a time.


  • Song titles/singles need to be put in double quotation marks - eg. "Don't Stop Me Now".
  • Album titles need to go it italics - eg. Spirit


Thanks — Wiki edit Jonny (talk) 14:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Week 6[edit]

It Says That Leona Lewis is singing Run when in face shes singing her new song 'forgive me'

http://xfactor.itv.com/stories/story-detail/item_100337.htm

Guest Appearances[edit]

Whoever added the guests for weeks 5,6,7,etc, how do you know who the guests are and what songs they're singing? I dont remember seeing it on the official site or anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.4.152 (talk) 16:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not add them but they are all correct. (The people coming, the week or theme maybe wrong) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.218.93 (talk) 19:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WHo said that Miley Cyrus was coming on it?

Someone has vandelised "guest appearance week 8" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.24.240 (talk) 22:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Callout[edit]

I know it is a bit stupid becasue its all no-particular order, but, wouldn't it be cool if we had one? I know the order they all got called, so, if you agree and you would like one, just ask me for the callout order. Cheers! Eurotom1234567890 (talk) 14:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you answered your own statement... unencyclopedic see WP:NOT 86.12.121.84 (talk) 22:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC) ATMarsdenTalk · {Semi-Retired} 20:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC), sorry, didn't sign in.[reply]

The non-live "Live performances"[edit]

It's mentioned in the notes that Britney Spears mimed to a backing track, and that Miley Cyrus' performance was pre-recorded. I don't know if those are even relevant, but if they are it should also be noted that Take That's performance was apparently pre-recorded, and that other acts have also mimed, such as Same Difference. You guys should keep this page consistant if you are going to make those notes. SWatsi (talk) 17:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a decent reference, you're welcome to add those notes. J Milburn (talk) 09:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JLS.... huh?[edit]

How comes the winners song has been put as N/A?

N/A - one act will be eliminated after the third song

Do people think they will become third or something?

I mean i want them to but you know.

Goku1st (talk) 22:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read it again: the order for the winner's song performances isn't specified. – Ianfarrington (talk) 14:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Readability[edit]

Could we do something to the final table, as it is really hard to read on my monitor and screen-res, and so most likely for others also. ATMarsdenTalk · {Semi-Retired} 20:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ta, almost precisely what i had in mind ATMarsdenTalk · {Semi-Retired} 21:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Picture of You[edit]

Here is the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picture_of_you_(Boyzone) I just don't know how to make it an internal link without changing the visible text Thelostlibertine (talk) 21:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, very soon that link is going to lead to a deleted page... ;-) JS (chat) 21:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Voting details[edit]

can someone add the voting percentages for the bottem 2 each week they are on the x factor website —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xfactor5alex (talk • contribs) 00:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Official results[edit]

Is someone able to update the official vote percentages against the weekly shows; and delete the section "Voting Details" which is incorrect.

Official results:

http://xfactor.itv.com/stories/story-detail/item_100567.htm

It would also be good if someone was able to put the percentages in the weekly summary rather than at the top, so you can see the songs that were sung and how the contestants did each week.

Ajso1974 (talk) 12:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Yeah, its annoying - I've had to change that section a few times - usually the Week 4 & 6 results keep getting reversed. Eoghan Quigg won week 4, and Diana Vickers won week 6, not the other way around. And I like the idea of the percentage going into the weekly summary - a lot LOT more than how it currently is! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyleofark (talk • contribs) 20:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judges predictions[edit]

Could someone add the judges predictions:

Louis: Eoghan Dannii: Laura Cheryl: Diana Simon: Rachel

These were announced on the Xtra factor right after the results show (the judges picked who they thought would be winners at bootcamp, before getting assigned acts) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.205.162 (talk) 11:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most Watched Talent Show 21st Century[edit]

I do not see how this is possible. As many other talent shows have beaten The X Factor in ratings like American Idol. It states this just below the ratings entry on The X Factor page, and does not specify if it is just for the UK, and its quite impossible for this to be other places. 86.157.104.50 (talk) 14:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC) Pic Editor96[reply]

Location[edit]

Would it be worth putting the location of the live shows on the page (which i dont actually know so if anyone does feel free to tell me!) --80.1.123.92 (talk) 17:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)?[reply]

Regarding locations, did they not hold auditions in Dublin in June/July 2008? I'm almost sure they did. 86.44.200.30 (talk) 20:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Results table[edit]

Two things I don't understand about the results table:

  • Why are Girlband and Bad Lashes shown as "Btm" in the weeks they were eliminated, rather than "Btm 2" like all the others (in the weeks there was a bottom two, that is)? Is this just a typo or does it mean something?
  • What do the words "to save" and "to win" signify in the "Eliminated" row at the bottom of the table? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.131.114 (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Im sorry but that new table looks absolutely terrible.

1. The X Factor has no such thing as a bottom 3, so showing the bottom three is very misleading. This isnt American Idol where they have a bottom three. The show makes NO reference to a bottom 3, just a bottom 2.
2. The "safe first, safe second thing" is nonsense. The contestants coming back for the next week are called in a random order, and its stated clearly that there is no meaning behind it. But this table suggests that the contestant in first place was saved first and so on, when they werent. They were declared safe randomly.
3. There is just way to much colour on that board. I think we could at least do without the "Safe second" colour and the "bottom 3" colour. The seperate colours for most votes, bottom two and bottom I'm all for.
4. JLS are down as bottom 2 in the final, but using the same logic as the rest of the table, they were also safe second. Its just all very inconsistant.

Personally I think a revert to the old one would be so much better (Kyleofark (talk) 20:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I agree, and that's why I've been reverting to the old table too. I don't mind the colours being changed but I won't allow any addition of things like "Btm 3" and "Safe 2nd" etc. AnemoneProjectors (what?) 20:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree with you. The Bottom 3 thing is just completely irrelevant to the show - they have never ever mentioned a bottom 3 in the X Factor, and it shouldnt be on here. I personally do see a case for listing who was actually bottom every week, but I dont really think its worth a whole debate, either way is cool by me. As I stated above, i think all those colours is a bit much. I think the way it is now is cool. :) (Kyleofark (talk) 22:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Well it should say btm instead of bottom 2 for the contestant who recieved the lowest no. of votes as they may have been saved and safe 1st is neccessary. the 'safe 1st' is really showing their placement in the votes that week not their call out order. Perhaps get rid of 'safe' and put their position. There should be no green for safe contestants, just white...something else... do you tihnk we could do an elimination chart like they do for the American Idol page?? That table could also include the contestants who didn't make the last cut before the finals (amy, antastacia, hannah) etc.. ? 94.64.155.212 13:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I have just reverted many things back, the article was just simply a mess --12bigbrother12 16:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
It should say "Btm 2" because they were in the bottom two, regardless of who got least votes. The deadlock shows who was eliminated by public vote. "1st", "2nd" etc shouldn't be included, as it gives the impression of order of being called safe, which it isn't. There's a different colour for the one with the most votes, which is fine, so just say "safe". I agree we can just use white for safe contestants. I never liked the elimination chart on American Idol pages, and thankfully The X Factor doesn't come under that WikiProject, so we don't have to use it. We shouldn't include the ones who didn't make the live shows in the elimination table. AnemoneProjectors (what?) 17:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly think its fine like it is. I think the American Idol table's format with the semi finalists wouldnt be suitable, just because it gives the impression that the public were able to vote the likes of Hannah, Amy and so on into the finals when it was the judges choice. It would be like adding all those who made it to the end of Hollywood week on Idol - Cody Sheldon to use an example. We should stick to how it is right now in my opinion for the simple reason that it can be more consistant with other X Factor pages in which we cant do the changes Frazzler is proposing because we have no voting figures. I think the current one is fine. I have no issues with changing the green to white, though I think the green is more asthetically pleasing. Its up to you lot. :) (Kyleofark (talk) 18:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I dislike the removal of the green. To me, it looks unprofessional. 12bigbrother12 18:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I made the change but I dislike it as well. Thought I'd get opinions once we could see how it looks. AnemoneProjectors (what?) 21:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree, keep it green, the whole colour thing isnt massively important, so I think we should just go for what looks better which is the green. :) It'll save us having to change the other X Factor series articles too. :) (Kyleofark (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • To return to my original question if I may: does anyone know what the words "to save" and "to win" signify in the "Eliminated" row at the bottom of the table? 86.161.42.104 (talk) 23:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
It means when Ruth and Diana were elimated, the public were voting for who they wanted to save. When Eoghan was eliminated, the public were voting for who they wanted to win. AnemoneProjectors (what?) 23:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I see. I think this is more confusing than helpful. Something like "25.33% to win" to me suggests that the contestant needed 25.33% to win, or even received 25.33% and won. I suggest we just delete this text. The difference between voting to win and voting to save is not such a big deal -- in all cases people are voting for their favourite. It's not as if the vote changes from "for" to "against", say. 86.161.42.104 (talk) 00:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

placements[edit]

I don't think it should say safe in the contestant boxes but it should give their placement in the votes e.g. eoghan week 1 was 1st 94.64.155.212 20:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

We already discussed this above. AnemoneProjectors (what?) 21:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

safe? or placement?[edit]

I think it should say the contestants placement in the vote rather than 'safe'. Of course they are safe if they are not in the btm 2 so its a bit redundant. The voting rank is more important. I actually think we should make our chart similar to the Idol chart for consistency over wikipedia articles but nevermind. The vote rank is more important than 'safe'. 'Safe' is a given as they weren't eliminated that weeek. 92.4.67.8 (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this has already been discussed to death and consensus has been reached. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
no i disagree. Of course there safe as there is a box at the bottom of the table which says 'bottom 2' It's kind of a given and if we're given the voting results then it's out job as wikipedians to implement that information in a simple way. 92.3.174.44 (talk) 11:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then argue for a new consensus - don't simply edit war to enforce your preference. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 11:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a results summary and the weekly voting results have been revealed so instead of 'Safe' which is very obvious as they are not shown as 'btm 2' then we should have their place in the votes... It's stupid... on American Idol elimination chart they just have a blank box for 'Safe' as if the contestant isn't listed as 'btm 2' or 'Elim' then of course they are safe. 94.64.155.212 16:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

We should have a colour for the contestant who recieved the lowest votes for that week[edit]

Since the lowest voted contestant didn't always leave each week we need to have a different colour 94.64.155.212 16:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

We are representing the bottom two placed contestants as announced in the show. I don't really like using two colours for the bottom two. The voting figures are there for everyone to see anyway. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 18:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well we should at least fill in the placements for the contestants. If we're only basing the results summary on the results announced in the show then we wouldn't even have the percentages put in and that is stupid as if we have the voting results we should change 'Safe' to the position in the votes as it creates hassle to read all the other votes and tally them. Instead of putting 'Btm 2/Bottom 2' we could just put the position in the vote e.g. Girlband week 1: 11th, Bad Lashes week 1: 12th... Both acts for that week would have a blue background showing that they were bottom 2 and also it says so at the bottom where the judges votes are. There's no point putting in placements like 1st, 2nd if two contestants are ranked 'Btm 2' because that doesn't make sense and because we have the voting results we NEED to put in placements. 92.3.152.45 (talk) 14:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The percentages are fine as they were released after the show. But in the shows, they are announced as either safe or bottom two. There is no consensus to make the changes. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
it's a results summary and if your basing the chart on how it was announced during the live telecast then you wouldn't add the percentages!!! 'Safe' is redundant as they are not btm 2. My version makes more more sense, its factually corect and your version is foolish. The voting results were revealed and so instead of putting a vague 'Safe' we can publish the ACTUAL result :) 92.5.47.113 (talk) 19:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh go on then. The colours for safe and bottom two need to be added to the colour key. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did it. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about it again, adding placements is wrong, because all "safe" contestants are equally placed, there's no first place, second place, etc, just safe or not safe. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 01:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

they are announced as safe but '1st', '2nd' is based on the voting results revealed! It's not that hard! If we're only basing the chart on the results shows then there would be no percentages and that would be stupid as the chart is a summary for the whole live shows and percentages and placements in each show are important for that! Leave it it's perfect! 212.70.214.149 (talk) 19:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to hear from more experienced Wikipedians (who are also familiar with the show). I have no idea if you're one person or many because you're all anonymous. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are all me (frazzler 9). Just leave it it makes sense and is perfect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.64.155.212 (talk) 15:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, I'm not going to change it unless anyone else objects, but I doubt anybody will. The colour of safe is explained anyway so I think it's ok. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

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)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The X Factor (UK series 5). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 04:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The X Factor (UK series 5). 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 17:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The X Factor (UK series 5). 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 13:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_X_Factor_(British_TV_series)_series_5&oldid=1218942688"