Talk:The X Factor (British TV series) series 11

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The X Factor (British TV series) series 11 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Television: British / The X Factor Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the British television task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the X Factor task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Cheryl (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cheryl, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CherylWikipedia:WikiProject CherylTemplate:WikiProject CherylCheryl articles

Cheryl and Mel B: Names

Has Cheryl confirmed that she will be using Fernandez Versini this series? I personally think we should stick to Cole; her main article is still titled Cheryl Cole which she uses professionally, plus it's much easier to type out than the new name which can be too long to remember to spell/pronounce. If we are using the new name for this page, do you think we should rename her main one, or wait until there is confirmation over which name she will be using professionally as a whole?

As for Mel B, since we normally use surnames on the Wiki, do we keep saying Mel B in every sentence or do we just say B or Brown (her legal name)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.70.56 (talk) 01:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

She was named as "Cheryl", while Louis and Simon both had surnames. We should use WP:COMMONNAME, which is Cole. As for Mel, her own article uses "Brown" throughout, so this article should as well. –anemone projectors– 16:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what one's professional name is, there are cases where personalities ask to be credited specifically (e.g. Jenna Dewan Tatum on Witches of East End, despite being professionally known as Jenna Dewan-Tatum). The show's end credits list Cheryl as Cheryl Fernandez-Versini and Mel as Mel B, therefore they should be credited as such. Source: http://38.media.tumblr.com/3ff05d6db1adff9ef8dd1b4a7c325964/tumblr_nbxmalJCym1qj8dkdo1_1280.png DantODB (talk) 07:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per Cole's own talk page, she is to remain either at Cheryl Cole or simply Cheryl as she is now referred under said moniker in her professional career. The credit of Fernanadez-Versini is simply due to it being Cheryl's legal last name; however as AnemoneProjectors mentioned, COMMONNAME takes effect. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 16:45, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with her legal or common name. She is credited as Cheryl Fernandez-Versini. Due to this, her name on the series' page should be Cheryl Fernandez-Versini. It's as simple as that. DantODB (talk) 02:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As per noted above, WP:COMMONNAME does apply to this situation, and for consistency. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 18:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The note above only states that we should use common name. And its reasoning is in the first episode, she was only credited as Cheryl. Well, as posted above, she has since been credited as Cheryl Fernandez-Versini. DantODB (talk) 01:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Names in the tables

I think it would make sense if we used their first names instead of their surnames, eg. Chloe Jasmine should have her name down as just 'Chloe' and not 'Jasmine' since it doesn't really make any sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.77.86 (talk) 20:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Finals/Places in the tables

It does not make sense to deny the acts leaving placed in their loss number. Citing the leaving party as "bottom two" instead of 12th, 10th, etc. is false to the results regardless of (unreleased) polling.

It's not false because it it not true, unless you know where they placed in the public vote then it should be bottom two/three --MSalmon (talk) 18:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the changes made which has confusing information about contestants placings. The numerical placement of a contestant should only be used to denote their final placing in the show. Having a contestant with a numerical placing in one week and then a different placing in a further week is conflicting and does not present clear information. Even if a contestant is in the bottom two and it goes to deadlock their final placing is for when they leave the show. I suggest introducing an additional colour of box for when a contestant wins via reverting to the public vote. Colinmotox11 (talk) 22:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The way it is now has been used for the last couple of years because the results are based on PUBLIC VOTES and NOT their place in the show, so unless you know the outcome of the public vote if it doesn't go to Deadlock then leave it alone. --MSalmon (talk) 22:45, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not whether you know the outcome of the public vote or not. If an artist leaves the show in week 1 then they are placed 16th in the show, if they leave in week 5 for example then they have finished 9th in the show. It is a competition and so the final result is what counts (in sport for example a teams position is told as their final placing in that competition). That is common sense. It is misleading to say that a contestant finished 10th and 6th (as an example) WP:CONFUSE I propose creating a separate colour of box to highlight when someone is in the bottom two yet won the deadlock as opposed to a judge decision - this avoids confusing casual readers of this article. This section is describing the results of the entire show, not just of that week. It is also irrelevant to state that 'thats how its always been done' (paraphrase) as that doesnt mean it is the best way of doing things - and we always seek to improve Wikipedia. Your attitude of not wanting to discuss a better way of doing this, and simply reverting any changes without consulting the talk page is WP:EW Colinmotox11 (talk) 23:20, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you find it is because isn't that what the show is about. The public vote for their favorites, the bottom two sing again and the judges decide who goes home and in the event of Deadlock it goes back to the public vote. --MSalmon (talk) 23:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand how the show works. My concern is that the system of showing the results on this page is confusing, as the numerical placings of a contestant should be their final placing in the show. Newspapers etc always quote a former constestant as having finished 5th (for example) even though in that particular week they left they may have finished 4th in the voting. This should be done on the FINAL result of the contestant, not the individual weeks voting. Once the voting figures come out then it is acceptable to take your approach as the percentages are there to clarify, but until then it is misleading/confusing to give contestants numerous positions throughout the show which does not reflect their final position. Colinmotox11 (talk) 23:32, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but without a source to back the placings then it is untrue --MSalmon (talk) 23:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uptown Funk

Can someone add the controversy surrounding Fleur's use of the new song 'Uptown Funk?' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.78.120.175 (talk) 11:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2014

This edit request to The X Factor (UK series 11) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change Winner and Runner up to Winner: Ben Haenow, Runner up: Fleur East, Winners song Everything I Need

Hkoston (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 00:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2014

This edit request to The X Factor (UK series 11) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Lauren needs to have a colour cos she is Fourth Place. 5.64.212.139 (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 00:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weeks With Someone Voted Off on Saturday nights on Voting Table

After every season, the X Factor put the final voting percentages on their site, but for some reason, this time, when there were double eliminations, and the first elimination was on a Saturday night (i.e. Week 4; Jack Walton sent home), there is no voting information. Since there is no information, do you think it would be easier by displaying these weeks (Week 4 and 7) by doing the acts sent home on Sundays, with a plum colored background instead of a pink and make the results into one column, as we do not know the results of Saturday votes for those week?

Bbfan23 (talk) 22:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was in the middle of doing this but got conflict as usual. I agree with removing the saturday column but Jack & Only the Young were not in the bottom 3 (as Dermot said) so they should remain as pink --MSalmon (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The X Factor (UK series 11). 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}}).

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The X Factor (UK series 11). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140718204656/http://www.barb.co.uk/whats-new/weekly-top-10 to http://www.barb.co.uk/whats-new/weekly-top-10

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consolidation of series articles into one article

Why do we need an article per series? 2A02:C7E:1AA2:F700:BCE3:2ABF:1231:2440 (talk) 18:49, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Mel B New York 2017.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:25, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Mel B New York 2017.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:53, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]