Talk:The X Factor (British TV series) series 4

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The X Factor (British TV series) series 4 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

This page is not a forum for general discussion about The X Factor (British TV series) series 4. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about The X Factor (British TV series) series 4 at the Reference desk.

Television: The X Factor Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the X Factor task force.

Encyclopedia or easy publicity?[edit]

An encyclopedia would not, normally, have a separate entry for every series of a television show. If this is to be a trend then it should become standard practice for every television series, in the interest of consistency. Unless Wikipedia is to become even more a vehicle for cheap, easy media advertising the articles should be combined.

==Wikipedia is, clearly, a publicity vehicle at least as much as an 'encyclopaedia'. This is inevitable with only an untrained, amateur band of volunteers as 'editors'. Tht is not to say that some editors might well be competent, but many more, in my experience, would seem to be driven by a desire to do, or be something important rather than being qualified or capable of taking high quality editorial decisions.

Whilst it is a laudable aim that the masses could create an encyclopaedia, it is only to be expected that the quality of the result will inevitably be on a par with that of television programmes, books, magazines, etc. produced to appeal to a mass audience rather than an educated one. Which is not to say that in many areas that are not obviously related to self-motivated publicity (e.g. arts, technology, sciences) there won't be many very good 'quick reference' articles that can also serve as a jumping-off point for deeper research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.141.129 (talk) 07:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Judges[edit]

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

2 new judges have not been announced yet --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Coxyappo (talk • contribs) 16:20, 30 May 2007

To the person who said: 'It has been announced that Danni Minouge and Brian Friedman are the two new judges', you need to cite your sources or else this will be deleted by Wikipedia. Without references to your source, then there is no evidence for this statement. Without evidence, it is not reliable and cannot be quoted in a Wikipedia article. We present facts, or rumours supported by third party reports, not just plain rumours. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki edit jonny (talk • contribs) 23:47, 2 June 2007

NEW PHOTO OF FOUR JUDGES (that is, with Louis Walsh)[edit]

Can someone add the new photo of the four judges to the series 4 article please? Because I don't know how to add pictures on Wikipedia.

The photo can be found here: http://www.xfactor.tv/page.asp?partid=537

Thanks guys, Jonny

New categories[edit]

Article says "The bottom age group will now consist of singers between the ages of 14 and 16 (previously the lower age limit was 16)." The reference given does indeed seem to imply this, but all other sources I can find say that the bottom category will be 14 to 24, split into males and females (which is what this article previously said, and what The X Factor still says). I'm wondering if the piece cited just got it wrong? Or has this changed very recently? Matt 02:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC).

I agree entirely - I corrected it a couple of days ago but the author insisted it was correct. However it hasn't been said the bottom age-group will be 14-16s anywhere else apart from that one article. Louis saying 'I hope I don't get the kids' could just as well be referring to the 14-24s age group which will be split into males and females. We should remember news sources aren't always correct. One source saying the bottom age group will be 14-16 isn't enough to sway the accepted judgement we have gained from every other news source out there. Jonny 17.25, 6 July 2007

I can't see that they'd have a category for just 14, 15 and 16 year olds anyway. The under 25s is the biggest category so it makes more sense that it's split into male and female. As the majority of sources report 14-25 split between male and female, I think we should go with that, but we may have to wait until they get to that stage of the show to find out for sure. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 22:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Position of commas[edit]

At the risk of appearing pedantic, here are three possible punctuation styles for a picture caption, in terms of comma placement:

1. "New judge Dannii Minogue arriving at the first auditions for series 4."
2. "New judge, Dannii Minogue, arriving at the first auditions for series 4."
3. "New judge, Dannii Minogue arriving at the first auditions for series 4."

In my opinion both 1 and 2 are correct (though 2 is to my eye slightly fussy), and 3 is incorrect. I changed 3 to 1, but it was then changed back with the comment that 3 "is actually correct English" and that I should "look it up". I find this a surprising claim. The one example of this sentence structure that I've been able to find, in The Times, uses style 2. I would be interested to see a reference to any authority that thinks 3 is correct. Matt 19:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.160.111 (talk • contribs)

The reason why I wrote instance 3 is because as you said, 2 is slightly fussy. It makes the sentence a bit too 'stop-start'. The main thing is to include a comma before the name to ensure it is clear where the name begins (and in instance 2, ends). I am happy to go with instance 1 if it will close this thorough (and somewhat petty) debate. It is just a little disheartening when people like me do the leg-work and find the picture, get the copyright and upload it, when others' contribution is to remove a comma. Wiki_edit_jonny, 22.42, 15 July 2007.

My preference is number 2 but I have no problem with number 1 being used. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 21:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you find my efforts to improve the article "disheartening". Matt 10:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Matt, can we put this fiasco behind us? You know, if you want, you can become a full wikipedia member? You seem to know a fair bit about The X Factor, you'd be a vaulable contributor. Wiki_edit_jonny 12:36, 16 July 2007

Absolutely, it's forgotten. In fact, I'm not really a great expert on The X Factor... it's just that I did a bit of tidying and reorganisation on the articles a year or two ago, and I check back on it from time to time to see how it's getting on. Matt 02:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC).

End date for series 4[edit]

I was just wondering whether we could get away with naming an end date for this series. Series 2 started on 20 Aug and ended 17 Dec 2005. Series 3 started on 19 Aug and ended on 16 Dec 2006. Series 4 will start on 18 Aug, and, seeing as there will still be 12 constestants, is likely to end 15 Dec 2007. This is also very likely because the winner needs about a week/a week and a half for a chance of their single reaching Christmas no. 1. I know there's no primary/secondary source for this information, but there is a rationale for this forecast. Wiki edit jonny 19:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't add it without a source. — AnemoneProjectors (?) 22:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no worries. Wiki edit jonny 10:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

14-16s category[edit]

It turns out that we were wrong about the 14-24s being split into male and female categories. Now, a 14-16s category will go head-to-head with the already established categories (16-24s, 25s+ & Groups). Simon says it himself at the ITV Autumn launch: "...bringing in the 14-16 year olds as a new category, it's freshened the whole thing up'. Interview can be watched here: http://www.itv.com/?vodcrid=crid://itv.com/2929 NOTE: The video will load eventually after an advert. Wiki edit jonny 19:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why he said that when it in fact has been split into male/female 14-25s (as confirmed on the programme itself). — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 12:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reality TV star noteability guidelines[edit]

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 | 16:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Rude Auditionee[edit]

I think something should be added to the article about the rude auditionee Rachel. Here is a link to a video on YouTube showing her. Sector X 08:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er...why? Dalejenkins | 16:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changes made by User 86.133.242.128 on 04/09/2007 to The X Factor (UK series 4)[edit]

I recently reverted the edits made by User 86.133.242.128, saying that the changes 'don't particularly add value to the article and "merely" is not an objective word' (see article's history page [1]). This User's edit can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_X_Factor_%28UK_series_4%29&diff=155541445&oldid=155540639.

The User then undid my reversion, giving these reasons: '(1) Move sentence to improve flow and reduce choppiness. (2) "Upped" does not need qotes. (3) "named" is not idiomatic in this sense. (4) Colon unnecessary here'. This User's edit can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_X_Factor_%28UK_series_4%29&diff=155698845&oldid=155601804.

1. My view on the matter is that moving the sentence doesn't improve the 'flow' at all. It elongates the sentence unecessarily by adding an 'and...' which just makes the sentence look as though it goes on and on, it is also quite clumsy editing.

2. 'Upped' does need inverted commas (not 'quotes') because to 'up' something is not a verb in the dictionary and therefore needs to be in inverted commas to express this.

3/4. The latter two reasons I am happy with (even if they are a little pedantic).

I would like to know what others think on this matter. Jonny - Wiki edit Jonny 14:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on 1 but as for number 2, see wikt:up the ante (definition 2). — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 19:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, an exception can be made in the case of 'to up the ante'. I'll buy that. Jonny - Wiki edit Jonny 20:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding (1), the problem is that the sentence "There has also been more emphasis placed on the international standing of The X Factor" promises to impart some new information, but actually seems to just repeat what's already been said in the previous two sentences. The only way this structure works is if a distinction is made between "international standard" and "international standing", and that distinction does not come across clearly enough. Matt 01:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.245.100 (talk)

I don't feel that the sentence doesn't impart anything new. It says in the next sentence that it is 'the biggest talent competition in Europe'. That is what the sentence about international standing refers to. Even further down, it talks about the increased number of international contestants on the show. Sorry for taking about a month to reply... literally! Wiki edit Jonny 15:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Layout[edit]

Just wondering what we're going to do with the layout once the live shows start. For series 3 we have "Bootcamp", "Finalists", "Results summary" and "Live show details". For this series we have "Stages", which includes "Bootcamp" and "Live shows", so where are the "Finalists" and "Results" sections going to go? I'd like the "Finalists", "Results summary" and "Live show details" sections to be in that order if possible as it makes sense to have them in that order. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 14:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Studios[edit]

Simon Cowell was reported to be seeking a larger venue for the live shows, previously filmed at The Fountain Studios in Wembley. First on Cowell's list is said to be Elstree Studios in Hertfordshire.

I can see its a different studio, but is it still at The Fountain Studios? Jinxed - talk 16:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, The Fountain Studios Website has a video of the new stage being built. Jinxed - talk 16:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ages for Series 4 finalists[edit]

Do you think we should put a little note in superscript or something that all ages given are from the time of the live finals? As I don't think anyone can be bothered to update them whenever a finalist has a birthday—there are 21 of them! Wiki edit Jonny 23:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was going to do it but for some reason I didn't. We did the same last year, but after a year of it being there (and some of the ages being changed, Eton Road, I think), I removed the ages and the note. So by all means do it for now. Dates of birth were given for most of last year's so I'm sure they'll be given for this year's soon enough. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 23:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a fan of having ages in articles at all. Even if you add a note that they are "as of" (as I did last year, I think), people, as AP says, still come along and update them, and then you don't know where the heck you are. Dates of birth (or failing that even years of birth) are much more satisfactory.

Emily caught on cam happy slapping - quits show[edit]

BBC and ITV are both reporting this, the official press release is here - http://www.xfactor.tv/news/article/?scid=188 86.21.74.40 15:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but it's already in the article :) ^anemone|_projectors 15:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Results summary order[edit]

Having been reverted again, I'm bringing this here. Should the results summary be in order of oldest first, or newest first? The other series are all newest first, it was changed during series 3, see Talk:The X Factor (UK series 3)#Elimination table. ^anemone|_projectors 13:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to oldest first. I can't imagine why anyone would want it newest first; it seems desperately counterintuitive. But, if everyone else thinks it should be newest first then I will shut up! Matt 00:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC).

In week 4, Leon Jackson came 4th in the votes. Is this true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.184.157 (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this is true, can you please tell me who got the highest number of votes, e.g. 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th and so on through the week? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.184.157 (talk) 22:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't release the votes that year. I've changed it to safe. –Anemone Projectors– 23:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mick Jackson[edit]

I think something needs to be done about the users who insist on changing Mick Jackson to The Jackson 5 (or the like). I propose we semi-protect the page as the users aren't members of Wikipedia. Any objections? Wiki edit Jonny (talk) 23:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None. Head to WP:RPP and do so. Gscshoyru (talk) 23:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just protect it. It'll be quicker :) ^anemoneI_projectors 23:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I've already posted an RPP request, shall I delete it? Wiki edit Jonny (talk) 23:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, these guys are efficient! It's already noted as 'Already Protected' on the RPP page. Wiki edit Jonny (talk) 23:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity "coaches"?[edit]

"Acts are usually tutored by a celebrity coach linked to that theme".

Is this a bit strong? "Tutoring" and "coaching" to me imply that the celebrities spend a significant amount of time -- at least a couple of hours -- with each of the contestants, but from only ever watching the main show I get the impression that they just do a quick photo-call with each of them. I know that they do comment very briefly on the rehearsals, but does this amount to "tutoring"? Or is there a lot more to it that's not aired on the main show? Matt 00:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC).

Another point about the same sentence: "Acts are usually tutored by a celebrity coach linked to that theme, coaches were Céline Dion, Boyz II Men, Girls Aloud, Michael Jackson and Kylie Minogue." I got a bit confused here while trying to make a cosmetic edit. Just to set me straight, are we saying that there is a distinction between guests and coaches? That some of the guests didn't do any coaching, but this is (or will be) a complete list of those that did? Is that correct? Matt 04:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC).

Yeah, coaches actually go through the acts' songs with them and give them tips. Guests don't offer any one-on-one advice to the acts and just do a performance on the results show. Leona and Shayne were just guests because they don't have enough experience to be giving sessions with the acts. With the coaches, it's a difficult one with regards to tense. Michael Jackson and Kylie Minogue have yet to appear on the show, though they are confirmed. I thought I would use 'were' because it's not time-senstive and would save us having to go through it at the end, when changing all the tenses. Wiki edit Jonny (talk) 10:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that makes sense. I was having a muddled moment! Matt 02:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Another Matt (talk • contribs)

Deadlock[edit]

Shouldn't it be mentioned that the deadlock on the 24th November show was brought about by Sharon wanting a deadlock rather than actually voting for the act she wanted to go. I feel this is show when she said: "I am doing this for a reason and when I say who I am voting for you will see this reason". or words to that affect.

This is partly for discussion and partly because I cannot make the edit not being a member and all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.80.172 (talk) 00:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it might be worth mentioning that. ^anemoneI_projectors 01:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's late, but yes, I agree. Wiki edit Jonny (talk) 12:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added it last night. ^anemoneI_projectors 14:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HOPE 1st DEC[edit]

I have reliable information from inside hope that they are singing 2 songs on saturday. 2 become 1 by the spice girls and We will rock you by queen. Yet this has been deleted. Why when other users can post uncited information and it be acceptable. You wait and see on saturday and maybe you will take me more seriously. --Willsmith342 16:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Information confirmed with reliable sources cited. --Midouk2002 19:57, 30 November 2007

List of songs being sung are posted on the official X Factor website every Thursday. Pegasus15 23:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit dispute: Mick Jackson[edit]

The whole situation with Mick Jackson is getting a little out of hand. One/some individual(s) have decided to take the issue to another level by editing the section to say 'Jackson Five' adding in hidden script, 'IF YOU THINK IT WAS MICK JACKSON THAT MADE THIS SONG FAMOUS, YOU MUST BE ON DRUGS'. I don't think it's fair on genuine users to just semi-protect the page again, and it obviously doesn't work as these people are still making this edit. I'd like to know what everybody else thinks. Cheers — Wiki edit Jonny (talk) 23:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the page is semi-protected, genuine users can log in, or request edits here on the talk page using {{Editprotected}}. However, reverting isn't a problem at the moment (just stay calm), as it's not being changed often. If it gets bad, then we can semi-protect. ^anemone│_projectors 00:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson will be appearing as a special guest, but he will not be performing a song. In fact, it will be Kylie Minogue. 172.189.71.86 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which one was Michael Jackson then? ^anemone│_projectors 00:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same Difference?[edit]

I think Same Difference should have their own page, Leon and Rhydian do. 81.159.61.215 (talk) 23:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leon has a page because he's now released a single. I disagree that Rhydian should have a page. Same Difference are even less deserving of a page than Rhydian. If they ever release an album or single, or get a television presenting job, then they can have an article. ^anemone│_projectors 00:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree I also think same difference should have their own page. The girls has been on Genie in the House and you could all that in their.

It should be the final 3 deserve a page as at the moment Leon and Rhydian do!!!

Axel8 (talk) 19:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

p.s I added one last night and now it's gone was that Anemone Project. I really can't see why you don't think there should be an article they reached the final 3 and I can think of loads of citable information to put in. People less famous than them have a page.

Anemone Project: please don't let your clear dislike of Same Difference to clowd your judgement and say "they are not deserving of a page." They do deserve one. Axel8 (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:AnemoneProjectors is being an objective and unbiased editor. Far from disliking the group he has been supporting them all along. Ros0709 (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I say we start a campaign for Same Difference's article. They are well know, less famous people have articles, I also have citable information worthy of a whole article and feel this could only make the project better. It would do no harm, only good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Demyx9 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just started a stub at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same_Difference_%28Duo%29 - please expand it! Joe dawg 9 (talk) 21:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you redirect that stub back to this article and then sandbox an article for Same Difference? They'll probably get a contract to record Disney soundtracks or something in the next couple of months and will have plenty of notability beyond being second-runners-up. Brad (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I redirected the new article back here as they're just not notable at the moment. And I am being objective and unbiased, as Ros0709 said. I supported them to win. They didn't though, and they're not releasing an album or single yet, but if they ever do, then they should have an article. If the page is recreated, I'll take it to AFD to gain concensus from the Wikipedia community. ^anemone│_projectors 22:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone created Same Difference (Sibling Duo) and someone else redirected it. I'd just like to say that, even though an article SHOULD NOT be created at this time, the correct article name would be Same Difference (duo) (lower case d). ^anemone│_projectors 00:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was also Same Difference (singing duo) a few days ago. ^anemone│_projectors 00:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They deserve one now surely due to the fact that they've recored 2 songs for their single and are going to do the video soon, surely they need one now!!!Jonni Boi 16:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ben Sheppard[edit]

Under "Former Judges" on the right-hand banner, it says that Ben Sheppard was on ITV1 when I believe he was on ITV2. I don't know how to change that, so hopefully somebody else does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe dawg 9 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's my fault, thanks for pointing it out. I've fixed it. ^anemone│_projectors 23:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rigged[edit]

Considering there's a scandal brewing with Ofcom now officially investigating it's rather typically asinine Wiki to lock this article so viewers can't get the latest news and more mature contributors cannot provide it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.5.3.48 (talk) 15:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then let's thank our lucky stars that Wikipedia is not a news agency. Brad (talk) 15:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beverley's age[edit]

I think during the live shows, Niki was actually the oldest contestant and not Beverley. Beverly was 32years (not 38) and Nikki 34. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.0.126 (talk) 17:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The X Factor website says she was 37 at the start of the live shows. ^anemone│_projectors 20:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:XFactorTitles.jpg[edit]

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) 07:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request unprotection[edit]

I would like to know what everybody thinks about unprotecting the page as it's been 2 months since the show finished. I am sure the hype has run out by now, seeing as there has also been little in the press about the show, although I should never say never. Wiki edit Jonny (talk) 13:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'm sure it'll be fine. I'll unprotect it. If the war on Mick Jackson starts again I'll reprotect, but it should be ok now. ^anemone│_projectors 13:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same Difference has a single coming out!!! (also some discussion on hope)[edit]

DO THEY NOW DESERVE A PAGE OF THEIR OWN???Jonni Boi 19:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well no, probably not. In similar news HOPE are working with pharell Williams and look to have a single and album in the works. All that stuff is on the official hope website. might be worth including in the wiki article?

Beverley Trotman[edit]

I heard on my local news that Beverley Trotman was nominated for a MOBO award this year, but I can't find any news source about it... does anyone have a reliable source so this can be added? Anemone Projectors 17:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final showdown details[edit]

If anyone has details of the final showdown please feel free to add them --MSalmon (talk) 15:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating the songs performed earlier, so we never included it. Do you think we need to put this in? –Anemone Projectors– 16:03, 4 November 2012 (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 13:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 15 external links on The X Factor (UK series 4). 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.

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} 09:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070929115250/http://www.itv.com/news/entertainment_ce53d9dea75d1bff7a2d3e6a6acad5c6.html to http://www.itv.com/news/entertainment_ce53d9dea75d1bff7a2d3e6a6acad5c6.html

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

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.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The X Factor (UK series 4). 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) 11:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The X Factor (UK series 4). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nowmagazine.co.uk/bigbrother/Simon_Cowell_admits_staring_at_Dannii_Minogues_bum_article_150881.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.availableforpanto.com/2007/10/the_x_factor_cowell_calls_show.html
Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5lqckWgs4?url=http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/obb/prog_cb/obb108/bb108.pdf to http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/obb/prog_cb/obb108/bb108.pdf

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) 21:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]