Template talk:American Idol

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Aspects (talk | contribs) at 16:17, 10 October 2008 (→‎Proposed standard for "other notable alumni": Move comment to keep chonological order in tact and added comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:WikiProject Idol series


Size

This template is rather large and garish, particularly when put into smaller articles. Any way we can trim it down? -- MisterHand 19:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought it might be a good idea to have all the articles pertaining to American Idol in one place, to keep it all organized.

We can also moniter all the AI articles (for vandalism, etc.) by clicking on "whatlinkshere" or "related changes".

—Chantessy 19:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that it's getting quite large, and it should be split into smaller templates. I suggest that the roster section be removed completely, and perhaps we add a prominent link to a List of American Idol finalists. Then on the individual contestant pages, we use a more compact navigation box that only includes the contestants of a particular season, like this:
...what do you think? Coffee 00:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, contestant navigation templates are at...
And there's also Template:American Idol winners. Coffee 11:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a non-AI watcher/fan (in the US), I find it very useful navigating through the various AI pages, as I don't know the actual names of many of the contestants without seeing them first. It puts them all in one place. To remove it would make a serious, negative impact to AI's coverage on Wikipedia. It makes navigation much easier. - hmwithtalk 16:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spin-offs

Please note that shows that are listed as spin-offs on here are shows that are either endorsed by the show or made by the same company. Pink moon 1287 19:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does "Dreamgirls" count as a spin-off? If nobody objects in the next 7 days, I'll add it to the template. Sigil2 06:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re-read the previous comment, Sigil2. No, Dreamgirls doesn't count as a spin-off, though Jennifer Hudson definitely belongs here. --RBBrittain 03:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Runners-Up?

Do you think that runners-up are generally as notable as the winners on American Idol?? Clay Aiken I can see as being even more notable than Ruben Studdard, but the rest I think are not as notable as the winners. If there isn't a good reason for the revert, it will stay removed. Marcus2 21:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After first adding Clay Aiken back (you agreed he belongs here), I decided to revert to the runners-up version. They may not be as notable (other than Aiken), but there is one important distinction: Except for Justin Guarini in Season 1, each runner-up gets a record deal along with the winner (and unlike the rest of the finalists). Besides, with adding Aiken back to the "other" section, I was torn as to whether or not Chris Daughtry (whose debut album, like Aiken's, IIRC has outsold the debut of every "Idol" winner to date) belongs here too; it's easier if we limit the "notable others" to Jennifer Hudson (likely Oscar winner) and William Hung (so infamous he became famous). --RBBrittain 03:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added back the Runners-Up section. Katharine's album is selling well, Bo's did, Diana's on Broadway, the only one not really notable is Justin, but he was still the first ever runner-up so I think it should stay. And I neednot mention why Clay should be there. If the winners are there, so should the runners-up so I think we should leave it up. Zaque 24 01:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

notable alumni

how did Frenchie davis get on this list?

I'm not sure what the criteria are here but I've added Lisa Wilson, a semi-finalist from Season 3. Lisa was Miss Georgia USA 2006 and second runner-up at Miss USA 2006, which in my books makes her notable. Erin Abrahamson, top 80 in the same season was Miss New Jersey Teen USA 2001 and is Miss New Jersey USA 2007, but because she didn't make the top 24 I have left her out. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 22:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We need some sort of standard for judging this. It has no place otherwise. Michael 04:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. I mean, why are seven of the ten 3rd-12th place contestants of season 5 here? I have no argument with Chris Daughtry (No. 1/multi-platinum album) or even Kellie Pickler (gold album, possible TV series); but surely most of the rest don't belong. We need a standard that retains at least Daughtry & Pickler--plus the only ones here not too long ago, Jennifer Hudson (Oscar, 'nuff said) & William Hung (as I said before, so infamous he's famous)--without bringing in every single finalist or contestant. --RBBrittain 02:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. I've never heard of her. I think it should be people who non-AI-fans would know/recognize. - hmwithtalk 16:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed standard for "other notable alumni"

The "other notable alumni" section is getting out of hand, with the re-addition of Antonella Barba pushing it to a fourth line. (If Antonella belongs here, so does Frenchie Davis; she's been removed before, and I don't think either of them belong on their notoriety alone.) After reviewing the sales list in the main American Idol article, I propose the following standard for including Idol participants not in other categories (judges, winners, runners-up, etc.) in this section:

I chose the 100,000 level based on the sales of the least-selling runner-up, Justin Guarini (150,000); I then lowered it to 100,000 as a round number, and because that only adds Tamyra Gray (122,000) who belongs because she was the first and also has TV-series credentials (Boston Public). The following qualify under this particular criteria:

If Dreamgirls: Music from the Motion Picture (single-disc, 633,000; double-disc, 142,000) is attributed to Jennifer Hudson (7th place, season 3), she would also qualify; however, the second criteria is specifically aimed at her for winning the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress for Dreamgirls. (The only other Idol participants to have won "big four" awards so far are Kelly Clarkson and Carrie Underwood, both Grammy winners--and both included already as Idol winners.)

I am amending the template to italicize those that do not qualify under this proposed standard, and to warn that they will be deleted on March 25, 2007 (in eight days). If you prefer a different standard, please add your thoughts below. --RBBrittain 22:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC) (Made qualifiers bold: --RBBrittain 22:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I really don't like this critera. But I have a knew idea. Why don't we just have people vote for which contestants should stay, and then have a certain amount of votes to have. For instance, if the maxiumum is 5 votes, and Frenchie Davis only has 3, and Lisa Tucker has 15. Lisa would stay but Frenchie wouldn't. Anyone else think so? 216.54.173.236 00:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The cut-off of 100,000 based on Justin Guarini seems to be arbitrary and doesn't address people who are noted on AI but not for album sales. I also don't like voting for who stays and who goes. That would be an even poorer indicator of notability and may encourage sockpuppetry. (notability based on Wikipedians' opinions?) I propose to eliminate this section altogether, but only if a list that was deleted is restored. You can see Talk:American Idol#Restore List of American Idol contestants?. Tinlinkin 02:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This also doesn't take into account those notable outside American Idol for things unrelated to music etc. For example Lisa Wilson, who I added a while back but someone seems to have removed, was second runner-up at Miss USA and thus is clearly notable enough to be included. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 04:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If she had actually won Miss USA, I might agree; but she didn't, so I don't think she belongs here--though I didn't remove her. (Likewise for Ayla Brown, who is here and proposed for deletion, and her NCAA basketball career.)
As far as the criteria's relationship to music, remember that (as Simon Cowell loves to say) Idol is a singing competition, so music should be the primary focus. (And I didn't pick the 100,000 number entirely because of Justin; it also keeps William Hung & Tamyra Gray in while culling most of the deadweight.) I have considered possibly adding a criteria based on appearances in Broadway or national touring musicals (which as a minimum would save LaToya London and bring in Frenchie Davis), since that has some relationship to music; but I'm not fully sold on that.
IMHO, the proper weighting for success in other media should be the "big four" award criteria I established mainly for Jennifer Hudson & equivalent achievements. --RBBrittain 21:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the section should be eliminated as well, and I somewhat agree with restoring the complete list of contestants, however, additional research needs to be done on that. CrazyC83 04:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC) I think just leave all the names up there. All of them that are on the template have done something considerable. 216.54.173.188 18:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, we cannot just pick and choose whom to include. That violated WP:NOR. Michael 21:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This goes back to the argument about runners-up; but if you eliminate runners-up, all you really do is drag Clay Aiken fans back into the argument over this section. I'd only support that idea if we concurrently raise the album-sales criteria to RIAA gold certification (with the "big four" award criteria unchanged); that eliminates one whole category while reducing this one to Aiken, Daughtry, Bo Bice, Gracin, Pickler, and Hudson. (Platinum certification would be a bit too severe.)
At this point, I do NOT support restoring the list of contestants, though it might work if it were separate from this template and combined with some major pruning (i.e., delete all but the winners). The problem here is that, IMO, most of the people in this section are NOT really "notable", but are just wasting space; that's what I'm trying to fix. (One last point: Unfortunately, the Wikipedia definition of "notable" doesn't really address the issue at hand, except to suggest that the criteria be objective--which is what I'm doing.) --RBBrittain 21:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't we just leave it like it is. 216.54.173.225 01:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why contestants such as LaToya London and Mario Vazquez should be considered for deletion at all - the notability criteria for music on Wikipedia only requires being signed to a major label, not a minimum sales requirement, and many contestants have had songs chart on various Billboard charts without reaching that figure of sales. User:Lone twin 17:2, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the inclusion/exclusion criteria above. While the fans of the various alumni left out would disagree, including every AI contestant who meets the minimum standards of WP:NOTE would make the template unweildy long. Also having an excessively long alumni list would make the template unbalanced, giving too much weight to relatively minor players in the competition.--Eqdoktor 09:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with RBBrittain's criteria in the fullest. None of the italicized contestants deserve to really be there, and it's a nice list of criteria to help take them off. --Smoke Rulz 12:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why doesn't a template be created for notable AI contestants 216.54.173.181 00:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just REMOVE ALL THE NOTABLE contestants, and keep them where they belong, in their appropriate seasons! Pumapayam

A couple of people cited Wikipedia standards for "notability", but no one directly linked to Wikipedia:Notability (music). Based on the comments and the Wikipedia notability standards, I have implemented the criteria with two modifications:

  • Jasmine Trias is retained because one of the specific criteria is having a record certified gold or higher in any country; she has two such albums in the Philippines (one platinum, one gold).
  • Elliott Yamin is retained because Hits Daily Double predicts his album will debut with up to 90,000 copies sold [1], which suggests he will reach my 100,000 criteria shortly.

Note that though the specifics of the Wikipedia music criteria vary from my own, the results appear to be very similar for the most part; for example, though William Hung hasn't reached gold certification, he has released three albums on the Koch Entertainment label, which appears to meet the criteria of having released two albums on a major label or important indie label.

As a final note, the eighth Wikipedia criteria ("(h)as won or placed in a major music competition") largely puts to rest the whole argument about the "runners-up" category of this template. American Idol certainly qualifies as a "major music competition", so all Idol winners AND runners-up are automatically "notable". --RBBrittain 03:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be people that those who don't watch AI would have still heard of, whether due to scandal, record sales, or extra notability for another reason. - hmwithtalk 07:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this much discussion over who should or shouldn't be listed as notable is ridiculous. If everyone cannot agree, then the section should just be removed and each contestant is still listed on their individual season's page. Bradg84 22:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the section would be ridiculous. Daughtry has sold more albums than many winners/runners-up, Malakar's controversies were unprecendented in AI-history, Locke has a great deal of record sales & has been on another reality show, Hudson won an award, Hung became a celebrity in his own right, and Yamin is on the charts right now. They should be there just as much as the winners/runners-up. hmwithtalk 22:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, I disagree with this line of thinking. Again, as many people have mentioned on this talk page, all of the contestants listed in the notable section are on their respective pages. The editors of these pages can't agree with a standard for notable alumni. Who polices this issue? No one, it just becomes an edit war. Which is why I think the section should be removed once and for all.Bradg84 02:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would be foolhardy given that the non-winners almost do as well as the winners on Idol. Daughtry has outsold everyone but Underwood and Clarkson and he finished 4th. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 03:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it should be removed. Might be better to remove all instances of contestants' names. Winners, runners-up, other notables, everything. Just to be fair, if we can't include everyone don't include anyone at all. eLLe.Le 17:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, when I created this template, I included everyone. But it got too long so we removed all of the contestants (even the winners) and used the Category:American Idol participants link instead. Then a McPhee fan made this edit: click here and that's how it all started - adding winners & runners-up & notable contestants & such. eLLe.Le 17:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it should definitely stay. This isn't elementary school, where a child can't have candy during class unless her "brought enough candy for everyone". The alums are associated with the show. It's very likely that a person going through AI pages would want to also go to notable alum pages, without sifting through all of the trivial, non-notable contestants to find who they want. hmwithtalk 17:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just trying to make a point. If those that agree it should stay think they can control who is notable and who isn't can't agree on a standard...then why shouldn't it go? I repeat, all that happens is it becomes an editing war. Look at how many times Melinda Doolittle has been added and removed on the history section. Determining someone's notability is not a science, it is a perception. I feel Melinda Doolittle is extrememly notable, she was favored all season, and is continually referred to as the contestant that should have been in the finale. Articles in Entertainment Weekly and TV Guide can back me up in that. I also feel that even though contestants like Pickler and Gracin fit into your guidelines, they aren't notable at all. Notability is subjective. Bradg84 19:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, those 2 should definitely go. I only think that especially notable contestants should be on there: Daughtry, Malakar, Locke, Hudson, Hung, and Yamin. Not Pickler or Gracin.
Doolittle can't be added yet, as it's too soon to tell if she's notable, or will have a successful career. Many contestants from this season and others go on talk shows, about all of the top 10 or so usually end up doing that. No one from season 6 can be added yet (with the exclusion of Malakar due to extreme controversy and such), because one can't tell if she will be notable. Right now, she's only known as an AI-contestant who got 3rd this season. Talented? Yes. More notable than other contestants at this point? No. hmwithtalk 19:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You and I have come to an agreement. I feel that if contestants like Tamyra Gray, Pickler, and Gracin get removed, then you are correct, Doolittle does not belong on the list yet. I like the 6 you mentioned. Can we go with that? Bradg84 19:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'll make the changes now. =) hmwithtalk 19:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why is Mario Vasquez under notable alumni? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.40.239.249 (talk • contribs)
The huge controversy that surrounding him . hmwithtalk 12:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't that Corey Clark? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.40.239.249 (talk • contribs)
Oops, I mixed them up. I meant the controversy that surrounding him involving sexual harassment. hmwithtalk 17:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is that really a qualification for being on this list? Outside of sites like PerezHilton, he does not seem very notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.40.239.249 (talk • contribs)
Okay, if you disagree, feel free to take him off. We'll see if anyone reverts it, disagreeing. hmwithtalk 18:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reformat

I reformatted the navigation box to use {{navbox generic}} so that the text can be easier to read and the box would not look so big. Tinlinkin 05:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Malakar

I removed him from the list for now. When he was added, it was stated that he's the most talked about Idol ever. Well. You can't really measure that for one thing. And for another, including him is like including Barba. "Notable alumni" (per above) is based mostly on notability AFTER the show. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 23:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that E! and Yahoo! are reliable sources, and Yahoo!, actually, can measure it... based on numbers. Yahoo!'s data says he was the most searched & blogged/talked about online. E! also claimed that they talked about him more than any other idol. Also, original research, so I'm not claiming this as a valid source, but TMZ.com had more information on him than any other idol that I could tell. He was 3rd on TIME's poll for Most Influential People of 2007 and he was invited to the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner. Plus, a concensus was never exactly reached for notability, but itisn't just record sales here, it's popularity and how well the name is known, particularly to non-Idol watchers. - hmwithtalk 15:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Problem I have with including him beyond what I said is that I don't think he's really even an alumnus yet. The show is still airing. To me, right now, this is 15 minutes of fame. Let's give it at least until the show is off the air for the year. I mean...most searched for...maybe...but it's May. :) Let's just wait a bit. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 11:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But why is he first on the list? Can't we arrange them alphabetically or chronologically? --Howard the Duck 12:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it. I don't know who put him first. hmwithtalk 20:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody cleaned it already. Thanks. --Howard the Duck 05:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doolittle

I think it's even more absurd to have Doolittle in the grouping. Again. Too early. Let's wait until the singles start coming out. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 02:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had to remove her. It was absurd that she was put on in the first place. She's not even one of the most notable in the season, let alone the history of the show. hmwithtalk 23:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hah, that's a biased and stupid statement, hmwith. Doolittle was one of the most notable in Season 6. She was widely considered the frontrunner for the longest time, beginning as an underdog and taking it to new heights after "Home" in the Top 12.
As for notability in general, yes, it wouldn't make sense to add her until we see how her album in June does. The "My Funny Valentine" single, I think, is doing fairly well on iTunes or something, but it would be smarter to see what kind of attention she gets when she inevitably guest sings on the Top 3 elimination night this season, yes? --User:Cinemaniac86

Hosts

Should Cat Deely be considered a host? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.88.151.203 (talk • contribs)

No. It's American Idol. It's a US show that happens to air in other countries. She's only aired in the UK version. Most of the audience will have never heard of her, including me, until I just looked at her article. hmwithtalk 19:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. But. She does host Do You Think You Can Dance. Which probably brought the question. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 13:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kellie Pickler and Sanjaya Malakar?

Why is Kellie not included as a successful alumni? She has a gold album and a TV show in the works. She is has more success in album sales than everyone else on that list besides Chris.

I also don't understand why Sanjaya is included? He hasn't done anything to earn a spot there and doesn't deserve to be mentioned any more than other contestants. (Such as Melinda.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darian373 (talk • contribs)

I said this earlier on the page, but Yahoo!'s data says he was the most searched & blogged/talked about online. E! also claimed that they talked about him more than any other idol in history. Also, original research, so I'm not claiming this as a valid source, but TMZ.com had more information on him than any other idol. He was 3rd on TIME's poll for Most Influential People of 2007 and he was invited to the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner.
Kellie can be listed here. Simply provide a good case as to why she should be, and, if people agree, she can be added.
As for Melinda, it's far too early to tell if she'll end up being notable. Simply being on the show makes her no more notable than any other contestant. Only watchers of AI know her, while the others on the alum list are known to non-AI fans.
hmwithtalk 23:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record. I object to Malakar's presence as well. Hey. If we can't have Doolittle, we can't have Malakar. I still think we need to wait. I mean. 3 months ago, Barba was a no-brainer for the list. Now she's not. "Notability" doesn't fade but whether they are notable enough to be on this particular list does. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 04:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Being apparently widely viewed as one of the most influential people of the entire year for TIME magazine? That's insane. Someone who is one of the most influential people for an entire year (in the entire world) deserves at the least "notable contestant" status. No other Idol has gotten anywhere near that, and I doubt will in the future. hmwithtalk 13:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. But I think it's being overstated. Remember. The Time thing you are talking about is an internet poll. Malakar did not make the official Time list. To me, an internet phenomenon winning an Internet poll just doesn't mean much. And that's what Malakar is to a large degree. Most of his fanbase is young teen girls, who do one heck of a lot of voting in these type of things. And "the entire world"? From Time Magazine's American perspective, yes. I highly doubt that Malakar would even be a choice in the poll if it was a British magazine. I mean come now. :) I still think he's the classic 15 minutes of fame. And until he's a success once the furor of the show has died down, I will still believe that. I just think it's a bit premature. Pickler is different. She's sold a good # of copies. I personally disliked her, but she's notable. But with Malakar, I just say...give it 2 months. And then see whether he's all over the place. I bet he isn't. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 15:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll agree with you on Sanjaya, and if he still isn't being talked about much by the end of the summer, we'll take him off, maybe. Does that sound fair? hmwithtalk 16:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Idea

I have a new idea that will make this whole thing so much simpler. Instead of sitting here discussing how to change it we can just get rid of the whole thing.

Because there are many successful alumni from American Idol and are worth mentioning, such as Jenifer Hudson. Also, I really think Melinda Doolittle should be kept on the list. Jgcarter 17:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archive

Any plans to archive this page soon? Chantessy 23:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Gracin

I see a discussion above, but why is Josh Gracin not on the list? Ejfetters 04:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second this same question. He's one of the more successful contestants. Jesse121687 06:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjaya

Why isn't Sanjaya on the list? Daily Show compared Kucinich to Sanjaya. And he has had significant media coverage, regardless of what the comments above have on your personal likes of people with much less media coverage, but whom have albums. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Melinda, anyone?

It seemed like there was at least one additional alumni per season, sometimes two, so I thought perhaps Doolittle was appropriate? Or should we wait to see how her album does in June? For me, since she was third place and for a while was the assumed front-runner (she constantly got raves from the judges, no denying that, for nearly all but 2 of her performances really), she's the only Season 6-er that seems worth listing. Maybe Sanjaya should be too, but raved singer versus constantly-bashed freak show...Idk.

I'm sure Season 7 is going to add A LOT to that list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinemaniac86 (talk • contribs) 09:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hosts

Brian Dunkleman should have the years he hosted so it's more clear he was only in the first year or two. 71.139.49.58 (talk) 00:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Stacey?

He had a top 40 hit on the country charts, and he released a succsesful album, so I think that Phil Stacey should be on the "Other Alumni" Section of the template. --Joshua H-Star-R (talk) 12:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kara DioGuardi in template

I feel it is not appropriate to have a reference in a template, so I am posting a discussion here with a link showing Kara DioGuardi will be joining American Idol (season 8). Associated Press Aspects (talk) 22:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:American_Idol&oldid=244394975"