Validation of article performed by WIKICHECK. August 16 2006 17:41pm. WikiCheck 17:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I had set up some pages for the individual rockers so that there fans could up date them and had links to their webpages, but some of the editiors took them off. Oh well I tried.

Wikipedia is not a repository of links. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 19:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to start a Wikipedia page on Dana Andrews, but the actor Dana Andrews has that name. How do you go about starting a page for someone who shares a name?

Thanks

Try starting one as Dana Andrews (singer). A disambiguation link should then be added to the top of Dana Andrews. Kirjtc2 17:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please help! Does anyone have any ideas on how we should arrange this and other sections of this article? Thanks. --Eric Jack Nash 02:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the numbering the songs is a little bit odd and possibly misleading, for example; if Phil Ritchie were to be in the bottom 3 for 6 straight shows then voted off he would sing 12 songs. But if somebody else was not in the bottom 3 for the first 6 episodes and then was in the 7th and voted off they would sing 8 songs and I feel like that could get confusing. MBob 02:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that kinda crossed my mind. I was just copying from the American Idol (Season 5) article. My understanding is that the previous seasons of Idol used a different format in some way, somewhere in their articles, although not neccessarily concerning this listing of songs. Maybe we should look at them or maybe there's a good way to list the episode number next to each song. Or maybe instead of keeping all the songs with each performer, put the songs in a separate list for each episode. Do any of these ideas make sense or do you have a better one? Anyone? Also, so you all know, and if you think it's a good idea, I can get to work putting a similar listing for the first season of Rock Star. I recorded and have all that info. Thanks. --Eric Jack Nash 12:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tossed SOMETHING up there before the list of the finalists for now as a bit of a clarification, but knowing myself it probably wasn't very clearly written :) But thats besides the point because after all anyone can edit that for clarification. I also think that there should be a section prior to this that in depth explains the voting procedures so what I wrote makes a little more sense. MBob 13:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That looks good. I agree about there needing to be something a section prior to the one you added. But along those lines, have you noticed/read my two very short summaries of the first two CBS episodes? Please feel free to edit/add/rearrange (put them into sections - all that kinda stuff). One thing though: with your method of the number representing the week and then putting the "encore" and "bottom 3" performances underneath the first first week performance, that means that when I add the # sign for the next week number, it starts over at one. At least two solutions to this problem are: 1) Manually number each week, or 2) put the "encore" and "bottom 3" performances on the same line as the weekly regular performance. Is there another solution, or another way to go about it in general? Thoughts? Thanks for your effort and input. --Eric Jack Nash 13:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just made some changes. I could see that the "spoiler warning" might seem silly, but I just thought about how certain parts of the world won't view these episodes until next week, so I thought I'd be cautious. Also, should the way the section headings look be different (smaller and without the line, that kind of stuff)? Thanks. --Eric Jack Nash 14:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like the section header of "Episodes" is just the same information regurgitated over and over in the same general format in order to fit that weeks information.

Performance Episode: The rockers performed cover songs. And other assorted trivial information

Elimination Episode: These rockers were in the bottom 3, and this person was eliminated for whatever reason

Now either something needs to be done or this section is probably going to get very lengthy very quick with very little important information. Any comments? MBob 02:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is in I guess response to your comment here. I left a comment below about this, but I will also say it here. I would like to think my recaps expanded help make that section more substantive. And in saying that, just because I took the lead lately to expand on this section, please do not let it go astray. I flipped back and forth between RS and Last Comic Standing so I missed some parts and I haven't TIVO'd it since Phil was eliminated. I also haven't watched the mansion episode yet, so I can't write to that. Although I do plan on still watching it. Come on fanatics, I know we can do this :) --vi 01:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added an elimination chart similar to American Idol's chart. The colors could use some tweaking. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 15:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! I was wondering if we could do something like this. Concerning the colors, is there any reason to not have them be the same as colors from the official Rock Star: Supernova logo? If that isn't wrong in some way, then let me know and I can decipher what colors look best. I noticed that you defined the colors by name - Is there a way to tell it by html/web codes? --Eric Jack Nash 15:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I have with the Rock Star colors is it includes black, which looks unprofessional and clashes with the Wikipedia color IMO. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 16:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just changed the chart colors to match the CBS website. There are two more colors that could be used - How do we change the heading's colors? Also, how do we change the text color? If you want I can try the MSN website's colors. Let me know. --Eric Jack Nash 16:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think that the colors look pretty ugly. No offense to whoever picked them but there just seems to be too much going on with the table, mainly under the "Place" and "Contestant" headings. I feel like the colors behind the place and the name should be different or even non-existent it just seems a little bit too flashy. But whatever that's just MY opinion and if I am the only dissenting opinion then keep it the way it is. MBob 00:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, please change them and see if you can find something that works better. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 11:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this "Bottom 6" notation valid? I mean I understand the point of it, to show that the people were at some point in the bottom 3 during the voting period, but to call it the bottom 6 isn't that incorrect? I mean isn't it going to be different for each show the number of people who were ever in the bottom 3? I am removing the "Bottom 6" notation but if anyone objects just reply with your opinion. MBob 01:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The six people pointed out in the first elimination show is only comprised of people who were in the bottom three throughout the night. Those people don't necessarily reflect the bottom six players when voting ended. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 02:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

During tonights elimination episode (7/12) 4 people were noted as being in the bottom 3 at one point. This is why there should be no "bottom 6" notation from the previous week, because each week there would be a different "bottom #" and that would just be confusing to someone looking at the page. And by the way Jtrost I like the colors that you changed the table to right now, I think that it really solves what I pointed out before, that there was seemingly too much going on, but now it looks perfectly fine. MBob 00:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A fellow wikipedian made some of the smaller contestants' articles redirect here. Therefore, I started creating the summaries in the Contestant/Finalist section (a la American Idol season 5) from the info from some of those articles. Please feel free to voice your opinions and definitely make changes to those summaries - one, Josh's, is way too long, but I'm not sure how best to summarize. Please help. Thanks. Also, I'm not even sure how to access some of that info from a couple of the articles as I'm not "watching" them. Is there a way that I can access them at this time? Again, thank you. --Eric Jack Nash 19:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about creating one article to highlight every contestant, because the way it is now with Josh's information is COMPLETELY ridiculous and it undermines the point of THIS article, which is to provide information on the show. If there was a section that redirected to an article, for example Rock Star: Supernova Contestants that had information on all of the contestants that would work MUCH better. MBob 19:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made some of the redirects here (but not all of them, someone else did some of the others). At any rate, I believe that as time passes, at least some of these individuals will become more notable and have their redirects changed back to articles with more content. The only ones that I redirected here were those which only mentioned the singer's hometown and external website. The ones with more content, Storm, Josh, and Patrice, I left alone. In my opinion, most of these people aren't yet notable, but the more successful ones will become so over time. If you look at the articles for other shows like Big Brother (USA season 4) (yes, I know that a reality show is not exactly the same thing), you will notice that only half of the houseguests ended up having articles so far. --Brian G 20:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(I have not yet read the above paragraph. This is in response to MBob's comments) I just reduced the really long summary down to what Josh's actual article has in the beginning summary of it (minus the mention of Rock Star, which goes without saying in this article). MBob, that's a possibility, sure, however, so you know, I was going off of what American Idol (season 5) article did. In that article there's a section that lists the final 12 contestants. It states the contestants' name, a summary, and then it lists each song they performed. --Eric Jack Nash 21:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the article that you mentioned American Idol (season 5) to better understand what you are talking about, and I believe that if done right then that would be acceptable for this article also. But I have one comment to add: all of the information that is added after the contestant names should be somewhat "equal"; if one person has their age listed then all of the performers should have their ages listed (and by the way listing a date of birth is more effective than an age, because ages change and dates of birth don't, but that is another story) and also if one person has background information listed then all performers should have "equal" background information listed. But I mean I am just suggesting options for you and I would rather that you finish adding information for every performer if possible and then we can edit it as a group so that it best works. MBob 23:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Their are many stubs on Wikipedia and their creation is certainly acceptable. The American Idol analogy is a poor one, since that show (and its article) has dozens of contestants, and one could argue that few are "famous" enough to merit an article. Granted. But if someone wants to create a full article about the few contestants for this show, I see no problem with them doing that. I also see no problem in putting "equal" information (age, hometown, etc.) on the main Superstar page as a summary. Sure, why not? But that should never prevent someone from creating an article about a contestant, even if its a "stub" until it's fleshed out. And rather than spilling thousands of words on a Talk page about this redirect issue, I would hope we can all focus on making those stubs into good, strong articles. But knowing Wikipedians... - Nhprman ^List 17:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to hear what others have to say, but to me it doesn't make sense to have an article about Magni that just lists the 3 songs that he sang and where he was born, when all that information is right on this page. Storm, Josh, and Patrice all have their own pages because somebody collected biographical information that extends beyond the show. For Magni, nothing is posted except show information. --Brian G 17:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Can I suggest we work together and make it a proper article? - Nhprman ^List 19:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded Magni's article this evening. I can't wait to see the others expanded, too. - Nhprman ^List 20:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I started expanding Ryan Star tonight, since it was only one sentance. I also had created Phil Ritchie's a few week's ago. Everyone is welcome to help contribute to those as they still need expanding to really become full articles. If you are looking for examples of catagories to add to them, you can use these as an example. I plan to get images and infoboxes up on them both soon. --vi 03:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Songs and Musical Groups are an area where ambiguity in names is quite common. Please use care when creating links to make sure that thay are specified correctly instead of just conveniently, but wrong. --Brian G 02:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BrianG, first, I'm not sure what DAB means. The closest thing that relates to this article that wikipedia says it is is "Digital Audio Broadcasting". Is that what you mean? If it is, then I still don't get why that is the name of this new section in this talk page and how it could possibly relate to what you are talking about. Please help me understand.

Second, is there somewhere in this article, or another that I'm associated with, that has links that may not be "specified correctly instead of just conveniently, but wrong"?

Please let me, and the rest of us, know more specifically to what you are referring so that we will be in compliance. Thank you. --Eric Jack Nash 11:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I just went back to my watchlist and saw changes as far as what you are talking about, I think. For instance, "(song)" quite often needs to after the song, and then a pipe, so that it links correctly. Is that what you're talking about? I'm still confused about "DAB". Thanks. --Eric Jack Nash 11:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"DAB" is just short for "disambiguation". Kirjtc2 12:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry about the abbreviation, Eric. For more information about Disambiguation, please check out WP:DAB. The specification of (song) or (band) is frequently used in the names of these articles, but it is not consistent because #1) Each article is created by different people and there is no formal convention and #2) whoever creates an article with the name first generally gets to keep it, unless the article that comes along later is much more notable. It can also get really tricky when you have a band with a self titled album or a "title cut" where the main article usually goes to the album and the song gets the dab. In general, when creating links, it just takes that extra time to create them in preview mode and then follow the links to see that they go where you want. One tool that I really find helpful for this is popups, which you can read about at WP:POPUP. Happy Editing! --Brian G 12:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the "Top 15 finalists" list, where we are listing the performed songs, would it be OK to add a note such as if the rocker was also playing an instrument (and what instrument)? If I don't get a response in the next 24 hours, then I'll go ahead and start noting that. Thanks. --Eric Jack Nash 12:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to this. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 13:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good Idea - Go for it! --Brian G 23:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why was my edit removed, I have proof to verify this information is true. -24.92.46.16 01:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I have been following the show and this page, I have contributing just a little in the past to help with the growth of this into a really good article. In doing so, I took the liberty to format each week into new headings so each week is in itself editable. This will help in management of the article over time. I also expanded a little of the eliminations section for week's four and five. I would like to try to set this as an example of how we can develop this to read more article like with references, as well as more interactive within the wikipedia itself. I hope this catches on and you like my IMHO "improvements". Happy watching and editing! --vi 03:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just wondering who people are rooting for. I'm rooting for Dilana, Lukas, and Toby. Please respond to this, for I wish to hear your opinions.

Does anyone have a suggestion about adding the "special performance" by Dilana on August 16 to the elimination chart. I'm thinking it could look something like the encore notation. --Brian G (Talk) 02:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the current notation, however with just an SP, I had to read back up in the article to realize that it was a special performance. Do we need a legend above/beneathe/on the side? --vi 05:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added a small explanation beneath the chart, its easier to understand that way. --Kuckzul 13:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks --vi 18:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both links to Dave Navarro's blog in the "References" section are dead links. They should probably be removed. --Erich168 17:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can just fix them to just point directly to his blog, rather than the exact blog dates. --vi 18:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's about time that Supernova got rid of Zayra. She was never in the running as a fit for a band like Supernova, although she is attractive and flambouyant I just couldn't possibly see her as a front person for this group. I feel that Lukas and Dilana have had a very good chance since the start. It will be interesting in the end to see what makes the eventual winner be chosen.

That's not very nice. íslenska hurikein #12 _(samtal) 01:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]