Talk:World Idol

"The judge was also shocked by the final result, commenting later that American Idol winner Kelly Clarkson should have won the show as she is the best talent he has seen from any competition and is by far more successful than all of the winners, runners-up, and competitors combined."

That should be a direct quote, as it is the article seems biased.

Can someone explain better what happened with CTV and Fox during this airing? It seems to me that if it were live (as it surely must have been for results to be obtained and a winner announced on the same evening) that CTV wouldn't have had time to edit in their host as opposed to Ant and Dec. Question is, was the whole thing done over two editions (to allow this) or was just the CTV showing not 'live'? It seem confusing (maybe just to me) the way it's explained in the article, in terms of how this world event could have run. For instance, if it were live, how does that account for the time zone differences in the other countries showing it? This makes me think it was not live. But if it was, what time zone did it air in? If it was live in the US at 8pm, the UK would've had it at 3pm or much earlier... Worth clarification anyway, considering it was the first worldwide attempt to do this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.46.200.76 (talk) 00:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

According to the provided table Clarkson and Klaws were awarded both with 10 points by Pan-Arabia. But if you add up Clarkson's results, you'll get a total of 102 points although she had only 97 points. Futhermore the five points are missing in this row.

102 - 5 = 97

So I guess Clarkson was awarded with five and not with ten points.

PS: I also would list Klaws as 9th since he had "won" in one country. In other rankings (=> formula one etc.) the amount of victories/best results will decide the winner if two contenders have the same number of points.

But it is only a guessing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.36.240.32 (talk) 16:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

 

Image:WorldIdol.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) 08:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

This doesn't seem to happen at all font sizes, but on my screen the infobox and the first table are overlapping each other, with the text from each difficult to read where they intersect. If I shift my browser's (Firefox) font size up a few notches the infobox remains above the table and there's no problem. Down a few notches, the infobox appears to the right of the table and again they don't interfere. Anyone know how to fix the appearance without mucking it up for someone else? Kaid100 (talk) 21:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

That problem still exists, almost one year later. I'm going to delete the "participants" part of the infobox, since that info is repeated later in the article. I think indicating the winner should be enough. If anyone disagrees, please undo my edit. AlbertusmagnusOP (talk) 02:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think it was right to delete them even if there wasn't a problem. AnemoneProjectors 10:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)Reply