Talk:So You Think You Can Dance (American TV series) season 5

Vancouver tour?

Having read this line: "So You Think You Can Dance will again be going on tour to 40 cities across the US and 2 cities across Canada, Vancouver and Toronto." I set off looking for Vancouver tickets, and everywhere I look it seems as though the only place they're doing in Canada is Toronto. Finally I checked the source of this comment, and even in that link it makes no mention of Vancouver. However, I'm hesitant to edit this because it seems as though whoever wrote it read it somewhere. Can anyone else confirm or deny that the tour will be visiting Vancouver?

dilcoe —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilcoe (talk • contribs) 07:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello all

If you guys can find better sources for the auditions, have at it. :) --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 09:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The sources for Shane, Wade and Louis Van Amstel's return/joining were blacklisted for some reason. Here's the source if someone wants to unblacklist them: puresytycd.com/2009/05/19/wade-robson-back-on-so-you-think-you-can-dance-season-5/
puresytycd.com/2009/05/14/shane-sparks-back-on-sytycd-2009/
puresytycd.com/2009/05/19/louis-van-amstel-from-dancing-with-the-stars-joins-sytycd/ 70.189.177.238 (talk) 01:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a blog and generally those don't pass the reliable sources test. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 05:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

True, but that site is the most reliable source for SYTYCD music.70.189.177.238 (talk) 07:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Guest Judges for each City

Do you think we should mention which judges were present for the auditions in each city? Obviously Nigel & Mary are at every audition, but since the 3rd judge changes from city to city...is it worth mentioning? Cespence17 (talk) 13:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes... 9:18, 4 June 2009 (EST)

Question

What happened to Natalie Reid? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.72.12 (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

This talk page is not a forum. It is a place to discuss improvements to the article. There are many general discussion boards and blogs on the Internet that you may consult to find news about the show and catch up on events that you missed, including what happened to Natalie Reid. MissMJ (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for posting my question on this unsuitable site, but could someone please just answer me? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.72.12 (talk) 19:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

She got cut during the jazz round with Sonya —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.8.40 (talk) 02:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Elimination Chart

Is there a reason Season 4's Elimination Chart remains on this page? I was confused momentarily because of its existence. Does it remain as a coding template for this season? If it can be found elsewhere, I'd suggest we remove it because of its confusion factor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.147.136.172 (talk) 00:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

No idea why someone put the old chart there. It's been fixed. MissMJ (talk) 00:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Why is the elimination chart sorted by name? It's usually ordered by couples, which is a lot easier to understand while the season's still going on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.99.95.211 (talk) 02:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The chart has never been ordered by couples. Since the elimination is done by individual dancer regardless of partnership (and the competition is about picking one dancer), it is much easier to have the chart sorted individually by last name. MissMJ (talk) 05:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. The dance routines' charts below clearly dissect the couples and any new partnerships week by week.

Although I'm open to an idea of a couples chart of some sort. Have the guys listed on top, girls on the side (or vice-versa), and track them through the Top 10, when they have new partners every week. It could be interesting and useful.--Cinemaniac86^Oy_gevalt. 22:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

About the chart, I don't think we need a "Safe" tag. It's sort of distraction. If someone hasn't been cut, surely we will understand it without the "Elim" tag followed his/her name. I do believe that blank is enough. And personally, I love the old colors of the chart. Those orange "Safe"s, God. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lubby ai 22:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

List phone numbers to vote?

Any reason why this article shouldn't list the voting phone numbers for contestants? -- Tomlouie | talk 02:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The numbers change every week. Plus they are tied to order of appearance; since the weekly charts show the couples and routines in the order that they appeared, one ostensibly could figure out the numbers from that. MissMJ (talk) 04:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

And plus we aren't in a vacuum here. Neither the old seasons nor its sister show lists numbers. There is just no reason for it. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 13:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Another controversy?

Should the whole Brandon/Mia debacle be included in the controversy section? I know it's not as controversial as the male dancer comment, but it's stirred up a lot of debate among SYTYCD fans.

Also: props to whoever updates this page, because it is so well-organized and easy to read. I always use it as a reference when writing my SYTYCD recaps. Thanks!

71.192.2.202 (talk) 17:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

"Elim" in Elimination Chart.

I believe that they should be grouped as one. They may be eliminated individually, but they are eliminated in the same episode and it makes more sense. There is a standard: one guy and one girl per episode. No getting around that. Hence, they are part of the same elimination. And thus, I feel it is more appropriate for them to be listed as that episode's Elimination together.--Cinemaniac86^Oy_gevalt. 22:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I think the only reason it hasn't been done before is for ease of use; people already break the chart enough without fancy things like rowspans. Could you please go through the previous seasons' articles and make their chart format match where appropriate? MissMJ (talk) 05:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing--done already =). I also centered the Final 4's Elims to give a neater look to the chart. On this chart, I'll add align = center to each row after eliminations.--Cinemaniac86^Oy_gevalt. 13:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Rankings in Elimination Chart?

Do you think it's necessary? I think the TBA was ridiculous, of course. But eventually in the Top 10, the Bottom guy and Bottom girl WILL be the lowest of their respective gender. And then in the finale, the rankings are made specifically clear (#1-4). For consistency, is it worth labeling each week as "19-20", "17-18", etc., even though it is primarily a judges' decision? Or, like w/ AI8's chart for example, should we say "Top 20", "Top 18", and so forth?--Cinemaniac86^Oy_gevalt. 22:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

First of all, as to this: "And then in the finale, the rankings are made specifically clear (#1-4);" it is not true. The only time they were made specifically clear was in season 1; in every subsequent season, since Deeley never stated any vote breakdown, we can't assume that the order in which the contestants are told that they are not the winner actually matches their ranking based on America's vote. Second of all, I have issue with putting in rankings for the first five elimination rounds since the contestants' fate is decided by the judges. There is no way of knowing who really received the lowest ranking, especially since voting is done by pairs at first. Implementing ranks would apply one simplistic and misleading system to what is really multiple elimination formats throughout the course of the show. It's not as simple as in the case of Idol, which generally eliminates one contestant each week. For this show, the only ranks we can be truly sure of based on the information SYTYCD provides us are 10-9 through 6-5 and 1, which is not enough to be worth the headaches of reverting every fan's misguided attempt of filling in the remaining numbers should we implement the system. MissMJ (talk) 05:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I was going to say TL;DR (Too long; Didn't read), but I skimmed it and you make a good point. I hadn't thought about it too deeply before, but considering the circumstances, rank-less-ness seems the way to go. However, runner-ups have been commented on and made light of in the past. Nigel, on multiple occasions, has addressed both Danny Tidwell and Travis Wall as being the runner-ups of their respective seasons (together I think, probably to make light of the coincidence that they're both adopted brothers). So I added Runner-Ups to the chart only for the last non-winners standing. If that's disagreeable, we should try to find articles that more officially stipulate Melody, Travis, Danny, and Twitch as RUs. If not, then I think all Finale people should be called "runner-ups", as they all made the Finale and were not eliminated in the standard sense (meaning that they cannot compete the following week, since there is no following week. In shows like Top Chef and Project Runway when they had Final 3s, both losers were considered runner-ups =).--Cinemaniac86^Oy_gevalt. 13:45,

20 June 2009(UTC)

Spoilers

What is with this page having spoilers? I thought that was not allowed here. RiddleMe98 (talk) 07:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

They aren't, which is why they are reverted. If you see them, remove them. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 11:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, is it even POSSIBLE to spoil a LIVE show?Stjimmy61892 (talk) 02:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The "spoilers" referred to here are for the taped show, where people in the studio audience or involved with the production of SYTYCD leak pairings, styles, songs, etc., which then get posted on various blogs and forum boards. Since those postings are not reliable sources and prone to distortion and rumor, adding this information to the article in advance of the performance show airing is not good editing practice. MissMJ (talk) 05:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

To answer Stjimmy61892, the performance show isn't live. It never has been and I doubt it ever will be. It's basically because if there is an injury or a major misstep, they could redo a performance if need be. It's also how they can cue specific footage while the judges are talking about it. That's all post-production stuff. The show used to be taped on Monday but I believe it's been moved to Tuesdays this season. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 08:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that spoilers are allowed on Wikipedia. --Turian (talk) 04:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

So long as the spoiler information is reliably sourced, that is. Blogs and forums are not reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 04:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

"Safe" in the Elimination Chart

I just removed the Safes. Why? Because firstly, it looked like a Crayola box exploded. :) Secondly, process of elimination means that those not listed as bottom 3/4 or eliminated are safe. Thirdly, people listed as Bottom 3/4 are just as Safe as the others, so it doesn't tell you that much. And fourthly, it says in the weekly boxes whether someone is safe or not. So it's ugly and pointless. Our readers are smart enough to figure out who is safe from what is in the chart right now. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 12:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The orange colour itself is distracting, and as you said, "safe" is the default value for not being any other status. —C.Fred (talk) 06:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Although I still think the colors could be adjusted a little bit, the ridiculous orange Safes are pointless. –Türî∂n 08:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Colors

I went ahead and added colors to the Performance section to indicate the results more clearly. I was wanting to know how others feel about it because I am still on the fence a little. Give some feedback and we can go from there! :) –Türî∂n 07:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed because I grew to dislike them. :) ––Türî∂n 22:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Shrinking the TOC

I was thinking that the TOC should be shrunk since it is rather long as of now. I was thinking about placing {{TOClimit|limit=3}} in the article to make it more compact and to remove the massive white space. Any thoughts? –túrian^patois 13:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Elimination Chart revisited

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I've moved the Elimination chart to the bottom of the page. I'm in Australia and opened the page to check the title of a song used; the first thing I saw was who had one the series. The show is not simulcast in other countries, some of whom are weeks if not months behind so it is a massive spoiler for those people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chocolateharpist (talk • contribs) 23:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

We don't do spoilers. We did it at one point but that's been discontinued. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 00:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It is a spoiler for those outside the United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.217.49 (talk) 04:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

As soon as you find that caveat in the pages cited, let me know. We don't do spoilers. Who would open an article like that and not expect results? --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 04:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Under the spoilers guideline, there is no special treatment given to spoiler information. If it's at the top of the season 4 article, it's at the top of season 5 also. —C.Fred (talk) 15:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It is a spoiler for those viewers who do not live in the United States, of which there are millions. Those millions of viewers have not seen many of the episodes so, therefore, the information is a spoiler. I would not expect results at the top of the page if there are millions of potential readers fo the page who have not seen the episodes spoilt in the chart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.217.49 (talk) 23:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that we would really need a spoiler for EVERY television article under that criteria. You go onto WP knowing we list results. If you don't know that, you will learn quickly. We just don't do spoilers. Period. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 00:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. There are spoilers, there are no spoiler warnings. –túrian^patois 00:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

And the spoiler policy is one of the policies that users acknowledge via shrinkwrap licensing when they use Wikipedia. Caveat lector. —C.Fred (talk) 00:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep it sure is. Good job catching that. :) --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 00:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Noone is asking for spoiler warnings, just for the small section of the entry that lists the results to be moved towards the bottom of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.217.49 (talk) 05:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The winner is listed in the infobox, which belongs at the top of the article. The only reason to move that down would be spoiler protection, so no, that won't get moved. —C.Fred (talk) 03:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess I don't quite understand the sudden concern. The other 4 seasons have the charts and such just like this one. As do all 8 seasons of American Idol. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 09:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The sudden concern is that the show has taken off in countries outside the United States (they do exist, you know). As for the info box, most countries are only a few weeks behind so the problem with the elimination chart being where it is, is a concern for the entirety of the run up until the final is broadcast —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.177.121.6 (talk) 12:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

No means no. If you have a problem with it, bring it up on the policy's talk page and suggest it be changed. It won't so I suggest you just get over it. –túrian^patois 17:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Despite the fact that your attitude stinks and you are very rude, I will again address the point. I am not talking about 'spoilers' in the typical sense and I am not asking for information to be hidden or flagged as a spoiler. All I am asking is that a small section of the page is moved. I can see no valid reason for that section to be at the top of the page. It's not about spoilers, its about common courtesy to people outside the United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.217.49 (talk) 00:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

No. No. No. Think of it as rude, but you aren't even getting the point. We do not edit to fit the needs of others who might get spoiled by the information. Just WP:GETOVERIT. –túrian^patois 01:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Why does the order of presentation make such a difference in all five articles that it would need to be moved across the board? If it's only because this season hasn't aired fully outside the states, then you're talking about spoilers. —C.Fred (talk) 01:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

"We do not edit" Is this a closed club now? I was under the impression that Wikipedia was open (subject to registration and behavioural rules) to anyone who wanted to contribute to making the site better although it seems wobetide anyone who wants to do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.217.49 (talk) 05:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Try listening. It goes a long way. –túrian^patois 05:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.