Talk:Strictly Come Dancing series 7

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Strictly Come Dancing series 7 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

BBC Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tasks for WikiProject BBC:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Improve BBC, BBC News (TV channel) and BBC News to Good Article status following previous reviews, create BBC Computer Literacy Project (in light of forthcoming 30th anniversary)
Cleanup : Chucklevision - references and general clean-up, Pebble Mill Studios - over-detailed and long, BBC World Service Television - unreferenced and confusing
Copyedit : BBC News, Broadcasting House
Expand : Top 20 start-class BBC articles with most importance: BBC Japan, BBC World Service Television, BBC Lifestyle, BBC Two Northern Ireland
NPOV : Criticism of the BBC (See comments)
Stubs : Stub-Class BBC articles
Other : *Restructure the category
- Add infoboxes to the BBC articles without infoboxes
- Add free-use images to biographical articles where possible
- Add references to Goa Mix (see assessment) and Coat of arms of the BBC
- Return Dad's Army to a Good article. (See comments)
- Reassess BBC following improvements to article.

Television: British Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the British television task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Dance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dance, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Dance and Dance-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DanceWikipedia:WikiProject DanceTemplate:WikiProject DanceDance articles

WikiProject Dance To-do list:

To nominate at WP:FAC:
To improve to Featured standard:
To nominate as a Good article:
To expand: 18th century dance - 20th century ballet - Bolero - Choreography on Broadway - Dance education - English ballet - Indian classical dance - Italian ballet - List of dance companies - Meg Stuart - Opera ballet - Sasha Waltz - Scotch reel - Set dance - Physically integrated dance
To cleanup: Contra dance - Salsa (dance) - Dandiya - Lead and follow
To unbias:
To check for copyvios:
To merge: List of dancers and List of dance personalities‎ as per AfD discussion
Substubs needing expansion: see /substubs
To destub: Amir Hossain Babu - Canada Dance Festival - Dance etiquette - Flash dance - more
Needing references: Chorus line - specifically verifying that each girl actually started out as a chorine
To create: Broadway dance - Country Western Dance International - Dance and cinema - Dance and society - German folk dancing - Latin swing - Post-structuralist ballet - Push (dance) - Salon dance - Shuffle dance - Swing boogie - World Dance Alliance - Xavier Le Roy - more
Wanted Pics/Graphics: Category:Dance articles needing images

Infobox

How do I change the infobox to say Broadcast from 18 September 2009-present, like X Factor Series 6 MSalmon (talk) 14:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To say '18 September 2009-present' would be incorrect until 18 September 2009 has been. Perhaps until the series has started the air date should be left blank. Then when the series has begun it should say '18 September 2009-present'. --Philip Stevens (talk) 15:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will remove the start date otherwise it looks like the series has already taken place MSalmon (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone doing the results of day one today??

Thanks

TheDoctorWiki

Updated page MSalmon (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Low score notation

It's either RED BOLD in the key and table or RED Italics in BOTH. But not one of each. Now RED BOLD happens to be in the key and also reads better in the table so can we agree this please? Leaky Caldron 20:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity Guests update

Can someone please list the songs the musical guests had performed on their respected episode, much like season 6 has.--Cooly123 01:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 (talk • contribs)

Tens Awarded

Shouldn't we state the tens that have been awarded so that people can easily see who received the most, especially because Ricky receeived the first ten but also got an eight so only 36, this may confuse others who think it was 4 nine's. Mischem6 (talk) 19:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The article should not be a random collection of charts and lists; the number we have is already excessive. We are an encyclopedia: articles should be well-written prose, interspersed with relevant media such as tables. Each section should contain relevant but singular information (such as tens) in prose form, and that content should be supported by the tables. It is easy to throw data into the article in tabular form. It is much harder to add it as coherent and eloquent prose. It's especially hard when the article has absolutely nothing to build on. But that is how it should be done, even if it is difficult to know where to start. The couples table is an ideal candidate to be converted into prose: there is several paragraphs of good content to be had there. The more this article looks like an article, and the less like a melange of charts and graphs, the better. Happy‑melon 00:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pam Anderson

She will don her famous bikini and dance to beach boys songs on an upcoming episode to increase ratinga yet I cant find an article to source this.--Cooly123 00:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 (talk • contribs)

Group Mambo vs Michael Jackson Tribute

A "Michael Jackson Tribute" is not a ballroom or Latin American dance, in either the international or American syllabi. Is there any reason, therefore, why the week 2 dance should be listed as such? Yes, it was danced to an MJ song; does that make Ricky & Erin's dance in week 3 a Queen Tribute? The dance was a Mambo, it was danced as a group. Ergo it is a Group Mambo. Is there any reason why it should be listed otherwise? Happy‑melon 13:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be mentioned somewhere in the article that Week 2's group dance wasa a Michael Jackson Tribute MSalmon (talk) 13:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was it a tribute? Do we have a source that says it was a tribute? Or are we just synthesising that an MJ song was played, and that MJ is now dead? If there is such a source, then yes, I agree it should be mentioned. In one of the currently-nonexistent bodies of prose... Happy‑melon 14:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-wise referencing

To finish the comment I was putting in my edit summary (but it was too long); I was going to say: "references should be as precise as possible, and they should be provided where material is likely to be challenged. It is necessary to reference the "guide to dances" section with the couples list; there is nothing to be lost (WP:PAPER etc) from using these references in the scorecard as well".

Essentially, there is no such thing as a "redundant ref". Especially for an article that is as poorly-referenced as this one, the more, the merrier. Happy‑melon 14:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New dances in alphabetical order

Can anyone do this? I tried but I just ruined the chart. 78.146.21.219 (talk) 12:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done and I have made a few adjustments to the table MSalmon (talk) 12:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Darcey's vote

Will Darcey be voting for the last three weeks of the competition, if she does then they will not need Len's vote to break a tie as there are 5 judges? MSalmon (talk) 19:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Highest and lowest scores =

I think that it needs to be recognised that some of these scores are now with 5 judges so will obviously be higher than those with 4. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.201.165 (talk) 01:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest putting as the highest score the highest average score (so 45 from five judges counts as the same as 36 from four), and for ones which are out of fifty, note then as something like 45/50. 86.26.1.88 (talk) 15:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would it not lead to better results to simply mark the scores from all 5 judges, or to record the marks from the weeks were 5 judges were present at 80% of their true value to both make the scores comparable and represent the views of all 5 judges - rather than simply discounting one of them? Jakerin (talk) 00:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Far too many tables

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. See Policy: WP:NOT#STATS

Excessive listing of statistics. Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory. The latest table, averages, also contravenes wp:synth Leaky Caldron 19:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Leaky_caldron":

I've just read up on Wikipedia's 'no original research' policy and can see where you're coming from about calculations being in breach of this. I have a few thoughts though:

i) It's not quite unsourced: 'Darceys points' are from the show and still on BBC iPlayer so (at the moment at least) they are verifiable.
ii) I was trying to make the pages consistent since there's an averages chart on each Strictly series page. I would have thought the point of the averages tables was to compare between series or the order the contestants leave the show which you can't do with some scores out of 50.
iii) If you're going to take the 'no original research' policy by the book then surely we should delete all the averages tables on all Strictly series pages since the show never makes any reference to them.

Just thoughts, would be interested in your comments. Kvg20 (talk) 20:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I would think that other series' tables are also deleted. It adds little useful information, breaches wp:not#stats and is largely unsourced. Leaky Caldron 20:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Kvg20 (talk) 21:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't agree that a simple average, like the one shown down the right-hand-side of the score table in the series 7 article, contravenes WP:SYNTH; the laws of elementary mathematics are a sufficiently reliable source to permit such an analysis. However, I agree fully that the articles are all horribly over-laden with tables and statistics, and that adding more is not a good way to proceed. I've been trying to consolidate as much information as possible into as few tables as possible, to reduce this effect: I'd say the "highest and lowest scoring performances" table is next up for the chop, given the way the data is now included in the "dances" table (albeit a little difficult to cross-reference). Happy‑melon 21:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I accept the existing average info. is sufficient. Totally agree about the H&L table, its not needed. Leaky Caldron 21:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because the cross referencing between the 'dances' table and the 'scores' table is hard, I like the 'highest/lowest scores' table, especially since Tess frequently refers to these types of scores on the show. However, I think the 'dance-off' table is completely useless, especially as it only appears in series 6&7.Kvg20 (talk) 22:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, Leaky Caldron, but I can't agree with the original premise ("far too many"). What some may consider to be unnecessary may well be viewed by someone else as exactly the information they were looking for. For example, there's only a few posts on this subject and already we're finding it difficult to agree as to what is, and what isn't necessary. I'm all for keeping things neat and concise but if we're getting rid of things that people come looking for - that's going a stage too far IMO.

There are 6 tables on the page and as far as I can see, all deliver information that people might be looking for. It is possible to lose tables by amalgamating the information posted in several tables into one super-sized table but IMO that would make it extremely difficult to read.

What about the option of having a completely separate page for statistics linked back to the main page? That would leave just one table - the competitors - on the original page.

(btw - just in case you're all thinking that I'd include everything, I think the "professional couples" section is completely unnecessary) David T Tokyo (talk) 06:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tables should not be unsourced or derivative. The "averages" table was both unsourced and derived. The other unsourced tables should be reviewed. The article is still clearly failing WP:NOT#STATS. For example, the "highest and lowest" is simply unsourced, derivative duplication. Leaky Caldron 10:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Leaky Cauldron: The essence of WP:SYNTH is that derived statements have just as high a standard of verifiability as base statements; "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if A, B and C meet the standards of WP:V/WP:RS/WP:CITE. That does not mean that C must be sourced even if it is a statement that would pass as axiomatic otherwise. In the case that "A" is "Smith danced the samba on day X and scored 10 points", and "B" is "Jones danced the samba on day Y and scored 15 points", then synthesising that Jones had a higher score than Smith requires nothing more than elementary mathematics. We do not need CNN or a broadsheet newspaper to tell us that 15 > 10; that meets the level of verifiability required for an article statement without needing to be cited to a primary source; the laws of mathematics are sufficient. In short, SYNTH does not require that every synthesis be directly sourced, only that the synthesis must meet its own standards of Verifiability. So in the highest/lowest example, there is no problem with SYNTH or sourcing there, because the data is the same as the "dances" and "scores" tables, just presented in a different way. My problem with it is that, as you say, it is complete duplication.

@David T Tokyo: We certainly shouldn't be removing information. However, much of what was or still is presented in table or list form should instead be sourced prose. The "professionals" section, for instance; that data might be relevant, but it shouldn't be presented in list form. The tables shouldn't be dumped off onto another page, that just ignores the problem. Happy‑melon 11:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've removed the professional list because it is completely unsourced and not even accurate. Many of the dances performed by the pro's involved frequent changes of partner throughout the routine and it made no mention of the use of the non-regular showcase/specialist dancers used during the series. I do not dispute most of your case about synth., but the article is still suffering from the blantent policy breach relating to WP:NOT#STATS which my recent changes have begun to improve. Leaky Caldron 11:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree with NOTSTATS. What it needs at this stage is more prose. Happy‑melon 11:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Average Table

Hi, I was just wondering if we should include Darcey's scores from the Quarter Finals onward but remove the group Viennese Waltz? --MSalmon (talk) 11:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFC impacting this page

Hey! I've recently opened an RFC regarding some of the colours used in the scoring chart for this and several other articles. You can find the discussion here - please feel free to share your thoughts. Thanks! Remagoxer ^(talk) 01:35, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]