Talk:Strictly Come Dancing/Archive 1

Archive 1

External links

The EBunton external link is simply to a fan site for Emma Bunton. The contributor is unregistered with no other contributions. I was under the impression that such vanity links should not be included? I removed it once but it has been put back in. Tim 11:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted this site again, if anywhere it should be on the Emma Bunton page and not here! Jamesbuc

Salsa cut

Im just wondering but on the subject of Clair and Brendan's salsa is it the first dance that has been forced to modify by the BBC? And if so is it worthy of commenting on in the article?

NoThe Boy that time forgot 20:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

No to what? To them having the first cut dance or if its worthy of comment? Jamesbuc

It Takes Two

I don't think this should be inserted into the main Dancing page. There's already a section with it Takes Two and a link on the main page why put the whole article on to this page?

Pafcool 11:47, 21 December 2006

Alan Dedicoat

There's no mention of Alan Dedicoat here - there is on the US page!

86.153.63.245 19:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Scoring history

Am I the only person who thinks that the detailed scoring history is not notable and non-encyclopedic and should be on a fan site and not here? 90.11.55.73 06:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Publishing results before results show is broadcast

I've removed the results of Week 5 as the results show is yet to be broadcast. Presumably the editor was at the show when it was recorded last night. It doesn't seem fair to any keen viewers to have the results on the page before they're widely known. --Whoosher 12:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the results should NEVER be published before they are publicly available. The result is unverifiable (except for those who attended the results show) and will spoil the results show for other viewers. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 14:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The same thing is happening in Week 7. I assume that the people still in the contest are in alphabetical order of the celebrities' first name. Oyster24 (talk) 22:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as I (and everyone else awaiting the results show tomorrow) am aware, everyone under "Week 6" are still in the contest. Anonymous users keep adding erroreous results, and I'm presently thinking of getting the page semi-protected. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 22:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

All this is a result of the decision by the BBC to show the results show a day after they come out! If they had kept to the original format, none of this would have happened.Oyster24 (talk) 08:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It is impossible to keep the result confidential if the show is pre-recorded (unless they went to the effort to record multiple results, something they are unlikely to do just for SCD). I think I'm just going to give up editing these pages after the results show is recorded. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 09:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree as well, however am still of the firm opinion that the results shouldn't be posted here until after the results show has been broadcast. It says in the guidelines under every editbox that "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." That means that "any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." As the results show hasn't been broadcast, it surely doesn't meet the verifiability criterion, therefore the information shouldn't be included on the page. That's apart from the fact that adding the results does spoil the enjoyment of the show for anybody who runs across the names of those who've been voted off.

All it needs is for those people who've attended the recording to play fair and just wait a few hours. After all, there are around 8 million people watching the programme on TV and only maybe a couple of hundred actually there - the majority should rule! Whoosher (talk) 12:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree (with verifiability), and have cited that as a reason for removing the content from pages. We may just have to contend with the fact that a minority of people will always spoil it for the majority. I was wondering if we could "pre-emptively" semi-protect the page before the results are released, until after the Sunday show, but I don't think that it would be allowed. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 12:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Arlene Phillips leaving Strictly Come Dancing?

See the Arlene Phillips talk page for this discussion

Ratings

How do we know any of the ratings are correct? Recently, a user changed the value for series 5 final from 11.x to 12.x with no explanation!

The people who fill in this section need to source it.

If this is not done soon, then I will remove the entire section, as with no source, it does not belong on Wikipedia!

Regards, Dewarw (talk) 02:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

There is an article in the Guardian (online) which gives the ratings for SCD. Have a look here http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/dec/24/tvratings.television. I don't know how to put in a link to show the reference.Oyster24 (talk) 07:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems a bit harsh to remove the whole section which has interesting facts contained in it. At least I did put in one reference.Oyster24 (talk) 06:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, please view Wiki policy about "interesting facts." Just because it is interesting, it should not necessarily be on Wiki!! I am also not convinced by that source! Anyhow, all the others are unsourced! Dewarw

I have put un-cited notices on the table. If sources are not found soon, I will remove all but the sourced figure. I am not being mean, I am simply pointing out that al those values could be made up! The editors who put them up should have sourced them! Dewarw (talk) 15:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Update

I have now removed all offending material (leaving the one sourced claim). Do not re-add unless you can source it. I have given plenty of warning for this!

Regards, Dewarw (talk) 17:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Could the anon users please stop re-adding the material. You will be blocked from editing if you continue! Dewarw (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

the sources are perfectly OK - the link is to the site of the official barb ratings. The site is constructed in a way that means that individual http links for each figure cannot be given - but it is easy to check every week cited from the page given. That is entirely sufficient. Why are you being so unreasonable? If anyone can find page identifiers then they are welcome to add them 62.64.214.9 (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Like I said on your talk page, if you know what you are doing, it isn't that difficult. However, the "Series Average" figures are still uncited (and unless you can find a reference for them, will be removed) along with the other statements in that section. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 20:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect highest scores

The highest scores are incorrect. It says that it doesnt include the christmas special, but Matt got 39 for his rumba in the christmas special and only 33 in the main show. Therefore Natasha and Colin have the highest rumba scores of 36 i believe.

Also Darren Gough got 40 in the christmas special for his quickstep, the highest in the main show was Colin Jackson with 39.

This needs to be ammended as it is completely incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.142.99.97 (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking at recent changes, the comment that the scores do not include the Christmas Special was added only a few weeks ago, without all the scores being updated to reflect this change. For the moment I have returned it to its original form, which seems to me to be more sensible since although the Christmas Special scores are typically more generous than those of the main series, the maximum scores we are debating here are only awarded occasionally and to people who have achieved a very high standard of dance. A score of 36 in the Christmas Special may not be particularly remarkable, but a score of 40 is still unusual (and in fact has only been achieved four times in four Christmas Specials, even though all together there have been seven appearance by ex or current Strictly champions on the specials).

I could see an argument for making it clearer which scores were achieved in Specials, and even for adding in the highest score from a main series to the dances affected, but it seems to me a bit unfair to exclude these scores as if they aren't valid. Gingernut1015 (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou for ammending this, the table is now correct. I agree that the christmas special scores are sometimes generous, therefore a second table that includes the highest scores excluding the christmas special ones would be great. However it would need to include the correct information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.142.99.97 (talk) 17:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to say my preference would be to leave it as it is now... in my opinion it is perfectly valid to say that the Christmas Special scores are the highest. You might as well argue that we give series two scores preference over series five, because the marking was harder. It's a subjective point, in the end they are all numbers, and surely at least part of the reason why the Christmas scores are relatively high is that in general only the best from each series participate.

I would suggest if anyone wants to make the distinction it is done within the original list, rather than making a new section of an article which is already very long, and contains all the scores for anyone who wants to look them up anyway.

For example: Quickstep: Best Darren Gough/Colin Jackson (40 in Xmas Specials), Best in main series Colin Jackson (39), Worst Diarmuid Gavin (12) Gingernut1015 (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, here are the updates of the correct scores including the highest the xmas specials and the main show. Feel free to update it, these are 100% correct.

Rumba: Best Matt Di Angelo (39 in Xmas Special), Best in main series Natasha Kaplinsky/Colin Jackson (36), Worst Fiona Phillips (13)

Waltz: Best Matt Di Angelo (40 in main series), Best Gethin Jones (40 in Xmas Special), Worst Fiona Phillips (11)

Quickstep: Best Darren Gough/Colin Jackson (40 in Xmas Special), Best in main series Colin Jackson (39), Worst Diarmuid Gavin (12)

American Smooth (performed since series three): Best Darren Gough (40 in Xmas Special), Best in main series Gethin Jones (38), Worst John Barnes (22) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.142.99.97 (talk) 14:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I highly object to the christmas specials being used for highest scores. My reasoning is thus: In the show when they count the statistics they do NOT include the Christmas Specials. For example, the highest rumba ever for a male was stated this year to be 33 for Matt Di Angelo. The show has acknowledged that the marking standards for the Christmas Specials are different, but has NOT acknowledged series 2 markings being different. The reason there are higher scores now is that series 5/6 lasted longer than series 2. The marks in comparable weeks of series 2 and 5/6 are little different. The SCD main page also makes a distinction between christmas special and main series with regards to high scores. SerenityX 15:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Strictly Come Dancing Tour

Is it worth starting a section detailing who won each show? I note that there is one on the dancing on ice page, but it doesn't appear to have many verifiable sources. There is a source for last night's winner (http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/stage/dance/article3213072.ece), but it's unlikely there would be one for every show so some of this information would either be missing or (more likely) sourced from forums etc. 172.189.139.185 (talk) 11:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I think if it is only likely that the first show will have a reliable source (aka The Times), then I don't think a record should be kept of who won each show. Forums are not reliable and so wouldn't count as a valid source. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 12:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering about this source: http://www.darrenandlilia.com/scd/scdlive.htm. There is a disclaimer on it that it isn't officially collated, as such I guess it can't be classed as a reliable source. On the other hand the compilers are professional dancers on the tour- so a pretty good source of information- and from what I know of the results from other sources it has been compiled accurately. Gingernut1015 (talk) 10:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Perfect tens

Is it necessary to list all the tens? When the section was started it was more of an event to get a ten than it is now. I wonder if it might be better just to list say the three couples who have received the most tens as a point of interest. Presumably all the scores are available in the rest of the article anyway so it's a bit repetitive as well.Gingernut1015 (talk) 18:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Also (and this is what prompted me to wonder about this in the first place), assuming the perfect ten section is here to stay would it possibly be worth adding in the perfect forty dances? As I find people are continually adding the tens from one of these dances into the perfect ten section, which then irritates me as none of the others is there.Gingernut1015 (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Best Combined Scores and Worst Individual and combined Scores by Week

I think this should have it because it is important information. You won't always want to find it out by yourself and there is a statistic section so it would be perfectly okay for it wouldn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.189.128 (talk) 16:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Number of episodes

The infobox states that there have been 55 episodies since December 2007. This does not include the result shows, should it? --Philip Stevens (talk) 21:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Tricky because since series five the results show has become more of a separate programme in its own right, whereas in the first few series it was barely a show, just an announcement. I'd be inclined to leave it at 55 but add a (plus ... results shows). I know if I glanced at the number of episodes I'd assume it meant the number of main shows.

I wouldn't fancy counting the number of results shows though- do you know how many there were? I know series one didn't have them for every episode, and I seem to recall only one of the three Christmas Specials had one.Gingernut1015 (talk) 07:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Series six

I have been removing rumours of celebrities involved in series six, as I believe they violate WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Newspapers claim every year to know which celebrities will be involved, some are right but the majority are not. Until the BBC issues a press release in September it is just speculation, and therefore not suitable for Wikipedia. Gingernut1015 (talk) 14:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Average scores section

This seems like an excessive level of detail... what about WP:NOT#STATS? Gingernut1015 (talk) 09:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the section Bluap (talk) 12:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The table grouped the average scores from the series pages, if it's alright there why not here? Also, there are several other statistics on this page - highest score, lowest score etc. - and I think comparing the average scores of all the series is just as relevant and, speaking for myself, more interesting. If there was an opening paragraph explaining the table better, it wouldn't be against WP:NOT#STATS and I feel it would enhance the page. --Hera1187 (talk) 14:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd be in favour of removing quite a bit of that statistics section as well actually. Some of the information is interesting, but it might be more appropriate on a fan site than here.Gingernut1015 (talk) 14:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Progress tables on competitor pages

A number of the individual competitors' articles have tables in them showing what dances they performed and how they scored. But there's no consistent format, and the formats I've seen are bloated with formatting markup and, in some cases, excessive capitalisation.

I've improved Christine Bleakley's table on this basis, and think that this would be a good style to adopt for all of them. A few points I'm not sure about:

• Should the column headings refer to the judges by full name, just first name or just surname?
• Should the unscored group dances be listed at all?

Comments please! -- Smjg (talk) 13:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think it is unnecessary duplication of data already contained in the relevant series articles (or here if that article doesn't exist) - I think the data should be removed and a link placed to here/series page as applicable. ~~ [ジャム]^[talk] 17:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Where do the series articles give individual judges' scores? -- Smjg (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

There used to be a weekly scores page before they were deleted by AfD. WP:NOT#STATS applies here - the addition of the judge's scores is excessive statistics that we don't need. ~~ [ジャム]^[talk] 20:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

BARB redesign

Just a note: The Broadcasters' Audience Research Board have recently redesigned their website and the "&weeker=####" URL extension in this article's references no longer works. Fortunately, this is one of only four articles that uses the extension but someone will need to figure out how to fix this so the references work properly. Bradley0110 (talk) 18:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. If I get chance, I'll look into fixing the references later tonight. ~~ [ジャム]^[talk] 18:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Individual pages For Series 1-3

Considering that Series 4 onwards all have individual pages with links to this page, would anyone be interested in helping make pages for the first three series?

I'd certainly give it a go, but I have very little knowledge of making Wikipedia pages - though a lot of it could probably be taken from the later layouts and ammended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.203.39.149 (talk) 17:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

If you want to go ahead and create the pages, then that would be good. Since anonymous users can't create pages, I'll go ahead and create them (with a redirect back to this page for the time being) then you can go ahead and add the content. It shouldn't be too difficult to just duplicate the content on the series 6 page, then pull in the relevant series information from this page. ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 17:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Ooh, sorry, I didnt realise that i wasnt signed in when I added that! I do have an account, though it is a fairly new one! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyleofark (talk • contribs) 20:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, no worries. I've created those pages anyway so feel free to start putting stuff into them. ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 20:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• Strictly Come Dancing (Series 1)
• Strictly Come Dancing (Series 2)
• Strictly Come Dancing (Series 3)

~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 20:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Controversy article (series 6)

I think that there should be a controversy article for series six but i am not sure whether it should go on the main page or the series six page (alot of controversies this year, including TOM CHAMBERS winning. Does anyone have any comments? 86.148.96.77 (talk) 23:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Specials

In the specials section, Let's Dance for Comic Relief should be mentioned and linked to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe that Let's Dance for Comic Relief meets the criteria for a special. --Cooly123 (talk) 16:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Be bold and link it then. ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 18:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

For some reason it has been removed, it is a BBC show similar to the original shows concepy please place it back in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 (talk • contribs) 01:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Highest/Lowest performances

People have been changing this again, and now it is inconsistent. Either we are just talking about main show scores, in which case Gethin's 40 Waltz shouldn't be included as it was at Christmas, or we are including Christmas and there are some scores missing.

Personally I am in favour of recognising the Christmas scores- the marking overall may be generous but 40s themselves are rare- we have actually only seen four 40s in five specials- achieved by a winner, a runner up and a semi-finalist of the main series. Comparatively the marking in the finals is more generous, with eight 40s over six finals.

I wonder about a table with three columns: Highest/ Highest excluding Christmas Specials/ Lowest... that way people can take the set they find personally relevant.

If not, it should at least be made clear that the table does not include Christmas results. Gingernut1015 (talk) 12:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

As no-one has replied, I have added the two xmas scores that were missing to make it consistent at least. If they shouldn't be there, neither should Gethin Jones (40) or Alesha Dixon (39) be there for Waltz or VW respectively. Gingernut1015 (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Dancing On Wheels?

I just saw this press release from the BBC for a new dance series on BBC3 called "Dancing on Wheels". I was curious if this should get its own page or should be classified as a special on this page due to the connections with Strictly. http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2009/05_may/28/dancing.shtml Thanks! 70.31.220.28 (talk) 16:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)samusek2

Series 7

It's coming up and celebrities are being speculated. (Sharon Osbourne, Joe Calzaghe, Kara Tointon) Should we add a page for this? 08:16, 10 June 2009

Operative word here being speculated. Until there is a sizeable amount of concrete, sourced fact, it does not get an article. LizzieHarrison 17:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Now that the celebrity names have been announced, we should start creating it's own article like previous years MSalmon (talk) 12:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Reduce Trivia and Stats

There is a large amount of stats in this article which were once notable when they were first achieved but are now not notable in the current amount. Also, the 'Specials@ section needs to be trimmed. Wikipedia is not a a excessive listing of statistics. I believe the best course of action is to remove the statistics and leave short summaries of the most notable feats in their place

eg Change

• On eight occasions a perfect 40 out of 40 has been awarded inside the main series, with series six being the only series to have more than one perfect forty and Lisa Snowdon holding the record for most perfect scores with three.
  • 40/40: Jill Halfpenny and Darren Bennett; Jive; 11/12/2004 (Series 2 Final)
  • 40/40: Mark Ramprakash and Karen Hardy; Salsa; 23/12/2006 (Series 4 Final)
  • 40/40: Matt Di Angelo and Flavia Cacace; Waltz; 15/12/2007 (Series 5 Semi-Final)
  • 40/40: Rachel Stevens and Vincent Simone; Foxtrot; 22/11/2008 (Series 6 Week 10)
  • 40/40: Lisa Snowdon and Brendan Cole; Quickstep; 13/12/2008 (Series 6 Semi-Final)
  • 40/40: Rachel Stevens and Vincent Simone; Foxtrot; 20/12/2008 (Series 6 Final)
  • 40/40: Lisa Snowdon and Brendan Cole; Foxtrot; 20/12/2008 (Series 6 Final)
  • 40/40: Lisa Snowdon and Brendan Cole; Cha Cha Cha; 20/12/2008 (Series 6 Final)

to

On eight occasions a perfect 40 out of 40 has been awarded inside the main series, with series six being the only series to have more than one perfect forty within including Lisa Snowdon who holds the record for most perfect scores with three in one series. All others only recieved one, usually in the semi-final or final.

This transforms the lists into readable prose rather than a list of bullet points that are hard to negotiate. LizzieHarrison 17:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, especially the 'perfect tens' section, which I think should be removed completely. There are so many it's barely notable.

I'm less sure about the Specials section, as none of the entries are overly long, and the information isn't on any other page. Unless the Christmas Specials sections were combined to just a table giving the winner and runner up on each occasion. The other specials, e.g African Dancing are more interesting as they were significantly different from the main show. Gingernut1015 (talk) 19:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

2009

No mention of the upcoming Christmas special.--Cooly123 03:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 (talk • contribs)

Scores Out of 50 versus Scores out of 40

In regards to the highest/lowest score chart, now that scores are out of 50, we need to determine how to relate these to the prior scores out of 40. For example, it is clear that Ali Bastian's American Smooth score of 50 (that is, 10 from five of five judges) is higher than Gethin Jones' score of 38 (at best, 10 from only three of four judges). Where it's fuzzier is in cases where the score is greater than other scores only by virtue of the existence of the fifth judge (for example, 42 for Ali Bastian's tango versus 39 for Rachel Stevens' tango). I see two courses of action open to us: -Divide scores out of 40 by 4 and scores out of 50 by 5 to calculate a "score per judge" for each performance; the actual score with the highest "score per judge" is listed in the charts -Disregard the fifth judge's (Darcey Bussell's) scores, thus making the scores out of 50 scores out of 40 The first course of action is, to my mind, obviously preferrable, and I will update the charts in that fashion. However, what do you all think? We should form a consensus and be sure the charts reflect it. --Jeopardyfish (talk) 21:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Taking the weighted average is definitely preferable, as you say. Happy‑melon 23:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Professional dancers picture

This picture is a brilliant illustration, but it shows Vincent and Rachel as winning series 6, when Camilla and Tom did. I'd correct it, but I am no good with graphics. If the creator of this masterpiece is reading, could you correct it - maybe when you update the results of series 7? Or someone equally skilled with a graphics editor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.6.63 (talk) 00:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, I've corrected the timeline. I agree it's one of the more difficult bits of wikimarkup to get one's head around. Happy‑melon 23:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The table shouldn't be like that as it is too difficult to read MSalmon (talk) 09:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The timeline text is, on most browsers and screens, larger than the default article text. It conveys graphically not only the evolution of the professional dance team, but how far they progressed through each series. How, exactly, is it "difficult to read"? Happy‑melon 23:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggested improvements to the page

A number of possible improvements to this page - would appreciate comments

• Since the individual series results are effectively summarised in the big 'main series results' table higher up on the page + also replicated on the individual pages, couldn't we delete them? Then each series would have just a quick, pithy paragraph on this main page. (now done)
• Move the Christmas Special pages onto another page since there are now 6 of them. (now done)
• Dances section: As Strictly has now re-arranged the order of the dances multiple times, this section is very confusing and pointless. Perhaps it should just say when the dances were added to the series. This could be done in a single sentence rather than this bullet list. (now done)
• Statistics section: These haven't been updated fully for Series 7. As already mentioned in similar discussions above, details of 10's awarded are becoming less and less important as the show continues. I would just remove this section, possibly moving the last line to Series 6's page.Kvg20 (talk) 23:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

All sounds good to me. Stuff that's split to another page should have a decent paragraph summarising it, not just a single sentence, per WP:SUMMARY. Overall, this article suffers from the usual Strictly problem of far too many stats and nowhere near enough sourced prose. But I agree with all your suggestions. Happy‑melon 10:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Something about the days and times the show airs should be included within each series own page. The show can start at 6:45, 7:00 or even later.--Cooly123 17:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

what does the title mean?

I understand that it is about dancing. What does "strictly" mean in this context? That it is *only* dancing? And what does "come" mean? That everybody comes there to dance??? --91.115.57.5 (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• I believe that it is a combination of the title of the old show "Come Dancing" with the film title "Strictly Ballroom" (to make it sound sexier and more modern). Bluap (talk) 02:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Homosexual Kiss Incident

Gavin Henson shocked judge Bruno Tonioli by running out of his routine to plant a kiss on the him. The show also showcased a bit of his rugby team’s locker room action. The Telegraph reports that many weren’t happy with the display: “Online messageboards were filled with complaints. ‘Thought Gavin’s performance was good tonight but I think everyone needs to remember it’s a family show and having to explain that awful kiss to children does get awkward,’ said one.” [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.246.237 (talk) 05:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Production changes

just wondering if we should update the article to respond to the news that Dermot O' leary has been chosen to replace the Rt Hon. Bruce Forsyth as host for this upcoming series? Things like this need to be updated quickly because things tan go wrong. and since Gavin Hensons' homosexual encounter with head judge Bruno Tolioni, Gary Barlow has been brought in with father-in-law Louis Walsh to add renewed vigour and youth to the panel, this needs to be addressed in the article pro quo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwweeeccc (talk • contribs) 15:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this and Dermot will be presenting the X Factor Live Shows at the same time so how can he be in two places at once? --MSalmon (talk) 17:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

'Professional dancers and their partners' vs 'Professional Dancers'

Why do we have two tables which are very similar to each other? Surely both aren't needed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by StigOfTheKrump (talk • contribs) 11:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Nice to see that this was ignored... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.35.232 (talk) 21:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Highest and lowest scoring dances

Stop removing the totals that include Darcey Bussell's scoring - subtracting her scores from the total is far more accurate. It's simply inaccurate to say that Harry Judd's Charleston (which scored 39, incidentally, not 40) was, according to the judges, a better dance than Chris Hollins' Charleston, which scored maximum marks. Cwmxii (talk) 17:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I have changed it to include all scores including the ones out of 50 --MSalmon (talk) 18:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Jennifer and Darcey

Jennifer and Darcey, in my opinion, should not be listed in the infobox as they are not regular judges, they were announced as just guest judges and because they are mentioned later on in the article they shouldn't need to be mentioned as a main judge in the infobox. JackJackUK (talk) 19:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Series 11

Should we set up an article for series 11. Dancing With the Stars has one for season 17, which starts at a similar time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.29.231 (talk) 15:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Professional dancer and their partners

In the "Professional dancer and their partners" chart, is it really necessary to display the symbol "N/A" where a dancer has not participated in a series. To me it looks a little messy and I think a blank grey box would look more effective. The other thing I personally dislike about the table is when some of the rows are fatter than the others. Can't we just adjust the text size of some of the longer celebrity names, such as Natasha Kaplinsky, Mark Ramprakash, and Denise Van Outen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mybrainistotallymassive (talk • contribs) 15:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Template:Strictly Come Dancing

I recently made a change to the navigation template for this group of articles, changing "professional winners" to "professionals", listing all those with articles who have appeared in any series of SCD (here's how it looks). I feel this is a good change because, unlike the celebrity participants, the professionals can appear in multiple series and can win multiple times. Anton du Beke has never won but has appeared in every series, so he is as much a part of the programme as Bruce Forsythe or Len Goodman, just like Hazel Newberry is as much a part of it as Jennifer Grey. Forsythe, Goodman and Grey appear in the template, so why should du Beke and Newberry be excluded? Additionally, a professional could win who does not have a Wikipedia article. Also, it's the same format as Template:Dancing on Ice, which has been accepted. It surely makes more sense to include all professionals than to limit it to just those who have won. However, one Mybrainistotallymassive (talk · contribs) insists on reverting me without giving any reason and insisting that the template should "NOT CHANGE WITHOUT CONSULTATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" This user may not realise what navigation templates are for, or that one should not revert due to no consensus. But anyway, as requested, here's a discussion. –anemoneprojectors– 13:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

No objections after nearly 2 weeks so I re-implemented this. –anemoneprojectors– 21:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry I didn't object to this earlier, but I personally disagree. I agree that some of the more remembered professionals should be included, but I think there definately should be the 11 individual professional winners listed underneath the celebrity winners, as I think it's an important factor, and it is displayed this way on all the other Dancing With the Stars pages. My solution would be to revert the "Professional Winners" category to it's original state, but this time adding a new row - something like "other notable professionals" or something shorter. Here we could list Anton Du Beke and Brendan Cole as they have been in every series, Hazel Newberry as she has the lowest average score, and is the only professional to only ever dance once, and maybe the likes of Lowe and Murillo etc. as they have featured in more than one version. I hope you agree with my compromise, and I apologise for my earlier unprofessionalism and recognise it was not the best way to handle it, although I am not logged in at the moment. -Mybrainistotallymassive — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.90.206.139 (talk) 01:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

In fact we could just have Professional winners, then all the other professionals in two different lists Mybrainistotallymassive (talk) 16:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Having the winners, and then all the non-winning professionals separate, is an acceptable compromise for me, as long as none of the names are removed (which is currently the case, thank you!). –anemoneprojectors– 17:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Guest dancers

Is there any way we can list the guest dancers? Last night the show exhibition dancers are not mentioned and I would really like to know who they were. There were also a couple 2 or 3 years ago who were from South Africa but I can't see them mentioned as guests on any series although Flawless are mentioned by name. The magician Dynamo is not mentioned either. It would be great if, for completeness, all this could be recorded here too. Epayneuk (talk) 15:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Go ahead, good idea Mybrainistotallymassive (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Joint Last Place

It has come to my attention that someone has reverted a change I made to the "Professionals dancers and their partners" section. You may have noticed that I changed the orange colour box label from "first elimination of the series" to "first elimination, or joint first elimination of the series". This affects the series 4-7 columns of the table, and means Mica Paris, Stephanie Beacham, Gillian Taylforth, and Richard Dunwoody will all be orange. They are,(in search of a better phrase), all losers. They all went out on their first dance, as did the "original" losers that are currently orange. Surely the first and second losers should both be coloured orange? Mybrainistotallymassive (talk) 23:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Highest and lowest scoring performances by dance

I see that the table does not include any scores for the Swing-a-thon and Waltz-a-thon and has a note which says: "The Swing Marathon and Group Viennese Waltz have also been omitted as they were not scored on the usual scale." Surely, for consistency, this convention should be reflected in the tables at all individual series articles as well? I'd suggest that including entries for scores out of 6 is unnecessary and confusing. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. MadGuy7023 (talk) 18:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

(As you may have noticed, I am facing a little difficulty with this point at Talk:Strictly Come Dancing (series 12). Any suggestions gratefully received there. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC))

Would it be worth adding the Fusion, Lindyhop and Rock'n'Roll styles to the table? With last years series adding new dances that were only danced two or three times, is information omitted by not mentioning that those dances have featured as competitive dances? Or perhaps we could add a separate table featuring dances that made few appearances (such as Rock'N'Roll) or an a different scoring scheme (such as the "a-thon" dances, and Lindyhop)? Wp27 (talk) 21:42, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Professional dancers and their partners

The table under Professional dancers and their partners should not use the same color for currently competing couples and pros who had to withdraw due to injury. I have repeatedly tried to fix this only to have my revisions undone. I have no preference for what color we use, but I do think the injured pros should have a distinct color. Either that, or I would recommend eliminate color coding on the table.Knope7 (talk) 20:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Can we please reach some sort of consensus about adding what projects a celebrity is known for to the chart? I appreciate someone is putting in a lot of work but 1) it clutters the chart 2) we have enough trouble deciding what a celebrity is most known for on the season pages, adding this information to the main article is just going to cause more confusion. I think hyperlinking the celebrities page is enough. If someone wants to know more, they can follow the hyperlink.Knope7 (talk) 03:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Controversies section

Is the recent 'fix' row - which gained significant media/tabloid attention and resulted in Len going on It Takes Two to explain his fellow judges' decisions, the live producer releasing unedited footage of Peter's standing ovation and a change to the dance-off voting to avoid similar controversies in future - notable enough to put in the (fairly empty) controversies section? --StigOfTheKrump (talk) 20:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

1. 25/11/2015- Peter Andre Dismisses Jamelia's show 'Fix' accusations.
2. 22/11/2015- Ola Jordan ends her contract after claiming “judges over-marked and under-marked” contestants. uses the judges
3. 2015/11/24/ Jamelia accuses the judges of favoring Peter Andre.
4. 20/12/2015- Strictly Come Dancing bosses had to face more 'fix' claims after 'judjes favourite' Kellie Bright loses to the 'public favourite, Jay McGuiness, when the former EastEnders actress failed to win despite being awarded perfect tens by the judges.
5. 26/11/2015 Strictly Come Dancing 2015 ref, Len Goodman, hit back at the claims that the show is a fixed event and said "Producers never interfere with our integrity," to the British media.
6. 5/12/2015 Kristina Rihanoff denies the mounting Strictly Come Dancing "fix" claims.
7. 25/11/2015 Jamelia suggests Peter Andre's standing ovation was 'faked' by producers. She then told the British media- 'The honest thing is, he didn’t get that reaction'.
8. 14/12/2015-2010 Strictly Come Dancing winner Kara Tointon said “I was single and they put me with the single guy! I was so angry.” because she is clincly phobic towards men.
9. 22/12/2015 Aliona Vilani has announced she is leaving the BBC One show for keeps.
10. September 2012 Denise van Outen was criticised over her participation in the competition by the press and fans because of the advantage of having had previous and undeclaired stage experience.

92.16.208.23 (talk) 02:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

References

These are all associated with Series 13? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:32, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Strictly Come Dancing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100222040629/http://www.katyavirshilas.com:80/2009/10/dirty-dancing/ to http://www.katyavirshilas.com/2009/10/dirty-dancing/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080929061605/http://www.bbc.co.uk:80/strictlycomedancing/vote/ to http://www.bbc.co.uk/strictlycomedancing/vote/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140807021559/http://www.bbc.co.uk:80/showsandtours/shows/strictly_premiereshow_3sept14 to http://www.bbc.co.uk/showsandtours/shows/strictly_premiereshow_3sept14
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090309055433/http://www.strictlycomedancinglive.co.uk:80/default.asp?contentID=614 to http://www.strictlycomedancinglive.co.uk/default.asp?contentID=614

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Strictly Come Dancing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100221031730/http://www.katyavirshilas.com:80/2009/11/meet-my-new-pro-klaus-kongsdal/ to http://www.katyavirshilas.com/2009/11/meet-my-new-pro-klaus-kongsdal/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100914122725/http://www.strictlycomedancingprotour.com:80/default.asp?contentID=664 to http://www.strictlycomedancingprotour.com/default.asp?contentID=664

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Partnerships of professional dancers

Early in Strictly's history, professionals partnerships for the pro numbers were relatively consistent. They are no longer so consistent. I have several issues with repeated attempts to add a list of current professional partnerships to the article. These lists are usually all current pros from the series paired off. Here are the problems with those lists 1) They are inaccurate. Pro partnerships will be mixed up from week to week. Some pros have another pro they tend to dance with more often, but the lists tend not to be accurate as a whole. 2) They are unsourced. There is no source provided to verify that the pairings are accurate. 3) They are not significant enough to warrant inclusion in the article. The pro partnerships tend not to be written about by reliable sources unless it is in the context of outside events or relationships. It also does not seem relevant to an article about the entire series of Strictly to include which pros danced with each other on a given week. In my opinion, this information is better suited for a fan page or forum.

I welcome other views on this issue. I hope that we can reach some sort of consensus about what should be included and what sources must support the inclusion. Knope7 (talk) 00:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Strictly Live Tour

Given how huge this article is, should we spin off the Strictly Live Tour section into a separate article? I think the tours taken together, as something that has now been running for years, would likely be notable enough for its own article. That would also allow us to keep maybe a quick paragraph here explaining the annual tour while eliminating many lists and charts from this article. Another option is to eliminate the tables with tour winners statistics. As much as I'm sure some fans like those statistics, they are not sourced and I'm not sure any reliable source keeps track of those statistics. Knope7 (talk) 04:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2017

The proffesionals averages. New ones below:

AJ - 33.14 Aljaž - 32.07 Amy - 16.00 Anton - 23.66 Brendan - 24.91 Dianne - 17.00 Giovanni - 32.96 Gorka - 26.75 Jannette - 29.50 Karen - 25.84 Katya - 23.18 Kevin - 34.48 Nadiya - 27.00 Oti - 33.25 Pasha - 31.37 2A02:C7D:B5CE:ED00:89E9:547F:760F:F260 (talk) 07:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 12:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2017

2016 competition was won by Ore Oduba and Joanne Clifton, not Danny Mac and Oti Mabuse. Also Kevin Clifton is the professional, not the celebrity, and Loiuse Redknapp is the celebrity, not the professional 86.171.117.240 (talk) 20:22, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Done Nihlus 20:30, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Judging of the final

How does this work? I can't see anything in the text about it. Is it by the judges, by public vote, or a combination of the two? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.225.189 (talk) 00:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Highest scorers

Please add Alexandra Burke and Debbie McGee to the highest scoring female celebrities section Fan420 (talk) 00:31, 17 December 2017 (UTC)