Talk:Strictly Come Dancing series 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

17 pros[edit]

I do think it needs to be mentioned that there are currently more pros on the roster than celebrities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.182.169 (talk) 20:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know that is what I thought as well but it means that two may miss out on a partner --MSalmon (talk) 20:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have a Twitter, and got tweets from Natalie Lowe and Kevin Clifton confirming that 2 of the dancers (not yet specified), previously announced as professionals, will be demoted to only appearing in group routines and other background areas. In my opinion, that is a jumbled mess of a way to announce the pros. I was really looking forward to the entire pro line-up and now 2 will just be dropped like a ton of bricks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.182.169 (talk) 13:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity Professions[edit]

Instead of using the subjective "known for" column for each celebrity, why not use the "profession" listed on their official Strictly bio found here? I am suggesting this here in an effort to reach consensus for making any changes. Knope7 (talk) 20:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lesley Joseph[edit]

I noticed her known for column is Stage & screen actress, however she's best known for appearing in Birds of a Feather, this was similar to Kellie Bright last year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:8AA4:5600:A55C:E5FF:5CA6:1B93 (talk) 19:39, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my suggestion in the previous section. Knope7 (talk) 03:42, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert/Judge Rinder[edit]

His [bio on the Strictly website] has him down as Judge Rinder, so it seems that's how he'll be referred to on the show - I don't think there's any precedent for this, so should we go with how he's referred to on the show and have him listed in the article as Judge Rinder rather than Robert? Cwmxii (talk) 19:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be in agreement to refer to him as he is stated on the website and now in live shows, he is referred to as "JUDGE RINDER" so this article needs to reflect that. Superdry19 (talk) 01:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How about Robert "Judge" Rinder? That allows readers to see both names. Knope7 (talk) 17:31, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They announced him as Judge Rinder on the first live show so that is what needs to be used --MSalmon (talk) 21:09, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Robert seems to be a non-word from here on in. Although (curiously) Rinder seems to rhyme with Tinder not Grinder. Mercy! that Cha-Cha-Cha was on fire!! Just shows what two years dressing up on ITV can do to a man. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As he is known as and classed Judge Rinder on the titles and in the live shows that name needs to be used from now on, all mention of the name "Robert" needs removing from the page immediately, I will do it but can no-one revert it please. Superdry19 (talk) 23:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Full lists of pairings[edit]

Both Radio Times and Telly Mix have full lists of the pairings. If you are adding pairings to pages, please provide a source. The Telegraph also has some of the pairings along with some more background/commentary. Knope7 (talk) 19:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi Protection?[edit]

Can someone put the page on Semi protection for the course of the series. The dance chart gets so vandalised at this time between the launch show and the dance list for Week 1. NaThang0P (talk) 10:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please remove the semi protection for the course of the series? I wanted to add the TV ratings for the launch show but I am blocked from doing so. Wikipedia is a site for all to freely edit, not the property of some elite who believe they 'own' the site and it's content. 103.10.23.252 (talk) 00:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good news! Wikipedia accounts are free and anyone can create one, not just "elites." You just need to come up with a user name and a password. If you do not want to do that, you can request someone else add the content for you. If you leave a message on this page with the information you want added and a reliable source, another editor can add it, assuming it's appropriate for the article. Knope7 (talk) 22:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to semi-protect it you need to update it to the second. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacktheladisgood (talk • contribs) 20:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You Don't Fucking have the right to semi protect

Wiki elites have the right to do whatever they like. They use and abuse the site to make sure they and only they have access to it by 'semi protecting' (aka locking), protecting (aka locking) and blocking users. So even if you create an account, they will simply block it if you try to add anything without royal approval from an elite. Wikipedia was created to be freely edited. It is now just the domain of the elite. And woe betide anyone who disagrees. One flick of the mouse and you're blocked from editing forever.60.249.88.104 (talk) 16:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Identifying dance styles[edit]

Dance styles should be identified if they are supported by a reliable source. The source should, in my opinion, identify clearly what style will be performed on a given week. It should provide more than just rehearsal footage that requires editors to guess what style is being practiced. There is no harm in waiting to identify dance styles until a later date when a source expressly confirms it. Knope7 (talk) 20:30, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll renew my objections to the way the dance styles are being sourced. Some of the videos are clearer than others as to the style being danced and it being the assigned style week 1. In any event, a full citation to the Strictly website would be better than citing to a twitter posting of the same video. Knope7 (talk) 17:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tameka Empson Week 1[edit]

Aswell as the Y VIVA espana she danced to El Gato Montes it is on the website — Preceding unsigned comment added by MidnightSilver (talk • contribs) 18:26, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please unprotect this article[edit]

Wikipedia is a site for everyone to use, regardless of whether or not they wish to set up an account. Please remove the protection to this article so that the founding principle of wikipedia can be followed by those of us who have relevant (and sourced) content to add. Thank you.61.220.162.2 (talk) 07:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to the superior editor who locked the page, you will have to beg them to be permitted to add to the article via a request to edit or some such nonsense. Give up, mate. Let them have the power. We'll all just move on with our lives, something the 'owners' of Wikipedia articles don't have.218.161.125.238 (talk) 09:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, however then the editor should be a bit more "on it". The Musical Guest for Week 3 has been announced but not been added to the article and I can't edit it. (it's alfie boe and michael ball in case someone wonders) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.223.173 (talk) 22:09, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You need to sign up to edit the page and I have now added the guests for Week 3 MSalmon (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Either wait for protection to end, which is soon, create an account, or request edits on this page. anemoneprojectors 22:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

width of the tables[edit]

the tables for Nights 1 and 2 of Week 1 are a mess. there's so much extra space in them, I don't understand why they both can't be the same width per column, per table. It would look much more organized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.223.52.234 (talk) 04:20, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One unlearned dance![edit]

It should say 'One unlearned dance' not 'one unlearned dance'. Someone changed and has not been reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MidnightSilver (talk • contribs) 16:31, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that? Do you think "one" is a proper noun here? Or that "one unlearned" is a style of dance? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:51, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

André Rieu[edit]

Does anyone know what André Rieu was supposed to be playing in the week 8 results show? Because he certainly didn't play a note of the hastily placed Cohen tribute piece "Hallelujah." Martinevans123 (talk) 22:46, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TV Ratings[edit]

The weekly ranking for BBCOne column data is completely inaccurate on the page. I think every entry is incorrect. It needs correcting. I would do it, only the page is locked and only the wiki elites who own certain topics/pages are allowed to edit.170.254.16.34 (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to request edits, use {{edit semi-protected}} instead of accusing people of being "Wiki elite". It will be a lot more constructive to do so. However, I have checked the ratings and they all exactly match BARB's 7-day ratings, so there is no inaccuracy whatsoever. anemoneprojectors 19:55, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody should be required to 'request' an edit. The wiki elites who locked this page and refuse to allow any mere mortals to make constructive edits and thus have claimed 'ownership' of the page are the ones who are at fault. I'm glad you've checked out the BARB data, but alas, you are quite wrong in your assertion that there is no inaccuracy whatsoever. Always good to see sneering, belittling comments from someone who is in error. I'll just wait for the page lock to elapse when the series finishes and make the corrections then. Thank you for your sense of superiority and patronizing behaviour. 186.188.221.150 (talk) 22:58, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I misread your first message and only checked the ratings and not the rankings, so I will check this. Nevertheless, please read Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Protection policy and be civil in discussions. The page was protected on 4 November 2016 until 4 February 2017 to require autoconfirmed or confirmed access (see WP:CONFIRM) due to persistent disruptive editing, and was in fact requested by a user without an account, much like yourself, so clearly not one of your so-called "elite". I suspect the disruptive editing would continue if the page were unprotected, as the article for the current series of The X Factor was protected for some time, and immediately after unprotection it attracted disruptive edits which went on for 2 days, so it was protected again. I don't know why people choose to vandalise Wikipedia, but these are the types of articles that attract it most often. anemoneprojectors 17:01, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've just checked and the weekly rank for BBC One column is correct. anemoneprojectors 17:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've just checked the weekly rank for BBC One column is incorrect. 186.188.221.150 (talk) 19:01, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then please tell me exactly what is wrong with it. anemoneprojectors 19:36, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, but I think we've all had enough of your belittling tone and your assertion that you are right. As I wrote before, nobody - NOBODY - should be made to beg to edit any article on wikipedia. Wikipedia was set up to be freely edited by any user. As soon as the page lock expires I shall make the necessary edits myself so as not to trouble you, with full verified sources. In the meantime, the data will simply have to be incorrect. An incorrect wikipedia page? Surely not?186.188.221.150 (talk) 19:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How is it "belittling" to ask where an error is? How is it asserting that I am right? You can tell me the what the error is, it's no trouble so don't worry about troubling anyone – it's what we're here for. The ratings are already attributed to a verifiable source, so don't worry about that. I just can't see any difference between the BBC One ranking table here and the BARB website so I would very much appreciate an answer. anemoneprojectors 19:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you've previously been banned or have an existing account, you can create an account. If you're arguing to change Wikipedia policy, I would recommend doing so on a more appropriate page. The discussion here is not going to have any effect on Wikipedia's overall protection policy. Given that the BBC ratings are already sourced, I would recommend discussing the perceived error on this talk page to reach consensus to avoid having unnecessary disputes later. Knope7 (talk) 04:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable sources[edit]

A substantial part of the present article is referenced from Twitter and Blog sites. There are not reliable sources in any sense of the expression. Please replace with more reliable reference sources.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 13:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Derek R Bullamore, the blog entries are from the official BBC Strictly Come Dancing website, and as such I believe they are considered authoritative regarding items such is who is dancing what and to which song. (See WP:SOCIALMEDIA.) The enormous number of Twitter references are for the "Share" column in the ratings, which is not available from the official BARB site. (All the other ratings data in the table does come from the BARB site.) According to the overnights.tv website, they get their data from BARB, which presumably includes the Share data that they tweet out, so I'd imagine that's reliable. The BBC also tweets out the share data (and has been used for the bulk of the citations), but this may be considered problematic as there might be a "reason to doubt its authenticity" (though I imagine it would be a too-easily-uncovered scandal if they were found to be falsifying numbers in their tweets). BlueMoonset (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFC impacting this page[edit]

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]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Strictly_Come_Dancing_series_14&oldid=1216321947"