Talk:Strictly Come Dancing series 17

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

Protected article?[edit]

Back at the beginning of August a single user apparently targeted this article as a sock. The result: all IP editing now banned until November. Over reaction or what? Surely socking is tackled at the user level not the article level - other than in truly exceptional circumstances, which this isn't. 31.52.165.42 (talk) 19:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Highest and lowest scoring dances[edit]

@JumP!erre: we use capital letters for Cha-Cha-Cha and Viennese Waltz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidfromfinance (talk • contribs) 14:13, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dance progress chart[edit]

It strikes me that a graph of progress (judges scores) may be useful. I have put something together here to show what I mean Hoffie01 (talk) 08:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoffie01: Seems a very good idea. Is there a reason you didn't add it to the page? YorkshireLad (talk) 20:00, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@YorkshireLad: The page is protected beyond my editorship credentials, sadly! Hoffie01 (talk) 08:27, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hoffie01: Ah. In which case, may I add it? I'd credit you in the edit summary. YorkshireLad (talk) 08:55, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@YorkshireLad: Please do. Thanks Hoffie01 (talk) 09:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thanks! If you wanted to add your 2018 one to the corresponding page, that doesn't seem to be protected. YorkshireLad (talk) 09:22, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed it because it is too difficult to understand and doesn't give enough information anyway MSalmon (talk) 09:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. I think it is useful—on what basis is it too difficult to understand? I agree it doesn’t give enough information on its own, but as a supplementary overview of progress it seems to give a better idea than a table. YorkshireLad (talk) 09:59, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Msalmon: Sorry, should have pinged you. YorkshireLad (talk) 17:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like spaghetti to me: hard to follow visually, and with the further drawback that one color obscures another when two couples have the same score two weeks running. I agree with MSalmon that it shouldn't be added. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:14, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Names[edit]

Why, against all recommendations of the MoS, are people referred to by their first names and nor surnames? Surely this (and all other Strictly articles) should be changed to the surnames? – SchroCat (talk) 00:43, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I guess mainly because the couples are predominantly referred to by their two first names on the programme. They're certainly never referred to by surname only. Not that MoS usually cares about such luvvie niceties. It's the same at Dancing with the Stars (American season 28) etc., of course, although the overview articles, for Strictly Come Dancing and Dancing with the Stars (American TV series), etc., do use surnames too. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:41, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mos is not a ridged straitjacket, or indeed any sort of straitjacket. Where informality is more suitable, it should be adopted. Leaky caldron (talk) 12:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You’re right, it’s not a straight jacket, but this is fairly basic stuff. Would anyone object if I put it to the MoS compliant version as there is no good reason not to have it that way? - SchroCat (talk) 20:06, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A straightjacket?? I thought Anton's jacket looked fine! I'm sure someone probably will object. But not me... just go for it. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, the program website uses first names [1] and in as much as there is readership for this, the public will certainly be far more familiar with first names than surnames. It is a needless change - and a massive undertaking to amend 17 articles plus spin-offs, with no obvious readership benefit. if it's not broken, don't fix it. Leaky caldron (talk) 20:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Does it matter what the website says? The BBC is not an encyclopaedia. - SchroCat (talk) 20:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In so far as it is anything, it has been used as a reliable source. So a source that uses first names only isn't much use if the article is changed to use surnames, for example [2] Leaky caldron (talk) 20:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing the problem in having one source using first names, but our articles using surnames. Isn't that what we do for all other articles? - SchroCat (talk) 20:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many article series in the broad genre of entertainment / reality have a tendency towards using first names, probably due to audience familiarity. Leaky caldron (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I won't actually object. But are you really offering to "amend 17 articles plus spin-offs", just for the sake of MoS? Did someone mention a straightjacket?? Have fun! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:06, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps if should have been done properly in the first place?! (And the amount of grief I have had in the past from an p-i-t-a unlamented ex-editor for using a first name!) That's fine: we'll let an RfC decide it. - SchroCat (talk) 21:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can't you see that dancing as a couple involves a profound and spiritual henosis that breaks the bounds of conventional personal identity?! That's why we have Saffron & AJ? But can't wait to see "Thynn, Viscountess Weymouth and Skorjanec". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Using first name or surname[edit]

I see general consensus for using surnames when referring to individual participants, but first names when referring to couples. Closed per request at WP:ANRFC. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 22:17, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.


Should this article use first names or surnames for the participants? - SchroCat (talk) 21:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:SURNAME is clear: after the initial mention, a person should generally be referred to by surname only. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:41, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For the purposes of this programme, and thus of these articles, it could be argued that the names of the couples, e.g. "Saffron and AJ" have become the most appropriate WP:COMMONAME variant. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MoS is not mandatory and arguably does not adequately reflect developments in the real world from which these articles are drawn. To many, they are pure WP:FANCRUFT. The real difficulty is that this is not about one article or one series of 20+ articles. It is about hundreds of series comprising thousands of articles which have used the familiar to audience, personal tone adopted by the program makers. Readers could easily find the use of surnames jarring. In the same way that sports team fans would be jarred if we suddenly adopted use of first names. Horses for courses.Leaky caldron (talk) 21:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:SURNAME says For fictional entities, use common names. Along that thinking, perhaps it makes sense in reality TV as well.—Bagumba (talk) 05:33, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surname after the first use, per MOS:SURNAME. COMMONNAME relates to article titles, not the use within articles. - SchroCat (talk) 14:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, so.... For the purposes of this programme, and thus of these articles, it could be argued that the names of the couples, e.g. "Saffron and AJ" have become the most appropriate variant of their names commonly used by the press and by the public at large. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh. It's a relatively short series and I don't see people refer to Ann Widdecombe as "Ann". When people are referred to in an "in universe" sense by their first name it doesn't mean the encyclopaedia ditches its common practice to bow to low-level popular culture. - SchroCat (talk) 15:19, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed I'm sure generally people do not refer to Ann Widdecombe as "Ann". And Wikipedia certainly won't refer to Ann Widdecombe as "Ann" on the basis of her appearance on this one show. I think, as Leaky caldron suggests, it can be "horses for courses". Just on a point of clarification - the RfC here is very global. Might there not be room for some compromise e.g. the couple names in the tables stay as first names only, just as they are seen on the show but all other instances, after first mention drop first name? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It depends what the consensus is of this RfC. I have used first names before, but been taken to task (particularly by one stalking troll) at some length for it. And there was a better rationale to when I used the first name than there is here. - SchroCat (talk) 16:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While wiki Projects have no overriding authority in such matters I think they should be made aware of this question since it concerns numerous reality series. 16:10, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Surname of course per MOS but also because this is an encyclopedia. Don't lose the historical perspective most aptly described in the 10 year test. Will a reader 10 or 20 years from now be confused why we are using first names? Yes, they would be. They would very confused why this article rather than any article refers to people in such familiar terms. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 04:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not convinced anyone would ever be "confused". If they did bother to access those citations that have programme material, it would be very clear to future readers why first names had been used. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Typically, certainly in this article, the full names are given at the start. So there is no scope for confusion in the future. Leaky caldron (talk) 12:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surname of course. Not sure why this article should be an exception to the Wikipedia and encyclopaedic norm. We aren't writing about our friends or in a tabloid or on a fansite. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:31, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just this article, it's quite a lot of this type. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Probably because sadly many of the people who edit these sorts of articles think they're writing about their friends or in a tabloid or on a fansite! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am shocked by your baseless accusations! Our high-brow American fellow editors, for example, are just not that sad. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:08, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • First names for the couples - Primarily justifiable because these forms are used in at least some of the sources. But they should be added to the table of competitors in the "Couples" section, for easy reference. "Horses for courses" at the fluffier end of the article pool. One could argue that these are "team names". William Avery (talk) 12:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surnames. "Primarily justifiable because these forms are used in at least some of the sources" is basically nonsensical (i.e., it's not a justification, much less a primary one). Other sources do not follow our manual of style, and are not encyclopedias, so their writing style is irrelevant. We have our own internal guidelines for a reason.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:27, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • First names when the individuals are referred to as a competing duo or as part of a competing duo (e.g. "Alex & Neil", not "Scott & Jones"), Surname otherwise per William Avery and Leaky caldron. This is the way they are referred to on the TV show and in the sources I found with a Google search. When there's a conflict between the sources and the MOS, the sources should take precedence. Iffy★Chat -- 19:00, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surname since we're an encyclopedia. When the choice is arbitrary, follow our MOS. External, non-encyclopedic sources follow a different manual of style and if we just simply followed what they did, there would be no point having our own MOS guidance for this. Wug·a·po·des​ 20:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • First names for pairs, surnames for individuals seems a sensible compromise, per Iffy's suggestion. If we're thinking about what's useful for readers, as pairs they are only referred to within the show and in "official" media using first names (or both names, but that seems silly), and so using "Scott & Jones", "Fletcher & Mabuse" etc. would make the article less readable, requiring additional thought to "translate" them into the names used more commonly. If going back through series, first names are also potentially more distinguishable, given the number of people involved with the show with the surname "Clifton". (Series 14 had three at once!) YorkshireLad (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • First names for paired teams, surnames for individuals. Screen displays during the programs refer to the competing duos by first names, including scoring order and voting instructions. Also, as YorkshireLad notes, using a pair's surnames in the article will be unnecessarily confusing for people familiar with the particular show, and would force them to translate each time. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Post-closure followup discussion[edit]

So, what actually needs to change here? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure anything does. I don't think the close is accurate. A few late-coming comments in support of using first names for pairs isn't a consensus, especially given that the rationale for doing it is bogus. It simply is not true that when MoS and usage in sources is in conflict we do what the sources do; if that were true, then we would have no MoS at all. (What does happen is when reliable sources that are independent of the subject do something different from what MoS would default to and they do it with near-total uniformity, then we permit an exception. This is why Deadmau5 is at that title not at Deadmaus, but Kesha (singer) is that title not at Ke$ha.) All that said, these first-name pairs for dancing couples on Strictly Come Dancing are essentially team names, following a prescribed formula, so their in-context use isn't actually problematic, especially if it really does help the reader, which (in this extremely narrow context of a particular TV show and coverage thereof) is probably true.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:16, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cover Versions - artists[edit]

How can an artist who is the 3rd or 4th cover of an original and when it is being performed by an unnamed ensemble member, be listed as the "by" artist? Never Tear Us Apart is an INXS original recording and later successfully covered by Paloma Faith. The article says it is by some guy never heard of and the show performer is a BBC singer. This is nonsense! Leaky caldron (talk) 20:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Minor point if someone with permission would like to fix - the version of Toccata and Fugue in Dm should be credited to Sky, as it was very definitely their (rocked-up) arrangement. --FleetfootMike (talk) 14:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In no particular order[edit]

Only the "bottom two couples" are selected for the dance-off. Why are the results of the public vote not made public? The existing programme format, with no vote tally or order being announced, could be maintained with the tally of votes being published only after the Sunday night results show. Is this information available under the Freedom of Information Act? 86.187.229.41 (talk) 22:30, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is on this page [3] in the "General" section of the voting FAQs. MadGuy7023 (talk) 23:06, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2021[edit]

86.141.176.190 (talk) 10:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I need to edit alex and neil and change it to Alex & Neil/Kevin

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies[edit]

Re this revert, why is this not relevant? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:27, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I explained this on my talk page when the person responsible for writing it raised it there, which I feel covers it more than adequately: [4] But to recap: The phone line stuff is factually untrue, that's not how the phone lines work. The rest of it just reads like someone complaining that their favourites got voted out. Cwmxii (talk) 12:31, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Thanks for explaining. You might want to copy relevant material over here? Does that editor not have any sources? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:50, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The person who wrote the "Controversies" section has just left this inane diatribe on my talk page, accusing me of being an "apologist for the Big Brother Corporation": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cwmxii#/*_Controversies_*/_Clarifications_on_Weeks_4/10_voting_flaws_and_article_source_titles On the basis of this, I have removed the "Controversies" section again, and will continue to do so if they try to add it back in again. Cwmxii (talk) 20:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. That sounds a bit ridiculous. Perhaps Admin action will be required. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If they add it back in again then asking an admin to take further action would be a good idea, I think we can leave it otherwise. Cwmxii (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Martinevans123, I see you are interested in the Controversies saga, but please bear in mind that I would never put sections in without concrete evidence of something occurring like in the references I added, and I do feel that most of the anger from fans and other people has a valid position by criticizing, among other things, the flawed scoring system that lacks a scoreboard tiebreaker and has voting errors both phone and online, the judges marking on preferences rather than skill and the emotional traumas that shock eliminations have brought to Dianne Buswell, AJ Pritchard and their 2019 partners among other affected stars (https://www.hellomagazine.com/film/2019101879369/strictly-artem-chigvintsev-calls-new-voting-after-dev-dianne-exit/, https://www.ok.co.uk/tv/reality/strictly-come-dancing-voting-change-20956093, https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/strictly-come-dancing-final-hit-21099518), which alone is why I added the Controversies section in the first place (no show is perfect anyhow), and I am tactically withdrawing from editing for the time being due to the bluntness of Cwmxii's disrespectfully denialist counter-arguments and threats of unnecessary Admin action. Anyway, don't feel pushed over Martinevans123, because I have been admiring your own honest talk page as a Christian myself, so I hope to be friends with you and share decent talks about several other great articles, cheers mate Jlgd1995 (talk) 15:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. I'm not a pushover. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-Protection[edit]

In light of some recent vandalizations (namely many by the user 94.193.22.242 which make numerous tables show false couples) I propose that this page be put into semi-protection to prevent these. Should this page be semi-protected? Lawrence 979 (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No objections. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It would help to prevent future vandalism by posting the appropriate warning templates to the editor's talk page, as I have just now done for that user. If that had been done by each person who reverted their edits to this article over the past few days, they'd be on their final warning, and the next time they inserted false information they'd be blocked, no matter which of the series articles they vandalized. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:27, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2022[edit]

Please insert: 146.90.155.97 (talk) 14:05, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Khrincan (talk) 16:37, 22 December 2022 (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) 01:52, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2023[edit]

Add in presenters and judges for this series and series 20. 146.90.155.97 (talk) 21:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Strictly_Come_Dancing_series_17&oldid=1216321966"