Talk:Strictly Come Dancing series 21

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

Average Score[edit]

Why we're not adding average scores anymore? I do not understand it, i'd love to bring it back ! 31.1.84.243 (talk) 18:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Totally unsourced Fancruft that consistutes original research. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:51, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Average score is letting us to see who was the best dancer, we can compare. Please add this back
I mean, it's not hurting anyone 31.1.84.243 (talk) 00:56, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's original research and it's an assemblage of statistics that the show does not generate. It does not belong in an encyclopedia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We used to have an average scores for years, and i do not understand why for some reason 1 person just decided to do not put it.
Please bring back average scores, it's important for us and i think it's important for this show because as i said before, we can compare everyone
Just because show is not making it doesn't mean we can't have it. please add it back 31.1.84.243 (talk) 08:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CALC seems to apply here. Average scores are routine calculations and do not constitute original research Davethorp (talk) 15:48, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Having read through WP:CALC, I think that average scores are compatible, as they count as routine calculations, and therefore do not count as original research. They are also useful for indicating who was the best (or worst) performing contestant based on the scores, which without the data, requires the user to manually calculate the data. I would suggest that they are readded to all pages for the benefit of readers. Lawrence 979 (talk) 17:20, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I too would support the reintroduction of average tables into the articles based on the above arguments. They're hardly cruft, they provide readers with valid and relevant information. – Meena • 17:33, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Average charts need reintroducing per WP:CALC. User:Bgsu98 claims this information isn't used in the show, maybe not on his version but the scores and averages of each couple are always mentioned during the final and a complete list is shown.2A00:23EE:11F9:1437:1553:DD51:4A1E:ED6E (talk) 17:36, 10 September 2023 (UTC) (Striking comments from blocked sockpuppet) Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:17, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus does seem to favour reintroducing average score charts. Therefore, they shall be readded to all articles Lawrence 979 (talk) 12:42, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, changes made on the scale that Bgsu98 should require a consensus before making them. There is no consensus from more than one user that they should be removed, but there is a consensus that they should be readded. This should be the change that is implemented, therefore overriding the arguments made in favour of their removal. There is however no reason why the argument in terms of whether they should be removed cannot be expanded, but they will be reinstated pending the results of such a discussion. Any reversion made by any user should be reverted. Lawrence 979 (talk) 17:15, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Bgsu98 didn’t seek consensus for any of their edits. I’d support putting all articles back to their last known good state before they made their edits
If they wish to make such sweeping edits to these articles in the future it should be done with consensus and that consensus should be sought on the most recent article for each series Davethorp (talk) 18:54, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not need "consensus" to bring the article's tables into compliance with the MOS. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:05, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are outright wrong with that statement. While you may be lucky with a relatively low profile such as individual series of a british television series, if you were ever to edit something of any higher profile, you will face opposition and reversions, regardless of what your stated motives are. If this was any higher profile, you would have been banned from wikipedia, because if more people edited this article, this would have resulted in an edit war, and possibly loss of your account. I can also think of countless cases where consensus has been required for a change stated to be in compliance with the MOS, which ultimately ended with reversion of the edits. i would strongly recommend that Bgsu98 reads throughWikipedia:Consensus#Through editing, and then accepts the fact that they made countless edits improperly, by not following the normal process, particularly for a large scale set of edits. Lawrence 979 (talk) 19:25, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing from what Davethorp said, it is however true that you can seek a consensus for whether your edits should remain, or whether they should be reverted. However, claiming unilaterally that consensus is not required for the purpose of 'bringing an article into compliance with MOS' is a violation of WP:EDITCONSENSUS, which states consensus is required for editing previous longstanding consensus, as seen by articles remaining the same for many years until Bgsu98 came in and edited with a claim of violations with MOS, not any sort of agreement that they were not in line with MOS. Lawrence 979 (talk) 19:36, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can try, but my edits have withstood at least a half-dozen attempts over the last year from various persons to undo them on grounds of "It's always been like that" or some other such nonsense. I outlined below exactly why the articles' tables were in violation of the MOS. If there is a specific element you have a question about, we can certainly discuss it. My timeline is littered with former editors (IP and otherwise) who have found themselves banned for edit-warring, xenophobic personal attacks, and most recently, a heinous death threat so severe that Wikipedia's trust and safety office felt it necessary to contact my local police department as a precaution. Over a fucking reality TV dance show.
To summarize, Wikipedia tables are expected to adhere to the requirements of MOS:ACCESS, which, among other things, establishes parameters for a table's setup, requirements for accessibility, color contrast, and sortability, which these tables previously did not. Additionally, they were rife with unsourced FANCRUFT, indiscriminate statistics, and original research better suited to a fan website and not an encyclopedia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:56, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You should obtain a consensus on whether other users agree with your personal judgement. You may interpret average tables to be 'FANCRUFT', but Davethorp does not have their view, and considers them to be routine calculating. Average tables come under this category, and WP:CALC states 'Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units...is almost always permissible'. You may have a certain interpretation of this, and consider average tables to be fancruft, but you shouldn't push through a change (in which case removal) without a consensus on whether it is neccessarily in line with all policies.
While I do agree that 'It's always been like that' is a poor argument on its own, it should be consider the reason for that argument, and that is that many other editors did not consider them to be violating various MOS policies, particularly over more than a decade in some cases. If you attempt to override any other long standing consensuses in the future beyond strictly come dancing, then this will get you into a edit war, and (from personal experience as to whether repeated information violates repetition) could result in a ban from editing that page, which could eventually be increased to account suspension. I am not saying that all of you edits are bad, because some of them do objectively improve accessibility, but they should ideally be put to a general request for comment, which can even be for each area separately, giving many of your edits legitimacy. You should see Wikipedia:Requests for comment to identify the proper process for conducting a process. Continuing with these types of edits really could eventually result in a ban if you go too far. Lawrence 979 (talk) 20:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I saw this thread while answer a question at WP:NORN, but I just wanted to add something about WP:EDITCON. There is no requirement for any editor to get consensus first for there edits, even EDITCON says An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted. Take a look at the flow chart in the section, it doesn't start with "get consensus" it starts with "make an edit". Editors can disagree and revert that edit, but they can't insist that their approval is required before making any changes. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s of course hard for some editors to revert invalid edits from other users on semi protected pages
    It’s also a shame that the user despite being told that WP:CALC applied took it to WP:NORN only to be told that, shock horror, WP:CALC applied. Yet they still continue their campaign against the average score table berating it for not being fully accurate minutes after the last show ended Davethorp (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    “Despite being told”… Give me a break. There is nothing wrong with clarifying a matter of policy at the relevant forum. 🙄 Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:50, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And what were you told? Precisely what I told you two months ago. Shame you didn’t listen eh Davethorp (talk) 18:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also the roll eye emote you used could be considered an incivility violation. I’m sure you didn’t intend that(!) and will of course retract it Davethorp (talk) 18:20, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Unlikely. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:43, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thought so. And on that basis pretty much every edit you’ve made to vandalise these articles can now be reverted Davethorp (talk) 00:36, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Edits are not “vandalism” just because you don’t like them. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:06, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And average score charts, and some of the other things you’ve removed from these pages are not “fancruft” just because you don’t like them. As you’ve been told by several people, myself included, but for some reason wasn’t able to accept that Davethorp (talk) 20:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Compliance with Wikipedia MOS[edit]

There have been some questions raised about the edits I have made to the Dancing with the Stars and Strictly Come Dancing articles, so I wanted to outline why I believe those changes were necessary to comply with Wikipedia's manual of style.

Tables

  • All Wikipedia tables must conform to the requirements of MOS:DTAB. All tables must be scoped and have appropriate column and row headers. Wikipedia rates this as a "high priority".

Contestants Table

  • In addition to the formatting I mentioned above, these tables had violations of MOS:BOLD and MOS:COLOR; namely, the last row of the table which lists the winner.

Scoring Table

  • In addition to the formatting I mentioned above, these tables have numerous problems. Data tables are expected to be sortable, but most of the tables did not have the sort function properly enabled. For example, in cases where a couple has performed two dances, their score is entered as "x + y = z". The table automatically sorts the column based on x, and not z (the total score), unless the proper parameters have been entered to allow the table to sort properly.
  • There are numerous problems with color contrast. Per MOS:COLOR, "Ensure the contrast of the text with its background reaches at least Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0's AA level, and AAA level when feasible." For example, red font against an orange background does not meet the standards of accessibility. In fact, no shade of red on orange is acceptable. This is why I switched the cell color for eliminated couples to pink (#F4C7B8), and darkened the font colors for both red and green. And while we're at it, why on earth would two tables - one right after the other - use two different colors to represent the same thing? The contestants table identifies Elimination with pink and Withdraw/Quit with green, but the scoring table identifies Elimination with orange and Withdraw/Quit with pink. Does that make any sense at all? The new colors bring the two tables in sync while also meeting the contrast requirements of MOS:COLOR.
  • Per MOS:COLOR, "Ensure that color is not the only method used to communicate important information. Especially, do not use colored text or background unless its status is also indicated using another method, such as an accessible symbol matched to a legend, or footnote labels." The pink cells, blue cells, green font, red font, etc. cannot be the only means of conveying information, period. I have chosen what I believe to be the least obtrusive methods to meet the requirements of accessibility. If you have another suggestion that meets the requirements, then by all means, let me know.

Weekly Tables

  • In addition to the formatting I mentioned above, these tables had a few minor issues. Namely, improper use of capitalization (It should be Paso doble, not Paso Doble, etc.) and spaces are required after commas in the sequence of scores (It should be 8, 8, 8, 8; not 8,8,8,8).
  • Additionally, I have corrected occasional incorrect links for songs or artists and in some cases, added a link where there was none originally.

Statistics Tables

  • Those tables ("average score", "highest scoring dance", etc.) are nothing but unsourced WP:FANCRUFT that violate the policy of No original research. Additionally, they are INDISCRIMINATE statistics that might belong on a fan wiki, which Wikipedia is not.

Dance Table

  • In addition to the formatting I mentioned above, these tables again violated MOS:COLOR by solely using color to convey information. Then again, it's a dance table, not a score table. There's already a score table at the beginning of the article. The table should include the dances performed, and that's it.

Please let me know if you have any questions about these policies. As far as consensus goes, there was an RfC in 2021 which addressed this issue: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/Archive 12#RfC about elimination-style reality programs. Per that RfC, "There is a consensus that in articles about elimination-style reality television programs... tables should comply with accessibility guidelines." Local consensus cannot override these requirements. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:44, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As above WP:CALC applies for the average scores tables and these should be reinstated forthwith. I haven't looked at the rest of your points/edits so cannot comment on them Davethorp (talk) 15:53, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of those qualify as "routine calculations", especially when certain scores are excluded, or "re-weighted" owing to the absence of a judge or the presence of a guest judge. Additionally, that does not address the fact that "average scores" are Fancruft and not something generated by the actual show. If SCD/DWTS doesn't feature average scores as part of the competition, then neither does Wikipedia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:14, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you don’t think that calculating the mean of some numbers is a routine calculation then that probably says more about your maths ability. Thankfully you don’t need to do the maths. I’m sure someone else will be more than happy to do it for you but the policy is clear. Routine calculations are NOT original research Davethorp (talk) 08:30, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Personal insults aside, none of that addresses any of the other points I’ve made. Bgsu98 (Talk) 09:43, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No personal insult intended. Just baffling that you don't consider adding up some numbers and then dividing that total by the number of numbers to be a routine calculation. It's just addition and division! With the reweighting on the rare occasions that the judging panel changed being just division and multiplication Davethorp (talk) 11:35, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A slight recommendation I would have with the scoring table is a colour used to indicate that a couple did not dance on a specific week, along with a reference to go alongside it. I think the lack of detail on that does not make sense. An example of where this occured was in series 20, where Kym & Graziano could not dance in week 10, and a dash is (in my opinion compared to other indicators such as that a couple was eliminated or in the bottom two) insufficient. This does not need to be a unique one for every situation, it simply needs to be a reference under 'F' stating they did not perform. Lawrence 979 (talk) 15:54, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not a bad idea. This is not a situation the American version of the show ever faces because they will use the dress rehearsal footage if it's a last-minute situation and they expect the couple will be back the next week. I have adjusted the table per your recommendation. Please check it out at Strictly Come Dancing (series 20)#Scoring chart and let me know what you think. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another recommendation with the dance charts, is that I think the lists mostly saying 'One Unlearned dances' are basically unnecessary, because all the additional information regarding dance styles got removed (not sure what the reason was exactly, possibly fancruft though). I would recommend rather than keeping them separate, they should be condensed into 'week 1 to week 11, with semi final and grand final staying separate. This doesn't neccessarily need to be applied to all series, since there were additional routines in some cases, or only certain dances available, but I think we should consider condensing down some charts to remove what is repeated information. Lawrence 979 (talk) 13:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I have started doing just that. I think I’m up through the early teens. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:26, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 September 2023[edit]

Hello, I would to be allowed to edit this page because I know how to edit this page, I did it one week last year so I would like to have a chance to edit. Thank you. ConnorJYT (talk) 16:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you.  BelowTheSun  (T•C) 16:24, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 September 2023[edit]

{{subst:trim|1=

Tess and Claudia are the hosts so needs to be updated from expected to have returned as or similar. Cronky (talk) 20:21, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Announced on It Takes Two (25th September 2023) Layton & Nikita Week 2 dance: Quickstep Annabelle & Johannes Week 2 dance: Quickstep Angela & Carlos Week 2 dance: Jive

 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. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 21:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you can provide a source, we can add those dance styles to the chart. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:53, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Score updates[edit]

Can someone update the scores please for week 2. It’s frustrating watching the show and wanting to help out but not being able to! 2A00:23C7:AC8D:C101:B191:8E07:8103:33AF (talk) 17:45, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also to whoever's updating the scoring chart Nigel got a 27 not a 28 Pelothong (talk) 18:36, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dance Chart (week 2)[edit]

Angela R. & Kai danced Foxtrot, not Quickstep. This is correct on the weekly score chart, but has been wrong on the dance chart since posted. 2A00:23C4:D502:B601:55E:5719:223F:8D0 (talk) 19:58, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:05, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 October 2023[edit]

add the dances for Amanda and Giovanni (Rumba) and Zara and Graziano (Paso Doble) as announced on Strictly's It Takes Two tonight. [1] Amanda and Giovanni are dancing to 'Out of Reach' from the film 'Bridget Jones' Diary' and Zara and Graziano are dancing to 'The Puss Suite' from 'Puss in Boots' as well, as extra information. NotSoLocalTheatreKid (talk) 20:17, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This has already been done. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dance chart-week 4[edit]

in addition to Adam doing waltz, Ellie also has a samba-source is here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001rbny Pelothong (talk) 20:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 October 2023[edit]

all week 4 dances are up and can be added to the dance chart https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/strictlycomedancing/entries/55dcb502-c64a-4099-8b9c-1ebbf8d0e219 Pelothong (talk) 16:55, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will add them when I get home unless someone else gets to it first. 😃 Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:14, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Song details[edit]

You don’t have to say you love me was not Brenda Lee, it’s Dusty Springfield 2A04:4A43:58DF:CC96:5823:E8DA:F602:9C69 (talk) 19:31, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The source says Brenda Lee. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:37, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Average chart[edit]

You guys wanted this chart, so please explain to me how two different dancers with the same number of cumulative points and the same number of performed dances have two different averages.

Also, the second column says Rank by average, yet they are ranked by elimination order. Make it make sense. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:34, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This comment came in a full 9 minutes after the show had ended and whilst the article was being heavily edited. You didn’t feel that calculating the mean of some numbers was a routine calculation so quite why you’re expecting people to do it in a matter of minutes is a bit of a mystery
Also YOU deleted the rank by elimination order from the table, something which had been long established to be part of the table, and that may be what is confusing other editors Davethorp (talk) 16:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m001r4lf/strictly-it-takes-two-series-21-episode-6?page=1
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Strictly_Come_Dancing_series_21&oldid=1216322013"