Talk:2021–22 Grand Prix of Figure Skating Final

Orphaned references in 2021–22 Grand Prix of Figure Skating Final
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of 2021–22 Grand Prix of Figure Skating Final's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "jpairs-standings": From 2018–19 ISU Junior Grand Prix:  From 2019–20 ISU Junior Grand Prix:  From 2018–19 Grand Prix of Figure Skating Final:  

Reference named "ladies-standings": From 2019–20 Grand Prix of Figure Skating Final:  From 2018–19 Grand Prix of Figure Skating Final:  

Reference named "pairs-standings": From 2018–19 Grand Prix of Figure Skating Final: </li> <li>From 2019–20 Grand Prix of Figure Skating Final: </li> </ul>

Reference named "jladies-standings":<ul> <li>From 2018–19 Grand Prix of Figure Skating Final: </li> <li>From 2018–19 ISU Junior Grand Prix: </li> <li>From 2019–20 ISU Junior Grand Prix: </li> </ul>

Reference named "jmen-standings":<ul> <li>From 2019–20 ISU Junior Grand Prix: </li> <li>From 2018–19 ISU Junior Grand Prix: </li> <li>From 2018–19 Grand Prix of Figure Skating Final: </li> </ul>

Reference named "jdance-standings":<ul> <li>From 2018–19 Grand Prix of Figure Skating Final: </li> <li>From 2018–19 ISU Junior Grand Prix: </li> <li>From 2019–20 ISU Junior Grand Prix: </li> </ul>

Reference named "dance-standings":<ul> <li>From 2018–19 Grand Prix of Figure Skating Final: </li> <li>From 2019–20 Grand Prix of Figure Skating Final: </li> </ul>

Reference named "men-standings":<ul> <li>From 2019–20 Grand Prix of Figure Skating Final: </li> <li>From 2018–19 Grand Prix of Figure Skating Final: </li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Empty sections and bad references
I've again removed the empty sections and bad references from this article. There's no reason for these skeletons to be in the article. The bad references are unacceptable. When the event actually occurs, it's trivial to get the format and start filling in the information. Until then, the frames have no reason to be in the article. -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:49, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. There is no reason not to have tables provided for the results ahead of time.  Do you mean by "bad references" that the references currently have no information? Or is there some other problem?  If the former, that is not bad references, it is simply reflecting the current position that, so far, there are no results to report. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 13:16, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * ...and since three people have now tried to put them in that puts you very much in the minority. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 13:21, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * By "bad references", I mean links like this one which lead to pages that say nothing more than.
 * The reason to not keep the skeletons in the article is clutter. They're empty, aren't encyclopedic, dilute the rest of the meager content in the page, and add no value. Empty frameworks and layouts are fine for user-space or sandbox pages, but have no place in a live article. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:40, 6 October 2021 (UTC)