Talk:Superstars of Dance

Standings after Quarter Finals
Carolina Cerisola was not eliminated. Miriam Larici was - she was the one who was tied with Robert Muraine from the U.S. and Sean Robinson from Australia for the last solo spot in the semis. Could someone please fix this? Cespence17 (talk) 16:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I see you fixed this error yourself. Thank you for doing so. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome - I just was afraid to it because I didn't want to foul up the chart. But luckily I managed to do so without messing anything up :-) Cespence17 (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

So You Think You Can Dance Cross-Overs
Should a section be added where we mention the contestants that have also participated in So You Think You Can Dance, since it's also Nigel Lythgoe's show? There are enough of them that I think it's at least worth mentioning - Anya Garnis, Pasha Kovalev, Giselle Peacock, and Robert Muraine are all former contestants, and Jason Gilkison and Nakul Dev Mahajan have been choreographers. Cespence17 (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I added some info under the teams section. Feel free to edit\expand as you see fit. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, looks good! Cespence17 (talk) 16:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Standings after Episode 3
Reed Luplau was eliminated during episode 3, but that was only the first half of the semi-final round. I don't know if we want to wait until next week when the 2nd half of the semi-final airs to post who advanced and who got eliminated, or start a chart for just episode 3. Seems a bit wasteful if only one person got eliminated, but I dunno...Cespence17 (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I added a chart to show the results of the evening, just like for ep1 & ep2. After the semi-finals are done (i.e. after after ep4), we can add another elimination\standings chart just like the one at the end of the quarter finals (ep2). --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Broadcasters
Could please add each countries television broadcaster. In Australia, the Nine Network brought the rights to this but have yet to air it. Ianblair23 (talk) 02:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC) == reform == can i get some help? currently the useboxes are unclear as owho won the actal events. Can I get some help from a master code in fixing this resolutions? Smith Jones (talk) 01:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

fixed
this show was fixed, the jugdes were awful, and they was no way the USA was gonna lose. it was a bad bias show, good riddence! --74.237.54.62 (talk) 05:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Episode summaries
I removed the episode summaries a while back, only to have that change reverted today. I've removed the section again -- I documented my reasons why in the edit summaries, but I'll add them here to get the discussion started if this becomes and contentious issue. I removed the content because it was superfluous, was about as flagrant a violation of the pillar of WP:NPOV as any article content I've ever seen, and just generally lacked encyclopedic tone. The person who reverted this change suggested I should have edited the content down rather than remove it. However, I am not required to do this: if I see content that is inappropriate to an article, I can (and should) remove it, whether I replace it with an improved version or not. That section was written like a bad review of the show in the best spots and like sycophantic adulation in the worse parts. Besides which, I disagree with the assertion that the section is really necessary. This is not a fan site, it's an encyclopedia and there are limits to the amount of information we should supply here. Besides which, the vast majority of this sizable article is already a review of the episodes in one form or another. The only real information that is relevant (with regard to the format and presentation of individual articles) is which acts performed in which rounds and how the judges rated them and that information is pretty well covered by the article's (count 'em) 19 tables! Anything further dips into subjective territory and fandom. But the editor who wanted to revert is welcome to try to come up with an alternative version if he really thinks he can parse it into something objective, appropriately worded and non-redundant to the information already presented. Myself, I think the very idea of the section flirts with NPOV too much to be salvaged. And I certainly am not required to do it myself in order to be justified in removing content that is wildly in violation of a pillar policy. Snow (talk) 04:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but you do not get to solely decide what is and what is not appropriate. That is not how Wikipedia works.  The text in question stood for 3 years before you removed it.  You made the BOLD move of removing it entirely and that move was challenged.  The fact that it took 10 days for your edit to be reverted is meaningless.  I dispute your assertion that the only thing relevant is the results.  Policy explicitly says a plot summary is a valid part of an article.  We both agree that the summary in question here was too long and detailed.  However, your assertion that 0 bytes is the current length is completely without basis.  I strongly encourage you to edit the section, but blanking is not editing and does nothing to contribute to improving the encyclopedia.   You certainly are required to work towards consensus rather than just trying to force your will through.  The fact that you think it is too much work does not excuse you.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You are completely mischaracterizing the debate. You reverted the change in which I removed content that was in complete violation of policy (and had been tagged as such since 2009).  I believed removing that section in it's entirety (however much it might constitute WP:Bold from your perspective) was best for the article.  You then commanded me to either leave the section as was or edit it down, as if those were my only two options (they aren't under any policy).   If you felt the section could and should be salvaged, then you should have done it yourself from word go (you could easily have looked at the old version of the page and done so it you thought it would improve the page); I am not obligated to do any form of editing simply because it matches your vision for the article.   When I then removed the content once again -- since it was, afterall, still in violation of WP:NPOV -- you once again reverted, citing WP:BRD, despite the fact that at that point I was the only one who had actually noted the issue on the talk page and you had made no efforts at discussion anywhere, either before or after your initial (or even second) revert.  Regardless, BRD is an essay, not policy - it's just a suggested methodology for avoiding conflict.  It's not bad advice on the whole but it's not policy and not applicable to every situation, and certainly does not take precedence over the pillar policy that I was operating under in removing the content in the first place.   And yes, contrary to your completely unsupportable statement, blanking a section absolutely can improve Wikipedia at times, just as deleting entire articles is sometimes found to be benefit to the project -- otherwise we'd have a blanket policy against it, wouldn't we?  In fact it happens daily -- across many articles (thousands of articles, I'd wager).


 * All of that said, it seems you are at work even as I type this trying to bring the summaries in line with NPOV, so I will reserve my personal judgement on their viability until you are through. Edited to add: By the way, the page you cited (Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(writing_about_fiction)#Plot_summaries) A) doesn't even apply to this article as it concerns works of fiction, and B) "explicitly says" nothing about the worth of summaries of any sort and whether/where they should be included but rather details the format plot summaries should take when included. Snow (talk) 22:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

As two months have gone by without Thadeus making edits to clean up the issues with non-encyclopedic POV tone, original research, and inadequate and inappropriate sources, I have again removed these section. Thadeus, if you still insist that these issues can be fixed, please compose a draft (of the whole of the sections you wish to restore) rather than reverting again. Or start an RfC on the matter if you wish. But you cannot keep restoring content that is in blatant violation of multiple pillar policies and the few trivial alterations you made to the first episodes' summary did not really do much to remove the conflicts with the policies cited above (and you restored the other episode summaries without any changes whatsoever). If you start a revert war on this again without attempting to build consensus or demonstrate how the sections are not in violation of these policies (and I don't see how this argument could be made under any reasonable interpretations of said policies), I'll go immediately to an admin on the issue. I'm sorry to take such a strongly worded stance on this and I hope you will not take it personally, but the tone of this page spiraled well out that appropriate for a Wikipedia article a long time ago, and three and a half years is long enough to indulge it without resolution.

Let me also say that I appreciate the complexities that come into play when trying to establish elements like verifiability on articles about TV shows, especially those that focus on performances. I know that sometimes it's hard to find valid non-primary sources which support the events and commentary on the show and I genuinely think we should make some exceptions for those difficulties, so long as they remain consistent with the spirit of verifiability by restricting commentary to only the most straight-forward and factual statements in case where appropriate sources are lacking. But statement like "The audience became hushed with rapt fascination as the duo performed a series of expertly-executed turns and then burst into applause as soon as a final particularly impressive lift was performed" -- the likes of which make up about 95% of these "reviews" -- is the very definition of original research. Especially when the sources given A) do not support these claims at all and B) are unacceptable sources for establishing verifiability for a Wikipedia article to begin with. And even if these elements were perfectly sourced, they still would not be appropriate to the encyclopedic tone we should be striving for here. The audience's reaction and assessments on how well the performers danced, aside from being purely subjective commentary (and again, OR), are not the type of information we should be synthesizing for an article in an encyclopedia, not by a long shot. The only empirical and appropriate information that was contained in those episode summaries was the dancers involved, their styles, and the scores the judges awarded them, and these facts are already well-represented in the tables. And note that I've left these tables and their various details in despite the fact that they are also not adequately referenced for the most part; technically they too could be removed by anyone who challenged them, but I don't see the point in removing facts about a show that are only sourced by the show itself so long as they are clear statements of fact that can be readily confirmed by anybody watching it (e.g. "The judges awarded the group a score fo 53"). Commentary which is unsourced, subjective, and contentious are not appropriate at all, and judgments about the skill displayed by the dancers ("The two are part of a world famous acrobatic troupe and it shows as they bring some really incredible acrobatics to the stage") or how they were received by the audience ("The studio audience is stunned and doesn't know how to react — little applause is heard, and a close up a clearly perplexed lady is shown.") will always be subjective and contentious. The sections that have been excised were composed almost exclusively of this kind of commentary and, I'll repeat, what little information that was not of this nature but which was actually factual has been preserved in the tables.

I believe I've made the argument for why this content cannot stay -- being as wildly inconsistent with pillar policies as it is -- at much more length than I should have needed to, so please do not revert again without coming up with a radical re-working of all sections which you wish to restore which adequately addresses the conflicts with said policies and, ideally, presenting this draft here for consensus before re-adding it. As I said, I hate to be a stickler here, because I understand the limitations being worked with here, but this page needs to be kept consistent with policy and encyclopedic tone all the same, just as with any other article. If you feel my interpretation of policy is flawed, I'll of course hear you out as any editor should, or you can always RfC the issue, though I doubt you'll gain much support for keeping that content. But continually restoring content that is in violation of multiple policies (including two pillar policies) is not the way forward, nor is making a huge fuss over the issue, insisting the content can be salvaged and then making a couple of trivial edits as an excuse to re-introduce basically the same exact draft of the page and then abandoning the effort altogether after making such a strong stand. Snow (talk) 01:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * (This is a reply partially to the above, and partially to the similar comment on my talk page.)
 * The vast majority of the material is in the article is actually referenced. Specifically, the article uses general references (found in the reference section).  While not ideal, the style is acceptable under policy.  The references are likely not the highest quality, as you say, but for such non-contentious (IMO) material they should be sufficient.  Additionally, I guarantee the information is accurate; of course accuracy is not everything, but it is not to be dismissed either...  I'm not sure which sentence(s) you feel refer to skill level.  The revised text is about 80% straight description of the type of dance + score, a few audience reactions, and a few judge comments; maybe there are a few adjectives that could be interpreted as comments on skill.  (The unrevised sections, are of course different.  Incidentally, your examples come from the unrevised text.)  I feel the revised text is pretty close to the summary table in prose form - everything could be sourced directly to the show if required as there is no real commentary in the revised text.  It requires no more original research than the table does (which incidentally is also not directly referenced).  "The audience boos", for example, is not a subjective opinion - it is a fact.  I suppose we could cut the article to say "Superstars of Dance was a highly anticipated show that aired from X to Y on NBC." and leave it at that, since nothing else is supported by A+ quality sources, but I don't really see that as a beneficial move.
 * As a side note, I do not appreciate the accusations of bad faith (and misinformation). There is no "violation of multiple policies".  Less than ideal text, certainly, but get real.  This article is no worse than 99% of Wikipedia.  Furthermore, cutting roughly 5k of text and rewording much more is certainly not "making a couple of trivial edits". Please refrain from grossly distorting the situation to push your point of view.  The only person being dogmatic about being right and repeatedly restoring the same article version here is you. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Where have I anywhere accused you of bad faith behaviour or misinformation? If you're taking that from my comments, you're finding something there that was in no way intended.  I may have implied (and indeed I do feel) that your interpretation of the relevant policies (at least with regard to this article) are not remotely consistent with community consensus and standards.   The vast majority of material in this article is most assuredly not referenced; those subjective statements are not supported by the episode summaries they are linked to, I've looked them over.  Even if they were, those are not acceptable sources and frankly should have been removed long ago.   Judgements on how the audience reacts/feels are OR; two people might view the audience's appreciation for the routine as rousingly supportive or lukewarm and every last one of these assessments in the summaries is a subjective assessment to some degree (most of them highly so).  Even if they weren't, they still remain original research by virtue of the fact that they are unsourced. It's not a question of them being "A+" sources or not or whether they are "of the highest quality"; they are utterly unacceptable sources for Wikipedia's purposes, as defined under WP:Verifiability, period.  I have no problem with content that reflects the type of dance (aside from subjective assessments on how well they danced), the judges scores, or directly quoted judge's commentary; though ideally these should be sourced too, I'm not fighting to have that content removed, because, as I noted at length above, I feel these facts are non-contentious.  But any content that is challenged for validity (and obviously I have so challenged the subjective crowd and dancer appraisals) must be supported by valid sources or it must be removed, under the pillar policy of WP:Verifiability.  And you either know this and are being purposefully oblique about it to retain content you like (so maybe to that extent I am saying you're being dishonest, if only with yourself), or you've been operating under a considerable misunderstanding of a cornerstone policy of Wikipedia for years.   And again, I'm sorry to speak so stridently, but you're not really giving me much room to do otherwise here.  Those claims have been challenged; they have to be properly sourced now or removed.  And by the way, none of my examples came from unrevised text; they all came from the version of the page as it was last edited (by you) when I made that post upon returning to this article two days ago, aside from the hypothetical one; your statement to the contrary is factually incorrect and can this be easily verified by checking old revisions.  (Edited to add: Actually, reviewing the article, those examples are still in the article as it stands now, so I'm not sure what you're on about).


 * I'm sorry, but I've reached the end of my rope with trying to meet in the middle here; I went out of my way to make that message on your talk page conciliatory and to describe the policy issues (and yes they most assuredly arise from multiple policies -- WP:Verifiability, WP:NPOV, and WP:Original Research just to mention the biggest three) in detail without making it seem like a criticism of you in particular and even to empathize with the restrictions you're working under but you don't seem willing to budge, no matter how I present the facts, so I guess I have no choice but to RfC this.  Which is a pity, because you're right -- most of the rest of the content on the page is not supported by sources either, and I feel we now run the risk of losing more content than we had to, just to deal with an issue on unencyclopedic tone that should have been easily resolved.  (Edited to add; On one final note, "POV pushing" is a term that refers to a person altering the content of an article so as to favour a certain position or view discussed therein - it has no relevance to an editor making a policy argument; we're all expected to have points of view as regards policy and how best to apply it.) Snow (talk) 07:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You wrote "But continually restoring content that is in violation of multiple policies (including two pillar policies) is not the way forward, nor is making a huge fuss over the issue, insisting the content can be salvaged and then making a couple of trivial edits as an excuse to re-introduce basically the same exact draft of the page and then abandoning the effort altogether after making such a strong stand." If that isn't an accusation of bad faith I don't know what is.  I agree a lot of the text is inappropriate.  I haven't revised all the text.  To act like I approve everything because I only fixed one section and forgot to touch the rest is ridiculous.  And yes, your examples come from text that hasn't been touched yet.  There is no disagreement about the appropriateness of said content.  There is a strong disagree in approach.  Your position is to remove every last shred of text.  My position is to save what can be saved.  Despite your strong insistence that you are right, my position is actually much more in line with the community consensus of how best to approach such situations.
 * P.S. If patronizing someone with 10 times the experience you have and making not so vague threats (if you don't do it my way, things will be even worse) is "going out of your way" to be nice, you clearly have zero interest in compromise in the slightest. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * If I had no interest in compromise, I would RfC'd this two months ago, since I have absolutely zero doubt that a consensus would be more consistent with my view than yours. I never meant to imply bad faith in your abandoning the effort; I assumed you simply forgot about it.  If I felt differently I would have said as much. However, let's not forget that you accused me of laziness in my approach when this whole thing started, so I find it a little ironic that you restored those sections and then neglected to follow through an editing them so that they were not blatantly in violation of so many policies.  Nor did I anywhere above (or elsewhere) suggest you approved of the content in whole; as a matter of fact, I went to a lot of effort to detail exactly the elements that I think are most out of place just so we'd be on the same page.   As to approach, as I said at the start of this, if I removed only the content which I believe is in violation of policy or non-encyclopedic in tone, that would leave only information that is redundant with the tables (more or less); hence my removal of the sections all-together.  You are certainly within your rights as an editor (and welcome from my perspective) to try to re-edit them to be more consistent with policy.  But it is not my responsibility (or any other editor's) to do that for you in order to retain the sections just because you think it suits the article better.  Any editor finding content in violation of pillar policies can (and should) remove it.  And I don't think your position on those policies (again with regard to this article anyway) is at all consistent with community consensus.  As to experience, let's not go there, huh? You don't have anywhere near ten times my experienced, by edit count or time-expenditure and even if you did, I don't think it would reflect well on you, since you apparently have weak concordance with certain policies for all of that experience.   And I made no threats; I've explicitly gone out of my way to avoid an RfC here, for the reasons stated above and to show sympathy to the context you are working with, with regard to verifiability.  Regardless, an editor arguing that they have no choice but pursue a legitimate community forum to resolve an issue is never considered a threat on Wikipedia; this is also policy.  Anyway, I'd like to see what you come up with for a draft now that you seem to be giving it a good deal of focus before I give up on diplomacy altogether, so I'll again reserve judgement on whether that step is necessary.  I just want to say in closing though that I don't think I'm needlessly wiki-lawyering here or being overly bureaucratic for no cause - those sections were wildly un-encyclopedic in tone and well bellow quality standards for this project; if I polled 100 editors on the matter, I have no doubt 95+ would agree with me.   And yes, if I failed to say it before, your most recent edits have improved the situation some, though I dare say we are still not in complete agreement about some elements. Snow (talk) 22:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)