Jump to content

Talk:Dance Moms

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

Comments

[edit]

I stumbled upon this entry and began doing some editing. Upon referring to the program's web site, I discovered that this entire article has been plagiarized word for word. I am not experience\d enough on Wikipedia to know how to resolve this, so I'm hoping that someone more experienced will take the lead in handling this. Toropop (talk) 17:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this as well and i will try to fix some of it as best I can, however i'm not very experienced with it either so if someone could help that would be great. FashionsAngels (talk) 23:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I fixed it as best I could and added new references. Fell free to fix anything I missed. FashionsAngels (talk) 00:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where did the dancers section go? Or.. why exactly was it deleted? Also i it appears that someone has messed with the episode guide. I don't know how to fix it so if someone could help out, that would be amazing :)FashionsAngels (talk) 02:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very upsetting that vandals have messed with this article. Thanks for all of the hard work you've done on this. Toropop (talk) 09:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested edit - Under season 1 Episode 6 "Dying to Dance" it is Christi's grandmother who is in hospital, not Abby's mother. AntiLantern (talk) 03:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was Abby's mom that was in the hospital. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.82.237 (talk) 14:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the description of Nia is necessary. I don't think it should say she's the worst dancer in the group, that's a little harsh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.177.43 (talk) 07:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I need to ask for help from the readers and fans of this article. As a regular copy editor and contributor to Wikipedia, I find it frustrating to have to re-edit edits made by individuals who don't have a basic command of the English language. I would like to request that if there are changes that need to be made, PLEASE utilize the Edit Request system established at the bottom of this Talk page. Lately, it has been difficult keeping up with the grossly flawed random edits that have been happening here. Speaking only for myself, but I'm sure other regular contributors to this article may think similarly, I feel like my work on this page to keep it grammatically accurate is all for not. Thank you in advance. Toropop (talk) 19:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Season 2

[edit]

Season 2 is due to be continued or restart sometime in January, they were still filming as of a certain date according to Chloe Lukasiak's Offical Website. Source link: http://www.chloelukasiak.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.144.144.215 (talk) 08:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Season 2 is due to return in June according to the producers of the tv show. This information was found on Lifetimes website. If someone could please add this data. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.163.175.179 (talk) 13:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It already says in the lead that it's coming back in June. For An Angel (talk) 14:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Colors/colours

[edit]

Dance Moms fans--sorry, but the colors are out from that pyramid table. Not only were those oddly colored cells ugly and confusing, besides difficult to read, but they also can cause problems for readers with color blindness. Such (over)use of colors is not in agreement with our guidelines--please see WP:COLOR. Black and white is clear enough. Besides, Dance Moms already adds so much color to our lives, that the article really doesn't need more!

Even though I'm one of those people who just naturally prefers colors to plain black and white, I really think in this case color would help make those charts easier to read. Just because the colors as they were did not comply with guidelines, that doesn't mean we can't fix it so that they do comply with guidelines. Using a color contrast tool I adjusted some of the colors from the original tables to increase the contrast to make them compliant (some of the lighter colors were already compliant). If these look good then I'll add them in. For An Angel (talk) 16:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They certainly look better, but I'm no expert here. Perhaps you can drop Bgwhite a line? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like the color in the article, but I'll leave that up to you guys. The color choices are much better. Green and red colors are just fine now. The blue and purple were unreadable to those affected by that color blindness. Now they are readable, but I would still lighten up those colors a bit. Bgwhite (talk) 19:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I lightened blue and purple even more and added them back. Thanks for your input! :) For An Angel (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For An Angel, I like your style. Drmies (talk) 22:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely much easier on the eyes than it was. Thank you! LadyofShalott 04:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Color test

[edit]
Orange Red Pink Aqua Green Blue Purple Yellow
Original Middle Bottom Top N/A Week Off Removed Quit Straight Line
New Ones Middle Bottom Top N/A Week Off Removed Quit Straight Line

Edit request on 17 February 2012

[edit]

Holly Frazier on Dance Moms has a PhD. This is why she is referred to as "Dr. Holly". Please add in the article that she has her PhD as well as her Master's degrees.

69.142.250.209 (talk) 18:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Bility (talk) 18:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This link from her school shows her educational credentials. http://www.winchesterthurston.org/page.cfm?p=14&viewdirid=56&showFilter=1&keyword=holly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.151.11 (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done — Bility (talk) 17:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above link directs to a deleted profile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.92.53.96 (talk) 23:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 20 February 2012

[edit]

Please change the false facts within the page about the character's names, families, and lives. I am an experienced Dance Mom's fan and am very educated upon the facts. Please change the spelling of character's names to the correct format. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by boon99 (talk • contribs)

References

  1. ^ www.mylifetime.com
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. --Bmusician 02:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pyramid

[edit]

Could someone please update the pyramid with last nights episode ???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.77.2.199 (talk) 12:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done There were a few surprises last night! For An Angel (talk) 13:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey could someone please edit the amount of episodes there is actually 13 episodes not 10. The source for this is the lifetime media release that said that DanceMoms Miami would air straight after the finale of the original Dance Moms on April 3rd. This means there has to be 3 more episodes. I am unsure of names and so far by research are finding that they say "TBA" meaning To Be Announced. I am not from the US so I do not have access to US sites that some can access. Hope this information can be found soon. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.174.32 (talk) 06:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We normally post the information after the episodes air or as soon as we can information on them. For An Angel (talk) 13:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Episode 13 is called abbygeddon. Here is the summary of the episode from tvlinks.eu "The second season ends with Abby's dancers competing in the regionals and for a scholarship with the Joffrey Ballet School. Unfortunately for her, the Candy Apples also compete". Maddy forgets her solo and the girls loss to Candy Apple Dance Studios has Abby in tears and she leaves. This is only a mid season finale though so there must be more episodes after the new series spin-off Dance Moms Miami airs their six episodes of season 1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.118.116 (talk) 02:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of OR and BLP violations

[edit]

This article contained large amounts of original research and unsourced commentary. In particular, it violated Wikipedia's stringent policy concerning biographies of living people. (Note that all Wikipedia pages -- not just biographies -- are covered by this policy.) Therefore, it has been necessary to remove a large amount of the text. Please do not add any information unless it is cited to a good independent reliable source. Personal commentary or reflections are not permitted at all. — CactusWriter (talk) 23:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further clarification following the re-addition of cast commentary: Although this is a television show, the cast are not fictional and therefore information about them falls under our BLP policy. The descriptions must be referenced and cited to independent reliable sources. Information about the individual episode synopses can be sourced directly to the televised episode, but not any interpretive information about the cast -- which must be sourced only to qualified independent reviews, newspapers, magazines, etc. No original research or personal commentary from Wikipedia editors is permitted. — CactusWriter (talk) 18:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This does not make sense so I am changing it.

[edit]

This does not make sense-"Melissa Pleads the Fifth" March 20, 2012 Melissa decides she can’t take Christi and Melissa’s inquiries about her engagement anymore, and decides to have her attorney send a letter to the nosy mothers. The letter gets not only the moms worked up, but causes tension in the dance studio. Melissa realizes she must choose between being a customer of Abby’s and a friend of Cathy’s. A dance routine goes wrong and a dancer must be rushed to the ambulance. 

Melissa decides she cannot take the other three dance moms's nosiness about her personal life. She then decides to send each of themm a letter saying if they do nto stop their actions they will be sued. Abby gives Nia a spot in the trio. However, the trio does not place. In Candy Apples Cathy plans a dark clown routine. During which Taylor, one of Cathy's dancers, breaks her ankle onstage and gets rushed to the hospital.

Controversy

[edit]

I am pretty sure this program is controversial. Where is that section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.84.91.103 (talk) 17:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It just hasn't been written yet. You'll have to provide some sources to back the statement up (I'm not saying that it isn't controversial, just that you'll need to cite some literature), but feel free to write it yourself if you'd like. Kevinbrogers (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.backstage.com/news/real-dance-moms-respond-to-dance-moms-controversy/ http://www.gossipcop.com/dance-moms-showgirls-episode-pulled-controversy-scandal-inappropriate/ http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-03-09/entertainment/31138509_1_showgirls-megan-fox-controversy http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/video/dance-moms-controversial-methods-16463898 http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2012/03/dance-moms-kids-nude-bras-showgirls-routine-controversy-video

These are just the first five google hits out of more than 1,500,000 on keywords dance moms controversy. Try it for yourself if you need more source material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.92.53.96 (talk) 23:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The keywords "dance moms +pedophile or +pedophilia" also deliver a load of articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.54.130.124 (talk) 15:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request

[edit]

Hey Dance Moms Fans, noticed that wikipedia wants this page linked to other sections of the website. Also because people who quickly want information scan the summary bar on the far side of the page, maybe someone can add in the section related series or something like that dance moms miami, like I did on the Dance Moms Miami page. I can't do it because it is blocked.

My Second request is that the descriptions of both the dancer, moms and other moms sections have more information based on the show. Also please update the other dancers section by providing more information on when these dancers were featured and if possible where there are now eg. Dawn's daughter (Reagan?), and Payton. Thanks this will give the dance fans a better understanding of each of the girls. For example I have put a description of Chloe Lukasiak below. Hope you like it!! "Chloe Lukasiak is 10 years old and one of the more advanced dancers in this group. Sometimes portrayed as the underdog, Chloe is very talented at all Dance genres but is well known for her Ballet, Lyrical and Musical Theatre solos in which she usually places well in. This year Chloe recently began learning en pointe, an advanced type of ballet. Chloe recieved a scholarship to the Joffey Ballet School in the mid-season finale of season 2 making her even more well-known." — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanceMomsFan1515 (talk • contribs) 12:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know enough to write descriptions for the dancers, but I have added Miami as a related show in the infobox. —C.Fred (talk) 13:06, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 16 May 2012

[edit]

dance moms was not renewed for a third season 108.225.16.249 (talk) 00:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was. It's starts next month. For An Angel (talk) 12:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 3 June 2012

[edit]

Season returns 5 June not 3

72.95.39.94 (talk) 23:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done For An Angel (talk) 19:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons

[edit]

According to Lifetime's episode list, the current season is season 2.[1] Accordingly, I've merged seasons 2 and 3 to match the source. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Locked

[edit]

Lets see, the article is locked, yet there are Big boxes on the page saying that things are wrong and need to be fixed, yet no one can fix them because the article is locked. How are people supposed to fix the article then? And I think the lock expires in Febuary 2013. That seems a little extreme.--98.87.89.147 (talk) 19:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Create an account and after you've made some edits at other articles you'll be able to edit the article. Alternatively, submit an edit request, as per the Edit requests above. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have a account. I just wasn't logged in.--BeckiGreen (talk) 21:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then to answer your question of how someone with an account is supposed to edit the article, do what you just did and sign in first. If you ask me, 6 months protection is not long enough. If you look through the history and see how often it's vandalized by people without accounts when the article is not protected then you'll think so too. For An Angel (talk) 13:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cast section

[edit]

I know there are already flags but this page seems to get a lot of attention from a few editors so i figure it shouldnt take long to correct....the cast section needs to be almost entirely removed. Most of the nfo is story line commentary as opposed to factual information regarding the cast. This is not the place for opinion or pov statements. I'm going to trim the most serious but hope others can help with the more nuanced stuff thats been inappropriately added to the section. Macutty (talk) 17:10, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

after reviewing further i gutted much of the section as it was flagrant BLP violations. Statements about the shows gossip should not be included. Macutty (talk) 17:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much all of what you removed is easily verifiable content that is ongoing in almost every episode, nauseatingly so in fact. Its inclusion is pretty much in line with most TV articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just again had to restore verifiable content that was removed from the article, with the remover claiming that we need to avoid primary sources. This is factually incorrect, the use of primary sources is quite acceptable. Personally, I'm not a fan of this show, but my wife likes to watch it so I've seen most episodes and what is in the cast section now is easily verifiable. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is "verifiable" but only to primary sources, which leads to original research. Since this concerns living persons, I agree with Macutty that this stuff needs to go. ASAP.Volunteer Marek 08:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I've told you at your talk page, television episodes are acceptable primary sources as explained at WP:TVPLOT, which references WP:PSTS. This has been tested over and over. WP:PSTS explains the policy on primary sources which is in part "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them" and "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge." This is exactly how the primary sources have been used here - Any educated (or for that matter uneducated - it's not rocket science) with access to the source (i.e. the episodes) can verify exactly what the article says. (if they can stomach watching the episodes) Any dubious content or content that is not related to the program has been removed. There's simply no justification to removing what's left since it's all easily verifiable. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Look the relevant text is a bunch of gossip and opinions of some Wikipedian. It's classic OR and it doesn't add anything to the article. There's a reason there are tags all over this article. It looks like I'm not the only one who thinks so, as Macutty felt exactly the same way, as did whoever put that tag in.
You're now edit warring without consensus, in regarded to matters that have to do with WP:BLP and the use of non-free images.Volunteer Marek 16:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I have explained to you, no it is not gossip and opinions. It is a direct reflection of what is stated in the program, as is required by WP:PSTS. That Macutty felt the same as you merely demonstrates that he hasn't bothered to actually attempt to verify the content either. As for edit warring, it's the person who continues to revert to his preferred version, irrelevant content, mistakes and all,[2] who is edit-warring. I have attempted to clean up the article, after actually verifying the content.[3] As I explained to you on your talk page, when there is a dispute over content the status quo reigns. Also as I have explained, unfortunately, this is the status quo, not the cleaned up version.[4] That's the version that should be reverted to while this is under discussion, per WP:STATUSQUO. Your persistent removal of easily verifiable content, and reintroduction of errors and irrelevant content is disruptive editing at best. Wikipedia doesn't censor content, which is what you seem to be doing with your wholesale removal of verifiable content. The justifications that you have been using to delete the content have been changing as I've been able to refute your claims:
"serious BLP issues" - You've never actually explained what these supposedly are. In any case there are none, as the content in the article only reflects what has appeared in the program.
"article needs to AVOID primary sources and OR" - I'll give you the OR, but WP:PSTS specifically does not exclude primay sources.
"As for FUR, it fails "no free equivalent" (theoretically possible to get a free image)" - Well, that's not what WP:NFCC says. It actually says "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose". Cast photos are used in many articles because it's not generally possible to get a photo of the cast together, especially when there are so many cast members involved. It might be possible to get a few photos of individuals but articles are not supposed to be image farms. A single image is preferred and there has never been a ruling that cast photos are not permitted. Quite the opposite in fact. The only opposition is to including multiple images, say a cast photo for each season in the one article.
"it's not low rez" - That's a reason to resize the image, not to remove it from the article. The image is only 426x450px, which is in the region of low resolution, so this is a pretty weak argument. And now it's completely invalid, as the image size has been reduced.[5]
"Fact it was uploaded by indef banned user doesn't help" - As I've indicated on your talk page, this is completely irrelevant. The uploader was only blocked a few days ago. This image, which was uploaded in February, had nothing to do with that block. The uploader hasn't even edited the article since August.
"This is "verifiable" but only to primary sources, which leads to original research" - Again WP:PSTS allows primary sources - "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia". That's more than sufficient. As for "which leads to original research", this seems to be your own opinion, not supported by policy or guidelines. Primary sources don't lead to OR at all. If something has sources and is verifiable, it's not OR.
"There's a reason there are tags all over this article" - There was a tag in the cast section, but I edited the section to resolve that issue. You've restored your version of the article which has restored the fancruft, so that's your fault. The only other tag is the one at the top of the article so the claim that "there are tags all over this article" is completely incorrect. Ironically, one of the changes that you made without explanation removed cited content from the lead.[6]
So far I haven't seen any consistent, supported by policy reasons for removing the content from this article. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is reasonable (and permitted) to use books, films, or television shows as a source of simple facts like names or even to create a plot summary. This does not extend to such things as whether someone is "disliked", or even include trivia. The guidance about non-free images is in relation to what is possible, not what is likely or easy. The image is non-free and not required to discuss the cast. It should be kept out of the article (and if not used in the article, it should be deleted). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't agree. If the statement is made in the episode then the primary source is the best way to cite it, provided WP:PSTS is complied with. As for the image, there have been numerous discussions about cast photos and certainly, when free content is available it should be used but cast photos are certainly not banned. As an example Friends, which is a good article, includes a cast photo. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to agree - WP:OR and WP:VERIFY are policies. It is by general agreement that tv shows can be used as a source for simple facts, but any more than that is original research. Similarly WP:NFCC is a policy, and one that has legal considerations. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it is gleaned from aired episodes, it is not considered OR. As for flaggers for verification, I suggest the cite episode template. — WylieCoyote 14:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 4 November 2012

[edit]

76.100.209.160 (talk) 21:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC) 3 seasons[reply]

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. - the article already mentions the 3rd season, in the lead, and the Episodes section. Please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Begoon talk 03:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 26 November 2012

[edit]

3rd season to premiere on January 1, 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.200.111.0 (talk • contribs)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - Begoon talk 18:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 2 January 2013

[edit]

You need to add nicaya morris from season two. since you have ally on here.

75.132.22.216 (talk) 03:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abby's Ultimate Dance Competition

[edit]

Should we include AUDC as a related show since it has Abby in it as well? or would that not qualify as a related show? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.109.218.111 (talk) 01:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 21 January 2013

[edit]

Please change season 3 episode 2 pyramid that is currently N/A to Maddie on top, Ally and Nia in the middle, Kendall, Chloe and Mackenzie on the bottom because during the episode, they show the pyramid with all of the pictures for about 3 seconds so you can see what the pyramid would have been. You can watch Episode 2 Season 3 of dance moms on mylifetime.com/dancemoms to see the unveiled pyramid. 68.173.103.25 (talk) 03:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Straight Line to Bottom

[edit]

Could we switch the "straight line" to bottom in season 3 episode 3? They were technically on the bottom since Sophia was on top. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.109.218.111 (talk) 00:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pyramid

[edit]

Is there any good reason to keep the pyramid weekly entries? The pyramid entries are all unsourced and are really only suited for a fan page. This article needs some serious clean up, and deleting the weekly pyramids from the article is a good place to start. While the section, or mentioning the pyramid is notable and relevant as to the effect that it has on the rest of the show, but the weekly updates are indiscriminate and fancruft. -Aaron Booth (talk) 03:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Last Names

[edit]

I think the last names should be removed. There's no source, and the iMDB is somewhat unreliable (they mess up actors' heights and stuff). Also, if the show goes out the way to censor last names (in one episode, when Abby is calling Jill, Jill's last name is blurred), then would it be better for the sake of the families to have them removed. Unless the editor who added those names knows them in person (and has evidence), then it's better to get them removed. However, since Wikipedia's editing software is impossible to use and it sucks (no offense), I'll have a hard time even editing something simple. Atum World There's an Acadia for that too! 02:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC) [reply]

That's ridiculous! Everyone knows their last names — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.238.22 (talk) 06:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the summary since there was a box asking to do so.

[edit]

I changed the summary to read-Set in Pittsburgh, Abby Lee Dance Company is owned and operated by instructor Abby Lee Miller, Dance Moms follows a dance competition team with dancers of various aged girls and their mothers who are there for every rehearsal and performance. The show features rivalries between dancers,mothers and Miller herself. I tried to make the summary read like a neutral point if view.--BeckiGreen (talk) 02:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removed unsourced statements, allegations and weasel like words.

[edit]

I removed several unsourced statements, statements like such and such girl has modeled for company xyz, and I removed weasel like words, such as very talented, most talented etc. I also removed statements about Melissa allegedly cheating on her husband, and dance being the breakup of her marriage. Contributors to Wikipedia cannot write statements about cheating, etc because there is no source for it, it violates BLP and if the subject in question were to read about untrue facts, it could could be considered Libel or defamation of character.--BeckiGreen (talk) 22:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to add that I removed the dancer's birthdays. The are no sources for their birthdays.--BeckiGreen (talk) 22:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone like to help me with Dance Moms?

[edit]

Would anyone like to help me with Dance Moms? There are several boxes in the article stating that the article need claims and sources and that unsourced material can be removed. Another box states the article needs a neutral tone. I am trying to do all of the above, that is why I remove statements about Melissa cheating on her husband and remarrying her boss. I also try to remove opinions, statements like, Melissa is two faced, or Christi doesn't like the other dancers. Those weren't the exact statements I removed, but they were similar. I need some help to make this article better,because I cannot do it alone. Thank you.--BeckiGreen (talk) 23:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't add statements without sources.

[edit]

Can everyone please quit adding statements like -Melissa has since remarried,reportedly to her former supervisor with whom she had an affair. She believes Abby will make her daughter, Maddie, into a star. Melissa has proven herself time and time again to be quite manipulative and two-faced, as well as unnecessarily arrogant. This is due to the fact that Melissa will, according to the other Moms, stab anyone in the back as long as it means getting Maddie ahead. first of all, no one can write a statement about her having an affair unless it is sourced. Failure to do so can be considered slander or defamation of character,which is not good for Wikipedia. Also opinions like-Melissa has proven herself time and time again to be quite manipulative and two-faced, as well as unnecessarily arrogant, cannot be added because the statement is just that, an opinion. If anyone can find a source stating she is two faced,arrogant,etc then add a source. Personal Opinions don't belong on Wikipedia. Also sources have to come from legit sources,not blogs.--BeckiGreen (talk) 22:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pyramid

[edit]

Would anyone object to me removing the colored boxes that show the girls position on the Pyramid? I feel they are bulky,take up space and the colors are just to bright. Another person suggested the removal of the pyramids in another section of the talk page and I agree.--BeckiGreen (talk) 23:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove Pyramid I would say just remove the entire weekly pyramid. Unless there is one or two in particular that would be sourced and of note (for example a suspension of one of the girls, or possibly general statements in relation to the general result or cause of the pyramid). That entire section of the article is really only suited for a fan-site. Therefore, it fails as WP:RS as well as WP:INDISCRIMINATE. -Aaron Booth (talk) 02:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Aaron. I feel the same way as you do. And also the pyramid of season 3A runs off the side of the page and looks odd. I will be bold and remove it. Thanks for your opinion and help.--BeckiGreen (talk) 01:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the birth dates again.

[edit]

I have removed the dancers birth dates, yet again due to the sources used. The sources are web pages that use the girls names,for example Kendall Vertes.com, Brooke Hyland.com, Maddie Ziegler.com, Paige Hyland.com, Chloe Lukasiak.net and the like. If you go to any of the web pages and scroll to the bottom you can see that the pages state-© 2012 PaigeHyland.com.This website is not affiliated with "Dance Moms" or its cast members. All the websites have the same disclaimer,with whatever dancer's name Brooke Hyland, Chloe Lukasiak,etc. since these web pages are not associated with Dance Moms,Lifetime television etc,and are fan sites,they are not acceptable sources. I also had to remove some fan cruft descriptions about the dancers,like- very eclectic, winningest teen dancer,etc. I also removed the direct link to Candy Apple's Dance Studio that was in the summary. Also,who removed the boxes stating what the article needs? Those need to stay,so other people working on the article can see what the article needs.--BeckiGreen (talk) 02:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can do a Whois check to see who is behind a website. You can find the registrant information and such. Ex [7] and [8]. Both of those are registered to a Jamie Titak. -Aaron Booth (talk) 03:04, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Name usage

[edit]

Since we do not refer to a subject just by first name on Wikipedia (if they are considered under BLP and not as a character), I brought up the issue at Wikipedia_talk:Manual of Style/Biographies#Use of first names. I wanted to get some confirmed and specific consensus here before we move forward in those regards. While it seems a bit gray, I think we should treat them as we do any living person and just use their last names after the initial full name mention. -Aaron Booth (talk) 03:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Aaron.--BeckiGreen (talk) 22:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Hylands

[edit]

ok, we all saw the previous episode when Kelly and Abby had their big fight. But is it currently necessary to pull the Hylands from the cast list on this page? They are still given star billing and are not removed from the Lifetime website despite Abby stating that they are not invited back to ALDC. They are still in court and there hasn't been any official ruling about who is at fault, but Abby still points a finger at Kelly for numerous reasons for being disinvited, but production has not removed them. Thoughts? Ivaroa (talk) 05:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the former cast members?

[edit]

I'm appalled that the former cast members are not included in this article. Why not? As much as Abby disliked them and no longer wanted them on the show, Chloe, Paige, and Brooke were full members of the ALDC and members of Abby's studio since they were preschoolers. They were in seasons 1-4. I find it extremely unfair to omit them completely from the wikipedia entry. 184.170.167.19 (talk) 03:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)CucFan 19:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC), edited 21 August 2015 to sign.[reply]

Please do not delete the Former Cast Members section that I added today. I wrote the above entry, and waited 5 months - no one has added any objection here. I speak for literally thousands of fans who feel that Chloe, Paige and Brooke do not deserve the obliteration of their Dance Moms history that has been done by Abby Lee Miller, Lifetime's website, and this wikipedia entry. Chloe, Paige and Brooke, besides being part of the regular cast in almost every episode of Seasons 2-4, were students at Reign Dance Productions since early childhood, and they were also on the ALDC competitive team before Dance Moms, along with Maddie, Mackenzie, and Nia. They were lead characters, and if Kalani and JoJo can be listed just because they have been on the show for a year and are current members, Chloe, Brooke and Paige deserve to be listed. I have added them back in here, along with Vivi (technically she was also a regular in Season 1). Additionally, Chloe has begun winning dance industry awards, and it is unfair to her to leave them out of the awards table, so I added those in. 184.170.167.19 (talk) 03:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)CucFan[reply]

  • I propose the addition of a table like the one below in the article's cast section, as a simple clear way of dealing with the show's cast history. As in my view the section is currently excessive and full of fancruft. Comments welcome. User:Sgcosh (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Main cast

[edit]
Choreographer Role Season
1 2 3 4 5 6
Abby Lee Miller ALDC owner / main choreographer Main
Gianna Martello Assistant choreographer Main

Main cast

[edit]
Dance Mom Dancer Season
1 2 3 4 5 6
Melissa Gisoni Maddie Main
Mackenzie Main
Dr. Holly Hatcher-Frazier Nia Main
Kelly Hyland Brooke Main
Paige Main
Christi Lukasiak Chloe Main
Cathy Nesbitt-Stein Vivi-Anne Main Recurring
Jill Vertes Kendall Main
Kristie Ray Asia Main
Kira Girard Kalani Main
Jessalynn Siwa Jo-Jo Main
Ashlee Allen Brynn Recurring Main

That timeline is perfect and should be included. The notes say "Do not include a "timeline of moms" or other type of cast table here. Use of such tables has been specifically discussed at WT:TV and rejected in favour of WP:TVCAST which specifies that cast should be listed using prose" but I don't see any evidence that discussion took place, its not in any of the archives. Omitting the entire former cast member section is absolutely ridiculous in any case. Pinchofhope (talk) 02:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reinstated timeline table given the pros usage for it. User AussieLegend digress, stating this should be discussed at the talk page.... It already has... ^ Hence reason for reverting the table to the timeline. B.Davis2003 (talk) 09:35, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is a new discussion below, with reference to, and an explanation of current guideline. There is no digressing. Please continue the discussion there. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Awards and nominations

[edit]

Could the awards and nominations section be kept directly relevant to the TV show Dance Moms (it's only relevant if the show is the recipient or a cast member when the category is related directly to the show eg. choice tv: reality personality). It currently appears to list awards and nominations that cast members (and former members) have received that are not directly related to the show "dance moms". Eg: Industry Dance Awards and nominations for favorite dancer / TCA for choice dancer & PCA for seriously popular are not applicable in this article's table but to the cast members own respective wikipedia articles. User:Sgcosh (talk) 18:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dance Moms. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ratings graph.

[edit]

I'm trying to read this on my iPad, and I think the ratings graph is messing up the page view. When I look at the page, the type is very tiny and the ratings graph and ratings episode numbers thing is very wide and long. I think the graph and the episode numbers thing needs to be removed. Even it it's not causing the page issues I'm experiencing, it looks amateurish and horrible. I will wait to see if anyone comments here, otherwise I'm going to remove it tomorrow. Paige Matheson (talk) 23:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there a lifetime link under my comment?Paige Matheson (talk) 23:38, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the complete removal of the ratings section. Ratings are an important part of every TV show and thus a section on it is included in most TV show wikipedia articles. By all means you could edit the section to display the information in a better way. MarsToutatis talk 10:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ratings graph but no cast timeline

[edit]

My question is why do we not have a cast timeline but we have a graph with ratings on it? Have the ratings listed fine, but there is no need for an episode by episode ratings graph on the main page. Include a timeline so it'll be easier to see who was on what season. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.235.45.100 (talk) 16:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The hidden note on this article "Do not include a "timeline of moms" or other type of cast table here. Use of such tables has been specifically discussed at WT:TV and rejected in favour of WP:TVCAST which specifies that cast should be listed using prose." is outdated. It appears MOS:TVCAST was changed in March 2017 based on the discussion here Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/August 2016 updates/Cast and characters section, to now allow cast tables (such as the one found at The Killing (U.S. TV series) § Cast) to be used for programs with more than 3 seasons, and where the cast changes are extensive. Dance Moms appears to me to meet both of these, as the current main cast on the show is now very different to season 1. As such I would support the inclusion of a cast table in this article. MarsToutatis talk 18:13, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cast tables are permitted in character articles, but we don't use them in main series articles. You'll note that WP:TVCAST specifically starts with a direction to present cast in one of two way, both of which are prose. As a general rule, Wikipedia prefers prose over tables. Cast lists are supposed to provide detailed information about cast, not just list them as the table does. The table that was added here deleted a lot of detail about the cast and that is not appropriate. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:59, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. MarsToutatis talk 19:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify this a bit further, it is OK to use a table in a main series article, but it should not be used to the detriment of prose detailing character information. If there is prose in a separate "List of characters" article, then a table may be used in the main series article. However, if there is no separate "List of characters" article, as is the case here, a table should not replace prose. Nor should both be used in order to retain prose information. For this article, prose is the only option. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:47, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've never been a fan of these tables, or ratings tables (outside of a basic season table that shows the ranking of the season). I think there is too much reliance on tables to convey message in some odd belief that readers don't want to "read" articles, but want visual guides for everything. Yes, they can look nice, but they rarely convey anything new and generally are just redundant to what's in prose. I don't see why this page needs a cast table.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:44, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox cast order

[edit]

The cast list in the infobox is clearly out of order. There is even a note to remind editors that the list should be based on the original credits. If someone could find the original credits and reorganize that, it would be most appreciated.

Also, I find it bizarre that there is not a single dance mom listed in the main cast of the Dance Moms infobox. I realize the list could get long if they were added, but perhaps a (see below) tag would be more appropriate. Dhalh (talk) 21:25, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of people don't seem to get that the show is about the "moms", not the actual dancers, which is why there are so many dancers listed in the infobox. I was never a fan of the program but recorded it for my dearly departed wife, and I don't actually remember anyone being credited so I was surprised to see all the added names. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

VERY SERIOUS I SUPPOSE: What happened to Dance Moms?

[edit]

A Black Panther reference has took over the Dance Moms page. How has this happened? KittensYay (talk) 02:53, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

End and start

[edit]

When did it end and strat 2A02:C7C:3212:FE00:D874:A528:A00C:9686 (talk) 22:49, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Linguistics in the Digital Age

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2023 and 11 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Allisonscott045 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Nurbekyuldashov (talk) 01:52, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dance Moms: A New Era

[edit]

Dance Moms: A New Era is a new spin off coming out in August 2024 through Hulu. It should be added to the spin off section. 96.235.28.124 (talk) 05:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dance_Moms&oldid=1253544802"