Talk:Dancing on Ice series 6

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the British television task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Figure Skating Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Figure Skating, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of figure skating-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Figure SkatingWikipedia:WikiProject Figure SkatingTemplate:WikiProject Figure SkatingFigure skating articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

[Untitled]

I have removed judges as we dont know who they are except that nicky isnt coming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.105.97.218 (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

The link regarding Angela Rippon mentions her as possible contestant not a possible judge. Lost4eva (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Judges scores

Hi, I was just wondering how the judges will mark each couple individually (out of 6 or 10) --MSalmon (talk) 11:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know but we'll find out in a minute :-) Anemone Projectors 18:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As confirmed by Philip it is out of 10 --MSalmon (talk) 18:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Call Out order...

what is the relevance of this? I thought that contestants were not called out in order of voting. So why do we need a table saying Vanilla Ice & Katie 1st, Johnson & Jodeyne second etc... ? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 01:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I was thinking. If it's random, it has no relevance. Anemone Projectors 08:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, why does anyone need to know that? --MSalmon (talk) 09:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right I've gone ahead and removed the two tables. I'm sure there has to be a better way of presenting the information already present. I'm thinking a summary table like that at The X Factor would be good. I'm conscious that regular editors of pages in the series might resent changes because this page will look different to previous ones but there is surely better ways of inputting the information? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 11:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I didn't see this talk page before putting the Call Out Order back on. First of all, I was the one who made the Dancing On Ice series five page, everything you see on that page I made. I did it so fans of the show could look to it as a sort of guide to the entire season. The call out order is relevant to the show, because it's used in the results before the climactic reveal of the bottom two contestants. It's when Phillip is slowly revealing the fates of the contestants. This call-out order table is also used for shows such as Dancing With the Stars. Also, making a summary table like The X Factor would be a bad idea because that doesn't demonstrate the voting system of the show. If you refer back to the Series 5 page of Dancing On Ice you will see that I have done a Voting summary for each week, demonstrating the points system and how contestants scored with the judges and public votes tied. There is a Scoreboard that will later be added to this page much like The X Factor, and the previous season of Dancing On Ice's page. The call-out table should be re-instated for the facts I've just stated. Codywarren08 (talk) 21:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is just useless trivia that is not relevant to the article and who cares about the order the couples came in --MSalmon (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might not care but I'm sure the countless amounts of people who check the article might. You can't speak for everyone who visits the page. The article is about series six of Dancing On Ice, the call-out order of the celebrities in the results show is part of the show. People who missed the episode might want to look and update themselves with the information. This page is all about Dancing On Ice, and what I tried to do with series five was to put every little bit of information on the series as possible to ensure fans could look at the page and know all there is to know about that series. As I've said, Phillip uses the call-out order to slowly reveal the fates of the celebrities and hugely impacts on the results show. Fans of the show love that part of the show, so detailing it down on the page is exactly what Wikipedia is about. Giving people all the information they want and need. Codywarren08 (talk) 19:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm a fan of the show, but I know that the order isn't important because it doesn't relate to the result in any way. What matters is the scores, who is in the skate-off and who goes. –Anemone Projectors– 20:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I too am a fan of the show, and I removed the call out order because its completely random. There's no thought process or technical information about who gets called out in what order. Its not even in order of score, its just who's safe and who's not. There's nothing more to it. Ask yourself... as a fan do you lose anything by not knowing the information? The answer is no and thus the information is WP:Indiscriminate. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 20:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know the call-out order to this? If you do, please upload it to this Discussion page, so it doesn't have to be in the proper page. If you can't, then just put behind this paragraph. I really want to know who was called out first, second, third, etc...

Placing for first four couples

I have not put a placing for the first four couples as it was only a qualifying round, the placings can start from this week when the competition starts on 23 January. --MSalmon (talk) 19:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Even if they did have placings they would all be equally 13th anyway, not 13, 14, 15 and 16. Anemone Projectors 20:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know, so I would leave it like that (I have added a note to say not to change it) --MSalmon (talk) 20:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"DNQ" sounds better. It sounds more like their final position. Leaving it blank suggests they're yet to be placed, putting 'N/A' makes it sounds like they were unable to place anywhere (e.g. due to quitting the competition). 'DNQ' makes it more clear that the first four skaters did not qualify for a final placing.

That does sound good. As long as readers know what DNQ stands for. –Anemone Projectors– 13:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Week 7 Scoring Table

I was just wondering if the scores for week 7 should be e.g. 28.5+28.5=57.0/25.5+0.0=25.5 or should they be as they are now? --MSalmon (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's pretty clear as it is. –Anemone Projectors– 00:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Laura should not have an average of 26.5 after week 7. I don't think the double scores should be included in the averages, as it would make everything very inaccurate.

If the doubled scores were not included then the table would be wrong as it has to reflect the judges scores table. --MSalmon (talk) 11:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The teamm challenge legitimately doubled scores, hence for those weeks three of the contestants were scored out of 60 instead of 30. Statistically it means that the judges scores carried a greater weight on the night. So of course its significant and should be included! — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 13:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The scores were doubled to affect the leaderboard. The averages would be very messed up if they were included. If the doubled scores are to be included, then those scores should be divided by 9, and not 8. How can Laura have an average score of 26.5? Seven of her scores have been below that! Jeff's average score of 20 also looks ridiculous and very inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J4rose (talk • contribs) 00:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Week 10

Is anyone interested in adding the information for the final? Also, the voting percentages are available on the ITV website, they should also be added. –Anemone Projectors– 23:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will do it but only if no one else edits the page while I am doing it so I can edit it all in one go --MSalmon (talk) 08:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ok, try putting {{in use}} at the top of the article and hopefully nobody else will edit it at the same time. –Anemone Projectors– 08:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. I will do it later when I have time --MSalmon (talk) 08:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of putting the results of the voting on the end of the tables for each week, rather than having seperate tables like last year? --MSalmon (talk) 09:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dancing on Ice (series 6). 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) 23:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]