Jump to content

Talk:Dancing with the Stars (American TV series) season 18

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

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2014

[edit]

Weekly tables for the Dancing With The Stars contestants, which include score and order of performance, should be created. Dancing positions are also starting to be revealed.

https://twitter.com/jamesmaslow/status/445298621156966400


WhoDaFoo (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

24 hours away... no worries, the table can and will be added once there are scores and information to go in them. Gloss • talk 23:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, no worries...tables will be added in time. I just wanted to add that phone numbers don't always represent the dancing order in the premiere...last season there were some differences so, the order has to wait till is clear. TeamGale 00:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can we also have this for next week (after the time of this post)? Mr. Guye (talk) 01:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Green/Red for highest and lowest scorers

[edit]

This is more-so a discussion about all of the seasons' articles.

Currently in the scoring chart, when a score is the highest of the week, it's colored green. When a score is the lowest, it's colored red.. but we also italicize it. The good thing about the italics is that for color-blind readers, they can still see that the couple with the lowest score is the italicized number... but there is nothing that stands out for the highest score besides the color. So would anyone object to the highest score also being bolded? Gloss • talk 13:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to do it then just go ahead, if anyone want to change it back then take them here --MSalmon (talk) 13:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I take it you will re-add the other weeks in the scoring chart next week, so the grey row for the elimination can be added? --MSalmon (talk) 13:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No? The grey row for the elimination can just be started the following week and can be expanded one week at a time. Gloss • talk 13:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And the point of that is? --MSalmon (talk) 16:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My 2c...I really can't understand the point of not adding the whole chart now that the season started...the chart was always there for all the previous seasons (17 up to now!!!). Why change now after 9 years?? TeamGale 16:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea, I wanted to reinstate it but I was told off --MSalmon (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I want to watch the whole charts (in both scoring and dance) and I really can't understand why now this has to change. I wonder what others think of that because it seems only one editor wants the charts to not be there since is the only one who removes them... TeamGale 16:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't make sense to have blank and empty columns when they can simply be added week by week.. What is the point of having more than half of a data table empty? There is no information on their scores for any week other than 1 right now, so why add empty columns all with blank cells? Gloss • talk 20:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it did make sense for the past 17 seasons and people seem to want it to stay that way. Is there a rule on WP that says that those kind of charts can't be added sooner since the show started? If there is please provide it here because I tried to find information about the subject and I couldn't find anything. If yes, then ok. A full chart gives automatically the information of how many more weeks are left for the show which is really helpful imo and as far as I saw to similar cases, the chart is always there in full form. TeamGale 20:29, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please know that "it's always been that way" is not a valid argument. It could have always been that way but it doesn't mean it's always been right. Adding those columns would be like adding blank tables for the running order of weeks 2-10. If you want to write out in prose "the competition is scheduled to last 10 weeks" or however long it is, that works too... but "it's always been this way" isn't a reason we should be having blank columns, when it's easily avoidable. Gloss • talk 20:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah...I am also not seeing a rule though saying that it shouldn't be that way or that is wrong...what I see is many editors adding the tables and you removing them. I don't plan to fight over this because I have more important things to do, I just said my opinion. With that logic you should also remove the dances from the highest and lowest scores but those seem to not bother you? And the weekly running order is totally different situation since those tables are used for only one week. The charts are for the whole season and being there is also helpful to the editing. But like I said, I won't fight...said my opinion and I'm done. TeamGale 20:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't see what the point of arguing about it is since he doesn't listen to anything we have to say anyway. --MSalmon (talk) 21:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, hi.. I'm right here and you can address me directly. Thanks. Also, please comment on the content, not the contributor. Gloss • talk 21:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removed "Talk" - submitted in error. S.54729 (talk) 01:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Couple switches

[edit]

Next week, the pairings will be different, which will affect most of the tables. Any suggestions on how to handle this before edit wars break out next week? Gloss • talk 04:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion is to add the pro's name in a parenthesis next to the original pro partner's to the tables that is needed (couples, scoring chart, average scores, highest/lowest scores and dance chart) and add a note (same one) explaining why the name was added there. The "Week 4" table it will be OK I guess. Plus, I would suggest the day of the show to protect the page...I don't know if something like that helps though because I don't edit during the live show. A person who edits would be easier to say if it helps. TeamGale 11:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "average score" table is currently inaccurate because it includes the week 4 score in the averages. Perhaps we should change "Couple" to "Celebrity" and adjust the list accordingly, only listing the celebrity's name, and not their partner(s)? Gloss • talk 02:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed Couple

[edit]

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20803754,00.html

Peta is dancing the Rumba with Charlie

Content Asthetics

[edit]

In the weekly scores can you put Total Score at the top and the judges individual scores at the underneath in a single line not split over the two. Thengp12 (talk) 16:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean. You say "underneath", then you say "a single line" (?) --Musdan77 (talk) 19:39, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the Strictly come Dancing weekly scores Here is an example

40
(10,10,10,10)

36
(9,8,10,9) Thengp12 (talk) 14:08, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is the difference? --MSalmon (talk) 15:04, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like the split on two lines (I've just adjusted Thengp12's entry to show the split as it was entered into the editor) when it can all fit on a single line, which is the ideal we've been aiming for—the whole entry can frequently fit on a single line, so to enforce an arbitrary total/individual split in the scores can lengthen the table unnecessarily. I also think it's important to have spaces after the commas rather than all smashed together: 40 (10, 10, 10, 10) is nicer to read than 40 (10,10,10,10).
What I've just done is taken the longest score line and replaced all the regular spaces with non-breaking spaces. I've also made the narrower tables a touch wider to compensate: no reason for 60% or 65% width when 70% works just fine and is still below the longer ones that run to 80% or 90%. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:02, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Very good. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There was no difference with the line breaks than without so we don't really need them, if it doesn't fit on then widen the table --MSalmon (talk) 22:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Msalmon, the problem with widening the table generally is that it only has a very small effect on the Scores column, not enough that it's going to prevent the line break, which looks really bad in the scores, but not nearly so in some of the other columns, like Results or Songs. It's why you have editors coming around every once in a while to remove the spacing in the scores. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template for table sorting.

[edit]

Can someone help me out with the table sorting template.

9 (click the edit to see it.)

Like that, but I need the original template for it. If anyone could help that would be great.

Average Score Chart

[edit]

The total points and averages for Danica and James are both incorrect, both of them have accumulated a total of 155 points as of week 6. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.178.112 (talk) 22:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You were right, thanks for catching this. I corrected it TeamGale 22:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Week 7 Sorting

[edit]

The values for week 7 sort based on the first score received, not the total of the two scores. Can someone fix this? I do not know how to do it. Rotbandito (talk) 23:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

[edit]

I think the page needs to semi-protected again at least till the season is over. Since the first day the protection is gone, many IP addresses made unnecessary edits that other users had to revert. I don't know how to ask for protection or do it my own but even if I did I wouldn't want to go alone for it before I ask. If others agree can someone does it? Thanks TeamGale 03:22, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It's gotten bad enough that we're both on the verge of running afoul of WP:3RR, which is a problem. There's one IP in particular who's a problem (though not the only one), and who I'm going to warn again (you did the first), but I think I'll go over to page protection. We may not get it, though; some IPs seem to be trying to help fix the problems caused by the others. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The 3RR was the reason I just stopped reverting him/her! But this is is really annoying and they don't seem to get it even after I left the warning! Let's hope they'll stop now! I agree and I know that there are a couple of IPs who try to fix the problems but I don't think that's the solution :/ The specific IP could be blocked but it's not the only one who causes problems to a running show...just the one that is more "loud" the last couple of days. Live running shows most of the times have this problem that it disappears when they finish...wish there was a rule about semi-protection for them during the airing... Thanks for asking the protection. TeamGale 03:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies: I didn't get around to doing this last night. I'll hold off unless the changes start happening again (they won't do anything if the edits seem to have stopped, so there's no point in asking right now). If they do resume, I will go there and submit, but may suggest a targeted block as an alternative. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I agree to wait and see if the changes start again and then submit. Let's wait for now. Thanks :) Seems like the IP is back...just noticed it. TeamGale 17:10, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Back, and then under an actual username. I've just posted to the new account's talk page; I'm hoping this will get through, and perhaps start a discussion. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes...I saw that now...and seems after your warning he/she went back to editing with the IP again. Another user reverted the edits this time! Doesn't seem willing to discuss it... TeamGale 23:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So-called notable omissions

[edit]

A third paragraph keeps appearing and disappearing from the intro of the article, claiming that it's notable that certain dances weren't danced by some finalists, and also that the paso doble was only done once. I don't see why this information belongs in the article intro, when it's effectively trivia. In a season where there are nine weeks of new dances, and only the ninth one actually had two different new dances, it's inevitable that several of the available dances won't be done by each couple: it's simple mathematics, and part of the show's design. Therefore, neither special nor notable. I'm definitely in favor of eliminating it, or (if it must be retained in some manner) moved to a paragraph in the body of the article. Perhaps it belongs at the end of the Dance chart section, after the dances in question are listed, as a gloss on what was and wasn't done? BlueMoonset (talk) 00:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the Paso Doble been done by only one couple is not notable. I didn't see any reliable sources discussing it or mention it as something important or make a big deal about it. I wonder if anyone even noticed except from fans who love seeing the Paso on the show (including myself). As for the rest, the paragraph is clearly all trivia and should be deleted completely in my opinion. There were couples in past seasons who didn't get the chance to dance some dance styles, especially since the moment new dance styles appeared on the show (as Jazz, Contemporary, Swing etc) that are not ballroom or Latin dances. It's logical in a 10 week competition not all couples to be able to dance 16 different styles. Like BlueMoonset said, it's mathematics. My "vote" is lose completely the paragraph from the article and not just from the intro. I don't know what others think. TeamGale 02:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced data

[edit]

The following sections contain no references:

In addition, the Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 18)#Weekly scores section contains no references for scores or dances. The only reference within the section relates to Billy Dee Williams withdrawing from competition due to an injury.

Do other editors have sources for this unreferenced information? AldezD (talk) 11:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 18). 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) 23:36, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dancing_with_the_Stars_(American_TV_series)_season_18&oldid=1216349720"