Talk:Dancing with the Stars (American TV series) season 16

Charts / tables

All those charts--a little de trop, no? Bluefox79830 (talk) 22:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. These season articles are overdone with tables that are unnecessary trivia for the most part. A good article would not be allowed as such, for the reason that this is an encyclopedia, not a fan page. --Musdan77 (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Occupation vs Known For?

Why is it that the couples table keeps switching from "Occupation" to "Known For" and vice versa? What is the difference between the two phrases? "Known For" makes absolutely no sense whatsoever — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyler george6 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, you didn't say why you think it "makes absolutely no sense." Actually, that column is really not needed at all since all of the stars/celebrities have their own articles and each name is linked to it. So, if anyone doesn't know who they are they can just go to their page to find out (the same goes for most of the songs and the artists who recorded them). But, having said that, "Known for" makes perfect sense because that's exactly what it is. And, it's more accurate than "Occupation." For example, a former...(whatever) is not that person's occupation anymore, but that is what they're known for. --Musdan77 (talk) 17:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Well I only said it didn't make sense because it says "Known For" and then (for example) "Country Music Singer." When you put it all together it doesn't sound right.. which is why I have always liked "Occupation" better, as it explains what it is each star does or has done. Tyler george6 (talk) 04:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Couples Highest/Lowest Performances and Highest/Lowest Scoring Performances

So are we no longer including tables that include this information in them? Tyler george6 (talk) 03:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

"Zendaya" vs "Zendaya Coleman"

I've noticed that Zendaya's name has fluctuated back and forth between these two names in the article. What is the official name we are going to use? Tyler george6 (talk) 03:00, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

New Elimination Table Layout?

The current table is rather messy, and I think that we should institute a streamlined version on all the DWTS articles. I have two options here, the latter of which is directly inspired from the current tables. Please give me some feedback so we can gain progress on this! Thank you!

Score Table

Summary of Scores and Results
Place	Couples	1		2		3		t+	p=	4		5		a+	b=	6		a+	b=	7		a+	b=	8		a+	b=	9		a+	b+	c+	d=	10
1	Jennifer & Derek	24		24		24		27	29	56		25		20	9	29		27	37	64		27	30	57		30	30	60		30	30	30	28	118
2	Kyle & Lacey	23		22		23		18	22	40		20		23	7	30		24	35	59		27	29	56		29	29	58		27	29	26	28	110
3	Bristol & Mark	18		22		19		18	14	32		18		23	5	28		24	33	57		24	23	47		27	26	53		27	25	25	27	104
4	Brandy & Maksim	23		21		24		22	26	48		27		26	10	36		27	37	64		29	28	57		27	30	57
5	Kurt & Anna	19		21		23		15	19	34		24		18	4	22		27	34	61		24	24	48
6	Rick & Cheryl	22		21		24		19	20	39		24		24	6	30		24	37	61
7	Audrina & Tony	19		23		26		24	22	46		23		24	8	32
8	Florence & Corky	18		19		20		17	18	35		21
9	The Situation & Karina	15		18		20		12	16	28
10	Margaret & Louis	15		18		18
11	Michael & Chelsie	16		12
12	David & Kym	15

Score Table 2

Summary of Scores and Results
Place	Couples	1	2	3	t+	p=	4	5	a+	b=	6	a+	b=	7	a+	b=	8	a+	b=	9	a+	b+	c+	d=	10
1	Jennifer & Derek	24	24	24	27	29	56	25	20	9	29	27	37	64	27	30	57	30	30	60	30	30	30	28	118
2	Kyle & Lacey	23	22	23	18	22	40	20	23	7	30	24	35	59	27	29	56	29	29	58	27	29	26	28	110
3	Bristol & Mark	18	22	19	18	14	32	18	23	5	28	24	33	57	24	23	47	27	26	53	27	25	25	27	104
4	Brandy & Maksim	23	21	24	22	26	48	27	26	10	36	27	37	64	29	28	57	27	30	57
5	Kurt & Anna	19	21	23	15	19	34	24	18	4	22	27	34	61	24	24	48
6	Rick & Cheryl	22	21	24	19	20	39	24	24	6	30	24	37	61
7	Audrina & Tony	19	23	26	24	22	46	23	24	8	32
8	Florence & Corky	18	19	20	17	18	35	21
9	The Situation & Karina	15	18	20	12	16	28
10	Margaret & Louis	15	18	18
11	Michael & Chelsie	16	12
12	David & Kym	15

-- TDI19

They're both too wide. The 2nd isn't as wide but it has bold numbers which is unacceptable per MOS --Musdan77 (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The current tables have bold numbers, as well, though. Is there a way to make them fit better? TDI19 (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Should not be bold. In fact, the "couples'" names shouldn't really be bold either. And it would helpful if "Place" wasn't sortable. Also, it should be his real name, not "The Situation". Those are my thoughts. --Musdan77 (talk) 20:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Is there any way you could make a table illustrating what you would consider acceptable? Thanks! The tables now are clearly not acceptable...TDI19 (talk) 03:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

My idea:

Summary of scores and results
Place	Couples	1	2	3	t+	p=	4	5	a+	b=	6	a+	b=	7	a+	b=	8	a+	b=	9	a+	b+	c+	d=	10
1	Jennifer & Derek	24	24	24	27	29	56	25	20	9	29	27	37	64	27	30	57	30	30	60	30	30	30	28	118
2	Kyle & Lacey	23	22	23	18	22	40	20	23	7	30	24	35	59	27	29	56	29	29	58	27	29	26	28	110
3	Bristol & Mark	18	22	19	18	14	32	18	23	5	28	24	33	57	24	23	47	27	26	53	27	25	25	27	104
4	Brandy & Maksim	23	21	24	22	26	48	27	26	10	36	27	37	64	29	28	57	27	30	57
5	Kurt & Anna	19	21	23	15	19	34	24	18	4	22	27	34	61	24	24	48
6	Rick & Cheryl	22	21	24	19	20	39	24	24	6	30	24	37	61
7	Audrina & Tony	19	23	26	24	22	46	23	24	8	32
8	Florence & Corky	18	19	20	17	18	35	21
9	Mike & Karina	15	18	20	12	16	28
10	Margaret & Louis	15	18	18
11	Michael & Chelsie	16	12
12	David & Kym	15

--Musdan77 (talk) 04:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, that is a good enhancement to the table... do you think that we should try to get this new, more organized design on to the pages? Or do we need more people to discuss and concur? Also, I would keep the place tab sortable...so that if you sort by a week of scoring, you can re-sort the table to its original form. TDI19 (talk) 02:18, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking that way too at first, but then I realized, all you have to do is reload the page and it goes back to the original, so that doesn't need to be sortable and that makes the column too wide. You could wait a little while longer, but if no one else has chimed in yet, might as well just make a bold edit to change it. --Musdan77 (talk) 21:11, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

That makes sense! Alright, sounds like a plan. More people will definitely chime in once the edit occurs, per usual. Do you just want to do season 11? Or should we revise all 16? TDI19 (talk) 23:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

If there's consensus for one then the others should eventually be done as well. I'll help when I can. --Musdan77 (talk) 00:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Alright. Thank you! I will leave this open for discussion, and if nothing happens, I will put the table up probably on Wednesday or Thursday. TDI19 (talk) 01:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

This Season's Table

New version of this season's score table. I did away with the red italics, as they seem to be unnecessary.

Summary of scores and results
Place	Couples	1+	2=	T	3	4	5	A+	B=	6	A+	B=	7	A+	B=	8	A+	B=	9	A+	B+	C=	10	+D	=T
1	Kellie & Derek	21	26	47	25	26	27	29	25	54	29	—	—	28	27	55	30	28	58	30	4	30	64	30	94
2	Zendaya & Val	24	26	50	24*	26	29	29	22	51	27	3	30	28	30	58	25	30	55	30	5	30	65	30	95
3	Jacoby & Karina	20	23	43	24*	24	26	23	22	45	27	0	27	27	25	52	30	29	59	27	2	27	56	30	86
4	Alexandra & Mark	21	24	45	23	27	25	27	25	52	29	3	32	29	27	56	30	29	59	28	3	30	61
5	Ingo & Kym	20	20	40	21	23	21	24	22	46	22	3	25	24	24	48	24	27	51
6	Sean & Peta	19	20	39	21	20	24	21	25	46	24	0	24	21	21	42
7	Andy & Sharna	17	20	37	18	21	18	18	25	43	17	0	17
8	Victor & Lindsay	18	18	36	23	18	21	18	22	40
9	D.L. & Cheryl	12	16	28	16	21	18
10	Lisa & Gleb	18	18	36	21	18
11	Wynonna & Tony	18	18	36	15
12	Dorothy & Tristan	21	15	36

Red numbers indicate the lowest score for each week

Green numbers indicate the highest score for each week

  the couple eliminated that week

  the couple withdrew from the competition

  the returning couple finishing in the bottom two (or three)

  the returning couple that was the last to be called safe

  the couple was immune from elimination, and did not have to dance

  the winning couple

  the runner-up couple

  the third-place couple

*Note: Zendaya & Val and Jacoby & Karina earned two additional points from being the most popular female and male contestants on twitter. These two points are not included in the judge's score table.

TDI19 (talk) 02:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Week 7: Latin night, Sean & Peta Rumba song was Hero by Enrique Iglesias?

Are we sure Sean & Peta danced to Enrique Iglesias's Hero song? It sounded very different from the version on Enrique's music album. The Dancing With The Stars version sounded like the voice was a bit different, and it had backup vocals in the chorus. Link993 (talk) 18:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Immunity Color

It's such an eyesore and doesn't really fit with the other colors of the table. Could it be changed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.23.137.80 (talk) 01:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I have removed it since it had no effect on the outcome for that week. --MSalmon (talk) 21:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Unlearned Dance

Can someone please explain why new dances after Week 2 aren't listed by name if they haven't been danced yet that season? Everything ends up as "unlearned dance" after that point.

I thought the point of Wikipedia was information, and "unlearned dance" is hardly informative. I can see why, once a dance has been introduced, it is not listed by name in subsequent weeks. But is seems to me that the first week a dance is performed, it should be listed by name, not under the catchall "unlearned dance".

Why???

OLEF641 (talk) 04:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The first two weeks of the competition are always "themed" with week 1 being Cha-Cha-Cha and usually Foxtrot (other seasons have had other combinations, but the Cha Cha is always there) and week 2 is generally always Jive or Quickstep. After week 2, the dances aren't "themed". That is, the pros and celebrities can begin either picking their dances, or they are assigned one at random. It makes no sense to list every dance that was danced each week, therefore "One Unlearned Dance" is somewhat appropriate. I know it is confusing and offers no information, but if we constantly put down (for instance) "Paso Doble" every time a celebrity danced a Paso, the weekly dance lists above the Dance Chart would look too cluttered and confusing. Does that make sense? Tyler george6 (talk) 20:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

- Actually, no.

I understand why every dance isn't listed every week. My point is that the first time a dance is danced it should be listed. The section under discussion should be a summary of dances danced and should indicate the first week a particular dance is seen. One Unlearned Dance should mean that some of the dances that week have already been done in a previous week. It should not just indicate that each couple is doing a dance they haven't done before -- which is kinda the point of the competition and therefore redundant used in that sense. If new dances are not listed here, you have to go to all the charts for the entire season to date for whatever day you are accessing the article to see which dances are "on the table".

I do not think that "stunt" dances, like the ones done as the couples' second dance Week 9, nor things like team dances or marathons or relays need to be listed in this section. The list should contain individual dances that a star could potentially see as they continue to compete.

OLEF641 (talk) 05:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Trio Challenge Week table

This season, the table for Week 8's trio challenge looks like Week 5's side-by-side challenge. It doesn't look very professional, really. There were tables they used for Trio Week in Seasons 14 and 15 that were much nicer, where instead of the partner being listed under the couple's name in parenthesis, the partner's name (as well as the other pros in the challenge) is in the row next to the couple's name, titled 'Latin Round Partner'. It just looks better the way it's been the past 2 seasons. Maybe the Week 5 table could be changed as well. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.2.230.69 (talk) 20:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

They have been done that way so the consistency of the columns in the other tables are the same --MSalmon (talk) 21:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Alright. I guess it's not that big a deal, it just doesn't look 'as' organized as it was the past 2 seasons. No worries though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.2.230.69 (talk) 19:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The other seasons need to be changed to fix that but I haven't had time yet --MSalmon (talk) 22:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I see that someone added a total column for two dances which is fine but that is all though --MSalmon (talk) 09:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Season 17

I know it is a little early to be already thinking about season 17 of Dancing with the Stars, but do we want to go ahead and make a Wikipedia page for it? I have read articles that confirm that it will be returning for its 17th season in the fall. We don't have to make it, but if we could get a head start on it, it would save a lot of work for later! Let me know what you all think. Tyler george6 (talk) 20:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I would wait until the end of this season to start a new template for Season 17. --MSalmon (talk) 21:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Average Score/Statistics

Currently the only indication of stars' overall performance in the series is the average score. It's consistent with all other DWTS and Strictly articles. However, I feel this method of comparison isn't accurate enough because it doesn't count for all dances. It omits all dances not scored out of 30, which means only this season we have 3 scored performances that are omitted in the table.
It is impossible to account for these dances using the current method, because they aren't scored out of 30. I think I have found a good, consistent method of comparison that accounts for both standard and non-standard dances and presents a more accurate final result. I took the accumulative score received by each couple and then divided it by the highest possible number of scores for each couple.
For example: Kellie received a total of 415 points throughout the season. If she had got a perfect score on every single performance, she would have had a total of 457 points. Now I divide 415 by 457 and the result is 90.81%. This is how many of all possible points she has actually received. The higher the percentage, the better the overall performance throughout the series (this idea is consistent with the 'average score method' where the highest average score means the best performance).
Why do I think this method is better?

• It counts for ALL dances performed by a couple in a season, which makes it more accurate than counting only standard dances.
• Scores on non-standard dances are treated the same way as scores on standard dances in the competition, which means they count towards elimination and the accumulative score. (For example: the 2 extra points for Zendaya and Jacoby were added to their week 3 scores and they both had 26, not 24, as their final score for the week)
• DWTS oficially uses the accumulative scores to compare the stars' overall performance in the season. For example: In week 7, Kellie and Aly received the same score of 29 out of 30. To determine who would be given the immunity for the week, they used the accumulative scores for both couples. These accumulative scores count BOTH standard and non-standard dances.
• I think this method is much more clear and understandable. Right now, there is a disclaimer above every table with a list of dances which are not included. Why make it so complicated? Season 15 table has Paula Abdul's points removed as well. It would be more understandable if ALL scores on ALL dances were counted.

This is how the new table looks like:

Rank	Place	Couple	Total points received	Total points possible	Percentage
1	2	Zendaya & Val	420	460	91.30%
2	1	Kellie & Derek	415	457	90.81%
3	4	Alexandra & Mark	380	430	88.37%
4	3	Jacoby & Karina	388	460	84.35%
5	5	Ingo & Kym	275	365	75.34%
6	6	Sean & Peta	216	305	70.82%
7	8	Victor & Lindsay	138	212	65.09%
8	7	Andy & Sharna	154	245	62.86%
9	10	Lisa & Gleb	75	122	61.48%
10	12	Dorothy & Tristan	36	60	60.00%
11	11	Wynonna & Tony	51	92	55.43%
12	9	D.L. & Cheryl	83	152	54.61%

I think my method is more clear and less complicated and should be implemented for all DWTS and Strictly articles. However, if anyone thinks it's worse than the original, I would like to know their reasoning. I welcome any comments. 213.108.152.34 (talk) 21:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 16). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130608073949/http://beta.abc.go.com/shows/dancing-with-the-stars/blogs/Breaking-News/dwts-s16-week-10 to http://beta.abc.go.com/shows/dancing-with-the-stars/blogs/Breaking-News/dwts-s16-week-10

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 00:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)