Talk:So You Think You Can Dance (American TV series)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dance, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Dance and Dance-related topics 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.DanceWikipedia:WikiProject DanceTemplate:WikiProject DanceDance articles

WikiProject Dance To-do list:

To nominate at WP:FAC:
To improve to Featured standard:
To nominate as a Good article:
To expand: 18th century dance - 20th century ballet - Bolero - Choreography on Broadway - Dance education - English ballet - Indian classical dance - Italian ballet - List of dance companies - Meg Stuart - Opera ballet - Sasha Waltz - Scotch reel - Set dance - Physically integrated dance
To cleanup: Contra dance - Salsa (dance) - Dandiya - Lead and follow
To unbias:
To check for copyvios:
To merge: List of dancers and List of dance personalities‎ as per AfD discussion
Substubs needing expansion: see /substubs
To destub: Amir Hossain Babu - Canada Dance Festival - Dance etiquette - Flash dance - more
Needing references: Chorus line - specifically verifying that each girl actually started out as a chorine
To create: Broadway dance - Country Western Dance International - Dance and cinema - Dance and society - German folk dancing - Latin swing - Post-structuralist ballet - Push (dance) - Salon dance - Shuffle dance - Swing boogie - World Dance Alliance - Xavier Le Roy - more
Wanted Pics/Graphics: Category:Dance articles needing images

Television: Reality Mid‑importance

	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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Reality television task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Archives

Archived April 2012

Grand Finalists

It's a pretty table, but what do the colors mean? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cells for male contestants are shaded blue, and those for female contestants pink, but I'm guessing you're actually asking whether we should include a legend? If so, I'm not sure. It's just one more piece of clutter on an already busy page. I've actually been tweaking with the format for a while now, trying to clean it all up (which is how that table came into being in its current form). I've often included the legend for similar tables, but in this case I left it out because it seemed like the vast majority of en.wikipedia users would recognize the trend in those names instantly anyway. But as with most things Wikipedia, I'll go with the consensus in any event. Snow (talk) 05:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now that there's are new column headers for season 9 (which will have separate winners and runners-up for men and women) this should be more or less explicitly spelled out. Snow (talk) 12:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Emmys

I started to add 2013 Emmy nominations to season 9 page,then realized that the more consistent thing would be to put them here, but I got a headache trying to negotiate table structure for the additions, and I would have lost a lot of sleep working to get it perfect, so I stopped after I realized that by the time I got it right, someone else would have gotten it done faster than I could.

In any case, should someone get to it before I do (and sometime before the Emmys show itself), the document for the citation link is here (dated July 18 2013).

Also, and this is just my two cents, as I don't intend to delete it myself: I partly understand the inclusion of the contestants for each nominated performance on this particular page, but in terms of what is included as far as the awards themselves go, the potential for information being at least questioned if not challenged outright exists, because referenced documents specific to the Emmys don't include the contestant names at all, since the contestants weren't nominated, only the choreographers. This may be an incorrect assumption, but I think they're included here as a substitute for (my suggestion) cross-referencing that could be dealt with by creating links from the choreographic "titles" in this table back to anchors within the correspondent tables on the relevant season pages; using such links as cross-references would also reduce the size of the main table here as well, since the honored titles could be contained in a single row for each choreographer. Absurdist1968 (talk) 05:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is much delayed, but worth noting all the same. First off, thanks for the reference and the work on the table. Second, I wholeheartedly agree with you concerning the in-necessity of listing the performers in that table. They are not in any sense nominated for that reward and are a redundancy, bordering on fancruft, especially given, as you point out, that there involvement in those routines is already noted in detail in season pages. Removing them will drastically reduce the profile and congestion for that table and the article at large. What's more, I think your cross-referencing idea is a very elegant solution, though it will be time-consuming to apply and I'm not sure if a complete removal of so much content from the table will go over with all editors so well, even if the information is preserved elsewhere. Still, I'll tinker around with the idea and see what I can't come up with. I know it's belated, but good idea Absurdist! Snow (talk) 10:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Or partially anyway. Actually, insofar as the names go, I've been meaning to do that for a while, but I thought the process of altering that particular table would be more laborious than it actually turned out to be. In any event, it's much more reasonably scaled (the dancers names were effectively doubling the height of 80% of the rows. What's more, with the Best Choreography nominations you can now more easily see which routines correspond to the choreographer, which is rather the point of their entries in the table anyway. With the table scaled down to not dominate the length of the article completely, I was able to remove the hide function as well, since it no longer is a necessity and as it misaligned the text field in the upper-left-most cell; I added and I'm glad to finally be rid of it. ;) There is one problem with fully implementing a cross-reference system such as you suggested -- where do we anchor the wikilink? These routines are usually known, short-hand, by their song titles. They have no other handle to distinguish them. But we can't wikilink the season article/table subsection where the name of the song is, as, through convention, users will assume it is a link to the song's article. I've considered a few different approaches to this, but this is the one I think has most merit: add a "Performance" column with either the date, the season/episode or season/performance show #, then wikilink the text for those dates or shows to their table locations inside the season articles. On the other hand, there's a good argument for keeping the table as trim as possible, given its considerable requirements and it's actually looking pretty clean at present. The new column could be useful, but it will certainly grow the row heights. Thoughts? Snow (talk) 08:45, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reversal of article move

I've reversed the recent good-faith move of the article to So You Think You Can Dance (U.S. TV series) made by User:WikiRedactor. WR's rational for the move was that it was mandated by WP:NC-TV, but this was a misreading of the policy. In reviewing that page, one can see that the addition of an extra descriptor in the article titles is called for only when that level of disambiguation is required by the existence of other entities that share the name (hence it being listed under the title "additonal disambiguation"). So, for example, consider "House of Cards". It was first a novel and then television show, so we had articles "House of Cards (novel)" and "House of cards (television series)". Later a U.S. show was adapted from the previous stories and so "House of Cards (television series)" became "House of Cards (UK telvesion series) and the more recent show is detailed under "House of Cards (U.S. television series)". By comparison, 'So You Think You Can Dance is a media franchise composed solely of television shows, so there is no cause to disambiguate along lines of media since there are no other articles referring to media to disambiguate it from. It suffices to disambiguate only along the lines of delineating the various versions of the TV show by their nationality and indeed, our naming convention policies require us to disambiguate in such a way as to keep the simpler titles until such time as more complex titles are required. If the So You Think You Can Dance title is ever used for a non-television subject that requires an article, we will of course have to revisit this issue, but until then titles and disambiguation should be kept as simple and straight-forward as possible. Snow (talk) 22:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're incorrect I'm afraid. Per WP:NCTV, TV series are always disambiguated by media type. The country, year, etc are an additional disambiguator, to be coupled with "TV series" or similar. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I accept that this has become a principle of general community consensus, and have no objection to your changes, but NCTV looked different in the past when this issue was previously raised. Had I been around for that consensus discussion, I actually might have argued against that line of reasoning, per the "be exactly as precise as you need to be, and not one whit more" mandate of WP:PRECISE; and I think my reasoning above is still quite sound, for that reason. But that said, I can see that general editorial consensus has been established for a different approach, and I've noticed it taking effect in articles for other franchises in recent years. So it would be both inappropriate and pedantic to continue to oppose this methodology, given it's current level of support and the fact that either approach works fine for organizational purposes, ultimately. In fact, I've given some thought the last few times I checked in on the SYTYCD pages to doing this myself, so I appreciate you doing the leg work! I actually just said as much on your TP, because I had not bothered to check here first to realize you'd already broached the topic; these talk pages have been mostly dead for a while, so I rarely review them these days. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on So You Think You Can Dance (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This season: The Academy

Hi. I have been trying to figure out exactly how the "academy" eliminations will work. Nigel said that each all-star must choose 5 dancers for their "team" and then narrow it down to one "by the end of the week", but it appears that the dancers also get to choose their all-stars. And what, exactly will the judges do? Has anyone come across any good sources for all this? All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]