Talk:Strictly Come Dancing 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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the British television task force.

BBC Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tasks for WikiProject BBC:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Improve BBC, BBC News (TV channel) and BBC News to Good Article status following previous reviews, create BBC Computer Literacy Project (in light of forthcoming 30th anniversary)
Cleanup : Chucklevision - references and general clean-up, Pebble Mill Studios - over-detailed and long, BBC World Service Television - unreferenced and confusing
Copyedit : BBC News, Broadcasting House
Expand : Top 20 start-class BBC articles with most importance: BBC Japan, BBC World Service Television, BBC Lifestyle, BBC Two Northern Ireland
NPOV : Criticism of the BBC (See comments)
Stubs : Stub-Class BBC articles
Other : *Restructure the category
- Add infoboxes to the BBC articles without infoboxes
- Add free-use images to biographical articles where possible
- Add references to Goa Mix (see assessment) and Coat of arms of the BBC
- Return Dad's Army to a Good article. (See comments)
- Reassess BBC following improvements to article.

Occupations

Is it me or are some of the new contestants' occupations listed in a slightly snide way? For example- Jessie Wallace, yes a former Eastenders actress, but she has since appeared in various BBC dramas and west end plays. Phil Daniels was a respected actor long before he appeared on Eastenders, and Don Warrington long after he finished Rising Damp.

I know in most cases these are the things the average viewer will recognise most, but it makes them look like washed up celebrities instead of respected actors.Gingernut1015 (talk) 13:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that way, just change the discription to 'actor' or 'actress'. --Philip Stevens (talk) 15:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will do then, if no-one minds. Sorry, it's a little thing but it bugs me a bit! Gingernut1015 (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Week 1 Eliminations

Why is it taking so long for us to find out who got eliminated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.210.16 (talk) 19:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? The elimination information was added to the page pretty much as it aired on the night. If you are wanting to know earlier who was eliminated, you'll need to go to the results show recording (and not post that information here before it has aired). ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 20:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look I'm sorry. I'm sorry about asking this retarded and rude question and for my constant debate with you on "th". I just wanted to make it look as similar as possible to last season. And for this question, I was just getting impatient and it won't happen again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.210.16 (talk) 21:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK. Regarding your original questions (the results), my reply still stands - the results will be added here pretty much as soon as the episode has aired on Sunday. If the results are added before the show has aired, they will be removed as unverifiable.

Regarding the "th", I can understand your confusion but there isn't particularly any necessity for this page to look like any other SCD series page. However, if other editors say they prefer it without the "th", then I'll be willing to take it off. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 07:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I note that as of this edit the results for week two are available - and were before the dance off couples were announced, let alone before it was completed! In fact the result has not yet been announced on the program itself! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.219.143 (talk) 19:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The show is filmed on a Saturday evening, and unfortunately, people who got to see the show beforehand / read on forums etc. about the result come here and post it, which spoils it for those who haven't seen it. I usually remove them if they are posted before the show airs. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 20:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surely spoiling it for those who haven't seen it is not a valid reason for not posting the results ahead of the "Sunday" show. 86.152.102.174 (talk) 09:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiling the show aside, they can't be posted before the Sunday show because there is no official source. There were about three different rumours flying around this weekend. It's just not reliable. Gingernut1015 (talk) 10:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Sergeant

BBC news says John Sergeant is to withdraw from Stricly Come Dancing! We wait with baited breath for confirmation of this. Soarhead77 (talk) 13:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Week 12

Austin & Erin will do the American Smooth and Salsa. If my theory is correct, I believe that they have done all the other dances besides these two. This means that for this week, as I have tried to prove to you guys all along, that all couples will be dancing those final two dances which makes the dances for the week as:

Austin & Erin - American Smooth, Salsa
Lisa & Brendan - Waltz, Jive
Rachel & Vincent - Tango, Cha-Cha-Cha
Tom & Camilla - Foxtrot, Rumba

We don't do theories, sorry. Unless their dances have been confirmed on It Takes Two (I didn't see it last night) or posted on the SCD news page, then we shouldn't put them up. ~~ [ジャム]^[talk] 08:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Austin & Erin's dances have been confirmed on the SCD website. Look at the News section.

That's fine. I'll add their dances now. ~~ [ジャム]^[talk] 12:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa & Brendan's dances (waltz and jive) have been confirmed on Brendan Cole's website under "News".

Ratings

The numbers quoted in the ratings section do not tally with the BARB (British Audience Research Board) figures. David T Tokyo (talk) 07:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Averages

I noticed that a couple are wrong. Austin & Erin's total is 414 and average is 34.5 and Tom & Camilla's average is 34.3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.210.16 (talk) 17:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done I've checked and fixed them. ~~ [ジャム]^[talk] 19:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Week 13

I think it's pretty obvious that everyone's doing an Argentine Tango, but how do we know what Rachel & Lisa are doing? Was it confirmed on It Takes Two? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.210.16 (talk) 23:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody eliminated in week 13

So it's due to a tie in the scores. I'm surprised - I'd assumed that the reason was to compensate for John Sergeant withdrawing and there consequently being one fewer couple left in the competition than there should be. So how had they planned to deal with it before - by having just two finalists instead of three, or what? -- Smjg (talk) 22:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, just two finalists like series 5. ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 00:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, another question which may help us clarify in the article. Whenever you have 3 couples, there's always the possibility of a muddle. Assuming each had different scores from the judges then they would have gone into the audience vote with 3, 2 and 1 points. In this case, the bottom placed couple can get a maximum total of 4 points (1+3). If the second placed person is also placed second by the public then they also get 4 points (2+2)and, in this case, the top placed couple also get 4 points (3+1). So, a 3-way tie. Do they have a protocol for addressing this?

Then consider another scenario with the same points from the judges (3, 2 and 1), and the public still giving the bottom placed couple a maximum 3 (total 1+3 = 4), but the top placed couple 2 (total 3+2 = 5) and the second placed couple 1 (total 2 + 1 = 3). In this case the couple placed bottom by the judges is still in the dance off even though they got the most votes from the public. Again: they can't be saved by the public.

There's another scenario as well which is more favourable to the bottom placed couple(s) which is if they tie in second place based on the judges' scores, ie judges award 3, 2 and 2. Then the public can save them. fredhoysted (talk) 16 December 2008 (UTC).

In the case of a three way tie the judges would have the deciding vote. Hence the bottom place couple would still be in the dance off. That's what's been odd about this - they've said it was the tie for first that cause the problem. But actually, in every scenario (except the unusual 3,2,2 ase identified by fredhoysted above) it would be impossible for the public vote to save the lowest-judged couple from the dance off. The tie at the top had nothing to do with it. Cncoote (talk) 11:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#FORUM. This is idle speculation that doesn't really add anything constructive to the article. ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 12:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dance offs

Do we really need a table for the dance offs because all you have to do is look at the judges score table? MSalmon (talk) 17:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFC impacting this page

Hey! I've recently opened an RFC regarding some of the colours used in the scoring chart for this and several other articles. You can find the discussion here - please feel free to share your thoughts. Thanks! Remagoxer ^(talk) 01:35, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]