Talk:Dancing with the Stars (American TV series) season 19/Archive 1

Archive 1

Removing maintenance templates and unreferenced information

Please do not remove maintenance templates from this article. Unreferenced information needs to be sourced using WP:RELIABLE sources and/or proper WP:CITE coding. AldezD (talk) 02:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Scores can be checked easily by anyone online from the moment the episode is released. Quoting from Wikipedia's policy about primary sources:

"A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."

Scores are facts of the episode! Anyone can verify them! So please stop adding templates where they are not needed. Everything that needs reference on the article is already referenced. TeamGale 03:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

There are currently no references within these sections. Use Template:Cite episode to reference the scores if there are no other WP:RELIABLE sources for each score. Please stop removing maintenance templates. AldezD (talk) 03:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, listing intricate unreferenced information such as each individual judges' score for each dance falls under WP:IINFO (#3), WP:LISTCRUFT (#2, 3 and 4) and WP:FANCRUFT. AldezD (talk) 03:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

It's referenced now. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

BlueMoonset I do not know why you've added them, because they're unnecessary. I will be removing them once this stupid and unnecessary deletion nomination has been resolved with an admin. Callmemirela (talk) 10:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Good faith for you to do it BlueMoonset. Based on my comment above though, I still don't believe scores need reference. The scores are facts of the episode and the episode can be used as primary source in such situations. Just like the episodes of a show or the movies are used as primary sources for plots and directors/writers/titles of episodes. I didn't see in any list of a show's episodes article or in movies articles to cite the movie or the episodes themselves at the end of the plot or next to the names of the directors/writers. Instead, when the episode airs the references are removed with the explanation "episode aired"! Anyway...personally I won't comment further on this. I prefer to wait for the administrators to make a decision and say what is needed and what is not needed. If I am thinking this the wrong way and it's not the same situation as movies/episodes, then I'll apologize. TeamGale 05:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Callmemirela, it is never the right thing to do to remove a valid reference unless you're replacing with a better one. Wikipedia articles are improved by citing valid sources; it has always been a weakness of the DWTS articles that no one has even bothered to include a primary reference to the specific episode, much less secondary sources. An IP just removed the citations, and I restored them. I'll do the same if you remove them. TeamGale, I think it's a bit of a stretch to equate a fictional plot with a reality show, but if you can show me a Wikipedia policy that says so (like WP:FILMPLOT), I'll be happy to go with it, since it's a bit of a pain to find secondary sources and put them together. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, a fictional film/TV show is different from a non-fictional one. Here, we're dealing with real people (WP:BLP) and statistics, not a plot. Just like the ratings always need to be sourced, these stats really should be as well. (And that's not my area. I've never added any of that info. I've also never added maintenance tags to them either -- unless it was unaired). --Musdan77 (talk) 04:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

OK...I see. Then I apologize because I had all the shows in the same category as "TV shows" and not fiction VS reality ones. As I've seen the articles won't be deleted and I am glad for that. I guess sources can be added from now on in this season. For the past seasons lots of hours are needed for sources to be found and I don't know if someone has that time to do it. Hopefully someone/few people will...even slowly. Just a little question...since sources are needed, why the ones for the dances are being removed every week when the episode airs? Shouldn't those be kept as well? TeamGale 10:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Coding

There seems to be a problem with the iPad and iPhone mobile site Jonathan and Allison are out of the table can someone try and sort this out. Thank you NaThang0P (talk) 19:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed NaThang0P It has to be fine now. If there is still a problem let us know :) TeamGale 11:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Removing references

Please do not remove references from this article without replacing those links with another valid/appropriate reference. If no valid reference exists, use Template:Cite episode. AldezD (talk) 01:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Reference links

Please use Template:Cite web rather than inserting raw links as references. AldezD (talk) 17:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

"TBA" placeholders

Please do not add unreferenced "TBA" placeholders for details about specifics within future episodes that have not yet aired.

If no WP:V link is available to add verified data for upcoming episodes but the information was part of an earlier television broadcast, use Template:Cite episode when adding actual data. AldezD (talk) 02:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Auto-reverting to former table templates

Please stop auto-reverting edits made to this article to improve readability and functionality of tables. Simply because the format does not match unsourced, unsortable formats used in earlier articles does not mean this is an unconstructive edit. Content is not being removed. It is being re-formatted into a clearer presentation of sortable data.

Even with recent additions of sources, overall these articles are filled with excessive tables and WP:UNDUE coverage of WP:FANCRUFT and WP:TRIVIA. AldezD (talk) 03:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

This has long been the way the tables have worked, they are far easier to read over 'CAI, LG, JH, BT' I mean really. Don't change something that doesn't need to be. As to referencing and sourcing - that is in the process of being added to the tables. The added colour, initials is not necessary - and I have received likes from people on this site who have agreed with me on this change of formatting. Leave it be.

Even with recent additions of sources, overall these articles are filled with excessive tables and WP:UNDUE coverage of WP:FANCRUFT and WP:TRIVIA - you say? Tell me how does your change help this AT ALL? Kiwi Jaden (talk) 04:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Your argument is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Reverting scores to a non-sortable, non-labeled format is not "far easier to read". Every other data element in these tables is sortable—except individual numeric scores, something that benefits from a sortable format. Also, the individual scores are not labeled to a specific judge, and instead a user must notice a header at the top of the Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 19)#Weekly scores section to understand to what judge the scores are referring, instead of being labeled to a judge and again being sortable by that individual judge. Initials were used to save space in the table format; however, this can easily be replaced by the judges' last names. AldezD (talk) 11:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment AldezD It's not a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument...probably the editor put it wrong or you read it wrong, I don't know. The tables follow a specific format for 19 seasons now. Additional coloring to the tables or any of those big changes are not needed, especially with no discussion first. Seems like lots of editors disagree with those additions but you keep adding them back. If your argument is the "sortable" table, you can make the scores sortable but without adding anything more. You can discuss further changes on the talk page and if many editors agree with it, then you can change it. But as I can see, many editors (including me of we count votes) don't want the format to be changed but to kept the way it is for 19 seasons now so you should probably leave it the way it is. And as for the references, like Kiwi Jaden is a work in progress after the show is aired. TeamGale 12:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Simply because it's "always been done this way" doesn't mean that it can't be improved. You and other editors make the argument that "change is not needed"—yet the point of the table is to easily compare and sort information, and one of the main data elements of the table is not sortable, nor is it easy to follow. You make the comment "you can make the scores sortable but without adding anything more", and—with the exception of highlighting a total column to differentiate it from individual judges' scores—that's exactly what the reformat has done. AldezD (talk) 13:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, no. AldezD, I've had enough of your editing. Your decision to change the physical appearance of DWTS season 19 without discussion made me reach my breaking points. The reason why I reverted your edits for the change on DWTS is because NOBODY AGREED TO IT. Before you start insulting me, look after yourself first.

Ever since you decided to randomly nominate Dancing with the Stars season pages for deletion, you have been causing mayhem. Just on Monday, you kept removing the table for week 3 in the weekly scores. People were constantly undoing your edit yet you still took them off until I told you stop. You changed the page's physical appearance WITHOUT DISCUSSION. Ever since the nomination, your edits have been falling under WP:OWN. You do not own the page! This is what is written and I quote:

"

• An editor disputes minor edits concerning layout, image use, and wording in a particular article daily. The editor might claim, whether openly or implicitly, the right to review any changes before they can be added to the article.
• An editor reverts justified article changes by different editors repeatedly over an extended period to protect a certain version, stable or not.
• An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental. This has the effect of assigning priority, between two equivalent versions, to an owner's version. "

Which is what you are doing. I am sorry, but that is unacceptable. You are taking over the page by removing content you deemed unnecessary or empty even though content included (news flash, the DWTS seas pages have been doing this for a long time), changing the physical appearance without discussion, telling people what to do by not removing this and that and whatnot. We do not live under your rules. This is everybody's page. We make decisions as a team, not individually. You either edit as a team or you make edits elsewhere. You tell people to follow policies, so follow this one yourself.

I am well aware that the page has turned into WP:EW. BECAUSE of YOU. You make edits that people don't agree with. You are taking ownership. You, yourself, are also causing edit war.

You do not own the page. You make changes without discussion. Or when there is discussion, the discussion is after you made the change. That is unacceptable on so many terms as well.

So ask yourself this question and think clearly (emphasize the adjective clearly): do you own the page? The answer is boldly and clearly no. Are you an admin? It doesn't seem like it, but you act as if you are.

The page has been always been this way, whether you like it or not. Your changes have complicated things even more.

This is not WP:IDONTLIKEIT, although it seems likely this applies to you.

You need to understand you need to stop this. I know I am not perfect myself, so pointing out my mistakes won't support your argument. When people disagree, leave it. Just ask them why it was removed. There is no need to revert it, especially when you have discussed with other editors or it is disagreed with accurate and acceptable reasons.

Here is a list of contributions (talk pages included) you've made with unedits to those contributions that apply:

1: link Unedits: link (three other edits by this user) linklinklinklink

2: link (unedit of link) Unedits: linklinklinklinklinklink

3: link (updated since this edit) Unedits: linklinklinklinklink

4: (telling people what to do as if you owned the page) linklinklink

5: (making changes before discussing): link

Edit warring has occurred because you make changes by your gut and decision without agreement from other editors. Can you not see how many people disagree with you and the characteristics of owning a page you're turning into? This all turns back to Wikipedia's Ownership policy. If you want to edit, you have to respect people's wishes when they disagree, whether you like it or not. You taught us something, I am teaching you something now. We edit as a team. If you want changes, discuss before doing them. We can work as a team. And please, by all means, look at yourself before posting on talk pages. You've done wrong as well. We disagree with your edits and we have reasons, but you post on talk pages just because you don't like the way they changed it. You gave me a warning on my talk page about edit warring. I undid your edit for many reasons.

I thank you for the least discussing about the dance charts, but in the future discuss before making the changes. People will just revert it because they do not agree. Or propose a trial on the potential change. I would mostly suggest a trial before editors make a decision. If people come to decide that is too much to handle or for other reasons, follow what they say. You do not own the page, and we make decisions and agreements as a team. (I will continue saying this if I have to)

I am hoping for the very least that these issues can be resolved and we can edit peacefully without confrontation or arguments. If that happens, well with me anyways, I will have to have an admin interfere. I do not want this page to be permanently protected so only admins can edit or completely wiped off. These pages have taken so much hard work that it does not deserve it.

Thank you for reading my complaints. I apologize for starting off angry then somewhat soft. I was truly angry when I was typing this message, but I wanted you to understand what you were doing is wrong as well. And I wanted you to comprehend that we don't have to argue like this. It won't do any good for anybody. We need and have to make decisions as a team. I hope this is understood. No apologies or forgiveness is needed from anybody's part. We all make mistakes that need to be forgotten. We all need to learn from our mistakes.

If you still disagree with what I've said, please do not make any changes onto the page and reply to me first. We do not need real edit warring between you, me, this editor and that editor. Please, the least, take into consideration what I've said. Think about how other editors feel. Not me specifically, but in general. Thank you. I look forward to your response, good or bad. At least we're now resolving this issue.

Callmemirela (talk) 00:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree with Callmemirela. None of us editors are averse to changing the look of the article if it's needed, but we take issue with the fact that the changes Aldez is making are being done without general consultation. It's becoming a case of "It's my way or the highway" here, as though the changes have to be agreed upon automatically and the input of other editors has little or no bearing. That's not proper editing etiquette. This article is not exclusive to one editor, like Callmemirela has said, and all editing decisions must be reached through collective consensus. If their have been reversions, it's due to the fact that the editors have not been happy to see sudden stylistic changes to the article without any debate on the matter beforehand. This is nothing personal against Aldez; the editors of the page are simply not going to allow major changes to be implemented without being consulted. It's as simple as that. We must respect the fact that the article is in the public domain and that no one has the exclusive rights to control its look. If it needs improvements, we're willing to listen and discuss suggestions. Wilted Youth (talk) 01:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Callmemirela, your message addresses none of the issues brought up regarding layout/WP:MOS, WP:IINFO, WP:LISTCRUFT/WP:NOTSTATS, WP:UNDUE and WP:TRIVIA. Your message is WP:IDONTLIKEIT regarding the format. Regarding "Nobody agreed to it", please review WP:BB. These articles overall are filled with information that does not meet guidelines linked above, are filled with duplicative information, have multiple issues regarding WP:V and WP:OR, and are formatted in a way that makes them unnecessarily difficult to navigate. References are needed for scores, dances, and other information that takes place during an episode. If a WP:V source cannot be found, use Template:Cite episode. Regarding "Before you start insulting me, look after yourself first", there have been no insults directed toward you on this page or any other WP:TALK message. AldezD (talk) 02:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

But what about next week? The couples are dancing to songs from specific movies, which have been traditionally identified alongside the songs used during such weeks. The table for that week will be massive and ridiculously overcomplicated. And no, I'm not going to advocate to eliminate the column identifying the movies. That information is relevant. Wilted Youth (talk) 21:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The movies can be easily added in as another column to the right of the music selection:

Order	Couple	Judges' scores[1]					Dance	Music	Film reference	Result
		Total	Inaba	Goodman	Hough	Tonioli
1	Contestant & Partner	##	#	#	#	#	Dance name	"Song"—Performer(s)	Film Title

...or as a notation next to the song, since the film name does not need to be sorted:

Order	Couple	Judges' scores[2]					Dance	Music	Result
		Total	Inaba	Goodman	Hough	Tonioli
1	Contestant & Partner	##	#	#	#	#	Dance name	"Song"—Performer(s) (from the film Film Title)

Dance Chart

The dance chart section is a duplication of data in the Weekly scores section. I have removed this section and matched the formatting of highlighting the highest and lowest scoring dances with the same specific colors. AldezD (talk) 20:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The dance chart serves a specific purpose: to have a handy, convenient way of seeing which dances the couples danced during the course of their run on the show. There is no reason to delete it; referring to the week-by-week charts is too cumbersome and time-consuming. Wilted Youth (talk) 21:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The articles overall are already cumbersome and difficult to navigate. They feature far too many tables, and in duplicate information appears in several tables/sections (weekly dances, total weekly scores, placement, rank, highest/lowest scoring dances, etc.). AldezD (talk) 21:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Adding more colors and information in one table is too much and it adds much more confusion than before. It was better how it was before. Callmemirela (talk) 21:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Just stop - I actually am starting to like your format for the weekly scores - as long as extra colour is not used, where it is not needed nor is attractive. However - the dance chart is and always has been there and suits a purpose. Please stop changing anything and everything without ASKING first. Kiwi Jaden (talk) 23:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Aldez, if duplicate information appears, it doesn't automatically become unnecessary and in need of deletion. The various tables are meant to give a comprehensive look at how contestants progressed throughout the season. They are laid out in a convenient manner for easy reference, and the dance chart serves such a function. You may think you're simplifying the page by combining things, but really you're making analyzing the stats of the season a much more complicated and convoluted process. For instance, if someone wanted to know which dances Couple X did not dance this season, why should they have to go through every weekly score chart when they could look at the dance chart in a minute or two and get that information in a more timely fashion? You may think that merging it with the score charts is practical, but is it really practical for every visitor of the page? No. Wilted Youth (talk) 01:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The information being included in these articles as a whole are more appropriate for a fansite or other Wikia section. There are several guidelines these articles fail to meet, including WP:IINFO, WP:LISTCRUFT/WP:NOTSTATS, and WP:TRIVIA. Neither the dance each couple performs nor their score for each individual dance are appropriate to be listed separately in multiple sections within each article. There are currently five sections all repeating specific scores for individual dances, and one contains manual, unverified average calculations of weekly scores for each couple. These issues fall under WP:NOT#FANSITE and WP:IINFO. AldezD (talk) 03:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Why do the averages need to be sourced? It's fairly evident that the calculations were arrived at using basic addition and division, which anyone with basic mathematical skills can do. Also, why did you combine the best/worst dancer chart with the best/worst dances for each couple chart? It makes no sense to me, because (1) a couple's low-scoring dance may not necessarily be the worst-scored one of the style itself (i.e. Betsey & Tony may do a Samba worse than Michael & Emma, but it may not be the worst dance they do overall if it's scored above their Cha-cha) and (2) what in the world are you going to do when couples get varying scores on multiple dances? If, say, Alfonso & Witney get 36s for Paso, Tango and Contemporary, and Bethany & Derek get 38s for Contemporary, Quickstep and Jazz, then how can you distinguish that Alfonso & Witney's Contemporary is not season-best if it's entered as one of their best dances and thus highlighted in green (provided that the Paso or Tango are season-best)? Wilted Youth (talk) 03:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Seriously - now you've altered the average score chart, couples highest and lowest scores, weekly scores and taken away the highest and lowest dances and the dance chart - all of which helps the general public, and which we are working towards sourcing WHERE NEEDED? Everyone - we need to take this up with someone of a higher authority, because AldezD is just playing games now. You cannot say this is respecting the wishes of the majority of editors here - its literally him against all of us, and he refuses to stop changing things, deleting things, adding ridiculous colours (apparently to make it easier to read and more concise). Its becoming a joke now Kiwi Jaden (talk) 04:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

OK...I really don't know where to comment first so I'll just put my comment here as answer to everything... AldezD are you serious now?? You keep removing tables WITHOUT discussion and in one of your edits you used as excuse the discussion on the talk page!! If you haven't noticed NO ONE on the talk page agreed with those changes!! Editors go on and make the changes when there IS an agreement something that I can not see here!! It's what YOU want and you are refusing to listen a bunch of other editors and what they are saying. We are not talking about improvement here...you are destroying the article! You are saying that tables are not needed and you are merging them together because it's more practical and easier to read! For whom?? The tables you are creating might look more practical now that couples have only two dances each but when some couples have ten dances each those tables are NOT going to work!! STOP making big changes on the article without discussion!! The tables you are removing are there of a reason, they ARE NEEDED!!! I am wondering...do you even watch the show? Do you know how it goes in the future weeks? Because those edits doesn't look like you know what you are doing!
A request...can someone please bring back the tables that have been removed? I would be happy to do it but I have so little free time this period and I can't go back and forth to build everything back together right now searching for the missing info etc. And I agree with Kiwi Jaden...this is becoming a joke. Please someone add the tables back and next time that they will be removed an admin needs to interfere! Callmemirela is right, this is clearly WP:OWN situation! TeamGale 06:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

TeamGale I just reverted the edits to how it was before they removed the average score and whatnot. I was unable to make it to how it was before because that is a lot of information to recuperate and I do not have the time right at this moment. If AldezD continues reverting after endless attempts to keep it the way it was, someone, for the love God, contact an admin! Just follow these steps first : Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Receive_outside_help_for_content_disputes. Make sure you can contact an admin right now. If you can't, go with the first item they tell you to do when resolving dispute issues. I would suggest the notice boards, editor assistance or formal mediation.Callmemirela (talk) 12:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The issues of WP:IINFO, WP:LISTCRUFT/WP:NOTSTATS, and WP:TRIVIA have not been addressed. Arguments are made that "I don't like it" or "It's not how it has been done in the past", "This information is needed" and "I want it reverted", but these issues still fail to address Wikipedia guidelines presented. The excessive statistics listed in this article fall under WP:NOT#FANSITE. AldezD (talk) 12:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

This website is a mess why is AldezD so hell bent on ruining this site. The old way has been fine for 10 years. If it is not broke do not fix it. I like the full dance chart it helps me keep track on who has done what dance rather than trail through endless tables. Please someone contact an admin. Wiki articles on DWTS around the world are done in the same fashion I do not care if rules are not broken by altering the site beyond all recognition. There are tonnes of people who like it the way is was. I like the average chart as I like DWTS Statistics. I rely on this website as I live in the UK and I can see all the scores in one place and the (10,10,10,10) notation is self explanatory and does not need "dumming down". To sum up I am absolutley FED UP with this and very, very angry, I do not usually vent my anger in the internet as it does not solve anything, but if the overall motion on the website is that it should go back to how it was. Then i felt it was appropriate to say something. Can someone do something PLEASE! NaThang0P (talk) 13:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

'This website is a mess why is AldezD so hell bent on ruining this site. The old way has been fine for 10 years. If it is not broke do not fix it' - NaThang these words ring entirely in my ears. I have added the average chart and dance chart - however I would implore my fellow editors to take heed of the necessity to look for referencing as well to add to these measures. Scores, dances, songs. However - I find it intolerable that 1) AldezD does not take action to discuss with everyone first before changing and 2) Makes the changes under the guise of WP:NOT#FANSITE to what he wants (sure he's deleted two parts of this article) but he is adding colours, changing formats of tables making them far less readable for the public. To me, it seems he says fan site, yet changes tables for his pleasure, adds colours etc. which make it look ridiculous and expect us to fall into line? I have changed it back, but recognise the need to look for further referencing. I ask my fellow editors to 1) look for these and 2) if there is a change back once more, to please take heed and bring in admin to work on sorting Aldez out. Does he recognise that his lack of discussion with fellow editors of the page can lead to disharmony, not allowed on this site? Oh dear. Kiwi Jaden (talk) 21:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, your argument is "I don't like it" and "it was fine the way before", but these fail to address the Wikipedia guidelines brought forth, and the unnecessary duplication of information in tables upon tables of unsourced WP:IINFO. You comment that tables are less readable with color coding, but in your reversions, you changed them to a format with inconsistent widths, text sizes and text formats.

Regarding my lack of discussion, I have initiated all the discussions on this page regarding formatting changes and have participated in the discussions with clear comments and references to established guidelines, explaining the edits and changes to formats. The responses have largely ignored the multiple Wikipedia guidelines brought up that this article fails to meet. AldezD (talk) 21:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

AldezD, I changed the width sizes to suit YOUR new system for weekly scores. So if you prefer we return to our old system, we can? User:Kiwi Jaden (talk) 21:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Reference formatting

Please continue to add references to adhere to WP:V guidelines. Also, when adding references, please format code using Template:Cite web rather than posting raw links. AldezD (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Weekly scores: old vs. new (vote)

ETA:

5 editors (one IP address and excluding myself) voted for the older version. The result is the older version for the weekly scores. Consequences will be taken if an editor reverts for whatever reason. There was a discussion, and it's been officially decided. This should be the last time we hear about this. Discuss if you do not agree, and we will state our reasons as to why we made the vote and changes. Reverting may lead to your ban, as we are now applying this rule. Please read WP:3RR. I do not want, in any way, another edit war which is why I am listing these rules (not exactly, I just couldn't find another word). Follow WP:CONSENSUS to make changes before reverting then discuss or else it falls in WP:OWN. Thank you. Expect changes in the next few hours.

Thank you to those whom voted! Your contributions are much appreciated!

Ps: I apologize for sounding like an admin, if I do ever come across like that in this message. I am just trying to avoid unwanted past mistakes. Callmemirela (talk) 02:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

ETA #2:

I have reverted the changes back to the weekly scores' old version. Some instructions have been applied to assure that editors follow the old table instead of the newest one. To those that disagree, do NOT revert. Create a new section and state your reasons as to why you would want the newest version. All warnings and rules (again, I could not find the right word) have been assigned above this message. Thank you! Please include all references the page needs in the weekly scores. Thank you once again! Callmemirela (talk) 03:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

As stated in my previous message, we make decisions as a team, I know many editors do not agree with the new changes. I will be reverting edits that has changed the physical appearance. I presume the dance chart will be as previously before the change. As for the weekly scores, I want a vote to be done. To whom prefer the older version, say so. To whom prefer the newest version, say so. The version with the most votes will be the version that maintains. All other changes to the tables and templates or the page itself without discussion will be immediately reverted. We speak with others before making decisions. The references will remain the same, no changes will be added.

An example of the newest version is available on the page. An older example of the older version, visit Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 18).

If you would like a trial with the newest version (without dance chart additions), please comment below. This will be applied if editors agree to it. If it is not, then the trial won't be applied and changes will be made.

All other changes that you do not want or should add, please discuss first. We will all come to an agreement.

I also do not want people contradicting an editor's vote on which should belong. For example, an editor says to keep to the newest version, but some editor disagrees and says the oldest is the best with na-na-na reasons. No arguments, please. This is an issue we've been having a lot. Thus we will put this aside for now.

I will make these changes (or someone else if they want to) either in the next five hours or 24 hours if there aren't many votes. All editors and IP addresses are allowed to vote. No limits or restrictions on those whom are permitted to vote.

The dance chart will be restored sometime soon. If anyone has any issues with this, please discuss before restoring the dance chart in the weekly scores. We make decisions as a team, not indivually. We also have to follow [3]

Thank you for voting!

Callmemirela (talk) 21:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Callmemirela - I agree completely, we need to vote on the change of the weekly scores and see who prefers the old - to this new version. I revised AldezD's to not include colours and changed the Total column to after the four judges scores, for ease of reading, however personally, the old system worked for me. Also - have placed a warning on AldezD's talk page as has he, and have the edit to consistently revert to, until we have ALL agreed on the changes necessary and what is not. I do however, believe we need to take heed of sourcing further as Aldez believes. That may quell his difficulty. User:Kiwi Jaden (talk) 21:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Kiwi Jaden You are most welcome. This was the best decision before turning into another WP:OWN situation. The sourcing is still under progress. It will take a while for editors to be used to the new change. It doesn't click to add a source in a blink of an eye. Ps: I will answer you about my help tomorrow. I want to review solutions for you first then I would ask you questions and give you a solution. I won't participate in an argument, but I will help you with resolving the issue (: Callmemirela (talk) 02:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll just go through each feature of the page from top to bottom:

• Scoring chart/average scores: They should be kept separate. Merging them may seem like a practical idea now, but once the chart grows week after week, it'll have to be formatted smaller and smaller and thus become overly difficult to read.
• Highest and lowest scoring performances/dances: Should be separate, as merging them would cause logistical problems (which I have outlined above).
• Weekly scores: I don't mind the new format, even though it makes the charts bigger than they probably ought to be. My only question is how scores will be sorted once couples begin doing multiple dances. We can't have two charts for one week, so something will have to be done to make sure the scores for every dance can be sorted properly, and not just the one danced first.
• Dance chart: Should be kept as is. There are always going to be people visiting the page who are only interested in who danced what and when (to search dances up on something like YouTube, for instance), and this chart is the handiest one for such a purpose. Simply relying on the weekly charts is, as I have already said, not very user-friendly.

Wilted Youth (talk) 01:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Wilted Youth I agree with what you said. All charts should be seperate or it gets angrily confusing. Adding this and that in one chart will get me frustrated. I mostly came into realization about your comment on the weekly scores tables. Yes, when having multiple dances in one night will add more confusion. Most importantly would the relays (whether it's Cha-Cha-Cha, Mambo, Jive, Mixed dances, etc.). The scores aren't based on judges's scores, but rather what they agreed upon. As well, there is the dance-off. I believe the previous season didn't have it, but it may return once again. With your arguments, I agree that the older version of the weekly scores would be useful to categorize the night better. I find the total scores given at the end is too much. There are too many numbers. Before the changes, it was easy to notice the total score. When the multiple dances arrive, it will be seriously too much to handle and will complicate people even more than now. Numbers here and there. It won't end. It won't simplify editors and viewers' lives. I am not quite fond on the new appearance, because I do find it big, and it will only be bigger when there are more dances as stated before. It would probably occupy the whole page, and it would be bigger than it should be. Callmemirela (talk) 02:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I like the old charts better. They are already good for the first 18 seasons of the show, plus the all the worldwide versions. Why change them now? 74.109.223.59 (talk) 22:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think voting is necessary since it's clear from all the previous discussions that only one person agrees with the new format and that one person is the same one who does the changes. But since it reached to this point, I prefer (might not be the right word) the old format NOT because I like it better but - as I stated in previous comment of mine - because the new format is not going to work as weeks pass by and more dances are added to the show and each couple will have 10 dances each.

The editors who work on these articles for some good years now kept the different tables for a reason. I am sure if they could merge them together they would have done it till now! I might be wrong but, I don't remember encountering AldezD's name in previous seasons or at least to the last three that I am personally editing. AldezD is a new editor on these DWTS articles who first appeared nominating ALL for deletion and then, when that didn't happen, comes and tries to change everything without discussion even though he/she was said many times that the changes are not practical for the article and not going to work.

Wilted Youth About the weekly tables, the new format won't be a problem when couples have two dances each. The problem will be when a dance marathon or a relay or some of these type of things is done. We always have one of them every season! In these type of dances, not every judge gives individual score but couples get ONE score from all of them. How is it going to be displayed? With dashes? Don't think that's right. I think weekly tables can be discussed but the rest are not going to work. TeamGale 23:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Count me as one who preferred the old format, especially the Judges' scores, which was far easier to take in at a glance. The table used to be more compact, with the key information to the left. The idea that it's useful to sort everything, including the songs (by first word), is oversold. Regardless of how I feel, Wikipedia is built on consensus: it's definitely inappropriate to edit war, and that's what we had here starting late on September 23 UTC. As best I can tell, more than one person violated the three-revert rule, and that simply isn't acceptable. If it happens again, I imagine that whoever does more than three reversions in a 24-hour period will be blocked by an admin. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Encore??

Should we add the encore for the Dance Chart? Bold the dance that received an encore? The one Janel & Val had in week 2.

I don't think so, only because the results show is not back for good. It was just for the first two weeks.

Wilted Youth (talk) 01:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

We should just add them in the dance chart in bold. Even if they don't have one every week there is no harm in bolding the encore dances that they do have. 74.109.223.59 (talk) 22:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. I think it's not necessary, and attempting to explain the selection will get complicated, with a pick by the judges the first week, and a Twitter vote between two choices the second week. (Bolding without explanation wouldn't be helpful.) BlueMoonset (talk) 02:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Running order

Can I ask why there is already a table for week 3 about the "running order". We don't know yet the order the couples are dancing. This table is added when we have information of the order from at least one couple and that doesn't happen until Sunday/Monday or even till the live show. The dances with the references should be added to the Dance Chart. I think this table has to be removed for now or hidden and the references for the dances move to the dance chart. I was going to do it but because there were way too many reverts already on this article the past day, I thought to discuss it first in case I missed a conversation about it (very likely due to the chaos of the last couple of weeks).
P.S. Why is Randy and Karina's reference dubious? I know that twitter/Instagram etc are not reliable sources but I think they can be used temporarily for the dances till the live show when a better source is found. And Karina says it clear that they have the Paso Doble. Just wondering and asking why. TeamGale 00:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

There shouldn't be a running order table unless we know the order, which we don't yet. Regarding the Paso reference, as long as you're sure that this is a particular dancer or contestant's Twitter or Instagram (verified account, or listed in a press release), then my understanding is that it's an allowable primary source for basic factual information. In this case, what dance they're doing, or where they come in the running order, would be acceptable, as long it's definitively stated. If there's some doubt as to whether this is really Karina's instagram, then tagging it with "dubious" is reasonable; if it's clearly her Instagram—for example, if she keeps linking to it from her genuine Twitter account—then I see no reason why it can't be used as a valid source, especially for short-term advance information. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:53, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

BlueMoonset Thanks for answering. Those were my thoughts exactly but I wanted to ask first regarding all the recent edits. I'll move on and delete/hide the running order table and it can be added back when we'll really have information about the order and not only the dances. Regarding Karina's IG, the IG is not verified but she keeps linking her posts to her verified twitter account so there is no doubt it's hers. I guess dubious is not needed. Thanks again. TeamGale 02:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

TeamGale, I just finished making that edit; so if you're working on it now, you may hit an edit conflict. Sorry about that. I also removed the "dubious", because it just mentions that there's a picture, but the information is based on the text accompanying the picture, which clearly says "paso doble". BlueMoonset (talk) 02:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Removing sources

Please stop removing sources from this article without replacing content with appropriate coding. When using sources as a placeholder for upcoming episodes, move the source to the appropriate section for the weekly result and/or replace with Template:Cite episode. AldezD (talk) 01:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Week 3 chart

How in the world was this deleted? I can't revert the edit, either. I am very angry right now. Wilted Youth (talk) 02:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Update: I got the data back, but this is not something that should happen to a semi-protected page. Vandalism or not, it irked me. Wilted Youth (talk) 02:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Scoring tables

Please try to keep the width of all scoring tables (both the width of the entire table and the width of each individual column) and the font size of text within the tables consistent throughout the article. Also, the aggregate weekly score tables should be nested together underneath Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 19)#Scoring charts and left-aligned to increase readability of the article.

Although this is a modification of how tables are coded from earlier seasons, it increases the readability of the article in that it maintains a consistent appearance of all tables. Also, it is more appropriate to have all aggregate weekly scores nested underneath one header rather than in three separate sections. AldezD (talk) 10:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Couples chart

Does anybody know why the couples chart is not centered? The code is there, something is just blocking its way to function properly. Callmemirela (talk) 21:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The couples chart should not be centered. All other tables in the article are left-aligned. AldezD (talk) 23:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe it should be centered. It's odd when it's aligned on the left side to be honest. I am not agreeing to this new change either. It was better before. Callmemirela (talk) 01:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Carlton

The discussion of week 4 is missing the rather notable information that Alfonso incorporated his iconic "Carlton" dance from Fresh Prince into his performance since that's what's making all the headlines about the episode. I think he is also the first contestant on DWTS to come into the competition already notable for a particular dance (seriously, maybe if Chubby Checker were brought in as a contestant he might top it, but that's about it). 68.146.52.234 (talk) 05:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The Carlton is not a ballroom dance nor a dance that is associated with Dancing with the Stars thus it should not be included. The article only includes ballroom dances that are danced on the show, such as the Paso doble, Tango, Waltz, etc. as for the Carlton, it is not a ballroom dance, Alfonso is the only one that danced it (keep in mind it was incorporated with his jazz routine), and even Wikipedia does not notice the Carlton. Callmemirela (talk) 11:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Week 5 dances

Just a heads up that because the dances being performed during partner switch-up week are not considered part of the official repertoire of styles that appear every season, they should not be included in the best/worst dancer chart. However, if some styles are danced again sometime in the future, then there would be reason to add them to the chart. As it is now, though, they should be considered one-off performances relegated to this week and this week only. Thank you. Wilted Youth (talk) 00:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Scoring chart: adding together scores from week 5 and 6? Not 4 and 5?

I could be wrong, but shouldn't the scores from weeks 4 and 5 be added together instead of 5 and 6? Tonight's episode is week 6, and the couple eliminated tonight will be based on the scores from week 4 when Betsey was eliminated and last week (the switch-up week). As usual under the new format, the eliminated couple will have received a score for a dance tonight even though they were already eliminated by previous scores and votes. Since no one was eliminated last week, if any summing is done, it should be weeks 4 and 5. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.46.189.100 (talk) 01:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Wks 4+5 instead of weeks 5+6

Clarification: On the table there's a sum column for weeks five and six. However, shouldn't the sum be for weeks four and five? I know it gets confusing logically, but don't the scores from the week of dancing only count for the following week? Thus, the elimination on 10/20/14 is based on scores from weeks four and five? AISept8 (talk) 01:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it should be, it originally was, and it is again. It was changed for a little while tonight, but 4+5 is back on the charts, since it was indeed the basis for tonight's elimination. If it gets changed again, it will be restored. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I was about to comment on that. I don't know whom made the changes, but I didn't like it. The show showed the top scores chart from week 4 and 5 together. I don't know why the person changed it to 5 and 6. Thank you BlueMoonset for restoring. Callmemirela (talk) 02:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Someone else restored it before I got there (and I was even beaten to the one error made in the restoration). I did create the 4+5 column to begin with, for the reasons noted above, so I thought it was important that it remained in the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Week 6 theme

While week 6 contained a majority of salsa dances with other one-time dances, I believe the theme for the sixth theme should remain as Pitbull night. It was not a Latin night because Foxtrot, Tango and Jazz are not Latin dances. Furthermore, I did some research. Most recap articles and spoiler websites had no acknowledgement of the week's theme. If it were to be Latin night, it would had been announced countlessly. ABC did not release a press release stating it was Latin night. Season 18's Latin night contained Latin-only dances including the team dances. Previous to that, it contained Latin dances and two Jive dances, although it was announced it was Latin night. The old source given (before the reverts) was merely an opinion. They took the majority of dance styles while excluding the non-Latin dances. The night was based on Pitbull. Most of the music dances to included Pitbull's songs and some of his favorite personal tracks (Pitbull not featured). Overall, the theme should remain the same in my opinion. Callmemirela (talk) 02:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Just my 2c on this subject. I was the one who changed the theme from "Pitbull night" to "Latin night" because in some articles I was reading about week 6, they were mentioning it as a "Latin night". If I remember it right, I saw it in about 3 articles and that's when I thought of changing it using one of them. It was removed and went back to "Pitbull night" with the excuse that not all dances that performed during week 6 were Latin. That's true and I agree that not all dances were latin. That being said though and since the subject was brought in discussion, I have to say that I didn't watch anywhere, not even on the ABC press release for the week, mentioning that it was a "Pitbull night" theme. Only that Pitbull was going to be a guest judge and some couples performed to his songs. For me personally, that doesn't make it a "Pitbull night" overall. Unless there is a reliable source saying so, or if all the couples had performed to his songs, like it happened on "Michael Jackson night" in All Stars season, it's not a "Pitbull night". My opinion is that week 6 should remain without any theme (it's not necessary every week to have a theme). Or if it has to have a theme, to be named as Latin night (even though not all dances were Latin) since secondary reliable sources (where WP is based on) named it as that and was presented as that. But I think no theme is the "right" choice since ABC always mentions in the press release if a night has a theme or not, something the they didn't do here. TeamGale 13:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Addition: Just heard the Afterbuzz show about Week 6...they also called week 6 "Latin night" 1 ... TeamGale 16:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Here are some more reliable sources naming week 6 "Latin night". It was sure not "one opinion". 1, 2, 3, 4. And there are more... I still think if there has to be a theme on week 6 section it should be "Latin night" despite not all dances being latin. TeamGale 08:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The only thing that confuses me is why didn't ABC or the show say anything about its theme? Do you know where I am coming from? I find it suspicious that the show hasn't said anything at all and people are calling it Latin night. I think it's best we leave it blank. Callmemirela (talk) 12:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

That's the thing I was thinking too and that's why on my first comment I said that week 6 should have no theme at all or IF we put a theme on it we should go with what the secondary sources say since that's WP's policy. My thought is that probably the night didn't have a theme (that's why ABC didn't say anything about it) and many people assumed that it was a Latin night because of the many Latin dances. TeamGale 14:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it is best we leave it blank. I am not against secondary sources, but in this case I only rely on primary sources. ABC has not said anything, and those articles are opinions of what they thought. It can't be Latin night if nothing was ever said by officials or those responsible of the show. Blanking its theme should be the theme of that week. Callmemirela (talk) 01:16, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

That's what I am basically saying since the beginning. That there was no theme for week 6. The rest was if we should add a theme to add latin night. If no one else has anything to say (this is being here for a while and doesn't seem like they do) then the "Pitbull night" has to be removed. TeamGale 19:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. I was more into the whole "It's not Latin night if ABC didn't say so." And I agree. This discussion has been open for nearly a week, and we are the only ones deciding the theme. Because of that, I will blank the theme for week 6. Thank you for helping! Callmemirela (talk) 19:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we should apply the episode titles from ABC's site: [4] Seemingly the other episode titles are relatively close.AISept8 (talk) 03:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Personally I think not. The site uses a title to generally describe the night. It's logical the nights that have a theme to match those descriptions. ABC announces the theme of the nights every week on their official press releases plus the hosts say the theme night many times during the live show. "Pitbull joins the party" is a general description for the night...not exactly a theme. Clearly "Sia and Nico & Vinz Perform" that is used for week 2 results is not a theme. Here are all the press releases:

Week 1 doesn't give a theme.

Week 2 says "It's #MyJamMonday"

Week 3 says "Movie night"

Week 4 says "Most Memorable Year"

Week 5 says "The Switch-Up"

Week 6 also doesn't give a theme. Only that Pitbull will perform and be a guest judge. I don't see anywhere saying "Pitbull night" (that was used here before) or "Pitbull joins the party" theme. It would be "Pitbull Night" if all the songs were his, like the "Stevie Wonder Night" in past season.

Week 7 and for next week, says "Halloween"

Like I mentioned in a previous comment, not all nights have to have a theme. They didn't in the past seasons and neither they have to now. I watched the live episode twice and I didn't hear anyone giving a theme for week 6 during the show. Of course they said that Pitbull was there and was a guest judge but they do that with all the guest judges but Tom never said "Pitbull night". TeamGale 06:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Sadie & Mark's Jive on Halloween Night

On Halloween Night on Oct. 27th, Sadie and Mark does the jive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.29.177 (talk) 23:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Then cite your source to prove it. If it's not sourced, then it's not true. Callmemirela (talk) 23:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Immunity

Regarding the immunity and the 3 extra points; it was said clear at the end of the show that Janel was at the top of the leaderboard with 43 points and not 40, which means she also got 3 extra points. Please stop removing it from the chart. TeamGale 15:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)