Talk:Dancing with the Stars (American TV series) season 21

Stop the edit warring

This is to all users and IPs editing on this article. Numerous people have been edit warring over the cast names' descriptions and the redirection for Alexa and Carlos. STOP. I will request a full protection if I have to. This your first and only warning. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 21:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I already made that request, and it was granted. —烏Γ ^(kaw), 22:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw the request when I noticed the page got protected. You beat me to it. I was going to request a full protection if a user had made a revert of any of the content again. Thanks for your help, too! Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 22:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I do think the names should link to their actual articles (essentially in disagreement with your last revert), but I wasn't going to get involved in the actual war. —烏Γ ^(kaw), 22:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I see no difference in linking the article's name and the current legal or used name. I was just sick of the edit warring and the disruptive editing. Nobody had the balls to open a discussion and say "Hey, it should be this way and not this because..." It was bold, revert, revert, revert, revert, revert, revert, my way or now way, edit war. You get what I mean? I am here to put an end to the problem. I was not trying to engage in the war by saying this version should be right and whatnot. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 22:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I added the refimprove template to the section because the table needs sources - especially the Notability column. (In fact, everything added to an article about a show that hasn't aired should be sourced per WP:CRYSTAL.) If people would learn (and follow) the basic rules of WP (verifiability), there would be much less edit warring. Also, a certain editor (with intitials KJ) keeps adding repeated links, unnecessary piping, and puffery. But, that's nothing unusual for these DWTS articles. --Musdan77 (talk) 04:01, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

As far as the links for Alexa and Carlos, if the links go to their pages, then there's no need for piping. --Musdan77 (talk) 04:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I think we should avoid linking to a redirect wherever possible, as they're intended as search aids rather than to give editors shortcuts (with obvious exception for the explicit-purpose shortcuts in WP and similar namespaces); nothing is lost and instead clarity is gained by simply pointing the link in the proper direction, with the text changed to match what's officially on the show. —烏Γ ^(kaw), 05:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Week 1 dances

Some couples started revealing their dance for week 1 such as Alek and Lindsay...should we start the week 1 tables? TeamGale ^(talk) 00:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Not exactly the weekly scores table, if that's what you're referring to. It would have to be Week 1's dance chart, yes. We have always added new dances for the next week, even right after the airing of an episode so I see nothing against it. Just as long it is sourced, of course. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 00:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I was referring to the dance chart. Maybe I didn't make it clear on the first comment. Weekly scores tables of course can't be done since we don't know the dance order. I don't know if more couples have revealed at this point their dance but there is sure one couple as I stated above. TeamGale ^(talk) 02:34, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Since the season 21 article was given a full week of edit protection due to the recent edit war—only administrators can edit it at the moment—there's nothing that can be done until the protection lifts late on September 12. By that time, I imagine that there will be more sourced information available, and it would therefore clearly be worth starting the dance chart. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I noticed that the article was protected earlier this week but didn't noticed it was full protection. I guess dance chart has to wait... TeamGale ^(talk) 02:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

The article is unprotected now, so it can be added --MSalmon (talk) 21:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

That was quick. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 22:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

What was quick? --MSalmon (talk) 22:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The protection. I know it was protected for a week, but it felt as it if was just a few days. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 22:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh ok, yeah I know --MSalmon (talk) 22:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Hayes Grier

http://www.hayesgrier.com/bio/ There should be a link to Hayes Grier Pacomartin (talk) 20:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

There shouldn't exactly be a link to every contestant, just look at the previous seasons. Those who didn't have an article weren't linked. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 20:42, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Guest Judge scores

Just wondering why the guest judge scores are excluded from all the averages and charts. There's going to be a lot of guest judges this season, so excluding the scores doesn't really make any sense to me. You can still calculate equal averages with 30-40 point scales. Guest Judge scores were counted in season 19, not really sure why they are suddenly being discounted. Overall, I think we need to come up with a way to make scores equal even though there are differences in the amount of judges judging. I don't think it's right to exclude their scores. I hope we can accomomdate them in some way. Heartfox (talk) 19:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The difference is that last season had 4 regular judges, and the guests filled in when Len was absent. So all dances were on a 40-point scale. This time there are three judges most of the time, so it's more consistent to do out of 30. Irvek (talk) 07:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

How to handle Week 10 "in jeopardy" and Tamar's withdrawal

I've seen the green background appear and disappear for Bindi & Derek and Nick & Sharna's Week 10 chart cells, and also seen the dark-blue "withdrawal" background for Tamar in Week 9 (which renders her scores virtually unreadable), so it probably makes sense to discuss the matter here and come to a consensus of what is best to do if at all possible.

First, there's no doubt that either Bindi or Nick had the lowest combined total from the judges and the voters for the Week 9 dances, and both were declared "in jeopardy". That's what the green background means, and that's how it was used in Week 3 when Kim & Tony were forced by the rules to withdraw after Paula & Louis and Andy & Allison were declared to be in jeopardy.

Next, it was specifically said during the Week 10 show that since Tamar had not danced that week and had withdrawn, she was eliminated rather than one of the two in jeopardy. Val was treated at the beginning as if he were still in the competition, with Tamar as a no-show.

That would seem to indicate that Tamar's withdrawal should be shown in our chart in Week 10, like Kim's was in Week 3, and Bindi and Nick would get the green backgrounds based on the Week 3 precedent, since either Paula or Andy had the lowest score then. But since things aren't always as they seem, I'd be interested in how others here parse out what happened, and how it should be indicated in the article. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC) Tom never said that Paula or Andy would've been out though. He clearly did with Nick and Bindi.

I agree Bindi and Nick should be in green. Tom said it - and then they were the last to be called safe. Make them green for consistency's sake! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B2EB:D640:9D67:CA08:9A77:27EB (talk) 04:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

No need for the last comment. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 05:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I can understand your issues, but if you ask me it makes no sense if couple are green if no elimination has occurred. Maybe if Tamar's withdrawal was considered as elimination and the other couples were in jeopardy? Otherwise, I think it would be best to the green backgrounds in the next week. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 05:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Green means "last to be called safe". Both couples were placed in jeopardy, and when it was stated that there would be no elimination, they naturally were then "safe", but neither was safe before the other; it's effectively a tie for "last". The whole idea behind including the green is to show who had been in jeopardy before the person/people being eliminated were eliminated. Tamar was eliminated by withdrawing, so Bindi and Nick went from being in jeopardy to being safe. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

It's more clearer. Well, then, Tamar's withdrawal should be noted for the latest week instead, as it would make more sense since she did not withdrawal the previous week but after that. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 07:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Bindi Irwin: 7 or 8 perfect scores?

We've had Bindi's number of perfect scores flip back and forth between 7 and 8 for over a week now, and I think we need to come to a consensus on how this should be counted: whether we include her team-up dance with Alexa (8), or exclude it (7). We have not traditionally included the larger team dances with multiple couples in the perfect score total—which would, for example, have included Amber & Derek and others in season 17—the obvious question is whether a two-celebrity dance with the celebrities dancing together for 30 seconds counts toward the perfect total when a three- or four-celebrity dance without that non-pro component doesn't. Thoughts on how the article should count—and explain—this? If there isn't a consensus soon, the article may need to be protected. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 21). 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/20151028135631/http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2015/10/27/broadcast-weekly-top-25-oct-19-25-2015/480585/ to http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2015/10/27/broadcast-weekly-top-25-oct-19-25-2015/480585/

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) 00:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)