Talk:Dancing with the Stars (American TV series) season 12

Call Out Order

Do we really need the table for the call out order as it is just useless trivia that has no relevance to the article itself? --MSalmon (talk) 20:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The call out order has not been finalized yet...no one has been eliminated yet...Perfectprpl (talk) 01:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Semi Protection

Could this page be semi protected until it has finished due to vandalism and unreferenced edits? --MSalmon (talk) 23:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The Troupe

There should be a section for the Dance Troupe since they are going to be on every result show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.224.115.41 (talk) 00:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Fix the Call Out Order box please.

It should not be filled in all the way. The show is only in week 6, person predictions should not be allowed to be posted.

Katierobin23 (talk) 20:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I've rolled back to an earlier version from today, but there are competitors missing in the week 6 column. —C.Fred (talk) 20:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Should the week six callouts be present at all, or will all that happen on the results show tonight? —C.Fred (talk) 20:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The week six callouts should not be posted yet. They are normally posted as the show happens. Perfectprpl (talk) 20:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I've blanked the column. —C.Fred (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Group encore

Question: Should Ralph and Karina be listed as having the encore dance for the week? They were part of the group dance that was picked for the encore. It was not their individual dance that was chosen. 129.174.188.95 (talk) 16:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

If we don't list them, it would look like there's No encore for that week. Marked (talk) 07:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Week 7 Cha Cha Cha

Does anybody know how the judges will be scoring the team dances, will it be individually or as a group? --MSalmon (talk) 19:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Extra judge

Should we normalize the 40 point scores to 30 points so that the averages make sense or just leave them out? What about the team dances? Marked (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC).

If you read the note that goes with the table then it should explain it all --MSalmon (talk) 22:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The note is ambiguous, which is why people keep changing it. Normalizing out the 4th judge is more correct than throwing out his score, but both ways will be confusing until it's explicit. The difference is small (<1pt) except for Kirstie which is 1.5 off.Marked (talk) 23:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem with the normalizing the scores is that that gives us half-points and quarter-points, and those don't exist on the show. Onesmallnote (talk) 01:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Week 7

Individual judges scores in the chart below (given in parentheses) are listed in this order from left to right: Carrie Ann Inaba, Len Goodman, Bruno Tonioli + Donnie Burns

Running order

	Couple	Norm	Score	Style	Musi
7	Hines & Kym	27	27 (9,8,10) + 9 = 36	Tango	"La lección de Tango" — Fred Frith and Sally Potter
6	Ralph & Karina	27	26 (9,8,9) + 10 = 36	Quickstep	"Pencil Full Of Lead" — Paolo Nutini
3	Chelsea & Mark	25.5	26 (9,8,9) + 08 = 34	Paso Doble	"Ghosts 'N Stuff" — Deadmau5 feat. Rob Swire
4	Kendra & Louis	23.25	23 (8,7,8) + 8 = 31	Tango	"Jealousy" — Billy Fury
8	Romeo & Chelsie	22.5	23 (8,7,8) + 7 = 30	Samba	"Say Hey (I Love You)" — Michael Franti & Spearhead
2	Hines & Kym Kirstie & Maks Kendra & Louis	22.5	23 (7,8,8) + 7 = 30	Cha-Cha-Cha	"We R Who We R" — Ke$ha
1	Chelsea & Mark Ralph & Karina Romeo & Chelsie	22.5	22 (8,7,7) + 8 = 30	Cha-Cha-Cha	"Born This Way" — Lady Gaga
5	Kirstie & Maks	22.5	21 (7,6,8) + 9 = 30	Jive	"La Bamba" — Ritchie Valens

Call out order table

I find the colors in the callout table confusing. Anyone have objections to a new set? This is my proposal:

  This couple came in first place with the judges.

  This couple came in first place with the judges and had the encore for the week.

  This couple had the encore for the week.

  This couple had the encore for the week and came in last place with the judges.

  This couple came in last place with the judges.

  This couple came in last place with the judges and was eliminated.

  This couple was eliminated.

  This couple won the competition.

  This couple came in second in the competition.

  This couple came in third in the competition.

Marked (talk) 05:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Where did the call-out order box even go? It looks like someone deleted it completely! Cespence17 (talk) 00:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

It was deleted by this edit from an ip. Does anyone know how to undo that edit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.171.8.173 (talk) 02:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Found and undid. Marked (talk) 02:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Score Chart Disappeared

I think some vandal got on here and deleted the score chart because it's disappeared. Please, someone with more Wiki editing savvy than I have, fix it! Onesmallnote (talk) 02:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. Marked (talk) 02:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Addition of Week 7 scores to Average table

Why do people keep adding the scores and averages for Week 7 when they know it was out of 40 and not 30? --MSalmon (talk) 08:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The week seven individual dance HAS to be in the star's average. It counts towards their overall work on the show, does it not? The deal with the scoring out of 40 has an easy solution: get rid of the guest judge score. It was done last season, so let's do it again. For example, add 26 to Chelsea's average instead of 34 or some normalized decimal score. For the team dances....we should vote if they should be included. I don't feel they should because some stars just get lucky by being on a better team, and most of the time it unnecessarily brings people's averages down. Let me know! But I hope I explained to you why we need that wk 7 scores! TDI19 (talk) 22:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the team dance SHOULD be included because it's a 30-point dance, and it was counted in the star's points for the night. Yes, stars may get lucky with their team, but in the end, it's still a score they received. And like you said about the other week 7 dance, it still counts towards their overall work on the show because they all had to put in the time and effort for the dance. Onesmallnote (talk) 01:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I agree with removing the guest judge score for Week 7 individual dance but the team dance should be left out --MSalmon (talk) 09:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I have updated the totals and removed the guest judge scores for Week 7 but I don't know what the averages are and how to take 20 off the current average --MSalmon (talk) 10:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I updated the average chart to match the decision to eliminate the guest judge score from the week 7 individual dance and to leave out the team dance score entirely. I concede to the masses. Onesmallnote (talk) 23:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the team dance should be included without the extra judges score as it was included last year (only ranked team dances are not included) --MSalmon (talk) 09:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, will fix it again. Onesmallnote (talk) 20:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

As of 5:00 pm EST today, the average chart shows correct averages for all contestants with all 10 dances included, and excluding week 7 guest judge scores. Onesmallnote (talk) 21:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The total scores are correct as you have to take off 20 from the overall total if you include the guest judge scores --MSalmon (talk) 22:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand. For example, using Hines' scores, 21+23+25+25+27+27+23(fixed team score)+27(fixed individual score)+28+26 = 252, not 248.Onesmallnote (talk) 23:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry you were right it is not 20 to take off it is the individual total (eg. Hines will be 7+9 to take off)

Team Dances should b —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.17.95.12 (talk) 16:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I'm late to this discussion but I expressed before I think the judge score should be included not dropped. It doesn't matter for this season because the guest was inline with the other judges but imagine next season if a guest gives a 0 and the couple is eliminated, it will be misleading as to why. This week we will have the issue of the 15 point bonus.Marked (talk) 01:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Does someone know how many episodes did not have a 30 point score including all seasons? Marked (talk) 01:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Winner take all

Any ideas about handling the 15 point score? Marked (talk) 01:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it just needs to be left out of the average chart. It's not a 30-point score, so it will greatly affect their averages, especially the zeros for Hines, Kirstie, and Ralph. A similar decision was made in Season 9 with the relay dances; because the highest score was 10, it was just left out of the averages.Onesmallnote (talk) 03:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

OK! I have an idea to fix every relay/marathon/guest judge score problem in any season that has that problem!! It is tough to explain, so I will just give you an example. It will require alot of adjustments in other seasons.

Example: Chelsea & Mark--21+18+23+26+26+28+30+34+29+26+28+30+15=334. Now, take the total possible amount of points she could have received--30+30+30+30+30+30+40+40+30+30+30+30+15=395. Now take 334/395 which is .84557...now multiply that by 30....25.3671. There you go! Hope this works. Let me know!!! TDI19 (talk) 02:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I like it! That way all the scores are included! Nice job! Onesmallnote (talk) 06:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I changed this season's average chart, now going to work on past seasons. I put a note directing people here, I hope no one reverts my edit without discussing it first.Onesmallnote (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I strongly think you don't want to do this. That has the problem of double scores on the 60 point weeks and also higher weight to the 40point weeks. example: (30+20)/(30+40)=50/70=71.4% when the expected value should be (100%+50%)/2=75% Marked (talk) 07:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Here's two ways you an do it but I'm going to leave out the 15 for now. You either say all dances should have equal weight which then looks like

Example:21+18+23+26+26+28+30*3/4+34*3/4+29+26+28+30=303points 303points/12dances=25.25 points/dance
or the same thing another way
(21/30+18/30+23/30+26/30+26/30+28/30+30/40+34/40+29/30+26/30+28/30+30/30)/12=10.1/12=84.17% 30*.8417=25.25

Or alternatively you can say every episode should be given the same weight which looks like: (21/30+18/30+23/30+26/30+26/30+28/30+64/80+55/60+58/60)/9=82.4% 30*.824=24.7 Marked (talk) 07:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep. Marked is correct. I would think that if you give every episode the same weight you could add the 15 in also and just make the last score 73/75. The results on this pair would be the same...82.4% and average scoring of 24.7 out of 30, but other pairs getting 0 out of 15 points could have more of an affect. Either way TDI19's version would be incorrect as it stands and it should not be applied to other seasons. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC) Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Why has the average table been changed? What was wrong with it before because it should be out of 30, and we agreed to remove the judges scores for Week 7 and the 15 point bonus for Week 9. --MSalmon (talk) 09:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Well the old way mostly worked, but there are some concerns that throwing out scores is bad, and as they kept creating new scoring systems, the discrepancy has been growing. But let's make sure we have a decent agreement before we change all the seasons, since that's a lot of work and it sucks to have to do it twice. Marked (talk)

I have changed to include all scores except for the bonus 15 points which was not scored by the judges --MSalmon (talk) 18:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Msalmon, the totals you put are without the guest judge scores in week 7. I added those back in and adjusted the averages. I don't understand how my setup is wrong. This isn't me being cocky, either, I literally don't understand.Onesmallnote (talk) 19:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you were right the setup is correct but my averages are different to the ones you have (I have the same setup in Excel and I forgot to remove the guest judge scores) --MSalmon (talk) 21:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

That's odd. All I did was total points earned divided by total points possible, and multiply that answer by 30. So for example, with Chelsea and Mark, 319/380 = .8394736842 x 30 = 25.1842. Onesmallnote (talk) 00:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

And what about the extra scores from the guest judge that you have missed out for the average? --MSalmon (talk) 08:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

That's included in the 319 and all the other totals. I checked all my data multiple times. Onesmallnote (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you have or why your averages are so much higher, but I'm pretty positive mine are right. Again using Chelsea and Mark for an example: 21+18+23+26+26+28+64+55+58(leaving out 15 point bonus) = 319 (and yes, I just checked it AGAIN). 319/380 = .83947 x 30 = 25.1842. I can type out every other person if you'd like me to, but seriously, I've gone over the numbers repeatedly, leaving out C&M's 15 pt bonus but leaving IN the guest judge scores in the week 7 total. Onesmallnote (talk) 04:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Do the formula in Excel and see what that comes up with and if it is any different to the one you have --MSalmon (talk) 08:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I see why we have different numbers. We're doing it in two different ways. You're simply taking the average of the score numbers, and I'm taking (total points earned / total points possible) x 30. Your averages are so much higher because when you enter in the week 7 scores, they are higher than 30, and technically the highest average possible on the show is 30, it's the highest score given except for the guest judge week, thus throwing off the averages because it implies they got more than a perfect score in week 7. I hope I'm making sense, I'm trying to. Do you see the difference? Onesmallnote (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

We should vote on this while we have everyone's attention. This new way I think is simpler but but doesn't treat each dance equally which I think is important. Marked (talk) 01:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikitable Sortable

I changed most the weeks tables to be sortable. I don't think I can change the the last few weeks with 2 dances because it was entered a rowspan. I want to change the table so each dance has their own line, and it's in the correct order of the show, instead of combined by couple. Any preference to not have sortable tables?Marked (talk)

I like the sortable tables, I'm just not sure what you mean by "I want to change the table so each dance has their own line, and it's in the correct order of the show, instead of combined by couple". And which table is that referring to? Onesmallnote (talk) 05:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I meant to say to make a table sortable, there can't be any combined rows, something like this. Marked (talk) 20:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Couple	Score	Style	Music
Chelsea & Mark	29 (10,9,10)	Waltz	"My Love" — Sia
Hines & Kym	28 (9,9,10)	Foxtrot	"This Will Be" — Natalie Cole
Romeo & Chelsie	27 (9,9,9)	Tango	"Hold It Against Me" — Britney Spears
Ralph & Karina	25 (8,8,9)	Viennese Waltz	"Maybe I, Maybe You" — The Scorpions
Kirstie & Maks	28 (9,9,10)	Argentine Tango	"Cite Tango" — Ástor Piazzolla
Chelsea & Mark	26 (8,9,9)	Instant Salsa	"Get Busy" — Sean Paul
Hines & Kym	26 (9,9,8)	Instant Jive	"Chantilly Lace" — Jerry Lee Lewis
Romeo & Chelsie	25 (8,9,8)	Instant Salsa	"Tequila" — Xavier Cugat
Ralph & Karina	21 (7,7,7)	Instant Cha-Cha-Cha	"Stuck in the Middle With You" — Stealers Wheel
Kirstie & Maks	25 (8,9,8)	Instant Salsa	"Cobrastyle" — Teddybears ft. Mad Cobra

Eh, to me, it doesn't really seem like there's a point in sorting the weekly tables. I mean, why would anyone want to sort by dance style or music? If they wanna sort scores, they can do it on the score chart. It just doesn't make much sense to me... Onesmallnote (talk) 05:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Britney Spears

We're getting multiple edits for the Britney Spears song because it's called ...Baby One More Time but people know it as Hit Me Baby. What should it be? 76.30.70.62 (talk) 02:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

It should be the official song title --MSalmon (talk) 09:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The official song title is Hit Me Baby (One More Time) Fatty2k10 (talk) 18:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Not according to Wikipedia ...Baby One More Time (song), but I'm not a Britney expert. Marked (talk) 22:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree...it should be "...Baby One More Time." That's the official title on the CD - http://www.amazon.com/Baby-One-More-Time-ENHANCED/dp/B00000G1IL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.109.110.63 (talk) 15:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Please fix Go-Go's song title to "We Got the Beat"

subject says it all - song title is "We Got the Beat". this refers to the live performance on 5/24 in week 10.

new guy here, hope I'm doing this right.Markvb76 (talk) 02:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I think this is fixed now. Marked (talk) 03:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Color Aqua

What does the color Aqua represent on the Scoring Schart exactly? --MSalmon (talk) 10:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

NOTSTATS/VERIFY

Listing tables of unverified statistics falls under the WP:NOT#STATS and WP:IINFO guidelines. Even if excessive listing of statistics wasn't a violation of those guidelines, the statistics themselves are all unsourced, which violates WP:VERIFY and WP:OR. Sottolacqua (talk) 15:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

See the history. --Plankton5165 (talk) 23:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

That addresses nothing related to the guidelines mentioned. Sottolacqua (talk) 02:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Removing the whole section doesn't do anything to help the article, just adding a citation banner at the top of the section will do fine until a source is found --MSalmon (talk) 12:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not the innumerable statistics can be sourced, listing very large sections with this intricate level of detail on a week-by-week basis falls under WP:NOT#STATS. Sottolacqua (talk) 16:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, instead of reverting my removal, please explain how this information does not fall under WP:NOT#STATS if you feel it should be included, or at least provide sources that meet WP:VERIFY. Simply undoing my edit does not address either of these concerns. Sottolacqua (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced info

Here's the unsourced inforation. This does not belong in the article until sources can be provided for the basic details. However, this also does not belong in the article because it is a clear violation of WP:IINFO. At minimum, the excessive listing of statistics and intricate detail must be trimmed, and the info that remains must be sourced. Sottolacqua (talk) 13:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 12)/Unsourced stats

You still have a long way to go. --Plankton5165 (talk) 04:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Finding 2011 sources for scores, songs or dances

There are dozens (hundreds) of news reports in the OK Magazine website (for example), which include most of the details for the weekly scores, dances, songs, and elimination date for each couple, plus the reported injuries of each dancer. See Google Search for:

Google:  site:www.okmagazine.com "DWTS" 2011 April OR May

That search will list results matching news reports for U.S. season 12, as well as U.S. season 13 (which began in late 2011). For example:

• "Kym Johnson's DWTS Diary: Riding High With a Big Tie!" (Apr. 5, 2011)

• "Sugar Ray Leonard Gets Knocked Out of 'DWTS'" (Apr. 13, 2011)

• "Kirstie Alley Falls During Rehearsal, Then Earns First 10 on 'DWTS'" (May 10, 2011)

• "Hines Ward & Kym Johnson Win Mirror Ball Trophy on 'DWTS'" (May 25, 2011)

There is one major "DWTS" report for each of the 10 weeks, and several others for specific celebrities during each week. Including other websites, such as CBS News, there are many hundreds of source webpages. The tables in the Wikipedia article are composites from checking the sources for each week of the competition. -Wikid77 05:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Those links don't provide any source for the scoring information (specifically individual scores for each judge). I ran the same Google search you listed above but did not find the weekly recap you mentioned. Entertainment Weekly has weekly recaps available for each season, but those only list aggregate scores (example). Sottolacqua (talk) 14:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The link Daljp11 provided does not feature information for the individual scores from judges listed in the tables. If you're going to add references, link to the specific pages that show score statistics, and provide the proper reference coding in-line with those scores. Please stop adding endless tables of WP:IINFO...this is a violation of WP:NOT#STATS. Averages, highest/lowest scores, etc. are unnecessary to understand the topic of this article, clutter the article and severely decrease the readability of the article. Sottolacqua (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Dance chart

Msalmon, please stop reverting efforts to increase the readability of this article. You are hindering an effort to improve the flow and make table formats consistent in this article. Sottolacqua (talk) 15:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Couples in danger of elimination

Previously, the scoring chart featured multiple text formats in bold, italics and different-colored backgrounds, which made it very cluttered and confusing, requiring multiple checks to understand the info presented. The same colors are now used in both the score chart and the dance chart, but another editor requested an additional format to show which couples were in danger of being eliminated each week.

Does anyone have a suggestion on how to achieve this? Perhaps removing the shading for highest/lowest-scoring performance and only highlighting those in danger of being eliminated? Sottolacqua (talk) 15:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Running Order

I noticed the page has gone under construction, but I wish the running order section was back. I found it quite helpful in seeing the songs someone danced to and what the exact judges' score was. 70.119.204.87 (talk) 06:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

This information was entirely unsourced and falls under WP:IINFO. A fansite can achieve a week-by-week recap of songs and individual judges' scores. WP:NOT#FANSITE. Sottolacqua (talk) 13:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Saying "this information was entirely unsourced" is an incredibly thin argument to make. Listing the judges' scores and songs was relevant information to the article, entirely consistent with other similar articles (i.e.: ones on seasons of competition reality shows), and not a jump into 'fansite' territory. If you're looking for sources, you can find them quite easily. Deleting the information, rather than allowing for sources to be found (or finding them yourself if need be), is far from an ideal solution, especially since it now makes the articles that you're restructuring inconsistent with others of the same type. Unless you're planning to gut those too? Musicman800 (talk) 08:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

There were no sources included for each individual judge's score. The official site on ABC generally lists aggregate scores for each couple's dance, although occasionally individual scores are discussed. The table included in the recent revisions of the article is more than appropriate. An episode-by-episode recap of each individual dance/song performed and the associated individual scores from the judges easily falls under WP:IINFO. A fansite outside of Wikipedia can provide the level of detail that was originally included in the article. If there isn't one, create one—just don't create it here. Sottolacqua (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Whether there are sources or not is a bit beside the point in this case. What I was trying to get at mainly with my comment, and something you seem to have completely ignored, is that the changes you are making are completely inconsistent with other articles of this type. In fact, you appear to be only doing this for only two DWTS articles, as far as I can tell. Take for example "Strictly Come Dancing," the British version of this show. Almost all of its articles contain the same table w/individual scores and song format. "So You Think You Can Dance," a similar competition show...the songs are all listed as well. (Since that show does not include judges' scores, they are of course not listed.) Shows like "American Idol," "The Voice," and "The X Factor", et. al. all include tables just like the ones you deleted in this article. None of these articles are 'fansite'-esque in their depth...they are simply covering all relevant aspects of the competition (as you would, say, a sports competition), in a clear, organized, easy-to-read format. Rather than taking the time and effort to gut every single one of these articles and remove the tables as you have started to do here, I think the solution is clear to keep these articles in line with the others. Having these two articles contain less information than hundreds of other articles of the same type is incredibly sloppy.Musicman800 (talk) 09:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Your argument is essentially Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. The previous format of this article was difficult to read (containing several inconsistencies with spacing, hyphens/dashes, text wrapping formats and bulleted lists). It was filled with large blocks of unsourced stats in tables for the weekly recaps, duplicative information, and additional tables showing intricate detail (highest and lowest scoring performances, average scores and the order in which a couple's fate was revealed). The color coding previously used in the score table was far too complicated to be useful, with multiple background shading colors, bold/italic text and colored fonts. There was information in multiple individual sections that should have been grouped as subsections of a larger topic (dance troupe, guest performances, etc.).

The changes made to this article and the article for season 11 are inconsistent with the other DWTS articles because the other articles haven't been edited or sourced yet, or undergone a restructuring like this article. Sottolacqua (talk) 13:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Colour contrast problems

It seems that this article is using colours in the infobox which don't satisfy Wikipedia's accessibility guidelines. The contrast between the foreground colour and the background colour is low, which means that it may be difficult or impossible for people with visual impairments to read it.

To correct this problem, a group of editors have decided to remove support for invalid colours from Template:Infobox television season and other television season templates after 1 September 2015. If you would still like to use custom colours for the infobox and episode list in this article after that date, please ensure that the colours meet the WCAG AAA standard.

To test whether a colour combination is AAA-compliant you can use Snook's colour contrast tool. If your background colour is dark, then please test it against a foreground colour of "FFFFFF" (white). If it is light, please test it against a foreground colour of "000000" (black). The tool needs to say "YES" in the box for "WCAG 2 AAA Compliant" when you input the foreground and the background colour. You can generally make your colour compliant by adjusting the "Value (%)" fader in the middle box.

Please be sure to change the invalid colour in every place that it appears, including the infobox, the episode list, and the series overview table. If you have any questions about this, please ask on Template talk:Infobox television season. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 12). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110223205425/http://abc.go.com:80/shows/dancing-with-the-stars/cast-season12 to http://abc.go.com/shows/dancing-with-the-stars/cast-season12
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111123024350/http://www.nypost.com:80/p/blogs/popwrap/tristan_macmanus_just_cuz_evvO4hKlD60z5Czq6lle3K to http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/popwrap/tristan_macmanus_just_cuz_evvO4hKlD60z5Czq6lle3K

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} 08:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 12). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110425053840/http://abc.go.com:80/shows/dancing-with-the-stars/video-detail/featured/macys-stars-of-dance-american-week/pl_PL5520940/vd_VD55122955 to http://abc.go.com/shows/dancing-with-the-stars/video-detail/featured/macys-stars-of-dance-american-week/pl_PL5520940/vd_VD55122955

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} 18:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC)