Talk:Dancing with the Stars (American TV series) season 5

Albert Reed

'Does anybody know who the actual Albert Reed is who has been cast for this season? The name was linked to some guy who died in '86, but I'm going to guess that's not him. Unless, of course, the show is just introducing a new level of difficulty for one of the professional dancers . Hell, from the look of it, dancing with Clyde last season was about the same as dancing with a corpse.138.163.0.44 14:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC) Oh, I looked him up and apparently he's some horrid little male model. Whoopdeedoo. Good choice, ABC. I thought this was Dancing with the Stars, not Dancing with Random People Nobody Knows. Let's hope this mimbo goes first.138.163.0.44 14:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Elimination Table

I can't do tables to save my life, or else I'd do this myself, but...

...can someone make the table a little less confusing? The italics, bolding, and asterisks don't really stand out very well. Maybe color-coded? Just a suggestion. SkittlzAnKomboz 20:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. I could do the formatting, but I don't want to proceed unless if other people agree with this idea. I was thinking of using green for the highest score, and red for the lowest score. Perhaps the individual cell could be coloured to indicate the bottom two, replacing the asterisk. I don't yet know how to do that formatting, but someone around here surely does. --Kyoko 14:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I have made a modification to my Sandbox page. Please let me know what you think. Shawn W 01:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I made another slight modication on my Sandbox page, this way the couple that got eliminated will stand out a little more. Shawn W 02:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess I should say that the modifiction is in regards to the Elimination Table. I took Kyok's suggestions, and made a couple of my own, and put it in a format that will be a little easier to read (in my opinion). If I can get an approval, I can go ahead and do a copy and paste onto the page. Shawn W 02:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the table, and it seems like a good start. I wonder if another colour besides black would be better for highlighting the eliminated couple, because in week 2 of Shawn's table, the note ² for Albert and Anna is harder to see against the black background. --Kyoko 15:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I changed the background to yellow Shawn W 18:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if another shade of yellow is the best choice. I can see the difference between the bottom two and the eliminated couple, but I thought the other colour should stand out more. There's a handy table of hex codes in the web colors article. --Kyoko 18:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

How about AQUA? Different color, not dark, stands out. If you don't agree, what color do you feel would be a good one? Shawn W 16:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Since, from what I have read so far, the formatting on my Sandbox page is in the process of getting the perfect approval, I have moved my modification to the actual page. It just appears that there is a question on the actual colors to use, and I would like to have this format in before the show airs tonight. If you have any other suggestions regarding this table, please let me know here, or on my MY talk page Shawn W 19:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I still don't think the green stands out too well, maybe a brighter green?Jjkayes 12:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

If you have a suggestion for another color, I can look to getting that changed. Shawn W 22:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

How about "BRIGHT GREEN"with bold?Jjkayes 12:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

How does this look with the Bright Green color? Shawn W 19:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

it doesn't look any different looks like its still the dark greenJjkayes 13:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It was bright green, but it was changed back to the dark green on October 17 by 75.117.126.109. Click here to see the page with the Bright Green color. Shawn W 21:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah i like the bright green betterJjkayes 14:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Dances in Table

Just for the running period of the season, can we have the dances that each couple performed for every week in the table? ScottAHudson 7:40 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Reference to Wikipedia

I added back the reference to Wikipedia from the September 26 show. I believe this should be documented. If this is not the correct place to post it, please inform me where I should be posting it. I understand that trivia sections are discouraged, so I do not dispute the section's removal, but if someone is going to remove the reference I would appreciate an indication of where it should go, rather than being deleted. The previous explanation was "this section is pointless", which is not a productive statement. Pwnvds 22:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has been mentioned in many places, and to list them all would take up a lot of space. Besides, the information has no relevance to Dancing with the Stars itself. Just because this is wikipedia does not meen something about wikpedia should be said on a page, unless it has relevance to whatever it was said on. If you really think it is important, then go ahead and put it on, I don't want ot go into a edit war over it, but take it out of the lead-in, as it is currently, because that space really is for the very basic and important facts. You could also see Wikipedia in culture and see if the information could be put there, and if so, I would suggest taking it out of this article. I hope you understand why I took it out before, and I am sorry for my comment, it was late at night and I could not think of better words. Rhino131 23:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I will move it to Wikipedia in Culture. Thanks for the feedback. Pwnvds 20:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Rhino131 21:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this live?

Cause they cut to commercial and I thought someone just passed out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.136.187 (talk) 00:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the show is broadcast live, at least in its time zone. GUllman 23:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Sabrina Bryan eliminated???

NOOOOOOOO! I just got home and hadn't seen the results tonight. How the heck could she have been eliminated? She had high scores 3 times and a perfect 30 in week 4... she was the best. Gosh I'm disappointed... who would vote her off?? Can someone provide more details on what if anything they said about her in the results show??? ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 02:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• I'm glad. She was obviously a ringer like Mario was last season. America saw through that and voted for those who are LEARNING to dance, not those that can already dance! H Endow 19:29 PDT, 31 October 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.137.253.23 (talk) 02:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I dunno :( Yeah, she had dancing experience, but not ballroom dancing. And others who are extremely athletic and quick obviously have trouble dancing, like Floyd Mayweather did. It seemed to me that Sabrina Bryan basically just worked her ass off and has great chemistry with her partner. I don't see how she deserved this. ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 02:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

On footnotes

I think footnotes in the results table should only be used to explain events that alter the format, such as a performer not appearing or having a medical emergency. Contestants' personal stories and judges' reactions can go in a separate section as desired. 3Tigers 14:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added a personal drama/twists section because those are the elements that most clearly distinguish this show from a regular dance competition. People can put the drama stories here. This section will inherently invite some gushing and redundant comments, which can be edited later.3Tigers 15:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the article works better this way, thank you. --Kyoko 15:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Couples Table

Can we work on adding a couples table like the one in this article to the other four and any other future articles? ScottAHudson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.213.95.77 (talk) 00:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

How do we source this article?

• Could someone please point out the proper way to cite a TV episode as a source? Can we refer to the network's website or something?3Tigers (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The first thing to do is find a source, usually online, that says what is said in the text. Secondary source material is much better than primary source material (i.e. a news article stating that something happened in Episode 3 is what you should find, not just stating Episode 3 since there is nothing backing that the statement actually happened in Episode 3. After than you can use the {{cite web}} template to format the citation correctly. Note that blogs and personal websites cannot be used as sources. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The difficulty here is that just because a text online source says something happened in an episode, where does the online source get its information? The real source is still the episode itself. The dance/scoring table would be a mess if footnoted with text sources for every square; it would be easier if there were someplace online we could refer - "see Episode Four, archived on this site." Suggested work around?3Tigers (talk) 01:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Well that's why you can only reference reliable sources. That's why blogs and personal websites are not acceptable as sources. Reliable sources are articles that have editorial oversight for the most part. See the Wikipedia policy of verifiability and no original research for more information. Furthermore linking to copyright material such as episodes is a no-no. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 01:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Like most wiki TV articles, this one is predominantly authored by contributors who watched the show and wrote down what they saw, but we'll see what we reference online.3Tigers (talk) 01:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Original research

This entire article is original research, based on fans watching the show and reporting back here. That's not how Wikipedia works. This article is not encyclopedic, it's a fan article. All the stuff with the color-coding, and the trivia -- it's useless to the general reader who is looking for information about what the show is about and who was on it. 76.22.20.146 17:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

There's actually a fair amount of info on the show's format and personalities, it just needs to get sourced and re-organized a bit, which will happen as we go.3Tigers 01:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the slam against the color coding, its perfectly appropriate information. It shows clearly who got the highest and lowest scores, who was asked to do the encore dance, and who was eliminated, i don't think any of that is really unnecessary*sp*Jjkayes (talk) 13:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Marie Osmond's Family Tragedy

If she withdraws, then we need to use the orange color for Withdrew that is seen for Sara and Tony in the S3 scoring/elimination chart.

Week 8 green numbers

How can a 30 and a 27 both be highlighted? Only Helio's 30 should be in green.CelticGreen 02:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

27 was the highest score for the first dance round in Week 8. 71.31.93.31 11:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Table font size

The table goes off the edge for people with screen resolutions of 1024x768 and below is bad practice in Wikipedia. A font size of 80% fixes the problem. Please stop reverting the changes. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 02:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Can we change it back to normal after the season is over. 75.117.124.38 (talk) 02:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The table is unusable at a large font, so there is no point having a large font. We need to have the page accessible to the majority of users, which turn out to be those who have resolutions of 1024x768 and below. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 02:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

User 151.213.92.223, Please see above. This is why your edit will be reverted. It is not considered vandalism, but that by changing it does not meet the majority of user displays. See User talk:151.213.92.223 --Jeanenawhitney (talk) 00:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Font size experiment

If you are thinking about taking out the font size (80%), try this little experiment and change your video resolution to 1024x768 or below and then go back and look at the charts that majority of users have, and you will see what others are complaining about. --Jeanenawhitney (talk) 00:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

A Perfect Waltz

Should we put a note on the page that Mel B's Viennese Waltz was the first time anyone got a perfect score for the dance in the series?Jjkayes (talk) 02:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Encore Dance

Was there an encore dance for week 6 and if so who was it? The article doesn't say.Jjkayes (talk) 13:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The score chart will have to return to normal size next month. 75.117.123.252 (talk) 01:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Elimination Table

Is the first elimination table really necessary since we have the same information in the scoring chart? Just wondering.Jjkayes (talk) 13:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

to whoever is bitter about mel coming second needs to grow up putting winners for her and losers for helio is just childish ( and btw im a mel fan not a helio fan) but i understand what a winner is

Personal stories section

Soleil deleted the drama/twists section, which was discussed above. Unless you think plot summaries of TV series should be deleted, it should go back. Regarding unoriginal research: it's a tv show. People write down what they see on screen.3Tigers (talk) 03:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not a plot summary. The score rendition is irrelevant, and any of the other comments aren't neutral. I (talk) 03:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Soleil was right to remove the section; it didn't fit within Wikipedia policies and guidelines. As to your comment "People write down what they see on screen", Wikipedia has a no original research policy. Wikipedia doesn't allow people to write what they see or know, but what has been published in reliable sources. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 03:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Then should the whole page be deleted, as the scores and dances are what people see on screen? Siemgi (talk • contribs) 18:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Setting aside debate over the inclusion of a story section, if reporting what is seen on screen is considered "original research", then articles on TV and films will have to be cut to the point of irrelevance.3Tigers (talk) 03:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, other articles should be cut down if they're going against Wikipedia policies; if that's making them irrelevant or not is a personal opinion. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 03:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree about the whole editing out thing. This show is about more than just dancing scores. I think it made the whole article more people driven, which wasn't a bad thing IMO. Siemgi (talk • contribs) 19:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Citing sources, unless the section can provide reliable written sources then it should be deleted. I just warned the user who added the section back of this fact. --Jeanenawhitney (talk) 21:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Then should the whole page be deleted

Then should the whole page be deleted, as the scores and dances are what people see on screen? Siemgi (talk • contribs) 18:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Siemgi, I don't think you get it. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. It is not a fan site, trivia site, trash magazine, tabloid or blog. The twists section or what ever it was called was pure tabloid journalism which Wikipedia is not. I am deleting trivia sections as I write this. Some of this stuff is so bizarre. Like her boyfriend and her were caught kissing in a restaurant. Come on that type of stuff does not belong here. If you read the page now, It reads like what the show was, what the dances were, who preformed what, how they scored and who one. Everything in there is from a neutral point of view. Should the page be deleted because it does not have a trivia section or whatever you want to call it? That will never happen. Do you think that the Encyclopedia Britannica would put in a trivia section? I do not think so. Just let it go, no matter how you personally feel about it. Move on to something else hmm, like say, Desperate housewives. (smile) --Jeanenawhitney (talk) 19:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Winners...

As a matter of reliability, will someone please fix the couples page? It has not been announced yet who will win. I (talk) 04:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

at the time you posted your comment the winners had been announced so you really didnt need to go potecting the page cos now we have unnescessary comments that are going to stay on the page for three days that are not nice ie saying helio and julianne are losers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.241.43.238 (talk) 04:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I asked someone who was watching and they said they have not been announced. Besides, the article goes until 10 (my time), and it's not over. I (talk) 04:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

CHANGE THE NAME IT ISNT CAPITALIZED RITE

OK I CHANGED THE TITLE FROM Dancing with the Stars (US season 5) to Dancing with the Stars (US Season 5) and some dude took it off for vandalizing. IT ISNT VANDALIZING ITS FIXIN SOMEONES BAD GRAMMAR Wanderson9 (talk) 04:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Irony much?138.163.0.41 (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Edidprotected

{{editprotected}} Please restore this version. Yes, yes, I know m:the wrong version. But the whole point of the protection was so that the tables were accurate. And they're not currently. It could hopefully be updated when the results are released. (I don't watch the show, so I won't know) I (talk) 04:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

If it is actually factually correct, I welcome another admin to revert over my protection. east.718 at 05:11, November 28, 2007

It is. I dont think protection is required any longer, but someone should watch this page, as I cannot revert anymore. I (talk) 05:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Score chart

Oh my goodness, decide on colors! I believe the colors in this version are clear to the reader. I (talk) 00:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree on the decide the colors already!. It got to a point this morning that they were reverting reverts. I just want to see some consensus on this and a standardization of the color scheme for all seasons. I do see an error, but I am not going to touch this. I will wait and see if someone else fixes it. Lets keep it at the following:

---

Green numbers indicate the team(s) with the highest score for each week

Red numbers indicate the team(s) with the lowest score for each week

Gold backgrounds indicate the team that was also in the bottom two with the eliminated team

Turquoise backgrounds indicate the teams that were eliminated

Yellow background indicates the winning couple.

Magenta background indicates the second place team.

Orange background indicates the third place team.

---

--Jeanenawhitney 22:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather we had more contrasting colors, instead of all soft ones, but as long as something is decided upon, and enforced, I'm happy. I (talk) 23:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

--User:ScottAHudson 11:54 AM 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather see the color key that is shown above. Who ever is changing the colors needs to be blocked from editing for a year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.141.242.171 (talk) 16:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I waited two days and have corrected the scoring chart to the above agreed upon defaults. Amazing since protection from anoms was put on there were no edits made. I personally could care less about the colors on the chart, I just want some consistency with it. --Jeanenawhitney 07:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking that the colspaned boxes in all the charts should be tomato colored and should have Eliminated italicized.151.213.106.41 (talk) 11:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not necessary to have eliminated in the boxes as there are no scores for those columns it means they are gone. tomato, why? that really hurts my eyes with the other colors. The colors were set by consensus above. --Jeanenawhitney (talk) 15:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The person that is changing the scoring chart to tomato I believe is a sock puppet (User:ScottAHudson User:151.213.90.92) and maybe a couple of other misc ip addresses

--Jeanenawhitney (talk) 16:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

If you promise to not block me, I will quick doing it!!!! User:ScottAHudson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.213.88.99 (talk) 01:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

WHY?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!

WHY DO THE PERSONAL STORIES AND TWISTS AND STATISTICS KEEP GETTING REMOVED?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.233.61 (talk) 21:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

See your talk page. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Dancing with the Stars (US season 5), is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. This is especially important when dealing with biographies of living people, but applies to all Wikipedia articles. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are already familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add your original reference to the article. Thank you. see Wikipedia:Citing sources also see WP:NPOV. Since your edit does not cite any references your edits were removed. --Jeanenawhitney (talk) 23:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

what was wrong with my edits? i mentioned the personal stories and twists and the statistics. those are facts that you can get from watching the episodes. how do those get cited? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.233.61 (talk) 03:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources. also see above Talk:Dancing with the Stars (US season 5)#How do we source this article? and Talk:Dancing with the Stars (US season 5)#Personal stories section unless it comes from say the abc web site or a newspaper or magazine you can not put this in. --Jeanenawhitney (talk) 09:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Not "Reality"

I think this show does not fit the definition of Reality television! Everybody is a somebody (celebrity or professional) and nobody is a nobody (ordinary people).--MajorHazard (talk) 13:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC) I'm not sure "reality television" requires a cast of "ordienary people." What makes you think so? :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.44 (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

encore?

should we add a color on the chart stating who did the encore dance each week?

week 1-sabrina

2-helio

3-jennie

4-cameron

5-mel

6-group

7-mel

8-helio

9-jennie

10-it was there finale, so none. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Developmentalnancy (talk • contribs) 01:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

sounds good to me..too bad i don't know how to edit the colors :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.234.99 (talk) 08:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

looks like we have a sockpuppet here. One user 2 accounts. --_pete 13:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

WHAT THE *UCK?

WHY IS THE ENCORE PERFORMANCES PART BEING REMOVED?..........*cough*lame*cough*

Maybe because the editor put in there edit summary

(cur) (last) 01:18, 3 February 2008 Seresin (Talk | contribs) (13,152 bytes) (Remove section that isn't really that important or relevant) (undo)

Maybe you should bring it up with editor (User talk:Seresin). We don't need language like that around here. And please sign your messages. --_pete 09:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Couples Chart/Scores Chart

For season six, lets keep the eliminations and couples chart using the same format that has been placed on the previous five pages. ScottAHudson (talk) 14:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and will copy this note to the talk page of season six. Can someone with more table-syntax knowledge than I go back and standardize the few odd tables? seresin | wasn't he just...? 23:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Issue Regarding Week 9 Section

Hi, I want to clarify something before I do an edit job on the week 9 music selections mentioned in the article. First off, why are artists who've done lesser known covers of well known songs being listed as the artists for these songs? Were those artists' actual versions of these songs performed for the show? If so, I can see letting the section stand as it is. But to say that "Ain't That a Kick in the Head?" is by Robbie Williams and "Love Rollercoaster" is by the Red Hot Chili Peppers is akin to saying that "Turn the Beat Around" is by that godawful wailer who massacred it for the recent I Can't Believe it's Not Butter commercial, i.e. it really isn't.

FYI, "Ain't That a Kick in the Head?" was originated by the irreplacable Dean Martin, "Love Rollercoaster" is The Ohio Players' delightful baby, and "Turn the Beat Around" (my own example) was by the much missed Vicki Sue Robinson (though it was covered beautifully by Gloria Estefan). Arcana07 (talk) 02:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 5). 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/20070919191209/http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/show/CTVShows/20060811/Home-DancingwiththeStars/20070828/ to http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/show/CTVShows/20060811/Home-DancingwiththeStars/20070828/

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) 00:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)