Talk:Strictly Come Dancing series 13

Kellie Bright

I suggest not adding her as EastEnders actress, she's been in a number of roles beside that. Corabal (talk) 14:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

This bugs me in almost every celebrity reality show I read about on Wikipedia. We should just state the person's best-known occupation, and not give an example of a TV show they've appeared in. –anemoneprojectors– 09:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I actually knew of her from her role in The Archers, so I'd support changing her occupation to "actress". - JuneGloom07 Talk 20:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I did change everything but someone pointed out that it says "known for" rather than "occupation", but it's true that some people are known for many things. I have a problem with saying someone is "Known for actress" or "Known for chef", though. –anemoneprojectors– 20:27, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah, the "known for" thing does make more sense. Best leave it then. :) - JuneGloom07 Talk 20:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

To argue this further, Chizzy from last year is listed as actress, yet I've only seen her in Holby City, I still say Kellie's listing should be edited to actress, as I've seen her in a few things.Corabal (talk) 13:44, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

&

What's the problem with using the word "and"? I know "every other article uses &" but it's not very encyclopaedic, is it? I would suggest that every other article is wrong. –anemoneprojectors– 15:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Known for

What is going on with this ridiculous notion of deleting the celebrities 'known for' and 'status' column? If you'd kindly inspect all our previous 12 series of Strictly pages, you'd realise why they are there, what purpose they serve and how we get the information of their 'known for' occupations (their own Wikipedia pages). Kiwi Jaden 04:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• That's irrelevant. Those other articles need to be cleaned up as well. It's unverified material, besides being utterly trivial (if all participants have the same mysterious status, that they're participating, which kind of goes hand in hand with the fact that they're participants, then there's no need to mention it). "Their own Wikipedia pages" is the worst thing you could say, since you ought to know that Wikipedia is not a source for Wikipedia. In addition, you're reverting without even the decency of an explanation, reinserting this unverified material, and I have reported you to WP:AIV, since you're not just rude but also in violation of policy. Drmies (talk) 03:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
• I have reported you also to WP:AIV, for continued vandalism and deletion on this page. I would argue we need to tighten up sourcing of the chart, however it is integral to the overall page, as it has ALWAYS been in previous series of most every reality formats. Kiwi_Jaden (talk) 04:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Funny, since I obviously stopped, whereas you continued edit warring and stuck that tripe back in. Why should I even talk to you? You can't even write an edit summary when you revert a person: you're rude. As for your argument, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and that's all there is to it. Drmies (talk) 04:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Please remain calm and refrain from using words like tripe, and personal attacks like calling me rude, and saying 'Why should I even talk to you?'. It is in appropriate and may be akin to abuse. [User:Kiwi Jaden]] (talk) 04:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Tempers aside, Kiwi, Drmies is right. If it's unsourced it doesn't belong in any article. And yeah, it's kind of tripey--Wikipedia articles are not intended to be fan magazines or TV guide pages. Unfortunately, the bar for this sort of pop culture article is generally pretty low, and administrators and experienced writers don't visit very often. When we do, we're mildly appalled. 73.159.24.89 (talk) 04:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
        • This is the same editor as the 73 IP above--I'd like to strike my comment from last night. Even though I do feel that way, it strikes me in the light of day as being a little too WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. Kiwi, do carry on, but I'd volunteer that elaborating on what a celebrity is known for, in the framework of a TV show template, isn't worth edit warring over. Cheers, 2601:188:0:ABE6:B169:DAFB:E15A:DBC4 (talk) 20:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Are the BBC's "First Steps" videos reliable enough to list the dances?

I'm not sure if implicit visual evidence contravenes WP:OR or not. It's very clear Kellie Bright is doing a Tango in Week One and Katie Derham is doing a Jive (blimey, BBC, a Jive in week one?) - well, to me anyway. Clear enough? Spa-Franks (talk) 20:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I vote not clear enough unless they say what dance style they're working on and that it's for week one. Knope7 (talk) 22:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Unless a source says "Kellie Bright is doing a Tango in Week One", then it's the viewer's interpretation and therefore original research, and could not be verified by other Wikipedia editors and readers (like me). –anemoneprojectors– 09:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

So in today's Georgia & Giovanni clip: [1] That's very obviously a Jive. Is it really original thought to put it in the article based on that? Cwmxii (talk) 10:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I would also guess they're doing a jive, but they never say it's a jive or that it's their first week dance. The show premieres in less than a week, so I think it's better to just wait. I don't think it adds much to update the chart now with speculation, even if it is very reasonable speculation.Knope7 (talk) 16:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Persistent addition of false info: semi-protection?

In light of this morning's latest round of vandalism to the dance chart leading to sourced information being inadvertently removed/not be reinstated when the vandalism was reverted, should we request temporary semi-protection of this article? Cwmxii (talk) 11:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I second this motion I am quite frankly fed up of it "quicksteps" What is that? NaThang0P (talk) 15:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Just to confirm that having reverted today's third round of vandalism, I've now requested semi-protection for this article. Cwmxii (talk) 17:34, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I would like Semi protection reinstated from here on out as someone has put the spoiler up and was then deleted NaThang0P (talk) 14:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Katie and Anton Tango

The version of Telephone that was used was not the Lady Gaga and Beyonce version but by a Lituanian accordion artist Matynas Levickis. I propose we use his name not that of Lady Gaga and Beyonce. NaThang0P (talk) 11:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree - I only attributed it to Lady Gaga and Beyonce at first as the BBC music page listed no other artists, but I think it's best to be as accurate as we can be with the music and the artists performing it (see also the Zutons/Mark Ronson debacle). ----StigOfTheKrump (talk) 11:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I have changed it now NaThang0P (talk) 14:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi Protection

I think this page should be Semi-Protected again due to vandalism

 Not done requests for page protection must be made at WP:Requests for page protection - Arjayay (talk) 16:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Results spoiler

Is there any Wikipedia policy on spoilers? That one says that it's Facebook page was taken down last week, with 565 supporters signing a petition to reinstate it. Does BBC have any legal rights over its output? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow. Is your question directly related to content on Wikipedia? For Wikipedia, information should be verifiable by a reliable source. If we're talking about elimination spoilers on Strictly, I don't consider those reliable enough for Wikipedia. Knope7 (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

It was a general question about how the BBC deals with spoilers. But maybe it's very straightforward for us - no reliable source would ever publish a spoiler? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

It depends on the type of spoiler. Before the first week of competition, first week dance styles might be considered a spoiler and those can sometimes be traced to a reliable source. I haven't seen a source for elimination spoilers which would meet Wikipedia's guidelines, although in theory a reliable source might publish an early spoiler. Knope7 (talk) 19:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2015

Jay and Aliona's average is 33.5, Kellie and Kevin's is 32.8, Anita's is 30.8.

The other couples' averages (e.g. Daniel, Kristy, Jeremy) were rounded off, so I though it would be nice to make it consistent amongst all the couples. Thanks. GreenMacBoy (talk) 23:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

All averages are given to one decimal place. What change are you proposing? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Done Martinevans123, it looks like the rounding was not done correctly. For Jay and Aliona, it came out to be 33.46 which should round up to 33.5 (it was rounded down). The same for the other two. --Stabila711 (talk) 07:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2015 Average Chart

In the Average chart the top line should be Jay & Aliona as they came 1st overall And on the second line Kellie & Kevin as although they both had both same points they came second whereas Jay &Aliona won the competition Snickers7499 (talk) 21:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

It is based on their averages not their place in the competition. --MSalmon (talk) 21:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but the average scores are exactly equal. Even on alphabetical order J should come before K? Why does the table do this? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah, so now alphabetical order has finally made a late appearance. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:28, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Now fixed, I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

RFC impacting this page

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