Talk:Strictly Come Dancing series 15

Draft content that may be useful

Draft:Strictly Come Dancing (series 15). Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Spoilers

Can we not be posting spoilers, whether it be the partnerships and who goes home. There are people who frequent the wiki who do not want to know the spoiler and like to find out when episodes air. So please show some respect to these people.

NaThang0P (talk) 09:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Usually I think what prevents us from posting elimination spoilers is that sourcing doesn't meet Wikipedia's reliability standards. Wikipedia policy does allow spoilers, so if an elimination is reliably sourced, I think it would be fair game here. Knope7 (talk) 01:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Debbie McGee

This source describes McGee as: “TV personality, presenter and wife to the late Paul Daniels”. Should this decription, or perhaps a shortened version, but used in the “Known for” column of the Couples table? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:04, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I think she should be known at least a "magician's assistant" as it is how most people know her. This isn't a BBC promo page so we shouldn't just follow the press briefing. Slightnostalgia (talk) 19:42, 30 September 2017 (UTC) Slightnostalgia (talk) 19:42, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• I totally agree.Deb (talk) 20:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Song names

I'm puzzled as to why the names of the musical numbers used are accompanied by the names of artists who have recorded them, when they are always performed by session singers in the studio. I don't see how this can be justified. Deb (talk) 20:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, sometimes quite a disparity. I think the articles just follow BBC sources. It's usually the artist who had the original hit. But sometimes it's a particular arrangement, allegedly. I'm also sometimes baffled. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Week 4 singer

In week 4 Lance Ellington was replaced by Jamie Squire. Is this a permanent change, or did he just join to do that particularly challenging falsetto in "I Believe in a Thing Called Love"? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:57, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

And a second time for Squire on week 6 where he produced a very accomplished "Killer Queen". Martinevans123 (talk) 19:25, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

And a third time in Week 9 (Blackpool). Martinevans123 (talk) 19:03, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Also in the Week 11, I think, and in the Week 12 semi-final. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

As there is a slight difference with the information at the main article, I think this should be added somewhere. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Bruno absent this week

Now confirmed: Bruno won't be there this week. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-41692243 It's not yet clear from the BBC article if there'll be a replacement or if they'll just go for three judges. If it's going to be the latter, we should have a plan for what to do with the averages chart (and anywhere else where averages are used, such as the average scores of pros on the chart on the main Strictly Come Dancing page, or List of Strictly Come Dancing contestants. We have two options that I can see if there are only three judges this weekend: 1. Ignore this week completely. 2. Add 25% to each score for each couple - so for example, if they scored 20 then for the purposes of the averages chart it'd be treated as 25. Cwmxii (talk) 09:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I feel that the best option is to stick with the scores out of 30 on the main scoring chart, but convert them to be out of 40 (by dividing the overall score by three and then multiplying by four, as you say) when adding to the average chart, without rounding up or down. So, for example, a score of 22 (two 7s and an 8) would become 29.3. However, for the two highest/lowest charts, I'd suggest we round these either up or down, so in this case the score would be 29 - perhaps with a note with each of these scores explaining that they've been adjusted in this way. It's confusing, but I think it would be most accurate in this situation, as ignoring the scores entirely would cause more problems than it'd solve. -StigOfTheKrump (talk) 13:07, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I am assuming there are no "official" published averages. The proposed solutions may be ingenious and may look mathematically sound, but when we start having scores like 29.3, doesn't this start to look like we are straying into WP:OR? As far as I understand it, it's only the order of the judges scores that gets added to the order of the viewers votes. But, I must admit, the exact process has never been very clear to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC) p.s. I see that the BBC article now says: "It has been confirmed that 61-year-old Tonioli will not be replaced with a guest judge."

If we're standardising the scores for the sake of consistency (the alternative would be to ignore this week altogether, which would be a nightmare), I don't see the problem with that. Agree we should round up/down and avoid fractional scores. Cwmxii (talk) 13:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion: The scoring chart and Week 5 summary should use the 30-point scale. The average chart, highest/lowest scoring performances of the series and couples' highest/lowest scoring dances tables should use the 40-point scale proposed above, with a note saying that the week 5 scores have been weighted to work on the same scale. That would be consistent with similar events (such as Donny Osmond guest-judging, only this time we're adding points rather than removing them). Cwmxii (talk) 14:10, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with this. I think that would be the only way to remain both encyclopedic (listing the 30-point scores where relevant, such as the basic scoring chart and the 'weekly songs and scores' chart) and consistent within the article (listing the adjusted 40-point scores where relevant, such as the average chart and the highest/lowest charts).-StigOfTheKrump (talk) 17:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree there are some places where it appropriate to adjust. I think the Scoring Chart should be the true score, and currently it is not. Knope7 (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Encyclopedic? The scoring chart is very simply wrong. Debbie & Giovanni did not get 36, they got 27. That's just a fact. Two facts (in fact). I fear a bit of confusion, or even edit warring, over this, unless a sensible compromise can be agreed. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many judges scored them as it still needs to reflect the actual scores. The average table can be changed if needed but not the scoring chart. I have added a note to the table (see Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 23)#Scoring charts) which used the same format when Len was absent from the panel of four judges. MSalmon (talk) 10:53, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that looks perfectly sensible and a lot tidier. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I know right because you can't just add a scores in for a judge that wasn't even there. MSalmon (talk) 11:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes you know right. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

When Darcey was a guest judge for the last three weeks of Series 7 and the scores were out of 50 we included them so what makes this any different. MSalmon (talk) 11:17, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

That seems a similar situation, as her scores were not included. And Donny's were also omitted, weren't they? But the Average chart section here says: "This table only counts for dances scored on a traditional 40-points scale." Is that correct? Because the scores for all dances have been included, even if those for Week 5 have been adjusted? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:20, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

highest and lowest scoring dances and week 5 scores

I have noticed that week 5 scores (the ones that only have 3 judges scoring due to Bruno's absence) are not included in the highest and lowest dances. Now this does make sense since they dont match up with the other scores, but there is no note explaining this, so it would make sense to add one. Lotrjw (talk) 18:15, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Unlock

Please unlock this article so that is can be edited freely in accordance with the principle of wikipedia. To be exact: "Wikipedia: The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Not a protected site for privileged users. I wish to add the TV ratings to the article and I am prevented from doing so.196.75.153.81 (talk) 14:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Seeing this request has been ignored, please unlock this article. I agree that the principle of wikipedia should be followed and applied to this article.105.155.7.141 (talk) 14:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

This article is being targeted by a block-evading vandal and I will not lift the protection at this time. You are free to suggest specific edits here, or to register an account and edit the article directly (so long as you aren't the particular vandal in question, of course). --Yamla (talk) 14:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

"Paso Doble" vs "Pasodoble"

The Pasodoble article title uses one word. Why does this article (and all other Strictly articles), use two words and two upper case letters, which link via redirect? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:39, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

The Pasodoble article spells it "Paso Doble" in the beginning of the second paragraph of the lede (and had spelled it that way in the opening sentence before you changed it), and the article has all of two sources, the second of which doesn't even have "Paso" anywhere on the linked page. I certainly wouldn't begin a wholesale change based on that article, which has been inadequately sourced for at least seven years. Strictly uses the "Paso Doble" orthography; for example, this week's Paso Doble-thon, or last week's list of songs and dances, including two couples dancing Paso Doble. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:31, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I changed it because I thought at least the first sentence of an article should match it's title. Perhaps it would be a good idea to agree which is "correct"? There are interminable debates about capitalisation at WP:MoS.Martinevans123 (talk) 22:36, 23 November 2017 (UTC) p.s. also not sure why we have Argentine tango, but Tango and Viennese Waltz.

We're not going to have a Paso Doblethon, are we? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:33, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

It seems that we are. So, what is a Doblethon? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Ratings

The ratings for Live Show 9 on November 18 were 12.05 million, making it the 2nd most watched show on BBC1 and the 3rd most watched on UK TV. The ratings for Results Show 8 on November 19 were 11.39 million. This was the 3rd most watched show on BBC1 and the 4th on all UK TV for the week ending November 19. Please, please, please, please, please can one of the wiki elites add this to the article? Please? Us common editors aren't allowed to touch the precious text.105.155.7.141 (talk) 15:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

This is not a valid edit request. You need to cite such figures using a reliable source. Once you have your required citation, you can read how to make an edit request, at Template:Edit extended-protected. --Yamla (talk) 15:03, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

The citation is already on the page: http://www.barb.co.uk/viewing-data/weekly-top-30/ You'd know this if you spent your time researching and not bullying. If you have issues with editors, there's an "undo" button. It takes 1 second to click. But that would spoil the bullying of a wiki elite, wouldn't it? And you'd feel less superior. Have fun with your sad life monitoring and editing wiki articles 24/7.105.155.7.141 (talk) 15:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

The ratings for the series are incorrect and have been erroneously edited by a wiki elite who has access to the page. Seems that even wiki elites aren't infallible and can make mistakes, which just proves how ridiculous locking pages and limiting editing just to the exhalted wiki elites is. Unlock this page without any further discussion or delay to allow the key principle of wikipedia ("the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit") to be adhered to.41.142.43.40 (talk) 09:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Some of you seem to have massive chips on your shoulders. Yes it's a free encylcopedia but it doesn't mean that anyone should be allowed to vandalise pages with incorrect information. The "elite" or so are there to protect the articles and make sure that the information is factual and correct.Rhysy54 (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Yet the elite who protect articles add information that is incorrect and not factual, as they have done for the ratings. Instead of belittling and abusing editors just trying to make things better, perhaps you could have taken the time to fix the error? Asking too much. Meanwhile, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, pretty please, pretty please, pretty please, pretty please, pretty please, pretty please, pretty please, pretty please, pretty please, oh great wiki editor, your almightyness, your accuracyness, your royal highness, please, please, please, please, please, please, please can the ratings for the week of December 3 be added to the article? Please your Lordship? 11.11 million viewers for the Saturday show and 10.94 million for the results show. Making the show the no.2 & no. 3 ranked shows for both BBC1 & UK TV. http://www.barb.co.uk/viewing-data/weekly-top-30/ Please? Please? Please? I'm begging. I know I'm not worthy.41.141.198.112 (talk) 13:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea if that was aimed at me or not, but I'm unable to edit due to needing to be a super dooper user. They'll update it when they can. Rhysy54 (talk) 19:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

The correction has now been made for week ending November 26 and the Xmas Special ratings have been added, to bring the article in line with all the other wikipedia SCD articles. 103.225.23.98 (talk) 12:17, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Ruth and Anton's average - and place

Whilst I understand the 1 d.p for Ruth and Anton's average, should they be one place lower as their real average is 15.75, not 15.8? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.47.23 (talk) 00:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Using .00 Brian's average score is 19.80 while Ruth's is 19.75. So I think the average score chart should work that way. If two couples have the same average score based on that it should go on who lasted longer. Unknown artist (talk) 18:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for using the correct scores. But I think the real average score should determine the order. An explanatory footnote could be added if needed. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:32, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

My Sharona in the semifinals

My Sharona is by The Knack, not by Royal Blood. Royal Blood just covered it, along with many other groups. 86.136.225.189 (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, unsure why Royal Blood was ever put in...I never knew of Royal Blood always knew it as The Knack. I cannot edit it unfortunately as I haven't unlocked the achievement "superduper uber user" :( Rhysy54 (talk) 20:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Quite agree, it was note for note the same arrangement as the original. Dave Arch totally nailed it, I think. To my ears it was spot on. But Strictly has a habit of doing this, for some strange reason. I assume it was Jamie Squire on lead vocal - it was very impressive performance. Martinevans123 (talk)

Unblock

CAN THIS PAGE BE UNLOCKED AS ITS THE FINAL AND NO ONE IS EDITING IT2A02:C7D:8A4D:2D00:60E8:323E:54AE:37F0 (talk) 19:08, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

This article has been edited just under 100 times, today alone. --Yamla (talk) 22:11, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 December 2017

The dates for the final in the table in the "Couples" section should say 2017 rather than 2016 78.147.172.235 (talk) 07:16, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 10:16, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Highest & Lowest scoring dances?

Usually it has the contestants that does not appear on the chart noted below it; someone should add Mollie King and Jonnie Peacock as the only contestants to not appear on the chart AaronF01 (talk) 12:18, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit

On the Couples section, Joe and Katya’s names and status should be bold, to mirror previous series

 Done Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

On the couples highest and lowest performances, Aljaz’s name should have an accent on the Z — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.110.65.91 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done Well spotted! Martinevans123 (talk) 23:03, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Locked until November 2018

This extended protection is ludicrous and completely unwarranted. Requests have been made on the talk page to fix the errors made in the TV ratings and they have been ignored, yet it is not possible for anyone else to make the corrections. Additionally, the Christmas show TV ratings have never been added at all. There is no reason whatsoever for this extended lock and the editor (and their supporters) that has made this decision is in error.125.31.37.146 (talk) 10:38, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I concur, to have it extended to November 2018 seems quite excessive and a suggestion that was made while the show was air (namely that "Royal Blood" have been listed on the track for My Sharona when that is clearly wrong) has been ignored. Lift the suspension so that the edits can be made across the page and then reviewed. Rhysy54 (talk) 21:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I did not place the edit protection on this page. However, I strongly endorse it. We have a block-evading vandal known as ZestyLemonz (talk · contribs) targeting this and a bunch of other pages. This user is massively disruptive across numerous articles. I'm afraid until they go away, and given that edit requests are being handled (there are no open edit requests here, for example), the protection is unlikely to be lifted. --Yamla (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

This now makes sense why it is blocked. It does not make sense why someone would persistently vandalise a reality dance programme.... that clears it up though thank you :) Rhysy54 (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

No it does not "make sense" at all. If this "block evading vandal" edits the page, then with one click of the 'undo' button, their 'vandalism' is gone in an instant. That's why it's there. Since many, many, many editors have alerts set up so that they are informed instantly any changes are made to the article, then the undo can be made in a matter of moments. Why are the changes to the ratings that have been requested been completely ignored? Surely the fact that the page contains erroneous data is more important than the worry about a "block evading vandal" who can be wiped out in a key stroke?115.31.175.179 (talk) 16:11, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

It's not trivial to determine which edits come from this block evading vandal and which don't. The person is known to introduce rather subtly incorrect information which often stays in place for weeks or months. You say, "Why are the changes to the ratings that have been requested been completely ignored?" There are zero open edit requests for this article. --Yamla (talk) 16:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you scroll up. There you will find the errors in the ratings, clearly stated. And while you're about it, instead of patronizing editors who are simply trying to help and improve articles, you can add the ratings for the Christmas Special that haven't been added to the article at all yet. And I was correct... you have alerts set up indeed. You could have already clicked the undo button and got rid of any 'vandalism' (subtly incorrect or not) in the time it took you to write your spiteful reply to what is a perfectly reasonable request. And I quote... "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." 115.31.175.179 (talk) 16:27, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

There are zero open edit requests on this page. As you are veering in to personal attacks, I will no longer respond further. You are welcome to make edit requests if you wish; WP:EDITREQ explains how. I will not lift this appropriate page protection, and remind you that I didn't place it. --Yamla (talk) 18:57, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Man this blew up. I understand, it can be frustrating when someone is purposefully submitting incorrect information and sometimes malicious. I see it all the time on the Doctor Who pages. Rhysy54 (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism

This has been heavily vandalised - someone should clean it up. 86.135.108.253 (talk) 18:56, 13 January 2019 (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)