Talk:Dancing with the Stars (American TV series) season 23

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2016

I know what to edit and what other pros were added and what celebrities were confirmed. I can add what celebrities are with what pros. For example, Jenna Johnson is with Jake. T. Austin and Maks Chermikovsky is with Amber Rose and etc. Please just give me one shot at editing this page. Although you may say we need reliable sources, we have reliable sources. Dancing with the Stars has posted hints on their instagrams and it is clear to figure out who they are talking about. Also, Us Weekly and Entertainment Tonight have confirmed celebrities as well. Reliable sources include: Us Weekly, People Magazine, E! Online, Entertainment Tonight, dancingabc instargram, and DWTSGossip twitter.

Arisamb (talk) 23:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 23:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Even if you "know", Wikipedia requires reliable sourcing for this information. There are plenty of rumors and inside sources and pictures around that would seem to indicate who is dancing with whom, but absent that verifiable sourcing that is required by this encyclopedia for such information, it cannot be added. Sorry. For Wikipedia, the important thing is not to be first, it's to be reliably documented. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 16:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 17:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Mark Ballas not returning

Add Mark Ballas under the list of professionals that are not returning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.49.65.190 (talk) 15:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

First dance styles

I think we should avoid guessing first dance styles. Currently, Amber and Maks are listed as having foxtrot based on a video of them rehearsing. While they probably will have foxtrot, the video is not conclusive enough. They do not say they are working on their first dance which is a foxtrot. Although I appreciate the good faith effort to provide citations, these are educated guesses and not certainties. I am bringing this here to see if there is any consensus on this issue. Knope7 (talk) 15:17, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Maks and Amber's dance isn't an educated guess. In his caption, he mentions dancing the foxtrot. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 17:42, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Knope7. Unless pro or contestant actually says it's a foxtrot or jive or whatever, then we shouldn't say it. The article for Derek and Marilu doesn't actually say in the text that they're doing a jive. Do they say so in the video? (I can't get it to run.) BlueMoonset (talk) 21:19, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I haven't watched the Marilu video either, which is why I left it. I'm fine with i being removed though.

As for Maks' video, I believe the video being referred to has been removed. Did he say they were working on the foxtrot or that they were working on the foxtrot as their week 1 dance? Some pros have mentioned in the past they work on the basics of dances while waiting for their music or first week assignment. That's part of the reason I think we should avoid guesses. I think it should take more than just a signal that the couple is working on a dance style; they should state flat out that it is their assigned dance for the week. I see no harm in waiting until the show airs if we don't have a completely clear, reliable source. Knope7 (talk) 21:56, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Couples table

Musdan77 mentioned that the table for the couples was unsourced. I want to clarify that it was added to source when a couple was eliminated from the show. In previous seasons, users would only say they were eliminated without any sources. That's what the ref section is meant for. Essentially, that part isn't unsourced. The table is already sourced at the top when GMA announced the full cast. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 21:00, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

(Callmemirela, your "ping" doesn't ping. I just happened to see that something was added here.) Now, this issue has been discussed before, and here we go again. As I said in seasons past, the "Notability (known for)" column (which I've always thought was not needed, and just causes more trouble than it helps) needs to be supported by the source(s), if anything is added, a ref also needs to be added. This helps cut down on edit warring. That, Knope7 and BlueMoonset, is what the template was for. In response to WIlted Youth, who said, "There is absolutely no way that the show will refer to Babyface by his real name. Everyone knows him by that moniker. Let's not get carried away here.": For the cast table we use the full name because it's in the source, and he is known by his real name as well. In response to Carlosdisaster, who said, "Maureen might be well known for Brady Bunch, but it isn't her only acting job. Perry is also no longer a governor for the state of Texas.": Yes she is "known for" BB; that's why the column heading says, "known for", and it's in the source. A governor is always known as "Governor" (just like a president is always called President) even when not in office. And even if that wasn't the case, we don't use "former" in this column because it's about what they're "known for". They're not known for being "former" anything. They're known for the occupation they had. Thank you all. —Musdan77 (talk) 01:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

No, I know. I just didn't want to ping you as if I was replying to you. I only wanted to link you to your user page. I knew you would have seen this section assuming you have the article on your watchlist. I also never understood the point of notability, frankly. It's as if we're guessing why they were chosen for DWTS. I assumed the reason why you added the ref improve tag was because of the empty ref section, which is reserved for future eliminations and the placing of the couple. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 01:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Musdan77 I don't see any discussion of the "Notability (known for)" column on the previous season's talk page. I know it has been an issue in the past, but I don't see a clearly stated policy on what is acceptable for that column. Unfortunately, ABC's current press release has lengthy biography for each celebrity, not a pithy description of what they are known for. I would be happy to go along with using whatever description the show ultimately goes with. I also do not think the clean-up template used in any way indicated that the table should not be changed without adding further references. If there is a clearly stated, brief policy on what to include in the table, I think hidden text, which could be seen when a user goes to edit, would be a better means of expressing that.

The press release does refer to Kenny "Babyface" Edmunds, so I think that is appropriate in the table. It also refers to Vanilla Ice as "Vanilla Ice (Robert Van Winkle)" Knope7 (talk) 00:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. Thanks for the reply, and being willing to work together. The source I was referring to is the one after "They are:" (2) Kenny "Babyface" Edmunds is shown as the official name (in bold), while Robert Van Winkle is only mentioned in the description. —Musdan77 (talk) 03:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how stating what years Rick Perry was active as governer is any relevant or notable for this article. Plus, Maureen is just an actress. Adding Brady Bunch just seems as if that's all she is know for and the rest doesn't matter. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 03:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Callmemirela, please see WP:ROWN and WP:STATUSQUO. I did follow WP:BRD by starting a discussion about it, and if you had any dispute, you should have mentioned it in your reply - instead of making disruptive reversions. (And your reason of "per Carlosdisaster" is absolutely ridiculous!) BRD also doesn't apply because I didn't add "Brady Bunch". That was already there when I made my edit. Now, as I stated above, "Brady Bunch" is in the source, and she is absolutely "known for" that. Any article that mentions her, and the promos for this season always say she's from The Brady Bunch. Name just one other thing that she's acted in off the top of your head. Now, if the consensus is to omit that, that's fine. As for Perry, I added the year range as a sort of compromise when removing "Former", which as I explained doesn't belong in this column at all (never has), but definitely not for a governor. See what I mean about this column causing more problems than its worth? Maybe its time to just get rid of it. As I said in seasons past: "Their names are linked, and if someone wants to know what makes them notable, they can just click on their name."—Musdan77 (talk) 17:53, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Next time, please don't ping me. I have the article and the talk page on my watchlist and I am online 80% of the time, so there is no need to do so. Carlos (assuming it's his name) had good reasons to remove it, which I did stating it. I don't know who it reinstated the content, so I just went out and "sourced" him. I definitely agree that the notability section should be removed if it's causing this much problems already. I never found the reason why it was so important or how useful it was to include. If users say it should be included, it's best that it's removed entirely until we come to a conclusion/consensus. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 18:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I am in favor of leaving the column. It does no harm to have it. Whether Maureen is an "actress" or "actress on the Brady Bunch" (or whatever the exact phrase suggested is), the description isn't going to be libelous or hurtful. While I certainly agree that people can just click through the page to find out more about each person, I think that quick descriptors can be usefully in orienting people. I'll also note that the show itself typically introduces celebrities with a quick description. Once that happens, starting September 12, I think that will be an easy rule to follow: describe the celebrity the way the show does. Until then, I can hide a note asking people to check the talk page before making changes to the table. Knope7 (talk) 00:06, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I think it's best we remove it and figure this mess out. If we did so, I would not edit war anymore (again Musdan, I am sorry) and nobody else would revert it to a version. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 03:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think removing it helps anything. Really any version of the table has been fine. It's not libelous; it's not copyrighted. There's no harm in leaving Governor of Texas, Former Governor of Texas, or Governor of Texas (2000-15). Any version of it is still something that can be on Wikipedia. It's about finding the best version, not the only acceptable version. Knope7 (talk) 03:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

A similar thing happened on the American Idol season articles, where there was a column for "Original artist" of the songs that were sung. Some people had different ideas of who the "original artist" was (and most of the songs had links their own articles). After several seasons and much discussion, the consensus was to remove the column from then on. Now, that AI column didn't have near as much possible different inclusions as this column. But this table and column has been around since Strictly Come Dancing, which of course was the forerunner to DwtS. And there is always a user (usually an anonymous IP) who wants to make the U.S. DwtS the same as SCD and the other DwtS in other countries. I definitely think it would "help" to remove it – it would not just cut down on edit warring, it would eliminate it completely (except for someone who might try to re-add it). The only thing is, is it too late to make such a change? I don't know. How many more seasons will there be? Who knows. —Musdan77 (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it would end edit warring. We've had issues with names [Babyface, Vanilla Ice who is listed as Vanilla Ice (Rob Van Winkle) on the press release] and dance styles elsewhere on the page. I think coming up with a policy for how to decide descriptions would help. Using whatever the show uses on Monday would work for me. Otherwise, I do think the page would need to give some background on each celebrity. While they are all known for something, they come from different backgrounds and it's likely that someone may not know a football player, a lifetime tv star, and an actress from the 60's all on name alone. While I don't think uniformity alone is the reason to include it, this is a convention that is used on this version of DWTS, Strictly, and several other versions of DWTS. I think it's relevant and somewhat useful. Knope7 (talk) 23:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Obviously, my last post is only talking about the one column. The others aren't near as bad. And again, that's why we link the names – so if someone doesn't know about the person (or missed hearing the promos or the backgrounds on the show), then they can read their article. And the U.S. DwtS articles are not tied to those foreign ones, just like the actual show is completely independent from those. —Musdan77 (talk) 04:18, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

There is an article on international versions of Strictly/DWTS which suggests to me that yes, the shows have strong ties. Moreover, Strictly and DWTS US are BBC productions. They are tied, and more to the point, they have very similar formats and structures which means it is relevant to look to see how these articles handle similar issues. Knope7 (talk) 02:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Correction request

I'm not sure if anyone has noticed it, but on the table containing the Premiere's dances, Marilu and Derek's Jive has the wrong song listed. The song currently listed on the table is "Can't Stop Dancin'" by Becky G, when it should be the song of the same name by Captain & Tennille. I'd appreciate it greatly if someone was able to rectify that mistake. Thanks in advance.

MarineDynamite (talk) 01:57, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I believe the press release indicated Becky G. Do you have a source which states it was the CAptain & Tenille song? Knope7 (talk) 02:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

It's on the description of the dance's video on the official DWTS Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYI17r1we3c

MarineDynamite (talk) 23:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done LOL... no way was that the Becky G song. Captain & Tennille wrote that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

 Undone Knope7 was correct. It's stated in the press release that it's Becky G. I also don't think saying "Lol" is any helpful... You didn't cite a source and continued to make the correction anyways. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑

Have you listened to each song? Use your ears too. That press release is wrong... it's an obvious error. Becky G has different lyrics, different melody, different tempo. We use sources but when they are obviously wrong we discard them. And I LOL because it's such an obvious error. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

And I see that the DWTS channel on youtube (That's the tv show's own youtube outlet) has corrected it to C&T.. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I am not going to disagree with a primary source. They stated Becky G. Also, was it really appropriate to restore a version when users were editing it extensively? PS: It's called WP:OR. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 01:24, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Who do you think you are... the owner of this article? I added two sources that blow the old incorrect one out of the water. Oh... it's called the correct song title. We aren't lemmings when we know beyond doubt a source is wrong. When that happens and is obvious like this one, it might be best to leave it all blank until it gets corrected in a source. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

When have I ever given any impressions that I am the owner of this article? I never have. Nice to make a false accusation. Also, you never added any source per this edit and this one. For someone who has experience, wouldn't you be aware of WP:BURDEN? I am in the process of finding a written article that states the such, which you could have done so by adding your so-called two sources. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 01:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, the sources were there when I wrote the above. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

It didn't show up. You are more than welcome to reinstate your edit (with the most recent changes remaining, por favor) with the sources, obviously. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 01:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

No need, it's still there in its corrected form with sources...at least it shows up in my browser that way. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

For that matter, James and Sharna's Paso song is wrong too... According to the official DWTS Youtube, it's "Game Of Conquest" by FirstCom (although the dance is still The Walking Dead-inspired). MarineDynamite (talk) 15:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Jesus, I wonder if this intentional. I have found a source to confirm this: http://abc.go.com/shows/dancing-with-the-stars/video/pl551344809/vdka3388722. I'd do it myself, but I am on mobile and it's hard to edit and it seems I can't type today. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 16:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Come on people! Did you all read what I wrote in the previous section (4th to last paragraph)? There's just no need for listing an artist (especially when the song is has a link to its own page) because this is what happens – edit warring and (catty) disputes on talk page. And actually, the column heading just says "Music", which doesn't accurately explain what is listed. —Musdan77 (talk) 17:56, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

You're making an error at least when it concerns the original problem with "Can't Stop Dancin'." The version by Becky G is a completely different song and it had a link to the wrong song. It's not just a different version of the same song. It absolutely was wrong and had to be fixed even if the artist wasn't mentioned. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, you're right about the main topic. But, as for the heading, do we need to start a discussion on what it should be? I could just change it myself, but I know there are one or two editors who think that everything should stay the way it's been from the beginning (which includes Strictly Come Dancing). I wasn't editing these until several seasons into the series, but if I had been, when someone just copied from SCD, there would definitely have been some changes made. —Musdan77 (talk) 17:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Week Three's hour-long episode

Would it be worth mentioning that this week's episode is only an hour long compared to the usual two? Ryan Lochte mentioned it on his Snapchat (WP:OR, I know), and I am looking for sources that state such. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 22:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Week 4 - 3 judge scenario?

I was wondering how we should handle a scenario of only having 3 of the judges, since last week Tom revealed that Len would be away for a few weeks. In the past, a guest judge filled in for Len, but since no guest judge has been announced, we could very well see only Carrie Ann, Julianne and Bruno at the table. This would conflict with our averages, as they're calculated using the 40-point model, as well as the highest/lowest score tables. If there are only 3 judges using the 30-point model, what is the best solution? WIlted Youth (talk) 22:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't know now that I am watching the show live right now. They have to be included regardless, no? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 00:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree with the conversion of 30 points to 40 as it does not fully represent the scores since Len did not vote. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 01:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, whoever is converting those scores, we need to see your formula. If you're basically hedging your bets as to what score Len may have given, then we can't allow that. We're dealing with concrete numbers, not speculative ones. WIlted Youth (talk) 02:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

It depends on how many weeks Len is out. I say if he is out for more than half the season (6 six weeks) then it should be on a 30 point scale with Len's treated as a guest judge score. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.49.71.183 (talk) 01:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

That's a ludicrous idea. Len is an official judge this season and his scores can't be thrown out, period. And he won't miss half the season. Three or four weeks, maybe, but cumulatively he'll have appeared in more weeks than he'll miss. We just have to pray the producers hire guest judges to keep the 40-point model going. WIlted Youth (talk) 02:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Don't need the attitude. It was just a suggestion. Chill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.49.71.183 (talk) 14:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd suggest you read WP:CALMDOWN. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 16:24, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Here is an idea. Why not divide the 30 score by 3 to get points per judge. Then times the points per judge by 4 to get a 30 to 40 point conversion. Yes there maybe bits of points for the total point section but it will work out. NaThang0P (talk) 02:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

It's also not a good idea to throw out these scores either just because of this. I say we treat Len as the "part time" judge and just use Len as a "guest type type of score" because in all honesty. He likely won't be back until Week 6 or 7 the earliest and it's just not gonna work to throw out the next 3 or 4 dances just because of that. Go to a 30 point scale and convert the rest as Len's "guest judge score". I know he's the head judge but in this season he's not a full time judge. Julianne becomes the new head judge in this situation. 184.89.109.150 (talk) 03:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Len is a head judge. He is not a guest judge or part time. That's final. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 03:28, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but not being there every week means he's not a full time judge, head judge or not. So we are just supposed to not count anything when's he gone just because of that. Sorry celebs if you got your best scores, but it's not gonna count towards your averages. That's not fair. 184.89.109.150 (talk) 03:55, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the same thing happened during seasons 17 and 18, some weeks had 3 judges and some weeks had a guest judge. I think editors implemented a solution back then. Knope7 (talk) 03:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd have to look through the articles, their talk pages and their history. I believe there was a season as well when only three judges out of four (or two out of three) voted in the Judge's Challenge or something along those lines. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 03:28, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

In season 20, which had four regular judges, for the judge's challenge in week 9, all four couples scored a perfect 30 (the judge couldn't vote on the couple he or she coached), so it was a simple matter of giving each couple a perfect 40 rather than a perfect 30 for the dance (multiply the score by 4/3 to adjust for the non-scoring judge), and average it out that way. In season 17 (with three regular judges), there were substitute judges for both of the weeks that Len was absent (Julianne and Cher), so the three scores counted every week. (Maks was an guest judge week 9 when Len was present; his scores were not counted.) Season 19, which had four regular judges, Len also had a substitute every week he was gone, so the four scores were counted every week. We may want to adopt the season 20 solution and multiple three-judge scores by 4/3, though it will be messy; it nevertheless has the advantage of being able to use this adjusted score in the highest/lowest tables. (It doesn't make sense not to list Laurie and Val's perfect score just because only three judges were there to give it.) Another option is to give the average single-judge score rather than the average total score, since that doesn't add extra points but just gives the actual points received, but again it means that the three-judge scores don't appear on the highest/lowest tables, and if there aren't guest judges for when Len's out, that means a few weeks of omitted data. Not a great idea. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the detail. I do think you present a reasonable solution. This is probably a good reminder though that some of these tables are probably bordering on WP:SYNTH. Knope7 (talk) 02:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I think averages are OK under WP:NOR. Samer (talk) 16:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:Synth is a subsection of WP:NOR. My reading of WP:NOR is we would be ok if a reliable source somewhere had the calculations for averages, etc. even if that source is not cited. My problem is I don't think that source exists. I don't think the show keeps or makes available at all things like average scores and I'm not aware of any independent source, other than Wikipedia, which keeps track of such statistics for this show. If our editors are taken facts and reaching a conclusion that is not in any reliable source, then it appears to be synth. Knope7 (talk) 03:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Sadly, I agree. I never understood the point of averages, highest and lowest scores by style of dances and by couple. It's been there since the first season if I am correct, which was in 2005 when Wikipedia's policies and guidelines were underdeveloped. I also think that ABC doesn't track such. Frankly, I find it useless. A user can make the conclusions by the weekly scores or the dance chart (which I find useful). Personally, I agree that NOR would apply to those charts as they are unsourced, they were made up by users who edit the articles. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 03:31, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I think averages come under WP:CALC: they're obvious and factual and give useful information at a glance. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps, but if the show doesn't mention a couple's average or their highest score or who scored the best in, say, Tango, it's essentially useless. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 03:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

To bring back the "average" scoring table, might I suggest simply listing the total points earned, and the total points possible? e.g., Those contestants who performed in Week 4 would be X/150; if Len doesn't return next week, then those contestants would have Y/180, etc. The contestants could then be ranked by total percentages, which would be a simple statement of facts, rather than a potential WP:OR issue. By the same token, I think the "highest/lowest" score table could either use %ages (i.e., 21/30 = 70% is better than 26/40 = 65%), or have separate lines for /30s and /40s. Samer (talk) 16:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Whatever way you want to do it, there should be an average table! It's worth seeing how Babyface and Vanilla Ice went out without the lowest average. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.205.202.73 (talk) 18:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

That's not a valid argument. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 18:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Rather than have a percentage number such as 73%, why not have the average judge's score, 7.3? I think it's easier to think of in terms of an average per judge than a percentage. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

While that is a good, it is again useless as ABC and DWTS do not use averages. It's nothing but WP:FAN. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 18:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

If DWTS use of data is the relevant factor here, then listing the accumulated point total is relevant to the article. The show will at times use point totals to determine team dance captain or make an off hand reference to it before eliminations. The averages table typically includes a column with point totals. Thanks to BlueMoonset for providing the relevant policy on calculations. I do think averages can fall into that category, but the messier those averages get the less likely they are to be acceptable under calc. Knope7 (talk) 19:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

When has the show ever said "Maureen finish the competition the competition with an average of 28.7 points out of 40." or something along those lines for any season? Never. It's not written on the show's website or even on any press release. That falls under fancruft. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 19:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I notice you only addressed half of what I said. Point totals have been mentioned. I also don't read fancruft as prohibiting all information not mentioned on the show itself. The policy states "As with most of the issues of What Wikipedia is not in Wikipedia, there is no firm policy on the inclusion of obscure branches of popular culture subjects. It is true that things labeled fancruft are often deleted from Wikipedia. This is primarily because articles labeled as fancruft are often poorly written, unwikified, non-neutral, or unreferenced, or contain original research." Where calculations are allowed, I do not think fancruft requires its exclusion. Knope7 (talk) 19:21, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I never mentioned the total point being out of the question. Please reread my previous message. Personally, I find the overall average score chart (not the total points), the highest and lowest scoring dances and couples are rather useless. Per my argument above, the show has never ever closed an elimination show with what average they finished with, what highest dance they got or what is their lowest. I believe that fancruft content should be deleted if the show doesn't mention it, doesn't use it or doesn't even acknowledge it. I don't see its use. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 15:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

So far, you're the only one arguing that they should be removed; everyone else seems fine with retaining the tables, which are in all the season articles. Absent a consensus to remove, I believe they should stay as information that is interesting and useful for many readers of the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Just because you find it useful does not mean you speak for the entire DWTS community or the Wikipedia community. If I find it useless and unnecessary and in fact unnotable, so it be it. Nothing prohibits me from discussing its removal. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 17:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Callmemirela, I did not see you take a position on the point total one way or the other which was my point. We could change the "average" chart to a "point total" chart to avoid complicated computations, however, there does not appear to be consensus for that position. I agree with BlueMoonset that consensus appears to be restoring the table. My sense is consensus is to convert 3 judge scores into 4 judge scores so that a 24 from 3 judges would become a 32 for the sake of averages. I think we should go ahead with that and revisit the issue if the calculations become disputed or prove too complicated. Knope7 (talk) 19:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

While I am for the removal of the chart (excluding the total points) altogether as well as the highest and lowest scoring dances and couples for the reasons stated above, I am willing to reach an agreement on the whole Len being absent and how to process from there. I would suggest someone create a subsection, listing all of the ideas we've had thus far and let the users decide after that. There are so many suggestions that I've lost count and I don't know which to choose. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 21:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Just add up each couple's scores and divide them by the total maximum points for that dance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.205.202.73 (talk) 01:40, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

What about adding a separate table designed to the 30-point scale and one for the 40-point. Brianis19 (talk) 2:52, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Average Score Chart

Um where did the Average Score Chart go in this page for this season? Johnny0929 (talk) 12:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

We're currently discussing about what to do with it. Please see the discussion above. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 15:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

When should a final solution be implemented? Since there probably won't be a guest judge again this week, we'll now have two weeks in which the 40-point system hasn't been in use. We could convert the Average Scores into Point Percentages at the very least, which would allow for the incorporation of the 30-point system (and account for who will be chosen Team Dance captains when it comes to it), but what in the world to do with the Best/Worst Dances tables? Can they be justifiably kept, or should we simply remove them for this season? Because unless they're converted, dances scored with the 30-point system simply can't be used if the 40-point system is the season's standard. And I'm dubious about converting to account for a hypothetical Len score. WIlted Youth (talk) 19:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I said it last week, and I'll say it again, that removing the average chart and basically leaving out last week and tonight's dances simply don't make sense and isn't fair really. A solution has to be made. 184.89.109.150 (talk) 23:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Agree with the comment above. Just do something along the lines of weighted averages. Divide each dance by the total maximum score it could have received (i.e. 30 or 40). You won't get a table of average dance scores but percentages of total points possible. It will still help us see how the celebs are doing as the season progresses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.205.202.73 (talk) 03:28, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Those offering to do weighted averages: please post an exemplar of how the table should look. If the majority of us agree with the formatting, then we will utilize it. As for the Best/Worst Dances tables... since Pitbull is guest judging next week, those dances will be included. But do we trash the tables altogether because dances from Weeks 4 and 5 do not count? By omitting those dances, are these tables even relevant anymore? WIlted Youth (talk) 05:56, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Maybe, to keep things simple, calculate each couple's average of all individual paddles. Instead of a 30 out of 40 one week and a 24 out of 30 the next week, just calculate the average individual paddle-score for each team: i.e., 8+7+7+8+... and so on. Is it mathematically precise, or as helpful as the standard average that we calculate? No, but still, it provide a useful barometer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.205.202.73 (talk) 03:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

For the average charts, I agree with one of the comments in the other section above^. We can just convert the 3-judge scenrios into the 4 judge ones. I remember awhile back, when doing data on the "best" of DWTS on the DWTS (U.S. series) wikipedia page; someone converted 4 judges to 3 judges. It can't be much different in this case right? And for reference, I made a spreadsheet for it: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19ZhbSpxnoba20RcR_ye73t9Hhsc-a1wcS0vjSBgnioE/edit#gid=0 Len's scores for week 4/5 were taken by the average of the score (ex: 22 = 7 while 23 = 8) Michaelmarill (talk) 04:51, 24 October 2016 (UTC)Michaelmarill

Since Len has only been on for a total of 5 weeks this season, (out of 11) could we just do it on a 30-point scale? We cannot just omit 3 whole weeks (possibly a 4th depending on if there is a guest judge in week 10) from the tables. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.32.63.30 (talk) 23:29, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Guest judge Pitbull

There is no indication or sourcing of Pitbull being assigned as a guest judge. While it is true (I'm watching the show live right now), there is still no sourcing. Can the initial user please add a source? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 00:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Sharna Burgess out for week 8 (possibly rest of the season)

Jenna is filling in for her http://www.tmz.com/2016/10/31/dtws-sharna-burgess-injured/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.49.68.253 (talk) 19:47, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Week 8

Shouldn't week 8's scores be different than what it is. The person who didn't win the face off shouldn't have the +0 because that's literally the same thing as just having the first score but without the + or = on it. Every other season is like that so can someone change that please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.153.14 (talk) 11:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

We can't due that due to conflicting reasonings. Calvin didn't receive any points, and if we remove the zero, it will show 30 with a green text, meaning he had the highest score. Although he did for individual dances, he didn't get the overall highest score. Hopefully you understood what I meant. Michaelmarill (talk) 22:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC)Michaelmarill

Suggestion

Since Len has only been on for a total of 5 weeks this season, (out of 11) could we just do it on a 30-point scale? We cannot just omit 3 whole weeks (possibly a 4th depending on if there is a guest judge in week 10) from the tables. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.49.67.38 (talk) 14:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreeance to Suggestion Post.

You might as well make the point scale from 40 to 30. Len is the odd one out considering he is the judge who has been absent the most this season. Also, it would bring some fairness because you're excluding dances that had perfect scores and the only downside is that the point system used for the scores are a total of 30 instead of 40 and therefore are excluded. I believe that credit is due to all the contestants who've gotten perfect scores this season. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:81CB:D500:D8C5:DA1:F705:159C (talk) 00:28, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you kind sir or ma'am. Too bad the small amount of people who have edit access to this page won't even take a minute of their time to actually respond — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.32.63.30 (talk) 01:15, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with this too. Len was only present for a couple weeks overall and should be treated as the "guest judge" for the weeks he attended. To omit 4/5 weeks of scoring is not fair when every other season has a average chart. Especially on the weeks some got perfect scores in his absence. --68.202.18.56 (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2016 (UTC)