![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 5/31/22. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
![]() | A fact from Superstars of Dance appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 28 January 2009, and was viewed approximately 6,900 times (
disclaimer) (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
Carolina Cerisola was not eliminated. Miriam Larici was - she was the one who was tied with Robert Muraine from the U.S. and Sean Robinson from Australia for the last solo spot in the semis. Could someone please fix this? Cespence17 ( talk) 16:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome - I just was afraid to it because I didn't want to foul up the chart. But luckily I managed to do so without messing anything up :-) Cespence17 ( talk) 18:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Should a section be added where we mention the contestants that have also participated in So You Think You Can Dance, since it's also Nigel Lythgoe's show? There are enough of them that I think it's at least worth mentioning - Anya Garnis, Pasha Kovalev, Giselle Peacock, and Robert Muraine are all former contestants, and Jason Gilkison and Nakul Dev Mahajan have been choreographers. Cespence17 ( talk) 18:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, looks good! Cespence17 ( talk) 16:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Reed Luplau was eliminated during episode 3, but that was only the first half of the semi-final round. I don't know if we want to wait until next week when the 2nd half of the semi-final airs to post who advanced and who got eliminated, or start a chart for just episode 3. Seems a bit wasteful if only one person got eliminated, but I dunno... Cespence17 ( talk) 14:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Could please add each countries television broadcaster. In Australia, the Nine Network brought the rights to this but have yet to air it. Ianblair23 (talk) 02:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
== reform ==
can i get some help? currently the useboxes are unclear as owho won the actal events. Can I get some help from a master code in fixing this resolutions? Smith Jones ( talk) 01:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
this show was fixed, the jugdes were awful, and they was no way the USA was gonna lose. it was a bad bias show, good riddence! -- 74.237.54.62 ( talk) 05:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I removed the episode summaries a while back, only to have that change reverted today. I've removed the section again -- I documented my reasons why in the edit summaries, but I'll add them here to get the discussion started if this becomes and contentious issue. I removed the content because it was superfluous, was about as flagrant a violation of the pillar of WP:NPOV as any article content I've ever seen, and just generally lacked encyclopedic tone. The person who reverted this change suggested I should have edited the content down rather than remove it. However, I am not required to do this: if I see content that is inappropriate to an article, I can (and should) remove it, whether I replace it with an improved version or not. That section was written like a bad review of the show in the best spots and like sycophantic adulation in the worse parts. Besides which, I disagree with the assertion that the section is really necessary. This is not a fan site, it's an encyclopedia and there are limits to the amount of information we should supply here. Besides which, the vast majority of this sizable article is already a review of the episodes in one form or another. The only real information that is relevant (with regard to the format and presentation of individual articles) is which acts performed in which rounds and how the judges rated them and that information is pretty well covered by the article's (count 'em) 19 tables! Anything further dips into subjective territory and fandom. But the editor who wanted to revert is welcome to try to come up with an alternative version if he really thinks he can parse it into something objective, appropriately worded and non-redundant to the information already presented. Myself, I think the very idea of the section flirts with NPOV too much to be salvaged. And I certainly am not required to do it myself in order to be justified in removing content that is wildly in violation of a pillar policy. Snow ( talk) 04:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
As two months have gone by without Thadeus making edits to clean up the issues with non-encyclopedic POV tone, original research, and inadequate and inappropriate sources, I have again removed these section. Thadeus, if you still insist that these issues can be fixed, please compose a draft (of the whole of the sections you wish to restore) rather than reverting again. Or start an RfC on the matter if you wish. But you cannot keep restoring content that is in blatant violation of multiple pillar policies and the few trivial alterations you made to the first episodes' summary did not really do much to remove the conflicts with the policies cited above (and you restored the other episode summaries without any changes whatsoever). If you start a revert war on this again without attempting to build consensus or demonstrate how the sections are not in violation of these policies (and I don't see how this argument could be made under any reasonable interpretations of said policies), I'll go immediately to an admin on the issue. I'm sorry to take such a strongly worded stance on this and I hope you will not take it personally, but the tone of this page spiraled well out that appropriate for a Wikipedia article a long time ago, and three and a half years is long enough to indulge it without resolution.
Let me also say that I appreciate the complexities that come into play when trying to establish elements like verifiability on articles about TV shows, especially those that focus on performances. I know that sometimes it's hard to find valid non-primary sources which support the events and commentary on the show and I genuinely think we should make some exceptions for those difficulties, so long as they remain consistent with the spirit of verifiability by restricting commentary to only the most straight-forward and factual statements in case where appropriate sources are lacking. But statement like "The audience became hushed with rapt fascination as the duo performed a series of expertly-executed turns and then burst into applause as soon as a final particularly impressive lift was performed" -- the likes of which make up about 95% of these "reviews" -- is the very definition of original research. Especially when the sources given A) do not support these claims at all and B) are unacceptable sources for establishing verifiability for a Wikipedia article to begin with. And even if these elements were perfectly sourced, they still would not be appropriate to the encyclopedic tone we should be striving for here. The audience's reaction and assessments on how well the performers danced, aside from being purely subjective commentary (and again, OR), are not the type of information we should be synthesizing for an article in an encyclopedia, not by a long shot. The only empirical and appropriate information that was contained in those episode summaries was the dancers involved, their styles, and the scores the judges awarded them, and these facts are already well-represented in the tables. And note that I've left these tables and their various details in despite the fact that they are also not adequately referenced for the most part; technically they too could be removed by anyone who challenged them, but I don't see the point in removing facts about a show that are only sourced by the show itself so long as they are clear statements of fact that can be readily confirmed by anybody watching it (e.g. "The judges awarded the group a score fo 53"). Commentary which is unsourced, subjective, and contentious are not appropriate at all, and judgments about the skill displayed by the dancers ("The two are part of a world famous acrobatic troupe and it shows as they bring some really incredible acrobatics to the stage") or how they were received by the audience ("The studio audience is stunned and doesn't know how to react — little applause is heard, and a close up a clearly perplexed lady is shown.") will always be subjective and contentious. The sections that have been excised were composed almost exclusively of this kind of commentary and, I'll repeat, what little information that was not of this nature but which was actually factual has been preserved in the tables.
I believe I've made the argument for why this content cannot stay -- being as wildly inconsistent with pillar policies as it is -- at much more length than I should have needed to, so please do not revert again without coming up with a radical re-working of all sections which you wish to restore which adequately addresses the conflicts with said policies and, ideally, presenting this draft here for consensus before re-adding it. As I said, I hate to be a stickler here, because I understand the limitations being worked with here, but this page needs to be kept consistent with policy and encyclopedic tone all the same, just as with any other article. If you feel my interpretation of policy is flawed, I'll of course hear you out as any editor should, or you can always RfC the issue, though I doubt you'll gain much support for keeping that content. But continually restoring content that is in violation of multiple policies (including two pillar policies) is not the way forward, nor is making a huge fuss over the issue, insisting the content can be salvaged and then making a couple of trivial edits as an excuse to re-introduce basically the same exact draft of the page and then abandoning the effort altogether after making such a strong stand. Snow ( talk) 01:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 5/31/22. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
![]() | A fact from Superstars of Dance appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 28 January 2009, and was viewed approximately 6,900 times (
disclaimer) (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
Carolina Cerisola was not eliminated. Miriam Larici was - she was the one who was tied with Robert Muraine from the U.S. and Sean Robinson from Australia for the last solo spot in the semis. Could someone please fix this? Cespence17 ( talk) 16:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome - I just was afraid to it because I didn't want to foul up the chart. But luckily I managed to do so without messing anything up :-) Cespence17 ( talk) 18:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Should a section be added where we mention the contestants that have also participated in So You Think You Can Dance, since it's also Nigel Lythgoe's show? There are enough of them that I think it's at least worth mentioning - Anya Garnis, Pasha Kovalev, Giselle Peacock, and Robert Muraine are all former contestants, and Jason Gilkison and Nakul Dev Mahajan have been choreographers. Cespence17 ( talk) 18:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, looks good! Cespence17 ( talk) 16:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Reed Luplau was eliminated during episode 3, but that was only the first half of the semi-final round. I don't know if we want to wait until next week when the 2nd half of the semi-final airs to post who advanced and who got eliminated, or start a chart for just episode 3. Seems a bit wasteful if only one person got eliminated, but I dunno... Cespence17 ( talk) 14:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Could please add each countries television broadcaster. In Australia, the Nine Network brought the rights to this but have yet to air it. Ianblair23 (talk) 02:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
== reform ==
can i get some help? currently the useboxes are unclear as owho won the actal events. Can I get some help from a master code in fixing this resolutions? Smith Jones ( talk) 01:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
this show was fixed, the jugdes were awful, and they was no way the USA was gonna lose. it was a bad bias show, good riddence! -- 74.237.54.62 ( talk) 05:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I removed the episode summaries a while back, only to have that change reverted today. I've removed the section again -- I documented my reasons why in the edit summaries, but I'll add them here to get the discussion started if this becomes and contentious issue. I removed the content because it was superfluous, was about as flagrant a violation of the pillar of WP:NPOV as any article content I've ever seen, and just generally lacked encyclopedic tone. The person who reverted this change suggested I should have edited the content down rather than remove it. However, I am not required to do this: if I see content that is inappropriate to an article, I can (and should) remove it, whether I replace it with an improved version or not. That section was written like a bad review of the show in the best spots and like sycophantic adulation in the worse parts. Besides which, I disagree with the assertion that the section is really necessary. This is not a fan site, it's an encyclopedia and there are limits to the amount of information we should supply here. Besides which, the vast majority of this sizable article is already a review of the episodes in one form or another. The only real information that is relevant (with regard to the format and presentation of individual articles) is which acts performed in which rounds and how the judges rated them and that information is pretty well covered by the article's (count 'em) 19 tables! Anything further dips into subjective territory and fandom. But the editor who wanted to revert is welcome to try to come up with an alternative version if he really thinks he can parse it into something objective, appropriately worded and non-redundant to the information already presented. Myself, I think the very idea of the section flirts with NPOV too much to be salvaged. And I certainly am not required to do it myself in order to be justified in removing content that is wildly in violation of a pillar policy. Snow ( talk) 04:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
As two months have gone by without Thadeus making edits to clean up the issues with non-encyclopedic POV tone, original research, and inadequate and inappropriate sources, I have again removed these section. Thadeus, if you still insist that these issues can be fixed, please compose a draft (of the whole of the sections you wish to restore) rather than reverting again. Or start an RfC on the matter if you wish. But you cannot keep restoring content that is in blatant violation of multiple pillar policies and the few trivial alterations you made to the first episodes' summary did not really do much to remove the conflicts with the policies cited above (and you restored the other episode summaries without any changes whatsoever). If you start a revert war on this again without attempting to build consensus or demonstrate how the sections are not in violation of these policies (and I don't see how this argument could be made under any reasonable interpretations of said policies), I'll go immediately to an admin on the issue. I'm sorry to take such a strongly worded stance on this and I hope you will not take it personally, but the tone of this page spiraled well out that appropriate for a Wikipedia article a long time ago, and three and a half years is long enough to indulge it without resolution.
Let me also say that I appreciate the complexities that come into play when trying to establish elements like verifiability on articles about TV shows, especially those that focus on performances. I know that sometimes it's hard to find valid non-primary sources which support the events and commentary on the show and I genuinely think we should make some exceptions for those difficulties, so long as they remain consistent with the spirit of verifiability by restricting commentary to only the most straight-forward and factual statements in case where appropriate sources are lacking. But statement like "The audience became hushed with rapt fascination as the duo performed a series of expertly-executed turns and then burst into applause as soon as a final particularly impressive lift was performed" -- the likes of which make up about 95% of these "reviews" -- is the very definition of original research. Especially when the sources given A) do not support these claims at all and B) are unacceptable sources for establishing verifiability for a Wikipedia article to begin with. And even if these elements were perfectly sourced, they still would not be appropriate to the encyclopedic tone we should be striving for here. The audience's reaction and assessments on how well the performers danced, aside from being purely subjective commentary (and again, OR), are not the type of information we should be synthesizing for an article in an encyclopedia, not by a long shot. The only empirical and appropriate information that was contained in those episode summaries was the dancers involved, their styles, and the scores the judges awarded them, and these facts are already well-represented in the tables. And note that I've left these tables and their various details in despite the fact that they are also not adequately referenced for the most part; technically they too could be removed by anyone who challenged them, but I don't see the point in removing facts about a show that are only sourced by the show itself so long as they are clear statements of fact that can be readily confirmed by anybody watching it (e.g. "The judges awarded the group a score fo 53"). Commentary which is unsourced, subjective, and contentious are not appropriate at all, and judgments about the skill displayed by the dancers ("The two are part of a world famous acrobatic troupe and it shows as they bring some really incredible acrobatics to the stage") or how they were received by the audience ("The studio audience is stunned and doesn't know how to react — little applause is heard, and a close up a clearly perplexed lady is shown.") will always be subjective and contentious. The sections that have been excised were composed almost exclusively of this kind of commentary and, I'll repeat, what little information that was not of this nature but which was actually factual has been preserved in the tables.
I believe I've made the argument for why this content cannot stay -- being as wildly inconsistent with pillar policies as it is -- at much more length than I should have needed to, so please do not revert again without coming up with a radical re-working of all sections which you wish to restore which adequately addresses the conflicts with said policies and, ideally, presenting this draft here for consensus before re-adding it. As I said, I hate to be a stickler here, because I understand the limitations being worked with here, but this page needs to be kept consistent with policy and encyclopedic tone all the same, just as with any other article. If you feel my interpretation of policy is flawed, I'll of course hear you out as any editor should, or you can always RfC the issue, though I doubt you'll gain much support for keeping that content. But continually restoring content that is in violation of multiple policies (including two pillar policies) is not the way forward, nor is making a huge fuss over the issue, insisting the content can be salvaged and then making a couple of trivial edits as an excuse to re-introduce basically the same exact draft of the page and then abandoning the effort altogether after making such a strong stand. Snow ( talk) 01:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)