Talk:Diversity (dance troupe)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Too commercial, reads like a press release[edit]

A lot of this article sounds like a Diversity press release, a request for work. It would be better if it simply explained who they are and why they are noteworthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.214.255 (talk) 14:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion[edit]

It can't be deleted. They won. There's plenty to write about them 83.70.76.224 (talk) 21:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Already clutered[edit]

Alot of a opinion, un referenced sections and irelevent sections (ones which talk about the show in general) should be removed. Bramers (talk) 21:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not merge/delete[edit]

They just won a highly publicised TV series and media attention wil be on them in torromows papers, websites, TV. No point deleting or merging for the sake of 6 or 7 hours... Raintheone (talk) 21:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you have a crystal ball that you know they will be covered outside of their relationship to the show? Can you send me the winning lottery numbers too? -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously the discussion has been closed with a speedy keep verdict, but for future reference, since Diversity won the competition, they appear to be notable under these guidelines for reality show contestants. Sky83 (talk) 22:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you notice the big banner on the top of the page that indicates that those guidelines are not actually community consensus? -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I just decided to skip it....of course I saw it. But they are guidelines, and they are something to work from on the small chance this issue comes up in a serious way again. I get that you don't like this group or didn't want them to win etc, but I'm just trying to help out the debate here. For everyone else, a similar discussion took place over JLS in The X Factor last year, and that article was (as I remember) kept largely on the basis that they had placed in a reality music competition (or words to that effect). Sky83 (talk) 22:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your assumption that I gave a tinkers damn about the contest at all is no more relevant than your attempt at justifying to keep the article by citing guidelines that arent at all supported by consensus. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Careful, guys. Down that road is incivility and "preventative" blocks. Keep it civil, lest things get out of hand. Cheers, guys. lifebaka++ 23:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're taking this a bit too personally. I never meant for it to be used as set in stone policy, I just thought that it would be a good starting point for discussion. All I stated was that they appeared to be notable under that, not that they were. Please don't take my points so personally, I didn't mean to offend you and I'm sorry for implying that you cared. Sky83 (talk) 23:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I should point out that if they were musical artists, they actually would be automatically notable per WP:MUSIC. Let's bend those rules a bit to include any winners of BGT as automatically notable. We already do anyway. Sceptre (talk) 22:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible that they qualify under that anyway. It really depends on what classification they fall into. It may be a slight grey area. Sky83 (talk) 22:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete? Why? They won![edit]

If you're gonna delete this, you may as well delete the entry for Susan Boyle. Diversity has much more right to have their own entry on Wikipedia since they have won what Susan Boyle was competing for. 22:40 GMT, May 30 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.107.153 (talk) 21:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong: Even though I agree Diversity should have this page, Susan Boyle has more of a place mainly because the masses of references that have be turned up, she has appeared on shows such as Oprah, she is a proved internet phenomena. I could go on.. .Raintheone (talk) 21:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I can't even believe someone would put up such an idea about deletion, I don't think it really worths discuss as this just cannot be deleted. The deletion policy isn't for essential articles like this, there are obviously loads of information to add to this article. Expansion should be concerned, but not deletion. Salmon (talk) 21:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

we have REALLY REALLY REALLY different definitions of "essential". -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there really is no point to all of this is there. I'm sure those who are trying know with in one day there will be to much notabality to justify thinking about deleting this article.Raintheone (talk) 22:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Why is an article been made when it might be removed? Not much logic.Liquinn (talk) 22:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

I keep trying to add references to reliable sources such as Sky News, BBC News, Daily Mail etc. and they keep being removed in favour of Unreality TV links. Please can you add reliable sources to the article. 03md 22:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would of thought that's good enough, I mean, reliable sources... Liquinn (talk) 22:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you post the links here if they're not staying on the page? The ones currently on the page hardly look authoritative, and I'm sure there are replacements. Cycle~ (talk) 22:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the reference after names of the members is wrong because Ike Ezekwugo is missing there. That is why I put http://essexroundup.wordpress.com/2009/05/30/diversity-win-britains-got-talent-bgt/. I know it is not Sky News, etc. but it is the only right one on that place Sandrestina (talk) 23:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the links that I added, and the ones from Telegraph and BBC News have already been reinserted.

{{cite news |first=Lizzie |last=Smith |url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1189747/Britains-Got-Talent-final-Can-Susan-Boyle-translate-fame-win-She-takes-Shaheen-Flawless-Aidan-Davies-Holliw-Steel-Diversity.html |title=Dance troupe Diversity in shock victory over Susan Boyle in Britain's Got Talent final |work=Mail Online |publisher=[[Daily Mail]] |date=30 May 2009 |accessdate=30 May 2009}}

{{cite news |url=http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Diversity-Win-Britains-Got-Talent-Beating-Susan-Boyle-Into-Second-Place/Article/200905415292030?lpos=UK_News_First_UK_News_Article_Teaser_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15292030_Diversity_Win_Britains_Got_Talent_Beating_Susan_Boyle_Into_Second_Place |title=Diversity win Britain's Got Talent beating Susan Boyle into second place |work=[[Sky News]] |date=30 May 2009 |accessdate=30 May 2009}}

Sorry, I saw that as well, but it is obviously a mistake! You can count them + they clearly said on their interview after the final that there are eleven of them! + there are more links with this: e.g. http://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/4387162.Talented_dance_group_visits_sick_children/Sandrestina (talk) 23:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Current template[edit]

Is the {{current}} template relevant? I'd say it's more appropriate to the Britain's Got Talent article (or relevant series article). Just because the group won a recent competition doesn't mean the template is relevant – the guidelines state that the template "...is not intended to be used to mark an article that merely has recent news articles about the topic". I'm not denying the fact they are currently "in the news", but I feel the template is better placed on the parent article. Anyway – the reason I've brought this here is that I removed it once and this was reverted – perhaps accidentally – but I wanted other opinions. Cycle~ (talk) 22:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current template is relevant - just look at how many edits to the article have occured in the past few hours because of the results of the show, look how many potential new sources are arriving every hour, etc. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't see how the "current" template adds anything to the article. Yes, the band group may be getting lots of press at the moment (or, at least, soon), but there's not a lot of new information coming in about them. Cycle~ (talk) 22:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its relevant because it lets readers know immediately that the version that they happen to see now when they tune in should be taken as a version that is subject to frequent and perhaps drastic changes as time allows sources and wikipedia editors to put the subject of the article and its content into real perspective. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eleventh Member?[edit]

This article (and many other places) state that the group has ten members but there are clearly eleven members on stage when the results are announced in the Britains got talent final, plus in their original audition eleven people introduce themselves. I can't quite hear the name of the person who is missing, but it may be Ike?

This video shows the group introducing themselves – it definitely sounds like "Ike" (to me). Cycle~ (talk) 22:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have added "Ike" to the list – perhaps we can find a surname from somewhere? I don't know the source of the other surnames. Cycle~ (talk) 22:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is "Mike". In the video of the first audition, after all three set of brothers introduced themselves, it was first Perri, Warren then the missing eleventh one and then Terry.

After the final show, on "Britain's got more Talent" Diversity clearly said there are 11 of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandrestina (talk • contribs) 22:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. There's definitely 11 – but I'm stumped working out that guy's name. Cycle~ (talk) 22:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Scrap that. ITV has him listed as Ike: "Ashley, Jordan, Sam, Mitchell, Ian, Jamie, Matt, Perry, Warren, Ike and Terry". Cycle~ (talk) 22:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://essexroundup.wordpress.com/2009/05/30/diversity-win-britains-got-talent-bgt/ I found it and linked it Sandrestina (talk) 23:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed that link; WP:RS (reliable sources) states that blogs and similar sources should not be used as points of reference (especially when an authoritative source can replace the reference). Cycle~ (talk) 23:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
you are right. I put more official reference. Sandrestina (talk) 23:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ten members[edit]

The latest BBC article states the group has 10 members. I'm sure I saw another news page which left out Ike – perhaps he left since the original audition? Cycle~ (talk) 23:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this info is wrong for sure e.g. http://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/4387162.Talented_dance_group_visits_sick_children/ Sandrestina (talk) 23:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could be a possibility I suppose. Liquinn (talk) 23:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even in the official text about Diversity on ITV url: http://talent.itv.com/finalists/finalist-detail/item_400004.htm is written in the beginning 10 members and then, at the end of the text, 11 members "All the group are from the East London / Essex area. There are 11 members with 3 sets of brothers and 3 other members. ". Clear mistake and many further resources copy&pasted the wrong info Sandrestina (talk) 23:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we leave it as-is for the moment. Presumably it's Ike who is the dubious member – until there's a definite source stating he's not in the group (or that there are definitely only 10 members), we should keep it as 11. Cycle~ (talk) 23:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a further FYI, the article linked above by Cycle now shows as eleven members. I think thats fairly good confirmation that there are in fact eleven members and the ten members description is probably just a mistake furthered by lazy journalism.

I'm happy with it staying as it is (11) – but there are photos of the group (see infobox) with 10 members. Cycle~ (talk) 17:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ages[edit]

I'm a bit concerned about the ages being listed with the member names. Some of these guys are pretty young, and it doesn't add any tangible benefit to the article. I'd prefer to see them removed, and that section turned to prose instead of a bulleted list (though this is of secondary concern). Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 22:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have any consensus on this from elsewhere? I agree in as much as their ages add anything to the article – do we need them? Cycle~ (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's usually avoided unless we need them, as it's always better to err on the side of caution when dealing with living people. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be enough to just state that there are mixed ages or even just to say that the group is made up of adults and children, or something along those lines. Sky83 (talk) 22:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sounds good to me. I'll go make the change presently. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) This is a valid concern, but on reflection I think it is okay, perhaps they chose their name based on age and race differences? If this is the case, their differences in age is of interest. I do not see a big problem here. The other kids on the show gave their ages. But, I am open to discussion, as always. Graham Colm Talk 23:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we could just give the range of their ages? Graham, Graham Colm Talk 23:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An age range or other compromise I'm fine with, but listing the ages next to each not so much. It's better to put as little private information as possible. My prose needs work, too. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's a good idea. What good would it do to have the ages in the article? I think the ages of the members of the group doesn't matter... I guesss.Liquinn (talk) 23:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This BBC News article states that the ages are between 12 and 25, which is a fairly decent way of showing how chronologically diverse they are. I don't think it's going to be a major issue if people want the ages in, but to avoid a dispute, the BBC wording might be a decent way to go. Sky83 (talk) 23:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Sky83, currently "adults and children" sounds somehow weird Sandrestina (talk) 23:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) Yeah, sorry about that. I'll go fix it with the range, so it reads better. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's good. Graham Colm Talk 23:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This link: [redacted] has the names, ages, and HOMETOWN of each of the 11 members listed on the photo. LeahBethM (talk) 05:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just because other agencies have more leinient policies regarding privicy of minors than we do doesnt mean that we should be making that information more widely available. -- The Red Pen of Doom 06:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1 in 20 votes??[edit]

This quote at the end of the passage is more than likely incorrect, as it would mean that the other 9 acts would have to have scored less than 1 in 20 votes as well... if they scored 0.99 per 20 votes, per act, the total of all 10 acts would be less than 9.99 votes per 20 votes. This needs to be corrected to the right value, or removed.

What is the right value?Liquinn (talk) 23:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where would total vote numbers be accessed from? I have no clue. (82.16.202.195 (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I have no idea and that's the problem. Shall we remove the "incorrect figures"? Liquinn (talk) 23:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the looks, it has already been done :) (82.16.202.195 (talk) 23:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

"Diversity were then announced as the winners, despite the 16/1 odds against them" - I thought is what we're talking about, am I wrong? Liquinn (talk) 23:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please get a source for the 20/1 odds? The only mention of it I've seen is here, which clearly states 16/1. Cycle~ (talk) 12:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The 20/1 odds were said on Britains got more talent, cant find alot about it on the internet --81.77.18.99 (talk) 13:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I remember it being said on there as well. The trouble is, the sources we look for now will probably be quoting the last minute odds, which were well below 20/1.Sky83 (talk) 19:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do we know when (which episode etc) these odds were stated? Cycle~ (talk) 19:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was last night, but that's all I can remember. I don't think it was in the first show, so that would make it during the results or on the More Talent show. Sky83 (talk) 20:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox[edit]

What sort of infobox would be appropriate (if at all) for this article? Signature (dance group) uses the {{Infobox musical artist}} – I've brought this up at WP:DANCE but no reply yet. If the musical artist box is appropriate, I've knocked one up at User:Cycle~/Sandbox/Diversity. Cheers. Cycle~ (talk) 23:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

diversity are the best wow they won brittans got talent i wanted them to win anyway peri luc kiely is so hot !!!

note posted by emma mclaughlin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.16.219.31 (talk) 10:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Banjo[edit]

Does he deserve his own article? Or is there not that much to say about him? (Aurumpotestasest (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, since he is a judge on Got To Dance. Conay (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Boyle[edit]

It's wrong that Susan boyle is not mentioned. If it were not for her, virtually noone in the US would ever have heard of these guys. in fact, NO ONE would in the US would have heard of them if it were not for her. We did NOT hear that "Diversity won BGT", what we heard was "Susan Boyle lost BGT to a dance group called Diversity". She needs to be mentioned in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.17.232.180 (talk) 21:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Compleatly agrre.

What does it matter how, or if, Americans know of them? If wikipedia was only supposed to contain articles of interest to Americans, 3/4 of the articles on wikipedia should be put up for speedy deletion right this second. Fair enough, mention her in the Britains Got Talent section of the article, but as for the article introduction, she warrants no mention.. dbalsdon (talk) 03:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Film[edit]

I saw them in the new (street) dance film. Perhaps more?--212.183.99.138 (talk) 00:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

date of formation??[edit]

can anyone confirm when the group formed?? the very first paragraph states 2007, but the second paragraph, not 5 lines below the first date, states 2006. which is it?? not exactly a very professional article if these don't add up 77.97.110.57 (talk) 20:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to their current website 2007 http://www.diversityofficial.com/members
According to their old website many of them have been together as a dance crew since 2005 although back then they were known as Swift Moves. http://www.diversitystreetdance.net/ That group did not include Perri or Ike who joined later as stated on their member pages.

update required[edit]

I have placed an updated tag on the 2010 section, as there is nothing later in the article, part of that section is written about events that had not occurred yet (I don't know if they did), and it uses words like "recently" about things that are no longer recent. --Scott Davis Talk 09:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been update recently. At what point can the marker be removed?

members for swift moves and pre-BGT Diversity[edit]

Diversity formed in 2007. Before that they were swift moves. At that point in time the line up was a bit different. Ike joined Diversity in 2007. Perri in about 2008. They are not in any of the video clips from the swift moves period or the step up challenge clip.


There is a Robert who appear in the jump off clips and also in the Diversity clips from 2008 where they performed as guests Street Dance Weekend 2008 competition and the step up challenge clip. However he left before BGT.


In terms of membership for swift moves: Ashley, Ian, Jamie, Terry, Robert and Mitchell. For swift move Juniors: Jordan, Sam, Warren, Matthew and one unknown

Original line up for Diversity: Ashley, Ian, Jamie, Terry, Robert, Mitchell, Jordan, Sam, Warren, Matthew and Ashton — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.183.112 (talk) 13:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know of any additional reliable sources to back the above up?
I've added Robert Anker to the before BGT section as we now have a surname for him given these two sources https://www.instagram.com/p/BXLpfCUAmow/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40762482 RIP Robert - WyrmVane (talk) 20:21, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Restructure?[edit]

At the moment this article reads a bit like a CV. Would it be worth restructuring the post BGT sub-sections by tours in the same way music group tend to be structured by Albums. For example: 

   1 Before Diversity: Swift Moves
   2 2007 - 2009: Formation and early career
   3 2009: Britain's Got Talent
   4 2009: BGT tour and 1st Royal Variety show performance
   5 2010: Diversitoys tour
   6 2011 - 2012: Digitized tour
   7 2012 - 2014: Limitless tour
   8 2014 - 2015: The Exclusive Tour - Up Close And Personal
   9 Tours
  10 DVDs
  11 References
  12 External links

Would it also be worth listing the tours and giving an outline of the plot of each one in section just before the references?

WyrmVane (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List above has been updated. WyrmVane (talk) 19:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Members has the line up change again?[edit]

Does anyone have an up to date source for who is in Diversity at the moment? I can see that Nathan Ramsay has been added and I agree he has been working with Diversity alot over the last year or so but he is not listed as a member on their web site. If we are going to include Nathan due to working with the group over the last year or so then there are 3 members of Diversity Juniors who should probably also be included but I am having a problem confirming their names. I am leaving Nathan in for now but I think it worth a discussion and more investigation. WyrmVane (talk) 19:23, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Credits on last night Diversity presnts steel the show has Nathan listed as the 8th member of Diversity intrestingly Ike was not listed at all. So it looks like they got a situation where Ike is listed as member on group website but appears to have been removed as of last night from the group images on their facebook. Nathan on the other hand is in some of the recently updated photes but not listed on the website. I am beginning to supect that they are over due an update of their website again which I don't think is a first time but I can't prove it as they don't appear to post about line up changes. For now I am happy that Nathan is a member but I am not at all sure about Ike. I will update Ike's surname as he has clearly changed it sometime ago. If anyone has any sources that confirm one way another if there has been a line up change it would be good to know. WyrmVane (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Diversity (dance troupe). 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 14:27, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Complaints[edit]

Should this article mention that Diversity aroused much controversy after a performance on Britain's Got Talent on September 5 2020, after a performance in which they acted out a father telling his son about the coronavirus and the death of George Floyd? This caused many complaints to Ofcom, so it might be notable enough to be mentioned in the article. Vorbee (talk) 19:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.4.187 (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Diversity_(dance_troupe)&oldid=1206985649"