Talk:So You Think You Can Dance/Archive 1

Comments on scope and format

I've been maintaining this page for a while, creating a list of the shows and their seasons (appropriately linked, where possible) that I hope is comprehensive at present. Some weeks back someone started a chart with additional overview content on the various entries in the franchise, including some which do not at present have their own page -- a great addition I think. In fact, while expanding it, I got to thinking that maybe a lot more can be done to fill this page out with overview knowledge of the franchise, as opposed to the articles which concentrate on the individual shows. There's certainly a justification and role for it, with over 54 seasons of the 20 different shows the franchise has spawned to keep track of. And while the page is currently a useful index, I think it's worthwhile to expand it from the form of an unofficial (and overly large) disambiguation page to a full entry on the franchise, preserving the links to the various versions (the chart will suffice to that, though I'm sure they will also all be linked to multiple times in the article text as well) but also including information on format, dance styles, production, viewership, personalities (where appropriate), and so-forth across the various franchise entries. I think I'll start the conversion shortly, but thoughts before hand and, even better, assistance during are both requested. Snow (talk) 11:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I've added the first piece of new content, a list of dance styles featured across the franchise (or rather those entries that have episode/routine guides up with the relevant information). It's good info, I think, but rendering it in list format makes it drag on for a bit. If anyone can think of a better format for the content that doesn't cause any lose of information, have at it. I'll link all of the dance styles listed to their respective pages when I get a chance. The next two things I intend to include are a section on the development and expansion history of the franchise and a brief description of the show and the commonalities of format between the various series. For now though, I've kept the disambiguation designation and am keeping the series/season list up top. Snow (talk) 10:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I've significantly reworked the format of the page recently, finally outright removing the long and unwieldy show/seasons list by incorporating those links into the main table. That table has also benefited from a lot of other minute tweaks and newer info. But one of the entries (the most recent - Vietnam) was not added by me and I can't find any information to verify it. If the person who added it sees this, would you mind posting a link here to verify? A couple of other international dance shows which are not actually part of the SYTYCD franchise have been mistakenly added here in the past. Of course, with the name Dancer Idol, it probably is a genuine entry (since it obviously borrows from the name of Lythgoe/Fuller's other big media franchise), but I wouldn't mind reading up on it any event. Added later: I've uncovered quite a bit of information about a "Dance Idol" that is a different non-televised string of competitions that are held in several nations, Vietnam included. And I can't seem to locate anything anywhere to suggest an upcoming SYTYCD in that country. So I'm wondering if its addition to the list is a case of mistaken identity. I'll give it a while yet, but if no one supplies a link I'll take the entry off the table in a week or two.

The dance styles list has also been changed to a table format. Some of the entries are easy to arrange in this manner (such as Ballroom,for example) since the styles of those routines are explicitly given. Other genres, notably Jazz, are harder to keep straight since terminology designating which of the styles are most closely related is inconsistent from country to country and even within a given show. Still, I think it's about as neat as we're likely to get it. I also removed the SYTCD table from the bottom (I think someone just recently added it) as it wasn't really appropriate as the information in it was either redundant to central features of this page (such as an out-of-date franchise index) or was not appropriate to this page (the vast majority of that box is an index of finalists, judges, and choreographers specific to the U.S. show, wheras the purpose of this page is more general and that information can be instantly reached through the SYTYCD-US link in the franchise index table). Still forthcoming are a section discussing the general format of a SYTYCD show and prose section on production history if I can find info enough to make it worthwhile. Snow (talk) 16:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Minor revert - April 17th

Reverted the changes made to the styles list on April 14th, as they were all ill-advised. Forgot to add an edit summary to explain why, so here it is. The original change moved Lyrical Hip-Hop as a substyle of hip-hop. While the one style is obviously derived from the other, this list is based on the categories as they are presented on the show. We can't use personal impressions to delineate these styles, because the borders between many dance styles are very indistinct and often a matter of imprecise personal perception. Remember, once upon a time "hip-hop dance" meant mostly breakdance. Then the term extended to include popping and locking (and ultimately commercial styles) and stopped being used for breaking. Today the situation is even more complex and ambiguous. To get around this issue and avoid the debates I was sure would arise on these definitions, I have always used a policy on the SYTYCD pages of listing and referencing the styles according to how they are presented on the show. If the style is listed on a card as its own style when the routine is drawn or when the routine is announced, I treat it as its own style. If the label is only used in passing, it goes in the subsections.

Now, as to the other changes. "Fast Hip-Hop" should not have been removed because it is a classification of hip-hop that is used in MANY of the international versions of the show. Lastly, the term "contemporary" was removed from "street and contemporary club styles" under the reasoning that it would confuse people, given contemporary is its own genre. I don't think that's likely to happen as just about any english speaker would follow that the word "contemporary" is modifying the word "club" in that clause. In any event the term is needed to distinguish this category from the traditional club styles listed bellow (Disco and so forth), which are more ballroom and jazz influenced and distinct from the hip-hop club styles (Whaacking and such).

Edited to add: Actually, open to feedback on that last point, though not holding my breath on this page. Can't use "modern" without the same issue. Could use "recent" but that's just not quite right for the context.

Snow (talk) 02:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I've had to revert changes to the styles list made again by the same unregistered user, again as per the above reasons. 132.3.17.68, if you read this, I certainly appreciate the attention you're putting into the page (it certainly needs more), but please stop applying your own subjective categorization. This is always an issue with genre distinctions of any kind on Wikipedia and when first adding this content to the page, I made sure to implement it in such way that WP:OR and needless debates on what divides styles does not occur. This page is not a primer on dance styles, it is about a specific dance contest and as such the dances are listed as the show represents them. Please take this into account in future edits. Actually, I think the wikilinks and a couple of other changes were not a bad idea and will put them back in shortly.

Edit to add: Ok, re-added some cleaner and disambiguated wikilinks. Some of the IP's changes that were warranted were kept (Electric Boogaloo being moved to Street/Club section, for example) and others were not.

Snow (talk) 07:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Card rule

Excuse me. I read the talk page. You said and I quote "If the style is listed on a card as its own style when the routine is drawn or when the routine is announced, I treat it as its own style. If the label is only used in passing, it goes in the subsections." That's why I moved "Pas de Deux" to it's own row because Katee and Will in season four (U.S. version) and Melissa and Ade in season five (U.S. version) did a pas de duex; it was on the card. Wake up. I was following your guidance. Why would you change it? Why would you react negatively to edits that are consistent with the rule you made up. Speaking of rules, I don't know where you got this sense of entitlement from because you do not WP:OWN the page. I went along with it for the sake of consistency but you clearly don't care about that because you reneged on your own rule when you undid my edit.

Categorization

Don't patronize me and say that you appreciate the attention I'm giving to the page because if you did you wouldn't have reverted all my edits. The changes I made were not subjective. African dance is not jazz. How the show presents dance versus this page being a primer on dance is a non sequiter. African dance comes from AFRICA, not from jazz dance. How in the world is that subjective? This is obvious. You changing it back to being from jazz dance is actually what's subjective. Funk is STREET. Do some research. Electric Boogie is not a separate sub-style of Electric Boogaloo. It's more like a nickname for Electric Boogaloo, i.e. Michael/Mike, Jennifer/Jenny. So I don't understand why you would list this as a sub-style/variant of Electric Boogaloo. To be completely honest "Electric Boogie" is actually a song. People do the Electric Slide dance to the song "Electric Boogie". Think about the laymen who are reading this page. Because of your suborness, they're going to walk away thinking it's actually a separate dance style when it's not. Nothing that I've said above is subjective. It's based on facts. How can you to call my changes ill-advised and subjective while at the same time claiming the content you added was implemented "in such way that WP:OR and needless debates on what divides styles does not occur." Are you serious? The wikilinks I provided at the beginning of this paragraph has citations in those articles proving that what I'm saying is true. The dance styles table in this article has ZERO SOURCES. This is a classic example of WP:OR and a lack of WP:NPOV... and being subjective.

Wikilinks

How territorial of you to undo all my wikilinks just so you could put them all back yourself. Some of them you didn't even put back right, hence the friendly notice left on your talk page; you still have some DAB links left (Update: Not anymore, I just fixed the rest). How is this clearer and who does that? Who will purposely undo what a previous editor did--which actually helped the page--just so they could micromanage a page and do it all over again themselves... but worse. I don't get it. I followed your dance-style-on-the-card rule and I added wikilinks which weren't there before. We were on the SAME SIDE Snow. We both want a better page. Pay attention. If you were thinking clearly instead of obsessing over a page you think belongs to you, all you would have had to do after I originally added the wikilinks is fix mambo, tango, b-boying, and kalinka (they all linked to disam pages). Then everything would have linked fine. Instead you undo everything I linked. Then you (re)add links all back and end up creating more disambiguation links than what existed before. You even linked to some pages which aren't even helpful. Example: you changed "Tap dance" back to "Tap dancing" and "Krumping" back to "Krump". The only reason why I changed the way the words ended in the first place was to provide a link directly to their respective articles instead of to the redirects (not because I'm being subjective). But you change the links back so that they point to the redirects. It's not like your helping people in their understanding. All you did was link those dance styles back to redirect pages instead of to the actual articles. How petty is that. Take Bollywood for another example. Are you aware of the fact that Bollywood dance redirects to Hindi dance songs? Not to mention the fact that there's also a big huge original research banner at the top of that article. How is this article going to help someone understand Bollywood dance better than the Dance in India article which is where I linked it to before you reverted my edit. If you really didn't like it pointing to that article you could have at least linked it to Bollywood#Bollywood song and dance this time. Either way, at least people reading those pages would understand the dance better than reading an article about Hindi dance songs which has very few citations. Stop being selfish and think about the readers.

Final thoughts

By-the-way, regardless of how the show presents street dance, "old school" is two words and breaking will always be hip-hop dance considering it is one of the pillars of hip-hop culture. That's a fact and not subjective. Read a book, watch a documentary, or educate yourself some other way if you don't want to hear me out. I'm going to change "old school" back to two words because it's good grammar. I'm also going to remove electric boogie, take African out of the jazz dance group, and fix all the disambiguation links you added. Then I'll either make pas de duex it's own row again or put lyrical hip-hop back beside hip-hop. Or maybe do both. Or maybe not even touch them. I haven't decided yet since you have a problem with my editing except for the last option. I don't know what you would settle with. Any other changes I make won't be without good reason. I think I've demonstrated that by my long-winded response to your comments. If it kills you to see me make these edits again then go ahead and revert them. At that point, I'll just go to WP:RFC and solicit the opinions of people who don't care about either of us or SYTYCD because I'm not about to argue back-and-forth on this talk page with you considering that you don't WP:OWN the page, you have no sources, and more importantly, you have no WP:CONSENSUS about a rule you made up which you yourself reneged on. My ip --> 132.3.17.68 (talk) 17:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Alright, you made a number of gripes here, so let me address them one by one.

 · "You said and I quote "If the style is listed on a card as its own style when the routine is drawn or when the routine is announced, I treat it as its own style. If the label is only used in passing, it goes in the subsections." That's why I moved "Pas de Deux" to it's own row because Katee and Will in season four (U.S. version) and Melissa and Ade in season five (U.S. version) did a pas de duex; it was on the card."

I agree with that change. Actually, I think it would be better if we listed "Ballet/Pas de Deux" together in the main header, since they refer basically to the same style in-so-far as the show is concerned but several European versions use "ballet" whereas the U.S. version uses "Pas de Deux". I would not have reverted that on it's own, but the problem is that you made the change as part of one large batch edit with lots of content that _did_ need to be reverted. I wasn't going to spend hours meticulously comparing lines between versions, so I reverted and then attempted to replace all of the changes that were warranted of which there were a few, so clearly I missed one. But it wasn't a slight or some attempt to keep the content where I wanted it for subjective reasoning, so calm down.

Don't place the blame on my large batch edit for the fact that you reneged. Since when is there a cap on how big an edit can be? What I mean is since when is that a problem? So what that change was part of a large edit. That is no reason to revert everything I did. How can you say that a lot of the content I added wasn't warranted when you went back and replaced most of it? This is exactly what I was criticizing you on in the wikilinks paragraph: reverting my edits while at the same time creating more work for yourself by going back and (re)doing almost everything. Your logic doesn't make sense at all. 132.3.17.68 (talk) 18:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, first off, I didn't renege on anything. You and I did not have some sort of compact on how we were going to approach this. Our job individually is to do what we feel is best for the article, forming consensus where we can. And while we're on the subject, you never made even a paltry attempt at consensus before you came raging out of the woodwork. Second, of course there is no limit on post sizes, you're free to use whichever approach you prefer, so long as it is not blatantly disruptive. But I've already explained to you, ad nauseum, why I took the approach of reverting and then re-adding. The fact that you do not understand my explanation (I didn't want to compare versions line by line to make sure the bad changes did not get kept with the good), is an indication of how little experience you have as an editor, because everyone has to use this approach from time to time, especially where tables and charts are concerned. I did not cost myself time, I saved a huge deal and made certain the changes that needed to be made were made. And even if I had created more work for myself, what do you care? Look at the page as it existed after I was complete. Upwards of 90% of your changes were preserved, and yet you still couldn't handle two small elements of your contribution being found to be in error -- and still can't even though I've explained why those reversals were necessary.Snow (talk) 06:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

 · "Speaking of rules, I don't know where you got this sense of entitlement from because you do not WP:OWN the page. I went along with it for the sake of consistency but you clearly don't care about that because you reneged on your own rule when you undid my edit."

This is not about WP:OWN. This is about having an approach that keeps the content in a self-consistent and useful form without it becoming the source of insane categorization debate like virtually any wikipedia page which concerns itself with artistic distinctions. As I've said before, this page is concerned with the very narrow context of the show, not greater debates of dance style boundaries. For both these reasons, the current system is ideal, and I and every other editor on this and the other SYTYCD pages have used it by silent consensus for quite some time without issue until you showed up and started editing disruptively. Formatting this type of page and keeping it clean is more work than it seems, especially when it comes to the tables, so don't come tearing through the page and then have a freak-out when your changes are reverted, especially when the person who reverted takes the time to explain why it was done in detail and even encourages further contributions. Consequently, this is a good time to note that your IP seems to have a long history of disruptive behavior and blocks (including a partial one in-effect right now). I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume its not you, but you need to be especially careful of this kind of behavior when you are operating as an unregistered user for a domain with multiple users, because though admin's are loathe to completely block a multiple-user I.P., they will eventually as that stuff adds up.

Idle talk when it comes to my IP. Multiple people use it. You already acknowledged that and there's a big huge banner on my IP's talk page telling everyone. It's not even relevant considering no one at this IP has ever vandalized or blanked this particular article.

A pattern of behaviour for disruptive editing and an inability to communicate with fellow editors is most certainly relevant. And the burden of proof that it is not you behind that laundry list of abuses is on you and is accomplished by, I don't know, not exhibiting those behaviours instantly upon your arrival on a page. If you don't care for that assumption, perhaps you should register an account. But it's hardly unfair of me to take those blocks into account in how I view you when you show up behaving exactly how I'd expect someone to act if they were blocked for harassment. Snow (talk) 06:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The fact that you bring it up shows that you don't have strong arguments for your reverts. This is a good example of ownership behavior. Read #3 under the "Actions" section. All you've done here is expose yourself as really violating this policy and whoever reads our discussion will see that.

I've provided clear documentation and reasoning for the changes I reverted, reasoning that is consistent with Wikipedia policy and which you have continuously and willfully ignored in order to keep up this approach of trying to characterize this debate as one of ownership. I'm confident that when other editors arrive, my actions will bear out under scrutiny.Snow (talk) 06:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Moving on: once you explained the card rule, I never had an issue with keeping the styles section within the context of the show.

Then why are we still arguing? The only two elements of your changes that were reverted are BOTH in keeping with this rule-of-thumb. And for the record, please stop calling it "the card rule" in an attempt to characterize my behaviour as being arbitrary and oppressive. I never refereed to as such, nor did I present it as extending from some imagined authority I have. I implemented a trend that built organically in the other SYTYCD pages but which is also clearly the approach dictated by Wikipedia policy; the content of this article should reflect the subject matter, not tangentially related subjects.Snow (talk) 06:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

This is why I moved "pas de duex" to the styles column and why I never put "lyrical hip-hop" back beside "hip-hop". I had an issue when you reneged on the card rule. You know that.

Except the two changes still under debate are completely consistent with that rule-of-thumb. African Jazz and Electric Boogie have both been referenced as the title for a style in different shows in the franchise.Snow (talk) 06:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

For the record, adding internal wikilinks and adhereing to the card rule for the sake of consistency is not disruptive. It's unfortunate you can't see that my edits were actually helpful simply because they came from me and not you. 132.3.17.68 (talk) 18:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

~sigh~ I've referenced adding the wikilinks as a smart and welcome addition no fewer than four times now. What's unfortunate is that you can't accept the least bit of criticism, since the vast majority of your edits have been kept without issue. There are TWO lines of markup that are still being debated here, out of all your edits. Two, and I've presented thorough and plainly worded arguments for why they were changed, arguments which you've chosen to not address in the least while you keep trying to drag the debate into a personal one by characterizing my actions as driven by possessiveness -- without the least bit of evidence other than the fact that you can't seem to imagine any other reasons why anyone would find your editing to be flawed. Here, since you're so big on referencing policy pages ever four sentences, why don't you try WP:Civilty; the very first suggestion on that page is "Assume good faith." I assumed good faith on your part even after multiple disruptive edits and posted a politely-worded message explaining the framework that was in place. You came out swinging, accusing me of being intractable and trying to own the page, before you had even the slightest attempt to clarify the nature of the existing framework or debate the place of any particular element within it, despite the fact that the vast majority of your changes were not reverted (not for more than five minutes while I put everything in order anyway). You formed an opinion of my motives as an editor without exchanging ONE word with me. Seriously man, this is getting childish -- stop trying to vilify me as a means of winning this argument and stick to the facts.Snow (talk) 06:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

 · Don't patronize me and say that you appreciate the attention I'm giving to the page because if you did you wouldn't have reverted all my edits.

On the contrary, in case you can't tell from the fact that I've been talking to myself for months on this talk page, it's a lonely project and I'm happy to have any help and input. You just need to temper your approach a little and stop taking it personally when your changes are altered. And actually, when your most recent contributions are factored in, the erroneous changes are greatly outweighed by those which are useful. And even the couple of issues we are divided on could have been hammered out in discussion if you hadn't leaped immediately into attack mode over a handful of lines of markup in a revert/partial restore. That's a rather routine kind of issue here -- If you can't make it past that without melting down, then you're editing is never going to be anything but disruptive, no matter how useful the rest of your edits are.

Don't sugarcoat it. You didn't just alter my changes. You completely removed them. I would call a move like that taking things personal.

First off, that's blatantly false. Only two lines of your entire edit were reverted, once corrections were done. Second, why would you assume that's personal? It seems that you seem to feel that anytime someone reverses your edits (or the smallest part of them, even), you assume they must be out to get you. Dude, I didn't know you from adam when you arrived here a few days ago. I make my decisions based on what I think is best for the page, period.Snow (talk) 06:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

You may want to consider that perhaps you should spend half of your time on Wikipdedia editing articles other than the ones related to SYTYCD for the purpose of gaining some perspective. You are treating this article like it's your baby. Being sensitive whenever someone else touches it; that's what personal. 132.3.17.68 (talk) 18:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

And you're drawing these deep conclusions about my editing based on your whole six days of experience here? First off, not that it's any of your business or the least bit relevant here, but I don't confine myself to the SYTYCD pages. And you are about the last Wikipedian that I've ever met that I would feel is qualified to speak on perspective and not taking things personally! But, once again, this is really just another red herring you are throwing out to avoid keeping this discussion based on the facts relevant to the page.Snow (talk) 06:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

 · African dance is not jazz. How the show presents dance versus this page being a primer on dance is a non sequiter. African dance comes from AFRICA, not from jazz dance. How in the world is that subjective? This is obvious.

I'm afraid the mistake is yours. "African/Afro- Jazz" is shorthand for "African Jazz/Afro-Jazz". Contrast this with "African/Afro-Jazz" (no space, you see?), the meaning of which is the interpretation you gave to "African/Afro- Jazz". If a space is employed in these situations, it means that the "second" word affixes to both of the words separated by a forward slash. You got tripped up by an element of syntax you are not familiar with and made a false assumption. Which is one thing, but you should have been further tipped off by the fact that African dance (traditional African dance) is listed in a separate section bellow. So don't talk to me about obvious.

In case you didn't notice, I'm the one who wikilinked African dance in the "traditional" section. Check the revision. But you reverted my edit--claiming it was subjective--and then went back and relinked it. By the way, just an FYI, you can wikilink old revisions of an article by using the syntax number header to avoid having to use the long-form http.

Yes, it was removed as part of a batch revert and then re-added instantly, as was almost all of the content you added. Why is that an issue for you? Do you not understand that tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of edits like it are made like that to Wikipdeia every day for the sake of expediency? What do you care how the changes that you think would be good on the page get there, so long as they get there? I think perhaps it's you that has a problem with possessiveness here.Snow (talk) 06:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

If you meant "African Jazz/Afro-Jazz" then why didn't you just say that on the talk page in the first place instead of just now bringing it up.

Is that some sort of joke? I did point it out, in my very first response to you. If you had entered the discussion on this page with an inquiry as to why that change had been removed, instead of casting accusations a fuming, we'd both have been a lot better off for it. And if you're asking why I didn't list that one point in the talk page to begin with, try to get with reality here -- I can't comment here on every line of every edit that I make here. The fact that I left a notice here explaining my reasoning for the revert in such detail is way above what most editors would have taken the time to do.Snow (talk) 06:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Be honest with yourself. Don't you think it would have been better to list it as "Afro-/African Jazz"? You act like I'm the only one who would have seen it as a spelling mistake.

If you honestly want to know why I listed it as it was when I first created the section, over half a year ago, I can't say, but I suspect I wrote it that way because 1) It's alphabetical and thus recommend on style grounds, and 2)Most shows use "African Jazz" while only one use "Afro-Jazz". As for whether you're the only one likely to make that mistake, I couldn't say; it's a pretty common shorthand that I've never seen it confuse someone before, but as soon as I saw that it had in fact thrown you off, I changed it to it's current form "Afro-/African Jazz" so that it wouldn't happen again. So why are we still talking about it? Snow (talk) 06:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Have some common sense. Poor argument especially since you didn't even bother to use an edit summary to explain yourself. The fault is your own. I quote: "It is considered good practice to provide a summary for every edit, especially when reverting (undoing) the actions of other editors or deleting existing text; otherwise, people may question your motives for the edit." You need to work on that.132.3.17.68 (talk) 19:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and the second I realized I had reverted someone's work without an edit summary, I came to this page to explain. Again, a lot more than most editors would have done. I'm sorry that I neglected to mention the African Jazz change, but it was just one of many and I had no way of knowing it was the one of just two that you'd lose it over. Again, I can't reference ever line that does or does not get changed for every edit I make. This talk page alone would be several hundred paragraphs long. Nor does Wikipedia require it of me. I made a good faith effort to explain why the edit was reverted, as a whole. You launched into a bad-faith rant, instantly. See the difference in our approaches?Snow (talk) 06:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

 · Funk is STREET. Do some research.

Yes,"funk" is the name of a street style. However, that style has never been seen on a SYTYCD show. However, funk has been used many, many times in video packets to refer to Jazz-Funk styles on various shows in the franchise. Remember, we are talking about shows broadcast all over the world and different regions have different terminology for similar styles. So do some research yourself - on the Subject at hand. More importantly, you'll notice I actually removed "funk" from that section just to avoid confusion -- leaving only "Jazz-Funk" -- so I'm not sure what you're complaint is here to begin with.

Nope, I removed "funk" from that section. Check the revision. You reverted my edit, remember. Your revert brought "funk" back and then you removed it again. Makes no sense.

Yes, I removed it. I still feel that it belongs there, because it had been referenced in a non-American version as a Jazz style, but I also agreed with you that most users of this page could potentially be confused by it, and balancing those two factors, I ultimately decided that you were right and that it should go. That's called compromise.Snow (talk) 06:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Apparently coming from me, edits are subjective, but coming from you, all is right with the world. This is what I was criticizing you about. Reverting my edits which were actually helpful and then (re)doing what I already did.

Are you seriously complaining because the changes you want are staying but that they had to go away for five minutes? My friend, I don't know how many times I can explain this -- the content was temporarily (like, five minutes temporarily) removed while I found the best balance between those elements of your edit that should stay and those which really needed to go. I can't believe you accuse me, without basis, of WP:OWN every other sentence, but here you are, still complaining about my implementing a common editing procedure because you're afraid you won't get credit for the change. Let me clue you in: nobody cares whether you wikilinked the styles or I did. No one ever would have known whose idea it was if you weren't still bitching about it. And I certainly didn't do it to try to steal credit. Seriously, get over it. Snow (talk) 06:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

By-the-way, you just exposed a flaw in your argument. If "funk" has never been seen on the show why did you have in the table to begin with? What happened to the silent consensus if-it's-on-the-card rule? If it was never on the card then--according to you--it should have never been in the styles column.

I'm sorry, but are you a non-native English speaker? Or you just being willfully obtuse? I explained this yesterday. "Funk" as a street style has not been featured on the show, but "Funk" as a short-hand for "Jazz-Funk" has. However, as noted above, I removed it, so why are you still complaining??? Are you addicted to thinking of yourself as a victim? Even when I agree with you? MOVE PAST IT! Snow (talk) 06:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Another example of you violating WP:OWN. but are you Here you are claiming consensus when you yourself don't even adhere to it. It's really not about making the page better with you. It's just about you being in control. That's why you see my edits as disruptive and subjective rather than helpful. You don't want anyone except yourself touching the page regardless of whether or not it's helpful. 132.3.17.68 (talk) 19:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I am getting seriously tired of you maligning my character based on the most specious of evidence. Virtually every sentence I read from you makes me a little more certain that you've at least contributed to those harassment flags for your IP. If I'm supposedly so inclined to view all of your contributions as trash, why did I overwhelmingly keep your additions? Keep this up and you're IP is going to face another block, because my patience for your slander is wearing thin. Snow (talk) 06:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

 · Electric Boogie is not a separate sub-style of Electric Boogaloo. It's more like a nickname for Electric Boogaloo, i.e. Michael/Mike, Jennifer/Jenny. ... Think about the laymen who are reading this page. Because of your suborness, they're going to walk away thinking it's actually a separate dance style when it's not.

Yeah, I know what a nickname is, thanks. Why don't you go take a look at what the header to that column says. Here, I'll save you the trouble: "Variants/Sub-Styles/Alternative Labels". What exactly are you missing here? Or are you just so eager to feel insulted that your not even reading the page fully as you search for every opportunity to be victimized? For the record, both "Electric Boogie" and "Electric Boogaloo" have been used by different SYTYCD shows. I thought having both in the header was redundant, so I moved one to the appropriate section, which has always been used for alternative labels as well as substyles, since the day I added this section.

There you go exposing yourself again. Why don't you take a look at the "Styles" column. I'll save you the trouble: If you already knew Electric Boogie was an alternative name for Electric Boogaloo, why don't treat it the same way you treat "Breaking/B-boying", "Cha-Cha/Cha-Cha-Cha" or any of the other styles listed in that column with forward slashes.

If you want to list it as "Electric Boogaloo/Electric Boogie", I for one would not see the problem with it. It's a little clunky, but whatever. But that's not what you did. You removed it entirely, and according to your own subjective scheme. It was re-added because its been used as a formal title for a routine in a SYTYCD show. That is the only factor which influenced my decision. Who made the edit and whether I thought of it first did not influence my decision, and your constant assertions to the contrary and your attacks on my character as an editor do not change the fact that it should not have been removed in the first place. And you seem to be trying to gloss over the fact that you were ranting about it being a nickname while completely missing the fact that it was already in the column for such.Snow (talk) 06:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Like I already said, you want to be in control of the page and feel like you own it. Let me repeat to you what you said to me: What exactly are you missing here? Or are you just so eager to feel insulted that your not even reading the page fully as you search for every opportunity to be victimized? How blind can you be to your own mistakes. 132.3.17.68 (talk) 19:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I've presented my reasoning here in full for every decision. Your strategy to get your way seems to be to say (in every paragraph) that I'm a control freak, while avoiding actually debating me on the merits of our respective arguments. It seems you think you can attach the perception of that character on to me if you brute force assault me with it long enough, perhaps hoping that it will garner you support with other contributors who might arrive on the scene. Well, I've go news for you, Wikipedians as a whole are a lot smarter than that and I'm confident that if/when other editors arrive they will see that I've made my decisions based on the merits of the arguments, that I've attempted consensus and that I've been consistent with my approach. You, on the other hand, have, from word one, relied on a knee-jerk perception that you've formed of me as the sole basis for your "arguments" here. While continuing to rant about changes that were settled days ago in your favour, while avoiding my factual arguments about the few elements of the page that are still up for debate. I'm through with extending the olive branch to you. You ignore that I've agreed with and welcomed the vast majority of your contributions and claim that I'm suffering from a horrible case of WP:OWN based on my resistance to TWO DAMN LINES of markup, neither of which you can defend FACTUALLY.Snow (talk) 06:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

 · Are you serious? The wikilinks I provided at the beginning of this paragraph has citations in those articles proving that what I'm saying is true. The dance styles table in this article has ZERO SOURCES.

I don't know how many times I can say it - the content is (and should be) organized as the show presents it, not as you or I might. You think I don't have some issues with those definitions? I do, I assure you, but I set them aside when I added this section, and for good reason. You're absolutely sure that your definitions are consistent with how most reasonable people would define the boundaries between these styles. The problem is, I guarantee you there are a hundred editors who would disagree with you (or me) on our subjective decisions on just about any item on those lists. Sooner or later, without an appropriate framework, the table would become a jumbled mess and people will be starting the wikipedia equivalent of blood feuds over whether Pop-Jazz is the same as Commercial Pop-Jazz. You think I'm being hyperbolic? Go check out any musical genre page in existence on Wikipedia. When you come back from that fever dream of abstract debate you'll know what I'm trying to avoid here. Aside from which, this is not a page about Funk or the Electric Slide or any other style of dance -- those pages already exist. It is about a dance competition. Which has categories for their routines. Which are listed here. Full Stop.

I'm glad you brought this up because what you said above is exactly why I think the "variants/sub-styles/alternative labels" column should not exist. I think it should be taken out all together. I think every reasonable editor will agree with you on the card rule for the "style" column. Even I did and we're in the middle of pretty lengthy disagreement here. I really wanted to remove the "variants/sub-styles/alternative labels" column (still do) but I didn't because doing so without consensus would have been disruptive. So unlike what you think, I haven't made any disruptive edits. This alternative labels/sub-styles column is where the potential for debates is likely to spring up. Think about it. You yourself said different countries have different terminology but no one can argue about what's on the card which is why every other SYTYCD page only list the dance styles that were shown on the card. That variants column doesn't go by the cards at all. You have no WP:CONSENSUS for that column, silent or discussed. The potential for a jumbled mess of a table lies with that column. 132.3.17.68 (talk) 19:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you've made some points of merit there, and I agree that sounds like something that bears some discussion. I'll explain the context for which I added that column and you can tell me what you think. Items that go in the substyles section are typically those that have been referenced on the show as defining a routine but which have not been used formally on a card or when announced by the host (so, for example, in a video packet before a routine). It's also there for cases where the nomenclature between versions is inconsistent. So, for example, some versions of the show, such as the Dutch/Belgian variant, use the term "Fast Hip-Hop" to distinguish "regular" hip-hop routines from lyrical hip-hop. But does "Fast Hip-Hop" then belong in the first column? It's a bit of a grey area, and I did my best to keep the chart clean by adding the variants/alternative labels column. But you're right, that column doesn't have the same firm rule the first column does, and the rule-of-thumb I've been applying to it would technically allow for any editor adding any style name they had ever heard referenced on the show. With over twenty different versions broadcast in nearly as many languages, that means it could get real messy eventually, but when I added that column I figured we'd cross that bridge when we come to it (only a handful of people have added anything to it in the almost half year since I added the section, but that doesn't mean it won't be a problem eventually). But I understand your misgivings and (despite all) welcome your suggestions on it, because it's a tricky problem and you're right - if the table is going to get broken anywhere, it's there, where there's not a single unifying principle. You see, I don't have a blanket resistance to new perspectives on how to improve the page, nor to yours in particular. And I appreciate that you share my perspective that this is the type of change that bears some discussion before implementation. A little consensus building goes a long way to avoid these kind of arguments.Snow (talk) 06:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

 · This is a classic example of WP:OR and a lack of WP:NPOV... and being subjective.

You seem to have a very superficial understanding of both those policies. How exactly am I conflicting with WP:NPOV? For, or to, what am I showing bias? My entire position here is based on defending a system which takes bias out of the equation. You're the one who wants to re-order content according to your personal scheme. Maybe you ought to read that page before you accuse someone else of being in violation to it. So far, the only real point you made of value so far is the lack of sources for the page. I couldn't agree more. I've been dissatisfied with that for a long time. The problem is, finding sources which are appropriate to a wikipedia article for these shows is extremely challenging. If you can hunt some more down, I'm thrilled to have them. Even though the material is non-contentious and easily verifiable by viewing the subject matter, and even though we obviously couldn't include a link to every style without making a mess of the page, I'd still like more than we have. Consequently, 90% of the content in the styles section came from other Wikipedia articles on the franchise. There's no original research at work here. Get your policies straight before making accusations.

To be contributing to Wikipedia for as long as you have and to be the main editor of an article with absolutely no sources, I think you have zero understanding of these policies. WP:OR should be obvious. No sources. No citations. No references. That makes it original research.

Actually, no it doesn't. Content lacking sources is not automatically original research. The requirement of appropriate sources is simply the main means by which we keep original research in check. But your chatacterization is inaccurate. There are many pages without ample sourcing for content that has remained in place for years, becuase it is felt to be non-controversial. That's basically the situation that has dominated most of the SYTYCD pages for years: people watch the shows and they then add the relevant content. I'm sure most of them would add a source if one was available, but where do you find a source that confirms routines and choreographers and such? It's virtually impossible for most of those pages (though we've succeeded somewhat with some of the more popular versions). But again, I repeat, I'm not happy with that state of affairs and would have nothing but gratitude for you for each source you can scare up. Snow (talk) 06:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

What is so superficial about my understanding.

The fact that you think the following: no sources=original research. It's true that there is a burden of proof and that proving that content is NOT OR requires sources. But that does not mean that content lacking sources IS OR. Your link between those two separate concepts is a non-sequitor. Since the facts represnted here are only lists and other shallow representations of the show's format and are drawn from it as such, the policy that is relevant here is not WP:OR but WP:Verifiability. And as such, you, like any other editor, have the privilege of challenging the content on those grounds. But you weren't challenging on the grounds that you thought the content was not actually from the show, but rather on how that content should be organized. Therefore, neither WP:OR or WP:Verifiability were relevant to the argument you were making at that time. The debate was about whether or not certain categorizations were being made according to the article's subject matter, which is the purview of WP:Relevance. Snow (talk) 06:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

You clearly lack the understanding on that one. As far as WP:NPOV: Here's a quote from the policy page, second paragraph in the lead --> ""Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. The other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research". These three core policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. Because these policies work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three." If there's original research, it's bias. If it's bias, that makes it POV. You need to get your policies straight and take a long hard stare at your own understanding. 132.3.17.68 (talk) 19:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

 · How territorial of you to undo all my wikilinks just so you could put them all back yourself. Some of them you didn't even put back right, hence the friendly notice left on your talk page; you still have some DAB links left (Update: Not anymore, I just fixed the rest). How is this clearer and who does that? Who will purposely undo what a previous editor did--which actually helped the page--just so they could micromanage a page and do it all over again themselves... but worse

Wow, you have a serious victimization complex at work here. I already explained above why those changes were put into effect; the page was reverted because I didn't feel like comparing versions line-by-line to be reminded of what was changed while I made corrections. After the revert, I re-added any of your changes that I thought were well-advised, including the wikilinks. I completely agreed with that change, by the way; as a matter of fact, if you look at the history for the same section on the So You Think You Can Dance (United States), you'll see that I added wikilinks to the parallel charts there months ago. I just got lazy and never implemented the same change here. So I was all on-board for making those adjustments on this page as well, obviously. But what do you even care who is the last person to post the changes? There's no one editing here but you and I right now -- and even if there were, they could easily see you had the idea first. It's ridiculous that I have to say this, but I promise I'm not trying to steal credit from you. And as for my version being inferior, I think you need to go back and look at your revision. It had a number of issues, including linked disambiguation pages, style errors, and flawed markup. Seriously, compare them side by side (yours/mine) and tell me mine had more errors.

You have a serious control complex at work if you revert my edits just to put almost all of them back yourself... line-by-line.

Are you STILL on this? How is that about control? How long have you been contributing to wikipedia that you don't understand this is a constant necessary process that editors have to employ when they see that another editor has added some bad content in with the good? The fact that you just WILL NOT get over having some of your content removed and then most of it immediately re-added (and in fact that you seem to be blaming the editor who did it more for the stuff that re-added than what he left out!!), suggests less experience than your lack of an account does, honestly.Snow (talk) 06:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I already admitted the disam links I left behind. You left more.

WRONG. Compare the versions if you're going to make this the sole core issue of your argument. Counting improper markup and other errors, eight lines were in error in your version as compared to four in mine. Not that this should matter -- virtually any other editor but you would simply correct the remaining four, see that between the two of us we got the table where it should be and MOVE PAST IT. You just clearly can't handle that the smallest part of your edit was changed. Snow (talk) 06:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Did you not see the notice on your talk page.

I began disambiguating those links immediately, before I even had a chance to see them on my talk page.Snow (talk) 06:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

It's obviously not about credit for me. I'm an eight digit number. Let's be serious. If it was about credit, I would have created an account.

Unless you're a disruptive user by general, in which case, hiding behind a mass IP would protect you from blocks. But look, I don't know why you are taking those reversal so personally. I'm really, truly and completely mystified if it's not about credit, because why else would you throw such a massive fit over me replacing that content? You should be pleased that I'm a conscientious editor and placed back in most of the content rather than just reverting the entire thing to get rid of the bad changes and leaving the work of putting the worthwhile content back in to you. Instead, it's somehow become a cause for unceasing complaint with you. Seriously man, that content was down for like five minutes while I reworked the table. It was back up well before you visited the page again. Why is it temporarily going down such an egregious personal insult to you? And how long do you think you'll think you'll last on Wikipedia if you can't handle that and start accusing other editors of insidious motives immediately?Snow (talk) 06:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I came here trying to improve the article. You said you appreciated it but who reverts something they appreciate... twice. Doesn't make sense at all.

I don't have to agree or disagree with all of your edits in bulk, fella. and I'd be a pretty dense editor if I tried to apply that kind of approach. It makes perfect sense to remove the changes I found to be in error and keep the ones that improved the page. The fact that you are struggling with this concept is what doesn't make sense.

My issue is that you called my edits subjective and ill-advised but yet you have no consensus and no sources to back your reverts not to mention you added back most of what I changed but apparently when you add it it's not subjective. I found that hypocritical.

The only way you would find that hypocritical is if you 1) do not know much about editing and 2) are looking to feel slighted. Both seem to be the case here. Snow (talk) 06:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I also felt you contradicted yourself by removing "pas de dues" and having "funk" in the styles column in the first place.

Why do you keep bringing the same stuff up that's been addressed three times already? I agreed Pas de Deux might warrant a move. And even though I think the case for funk is ambiguous, I put my support behind that change too. Days ago. What is wrong with you? Why can't you LET IT GO? Snow (talk) 06:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

That showed me you don't care about consensus even though you claim to be upholding it.

Consensus takes time and deliberation, IP. You attempted nothing of the sort. You came into this discusion with a pre-conceived understanding of what was going on, including an entire narrative about me being a control freak BASED ON TWO edits. Since then you have refused to budge an inch on a single issue, even when it was demonstrated that the reverting of SMALL PORTIONS of your edits were necessitated by your own lack of understanding with regard to syntax or the context of the show. Snow (talk) 06:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

In general, your reverts also showed me that you felt you owned the page and that you lacked NPOV which are both against wiki policy.

Why are my edits NPOV or owner's syndrome? Because I don't agree with you? Despite applying those labels about a dozen times each, you've yet to come up with a reasonable explanation for why, other than that I disagree with you about TWO LINES of the table. Snow (talk) 06:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

This is why I said you were being territorial, petty, and selfish.

Your saying it over and over doesn't make it so, and you've gone WAY beyond what is consider practical and appropriate for a talk page in trying to reiterate it until it sticks. Snow (talk) 06:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

In a nutshell those are the problems I have with you.

And that's why you're a far way off from being a good editor. Your arguments here should not be about editors, they should be about edits What justifies them and what doesn't. But you didn't come to this talk page to debate those points. You came here raging about how unfair it is that the smallest part of your edit was not kept in the final analysis and how I OBVIOUSLY suffering from onwer's syndrome because I made some small alterations. That's how you approached consensus from the start and you haven't let up since. Snow (talk) 06:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not about credit. It's about your negative reactions to my edits which I felt helped the page.

Well get over yourself. People are going to have negative reactions to your edits, no matter how well justified you believe them to be. That's part of the process. Believe me, it can be a lot worse than another editor saying "Thanks for your help, but actually I think these two lines (out of twenty) were in error. You are not entitled to instantly start accusing people of being in service to their agenda on the basis of TWO LINES on a table. Good god, man! Snow (talk) 06:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Why bother linking to both our diffs? Clearly, I think I left the page better than it was before and clearly, you think your way is better. That's why we're having a big long disagreement here and that's why we need input from other editors. 132.3.17.68 (talk) 19:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Why did I bother to link those different revisions? Because you kept made a point of insisting that your version had fewer errors in it, which is factually incorrect, and I'm not going to sit here and let you accuse me of inferior work (especially when it's the core of your entire rant here) when the evidence to the contrary is sitting right there in front of you. Snow (talk) 06:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

 · I don't get it. I followed your dance-style-on-the-card rule and I added wikilinks which weren't there before. We were on the SAME SIDE Snow. We both want a better page. Pay attention.

I appreciate you working with me on a system to keep things clean. And I appreciate the addition of the wikilinks. That's why I made sure they went back in. And yes, of course we are on the same side. And I agree it's silly (as it's always silly in such cases) to bicker when we both just want an accurate, clean, and informative page, clearly. The problem is, you ran a little roughshod here and got bent out of shape when only part of your changes were reversed for good cause. You're also the one peppering your arguments with offensive little commands like "Pay attention." Well clearly I should be respecting your authority, experience, and perspective, unregistered user who just landed on this page and may or may not have a history of harassment and vandalization according to his IP's talk page. Really, what am I thinking? Look, I'm sorry that some of those wikilinks got muddled in translation, but it certainly was not intentional. I was just not about to go through two versions of the chart line by line to make each sure each wikilink was exactly as you had it. That would be insane. I replaced the content myself and made a few mistakes (fewer than you did, though). And it takes 1/50 the time to correct those few lines than it took you to whine about it here.

No, not part of my changes were reversed. All of them were.

Are you blind? Virtually all of your changes are still in place. All of them were reverted and then the vast majority were returned, within minutes Snow (talk) 06:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

You reverted all of them and that's when I came to the talk page.

No, I reverted some of them and then re-added MOST of what was reverted. Then you came to the talk page, because those two lines worth of difference were still too much for you to handle, apparently.Snow (talk) 06:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Call it whining if you want to.

What you are doing here crossed the line from whining a long time ago. You've gotten your way on virtually everything and you're still harping on changes that were made days ago (in your favour) as a means to try to further that small portion of your changes that I didn't support. Snow (talk) 06:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I called you out. That's what the talk page is for. How can you expect me to believe your so-called appreciation for my edits when you remove everything you say you appreciate. Your actions show the opposite. 132.3.17.68 (talk) 20:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I reiterate, for about the tenth time, I don't have to support all of your contributions to appreciate some (or even most) of them.Snow (talk) 06:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

 · By-the-way, regardless of how the show presents street dance, "old school" is two words... I'm going to change "old school" back to two words because it's good grammar.

That's fine. I didn't mean to change it in the first place. You're actually wrong, by the way. Oldschool in this context functions as a title comprised of a single morpheme and thus can (and probably should) be spelled as one word. But really I could care less whether it's "Oldschool," "Old School," or "Old-School." I honestly can't imagine something more petty to argue about.

Hang on to this argument all you want to. The dictionary doesn't even agree with you on this one. It's two words or a hyphen. Merriam & Webster don't agree with you either. Niether does Oxford. Here's a link to The Free Dictionary. Petty of you to bring it up.

I didn't bring it up... And once again, you're harping on something I've already agreed to do YOUR WAY. And your dictionary links do not impress me. There's a lot more to employing language properly than dictionary spelling, buddy. You can continue down this line of argument if you want, but be advised that your talking to someone with a formal background in comparative linguistics, so you're biting off more than you can chew (I suggest you read descriptive grammar vs. prescriptive grammar, morpheme, and language maven before you even think of taking this approach with me). Snow (talk) 06:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

You just made all your arguments sound more lame. You're obviously reaching for something, anything, to prove your actions were justified when you know they weren't. On a side note, I personally prefer the hyphen. 132.3.17.68 (talk) 20:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Even if I was incorrect here (and I'm not) how would that have any bearing on the other arguments here? On a side note, I DON'T CARE WHICH OF THE THREE IS USED. Was I somehow unclear on that the first time? Snow (talk) 06:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

 · and breaking will always be hip-hop dance considering it is one of the pillars of hip-hop culture. That's a fact and not subjective. Read a book, watch a documentary, or educate yourself some other way if you don't want to hear me out.

I'm not sure you know what subjective means then, because, in case you hadn't noticed, breakdancers are almost always refereed to by that title these days, not as "hip-hop" dancers. Yes, it's obviously still connected to hip-hop music, but so are a lot of things that we don't actually preface with the term "hip-hop". And see, this debate we're having right now? That's exactly why we've been using the "as the show presents it" rule-of-thumb.

You negated that "as the show presents it" rule-of-thumb whenever you initally added "funk" to the styles group.

No, as I made clear YESTERDAY, Funk has been used in this context on one of the shows. It is consistent with the rule-of-thumb. Snow (talk) 06:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Chronologically that would actually be the first time you contradicted yourself. Your revert of "pas de duex" would have been the second time.

How many times do I have to agree with you about Pas de Dues before you shut up about it? Snow (talk) 06:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

You say it wasn't intentional but you still haven't put "pas de duex" back in the styles group.

Maybe that's because I'm too busy dealing with you. and I'm not your errand boy. If you knew I agreed with you and have no reason to expect push-back, why not add it yourself?Snow (talk) 06:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

How am I supposed to believe you're being honest with me about your intentions when your actions show you don't follow through on the silent consensus card rule.

Every change I have made has been consistent with this rule and if there was a deviation, it was not intentional. The only two points that are even being debated (African Jazz and Electric Boogie), I showed to be consistent with the rule yesterday. Which you refuse to admit were correctly included. You'd rather debate crap that you got your way on days ago, because apparently this kind of strife is enjoyable for you on some level. But it's not for me and I've hit my limit.Snow (talk) 06:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

This is why I think consensus for you is secondary to you having control.

Yes and you based that decision on what evidence? Exactly two edits and not one word of discussion. That's the kind of half-baked logic and instantaneous slander you've brought to this entire discussion.Snow (talk) 06:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I realize you've put the most work into making the page look like what it does today but that doesn't mean you own it. 132.3.17.68 (talk) 20:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Once again, my disagreeing with you on a PORTION of two edits does constitute invocation of WP:OWN and you can keep pound that drum all you want, it won't make it so.Snow (talk) 06:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

 · I'm also going to remove electric boogie, take African out of the jazz dance group,

And I'm going to change them back as per the (far) above reasoning. Actually, I'll change "African/Afro- Jazz" to "Afro-/African Jazz". I would have done it that way to begin with, but I honestly never would have thought that syntax would trip anyone up - it's a fairly common form of shorthand.

 · and fix all the disambiguation links you added.

Your efforts are appreciated. Two does not qualify for "all" though.

Six does. That's how many you left. Read your talk page. You fixed two. I fixed the other four in this revision. There are so many holes in your arguments. The further I go down this page the poorer they get. 132.3.17.68 (talk) 20:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

 · Then I'll either make pas de duex it's own row again or put lyrical hip-hop back beside hip-hop. Or maybe do both. Or maybe not even touch them. I haven't decided yet since you have a problem with my editing except for the last option. I don't know what you would settle with.

Had it perhaps occurred to you to try to form consensus before just plowing on ahead again? This is your first post on the talk page and it's a mile-long rant based mostly in your misunderstanding of why the changes were reverted in the first place. For that matter, have you stopped for one second to question if I'm the one creating the impasse here? Go take a stroll around the SYTYCD pages. You'll find I've been working on the majority of them for some time with a good many other people, employing similar formatting and guidelines to those at work here and never having had so much as a single disagreement with any person on any of those talk pages. Meanwhile you're making threats of intentionally disruptive edits and passive-aggressive comments about how I regard your editing, as if I acted out of some personal dislike of you when I reverted.

Don't even try to lecture me about consensus. Do I really have to say it again? You reneged on consensus with "pas de dues" and "funk" and the entire "variants/sub-style/alternative labels" column has no consensus. My comments were not passive-aggressive; I would say they were rather direct and my edits were never disruptive. Removing the entire "variants/sub-style/alternative labels" column without an edit summary--or consensus--would have been disruptive. I didn't do that. 132.3.17.68 (talk) 20:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

It's your inability to react to another editors adjustments to your contributions that really makes you so disruptive. Reread all of your above comments. I'll bet 95% of your words are spent complaining about changes you got your way on days ago. You are so completely unable to handle criticism that you are still focusing on them now. GET OVER IT.Snow (talk) 06:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

 · Any other changes I make won't be without good reason. I think I've demonstrated that by my long-winded response to your comments.

How is your willingness to defend your own decisions proof that your changes are for good cause? I certainly believe you're intending to do the best thing for the article, if that's what you mean, but that doesn't mean you're the one in the right on the debated points.

 · If it kills you to see me make these edits again then go ahead and revert them.

At least two will be.

 · At that point, I'll just go to WP:RFC and solicit the opinions of people who don't care about either of us or SYTYCD because I'm not about to argue back-and-forth on this talk page with you ... you have no WP:CONSENSUS about a rule you made up which you yourself reneged on.

You do what you feel you've got to do. I don't think you're going to get the outcome you're looking for though. Your arguments above have been mostly without merit and are largely due to mistakes on your own part concerning English syntax and the subject matter of the article (by which I mean the show, not dance styles). You started a revert war before even attempting consensus and then your first post came in the form of a rambling, caustic attack that's really left little doubt as to why your IP has been blocked for harassment (and other abuses) multiple times. You've been contributing to these pages for a handful of days and you've already caused considerable disruption where dozens of editors have worked for years without a single noteworthy conflict that I can recall. I think you ought to look to yourself and then go study the very pages you've been plastering here, because you are woefully deficient in your approach to WP:OR, WP:Consensus, and most especially WP:Civility.

Seriously, what gall you have to lecture me about consensus when your very first post on the matter is a thousand word accusational treatise on how victimized you are because some of your gung-ho and, yes, highly subjective changes were reverted. As to the rule-of-thumb, I didn't really so much make it - it's adapted from the approach that emerged out of the other pages for the franchise and it is based off of broader Wikipedia policy. The content of this page should reflect the subject matter, not abstract concepts about how dances should be categorized, which is a debate that can never have a satisfactory empirical resolution. If you really believe that other editors are going to disagree with that, by all means, take the discussion in that direction. Hell, you know what, I'll fetch an admin for you.

You've got to be kidding me. WP:CIVILITY yes. I'll fully admit to that. I did say you were being territorial, selfish, and petty because I honestly believe your editing behavior in response to my edits proves it. But WP:CONSENSUS and WP:OR? Please. Don't try to put that on me. I'm not the one that revamped a disambiguation page into a full fledged article with a complete lack of sources. That's OR.

Except it's not. This is factual information that is, admittedly, poorly sourced. That's different from WP:OR and a pretty obvious distinction to someone who actually understand that concept. Snow (talk) 06:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

As far as consensus, do I really need to remind you again about how you went against consensus not once with "pas de dues" but twice by having "funk" in the styles column in the first place.

Need I remind you that I've supported those changes since you brought them up? I'm sorry, maybe you don't understand the meaning of consensus. You have all of those links to online dictioanries and policy pages -- maybe you ought to put them to good use aside from attempted character assassination. Consensus does not mean that I have things exactly the way you'd expect them to be BEFORE you even get here. Seriously, that's how far gone you are into indignation and victimization; you're literally using me agreeing with your changes as as evidence of my intractability and inability to come to a consensus with you. GROW UP. MOVE ON. Snow (talk) 06:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

It just shows how inconsistent you are in trying to explain your actions. In addition, you have no consensus when it comes to the "variants/alternative lables" column.

See Above. Snow (talk) 06:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Your arguments are so silly. You can't even keep track of how many times you slip up. You have no foundation for your rebuttals so good luck trying to find an admin to back-up your claims. You expose your own arguments for what they are: weak. 132.3.17.68 (talk) 20:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Edited to add: As it stands, I've made those two changes. However, I've changed the wording on the African Jazz listing to remove any lingering ambiguity as to which style it references. African jazz is most assuredly a style which has been featured repeatedly on multiple versions and should certainly be listed as such (in fact, "Afro-jazz" is used in only one show that I know of, whereas "African Jazz" has been used in nearly all of the English speaking versions). Likewise, I stand by keeping "Electric Boogie" as an alternative label, as it has been used in the context of the show as exactly that. Hopefully now that I've made the reasoning for these forms more explicit, we can come to an agreement that the table is, for now, in proper order and then proceed in a more congenial manner from hereforth and start collaborating as Wikipedians should. If you still disagree on these points, however, I welcome the input of third parties.

Snow (talk) 16:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't feel like we're any closer to seeing eye-to-eye (well, figuratively speaking). I'm taking this to WP:RFC. 132.3.17.68 (talk) 20:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Well the article can only benefit from having additional attention, so that's as good an outcome as we're ever going to get here. However, on the matter of you spending over half this talk page trying to trash my good name as an editor on the basis of disagreeing with you on such a minor point, I'll say it once more -- I've had quite enough. Confine your comments to factual arguments about what should and should not be in article. This is not the place to make malicious and unfounded attacks based on your knee-jerk impressions of my motives. Motive is not relevant to the debate about what content should stay and I've had all I'll tolerate of you trying to make this a personal matter. Likewise, if you continue to barrage this page with comments about changes that I agreed with days ago (and which are thus not relevant for debate here any longer) whether it be because you are attempting to smear me as inflexible and controlling or because you just cannot let go, I will consider it harassment and act accordingly. Snow (talk) 06:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Good luck with that harassment claim. I'm guilty of WP:CIVIL but I have not threatened you, gone around canvassing, e-mailed you, spammed your talk page, or anything else like that. On the flipside, let me quote you: "Keep this up and you're IP is going to face another block, because my patience for your slander is wearing thin." Considering you don't even have the authority to block IPs, that sounds like a threat to me. Only someone with a control complex would confuse an editing dispute confined to the affected article's talk page with harassment. By-the-way WP:RELEVANCE is not a policy, it's an essay. It's sad that you would even cite it to try and justify the lack of sources. Please put my responses back in paragraph form the way I left them on the 27th. That kind of formatting makes it look like I responded to you with one/two sentence answers which is not the case. I also found a statement you left that looks like it came from me. You put "By the way, just an FYI, you can wikilink old revisions of an article by using the syntax number header to avoid having to use the long-form http" directly behind my response instead of underneath it with the rest of your responses. I get that you were filling me in on an easier way to link but I still have a problem with that because it looks like I said it. If you would have put your responses directly underneath my mine instead of breaking my paragraphs apart so that you could respond to every one/two sentences, that wouldn't have happened. I also don't appreciate you doing this --> "Another example of you violating WP:OWN. but are you Here you are claiming consensus when you yourself don't even adhere to it." You put "but are you" within my response. You accuse me of being malicious but then you go and make a vindictive move like that and wonder why I thought you were being hypocritical in the first place. I didn't touch your responses so please put my comments back the way they were and recompose your responses verbatim underneath mine. You responded in this manner in the · "You said and I quote "If the style is listed on a card as its own style... group of comments and in the · Are you serious? The wikilinks I provided at the beginning... group of comments. It shouldn't be a problem for you to respond the same way in the other groups. 132.3.17.68 (talk) 23:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

You have a seriously revisionist mind and a penchant for double-standards. You were the first one to respond in-line. After I took the time to C&P your original post to keep the talk page clean, you chose to be lazy and not do the same thing, but rather to cut up my post. I simply followed suit. You have no one to blame but yourself. I'm not going to go out of my way to C&P/Bold/Format/and indent twenty paragraphs, when you weren't willing to do the same for ten. Snow (talk) 01:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, it doesn't matter much because, assuming you have no objection, I am going to archive this talk page (up to and including this post) tomorrow. There are new issues on the page which we should be focusing on and this section is serving no function anymore except for us to express our mutual frustration with one-another. Every issue in this section that regards the page has been resolved, except one which we can now discuss in new section you started to discuss the table's last column. So I think we should remove this eyesore. Perhaps once it's out of sight and out of mind we may even find we can tolerate eachother enough to actually form a rudimentary consensus on how to proceed. In an effort to address your concerns with the Styles Table, I have created three alternatives (links are below) which will remove anything that might be considered OR, making the "official reference" rule-of-thumb the sole guiding principle. I am partial to the third option, personally. Snow (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

RfC: What is the consensus for the dance styles table

What is the consensus for the entries in the "styles" column and the entries in the "Variants/Sub-Styles/Alternative Labels" column in the table? The dance table is located here. 132.3.17.68 (talk) 22:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• Whatever has been used in the show The "Variants/Sub-Styles/Alternative Labels" should be deleted. The show tells what style is being performed. The "Variants/Sub-Styles/Alternative Labels" is cruft and original research.Curb Chain (talk) 07:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted that both columns contain only content which has been referenced on the show. The header column contains styles as they have been revealed on cards or as they have been announced immediately before the relevant routine. The second column contains mostly labels that have been used in less formal ways, such as video packages (so, for example, a Disco routine which a choreographer references as 80's disco); if the substyles column goes away, then these should just be allowed to vanish, I suppose. But in some cases the last column also contains alternative official titles that have been used in a minority of shows in the franchise - an example of this is Reggae being used in place of Dancehall in a few different versions; if the substyles section goes, then these should be preserved by merging them with the man section such that the section would now read Dancehall/Reggae/Reggaeton. That's going to look awkward, which is why I caution that perhaps the substyles section should not be eliminated but rather just culled for non-official references. Lastly, there is a third category of entries currently in the final, styles which have been officially cited themselves but are clearly related to a broader category. So, for example, Cuban Rumba and African Rumba have both appeared on cards and deserve to be referenced, but the question is whether we want a whole separate row for these. Each of these three categories has to be treated in a different way when we decide what to do with the content if/when the last column is eliminated. I'll compile a couple different variations of the table that preserve all "official" titles currently found in the third column, should the consensus be that its removal is warranted. Snow (talk) 22:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Alright, done. I created three alternative versions of the table. In all three cases, only formal (card/announced) styles are included. Having created this table I've already come up against some issues that I think perhaps have not been considered by those who might want to do away with the last column. The fact of the matter is that, to do away with the column and to still keep all of the formally named styles, we have to make some tough formatting choices with the page. Basically, something like one of the following would result (I'm hosting these on my personal page for the moment so everyone can see exactly what we would be looking at without that last row).

Version 1

 · This version does away with the Variants/Substyles/Alternative Labels column and merges "official" styles found within it into shared rows.

Version 2

 · This version does away with the Variants/Substyles/Alternative Labels column and moves "official" styles found within it into their own rows.

Version 3

 · This version preserves the Variants/Substyles/Alternative Labels, but removes all references to styles that are not formally announced on the show (via card or when the performance is announced).

Again, please note that if we want to both 1) eliminate all non-official style references but also 2) continue to observe the rule-of-thumb of listing all official styles, we're pretty limited in how we can attain this, and something like one of the above will be necsary. Each has its draw backs. The first one looks crowded laterally and just looks awkward to me. The second is so long it will make for awkward formatting on the page. The third version is the closest to the table that currently exists on the page; while it is identical to the other two in terms of which styles are listed on it, it preserves a three-column table, with the "Styles" column using the most commonly used style in a group of related styles and the "Variants" column using style names which are clearly related, but used less commonly. So, for example, Dancehall is used in all the English versions aside from the U.S., so it goes in the "Styles" column, whereas "Reggae," "Reggaeton," and "Reggae-Jam" are each used in only one show apiece, so these would go in the Variants/Alternative Labels column. This option should appease those who want to do away with anything that can construed as OR, while keeping the table clean and consistent with the "official-references" rule. Number three gets my vote as it seems the best of both worlds to me.

Or here's another idea. We can remove the styles table altogether and list the styles in a few text blocks, with the labels current used for the "Genre" column used as headers. So, for example:

Traditional Ballroom: Foxtrot/Slowfox, Tango, Argentine Tango, Quickstep, Waltz, Viennese Waltz, Slow Waltz, English Waltz.

And just do seven compact paragraphs like that? That's kind of a step backwards as that's the format I had before I made the table, but who knows, maybe people will feel it's superior. I tried to solicit opinions when I first changed it, but no one was here at the time. Anyway, another option. Snow (talk) 01:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems you have trouble listing which styles to include. It's simple and List only the styles which have been stated by a show.Curb Chain (talk) 05:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm not sure how I can be more explicit about this: all of the styles listed in those example lists are those which have been officially noted by the show. All others have been stripped. I'm just soliciting opinions on the best look for the section before I revise it. Edited to add: I have an idea about how to do this and keep it clean, while still addressing 137's concerns. I'll put it up shortly. Snow (talk) 01:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, done. And actually, now that it's finished, I have to admit it looks a lot better. For the record, all of the "unofficial" style references should be gone; I used the articles for the individual shows and other resources to double check anything I was unsure on, so it should be clean. Snow (talk) 02:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Table Syntax

At the risk of giving the IP further excuse to accuse me of WP:OWN, I'm making a plea here that people be careful about carelessly removing syntax from tables. Curb Chain, in a series of edits, you removed from the Franchise Index syntax that 1) Makes the table sortable under any of its criteria. That's very useful when you have nearly 25 shows listed by seven criteria, 2) Keeps the column widths in place to reduce the overall profile of the table, make it as legible as possible, and keep it clean looking 3) The shading of the header row, which improves the look of the table, and 3) keeps the footnotes attached to the bottom of the table where Wikipedia dtyle recommendations (and common sense) suggest it should go, for ease of reference. Please understand that this table took much more time than you might imagine to compose. In fact, hours and hours alone of tinkering to balance the width of rows and columns such that the table has the absolute minimum profile, does not waste space and keeps content clear. It's one thing to remove info that is unnecessary, quite another to just willy-nilly remove syntax that serves an important role. The table should be sortable, should be formatted to reduce its profile and a shaded header improves its look. I'm assuming this was all inadvertent on your part, that you thought you were getting rid of junk syntax and didn't realize how drastically you were altering the table. But if not, please explain to me why you think removing those features improves the page? Snow (talk) 00:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The darkened background in the headings is nonstandard, but this is a estheitic/look issue.

The notes on the other hand should be in its own section and the previous formatting was better so that people can click on "b" or "c" to go to the footnote.Curb Chain (talk) 04:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Concerning the footnotes, please note that these are explanatory notes and not references and thus are not required to go at the end of the article but can in fact be placed immediately after the content they expand upon. Please see Wikipedia's Manual of Style and associated pages on endnotes. Specifically this: "The Wikipedia Manual of style does not mandate a layout for explanatory footnotes at the bottom of the article, and in fact provides for several approaches that are acceptable." As a matter of fact, here is an example that comes directly from the article on the use of footnotes! And here are some other examples of major articles where the editors found that it was advisable to place the notes directly below the table, just a handful grabbed at random: Demographics of the United States, Demographics of India, Winter Olympic Games, Germanic Languages, List of political parties in the United Kingdom, London, List of continental intergovernmental organizations, Brass Instrument, Table of Chinese monarchs, Pop Idol. In fact, from my observations at large, this approach is used in a majority of tables that have notes that are relevant to how the chart will be read.

And also please note, from the introductory section of the MoS: "Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a substantial reason. Revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable. If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." (emphasis mine).

I'll delay reverting the format back until I hear from you on the matter, but you'll have to give me a more substantive argument than you have so far if you want to convince me. Personally I feel those particular notes are integral to how the table is read. The fact that some countries have had multiple versions, overlapping with versions which represent multiple countries, no less - means that the ideal place for those notes is immediately below the table. Snow (talk) 01:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Note 3, regarding the Scandinavian versions, is indicated 3 separate times so I think this format is better as readers can click on the footnote specific for each instance.Curb Chain (talk) 01:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, the old format allowed them to do that as well. Or am I missing something? Snow (talk) 01:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The old fmt had only one "3" you could click on which moved you to Denmark's entry. I guess you could delete ==Notes== and move the notes right under the table. I guess if a table was too large, moving across to ==Notes== would be unwieldy. Keep in mind WP:TABLE mandates tables to be easy, clean, and clear to understand.Curb Chain (talk) 01:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Ahhhh, now I see what you're getting at! Yeah, having a-b-c is a good addition, for sure. But I think the best of both worlds would be to keep the new formatting with the old position. Edited to add: The only problem is getting the syntax as such that the references tag is still usable at bottom of the page if new references outside of those for the table are added. I'll tinker around a bit, see what I can come up with. Snow (talk) 02:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it turns out it's just a matter of closing the reflist for the table so you can generate another for any references that get added to the rest of the article. Tested it and works fine. Snow (talk) 12:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Another note on the table syntax

Please be careful with the table syntax. I hate to harp on this point, but the table's lead syntax has been removed several times now over the last couple of weeks and it is necessary to make sure the table formats properly. I'm sure it's being removed with intent to make the markup simpler, but this is a very involved table and small changes can have big impacts on how it is viewed, especially on certain monitors/resolutions/browser configs. You'll notice the table has been formatted to use an absolute minimum of overall space, which I think is essential to keep such a large table usable and a non-eyesore. So in this regard, every "inch" counts. I understand and agree with the premise of keeping markup as simple as possible, but in this instance it's been stripped as low as it will go while staying in working order. Until we hit season 11 in a few years, and then it all goes to hell.  ;) Snow (talk) 07:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are getting here. The article will display differently on different screens, monitors, and resolutions. 101% is nonstandard and I see no reason to make it larger. The table will be adjusted automatically because of programming/CSS (cascading style sheets).Curb Chain (talk) 13:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no such thing as standard for this element of style; whatever helps improve the look of the table can be used. And in this case certainly should be. The extra 1% allows the table to be formatted such that it the profile of the table is the smallest and cleanest possible. Adding that 1% does not cause the chart to go off the page (you can add several more percentage points before it does that). But removing it does cause several lines of text in multiple columns to break to another line, for lack of room. It makes the table much larger than it has to be, it makes several lines of content in multiple columns break awkwardly and just generally worsens the look of the table. Simplifying/standardizing markup is a secondary consideration to what that syntax creates for the actual article! Please compare the versions side-by-side if you still don't understand what I'm trying to explain (you may have to turn off custom font sizing, if your browser is using it's own defaults, in order to see it, but I assure you, this 1% means all the difference for the most common resolution/screen sizes!). Each column in that chart has been given an exact width that allows each row to be exactly the number of lines that is equivalent to that required by it's largest column. For example Norway is two lines high because it's largest columns, hosts, has two. Turkey is four high, because its largest column, channels, has four lines. And for every row in the entire table, no single piece of info requires two lines (except some cases where two lines are already required in another column of the same row. All of this breaks when you take out that syntax. Half of the rows double in height. Many lines of content break right in the middle, leaving just a word or two on another line. The table as a whole becomes uglier and a larger brick taking up even more real-estate on the page than it already does.

And yes, you are correct in what you said here and in your last edit summary -- the table will look crowded for some users anyway, but only those who unusually square monitors or very uncommon resolution types; for a strong majority of users, this line makes a big difference. And even if it only improved the look for a small minority of users (as opposed to the majority that actual do benefit from it), it would still be worth those measly 10 characters or markup. Syntax serves the formatting of the article, not the other way around. 10 additional characters is certainly a small price to pay for making the table not grow 40% in length and become hideous for probably well over half of all users. It also bears mentioning also that this syntax does no harm to those using especially narrow or wide monitors and/or resolutions; the very narrow displays will had an ugly table no matter what we do really and those with very wide displays do not have to worry about the space in either event. In the meantime, at no cost to these users, we buy an ideal format for the majority of users who have monitors in the in-between range. I share your desire for clean code, but I think you're failing to appreciate that these syntax options would not exist if they weren't sometimes useful/necessary. This is such a case. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, simplifying syntax for the editors is a secondary concern to making the best, cleanest, easiest-to-use page possible for the Wikipedia users. This syntax is serving an important function that cannot be achieved any other way, though I understand it might be hard for you to see it with your current setup. I only know about these facets in such detail because I spent a lot of time neurotically balancing the column dimensions for this particular table and testing it thoroughly over months. Still, while I try to make the matter more clear, I ask that you please stop removing it. Edited to add: If you are using an especially wide screen and cannot see what I'm talking about and my description is just not clear enough to underscore what I'm getting at, I will be happy to take screenshots and post them to your talk page to illustrate the issues involved here. I don't want you to think I'm being arbitrary about this, so if I have to prove to you that this is a real issue, I will. In the meantime I ask that you trust me - it's a very different looking table for most users if you change that syntax. Edited to add further: Actually, the font-size syntax was a hold over and doesn't serve any function now because it can't apply its format over this version of the table. I'll find a way to reintroduce it in a functional format down the line, to make sure that almost all users see the optimally-sized version of the table. I've removed it for now until I have time to do that - that should cut down in the code your unhappy about in one respect. In the meantime, the "width="101%' is still beneficial to a majority of users, as per the reasons discussed at length above. Snow (talk) 01:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

With your formatting, do readers need to scroll to see the table? How do you determine that the majority of readers have this current sizing as optimum?Curb Chain (talk) 10:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for dropping off after prompting discussion on the issue -- it was unavoidable I'm afraid. To answer your question, yes it was a matter of unnecessary scrolling (amongst other format concerns), but when I came back her today I decided to tinker some more before launching back into debate. And it took me more than 30 test edits, but I finally found a balance for the columns that should make them read properly on even 4:5 displays. So we can both have our way. :) At least for now; no telling what might need to be changed as the thing grows and I think it's important to remember we have to be flexible with syntax as the context demands. But for now at least I'm happy with it. You? BTW, I did take those screenshots and can still send them if you're curious to see the specifics of what I meant. But I won't bother uploading until I know you're interested enough to warrant it. Anyway, just goes to show how beneficial a little break (intentional or not) from a page can be. I was absolutely certain I had already tried every possible permutation of column width feasible before, but I guess not. Snow (talk) 15:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Layout

Any thoughts on whether the Format section should precede Franchise Index? Snow (talk) 16:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. Yes it should precede (it's an article page (not a list). --Loginnigol (talk) 21:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

i have found an error

the norwegian version aired on tv norge and its article also lists that but the main list lists tv3. i watched it so i know that it aired on tv norge. i could edit out the errors myself if i get permission. i just dont dare because of all of the threats against me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.59.120 (talk) 14:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't know what threats have been made, but anyone is free to make to make good faith edits to Wikipedia - though when you're new it's a good idea to take things slowly, since even the simple looking things can be more complex than you'd think! In any event, I've investigated the matter and it seems you are correct, so I went ahead and made the correction myself, and fixed the infobox on the Dansefeber article as well, which is probably to blame for the error here. Thanks for bringing it to attention. Snow (talk)

Discussion of recent format changes

As there have been some minor contention over the last couple of weeks on some elements of both content and format, mostly as regards the table, and as I'm about to make a few reverts, I thought it was time to open a dialogue on the matters that are disagreed upon. Loginnigol, first let me say that, despite these slight disagreements, I'm very pleased to see someone else making regular edits to (and fact-checking) this article after such a long period of maintaining it (mostly) on my own. And I do think the majority of your edits have improved the article. In particular, I like the new overall layout with the index placed later into the article; it's something I've debated in the past and revisiting the issue now, I can see it really is for the better. Furthermore, as you noted in one of your edit summaries, in reverting several changes at once and replacing the useful edits after the fact, I neglected to re-insert two of your edits (those concerning the new categories format and the hosts of the junior edition of the Dutch show); I was aware these changes needed to be replaced, but I overlooked them and I apologize.

All of that said, there are still three changes, one of them quite major, that I still feel are not appropriate, and I'd like to detail my reasoning for them here before I revert two of them (the third I'll await your response on).

• First, as to margins of the table. I think from the wording of your edit summary that you may be mistaking how the table displays on your monitor and in your browser for what the average user is seeing. If you don't have much experience formatting wiki tables for variant resolutions and browser formats, this is going to be a very difficult discussion to engage in but I will try to explain it as clearly as possible. While the changes you made may be lengthening the table on your screen (which I estimate from your comments is running on a resolution of 1600x1024, it is in fact destroying the formatting and making the table garbled on other common resolutions. The formatting for this table, with its many columns and rows, is more complicated than it might appear at first blush. In fact, I can't begin to tell you how many hours I've spent and how many hundreds, if not thousands of edits I've made sandboxing this table over the years (as new content became necessary) for various of the most common resolutions and formatting a version which best compromises between them to give the table a look that both keeps the content neatly arranged and the profile as compact as is reasonable under the circumstances. When you replace the specific widths with generic proportion values, the table defaults to a much more ungainly an un-encyclopedic looking state for most users. I've actually had this discussion before -- you can find the earlier iteration in the last section of the archives for this talk page. Ultimately in order to appease the user who wished to use the generic wikitable mark-up in that case, and to illustrate the points I was making, I had to take screenshots at various resolutions and upload them here. After about six months of no further dispute on the matter, I asked an admin to remove the pictures as I judged them to have been of no further value to the project (which in retrospect was shortsighted). In any event, if you have limited experience in this type of wiki-editing, I'd ask you to take me at my word on this matter and not make me jump through those hoops or add unnecessary files again, but if you insist, I will oblige for the sake of consensus building. If you do have extensive experience in this area (and I don't mean to suggest you don't), then I invite you to do some sandboxing of your own at various common resolutions and the issues I raise should become immediately apparent (I warn you though, this table is particularly vexing and tedious with all of it's many frames and variances in the length of content within them). In any account, in the meantime I am reverting these changes and as this is a matter of style, I'd like to direct you to the Wikipedia Manual of Style: "Edit warring over optional styles is unacceptable. If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." (emphasis mine). Please believe me when I say that I absolutely hate invoking that little element of policy (and this is the only article I've ever done it on, that I can recall) as I believe firmly in consensus building as a cornerstone of Wiki-editing in general and hope that it is a big part of my contributions here, but the changes you've made in this regard have an overwhelmingly bad cost-benefit return when we look at the way the table displays for Wikipedia users as a whole.

• Now, on to the second point, whether English is used in the Dutch/Belgian show. I'm wondering if you'd satisfy my curiosity as to whether or not you have seen this show and if so, how much of it? Since its inception years ago, this table has always included any language that is used in any significant capacity in the show in question. And here's the facts as I see it, being very familiar with this edition of the show: English has been present in every single episode during the entirety of its run. One of the main judges, who has been present for every episode except two, speaks exclusively in English, giving all of his feedback and appraisals in that language. He's not the only one, either, the other judges, the contestants and especially the hosts use English idioms, phrases, and terms constantly, including smatterings of outright dialogue. Even the title of the show is English. I think it's important the table reflects this. And please believe me, I'm not inflexible when it comes to these matters; twice in the past my edits to this column have been changed and I've been won over by the arguments of the other party. The Dutch version used to have Flemish listed as well, but another editor quite rightly insisted that Flemish is really more properly regarded as a dialect of Dutch and not a distinct language and thus it was removed. Similarly, Quebecois was listed for the Canadian version, but this was later changed to simply French. But in this case, I just don't see how the argument can be made that English is not a major contributing language to the show, not with Dan Karaty's central involvement in the production and in the presentation.

• Lastly, as regards the map, I really think the extra section is superfluous and inconsistent with policy; an entirely separate section for just one graphic is not really warranted, especially when said graphic simply replicates and illustrates the same information as is found in the table above it. And I say this as the person who put a lot of work into creating and maintaining that graphic. However, that being said, this is by far the most minor of the issues we are separated on and I'm content to leave it in it's current state for now pending further discussion, since your argument for fast navigation is not altogether without merit.

So, that's my reasoning on these last few points. Despite the length to which I've gone to detail my positions, I hope you'll trust me when I say I look forward to a little discussion - as i said before, this has been a lonely, lonely article for sometime and I welcome a little assistance (and company) in maintaining it, so I hope these little disagreements are just hiccups in a good working relationship. :) If my edit summaries seemed like small explanation for my reverting some of your edits, I apologize; I would have made these comments here earlier, but I've been long-accustomed to "drive-by" editing on this article, with virtually no one returning for further discussion. That's a poor excuse of course -- a good editor should always assume a need for extensive explanation for reverts in particular, but I hope you can trust all the same that I do not mean to be arbitrary in any revisions of your contributions, which have been, on the balance, productive and useful. I look forward to hearing your own arguments, if you have not been swayed by my own above. Snow (talk) 12:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Well SnowRise, regarding your third point: I agree, the map is not the most important issue but I'm surprised that you want even that to be reverted. Why? Don't you know that when a section in Wikipedia has subtitle then you can directly link to it from any other place (in or outside wikipedia). That is a good thing. If the map is made by you then you should be even more happy because it means someone can directly link to your map like this.

Second point: Don't argue with me on that. I speak Dutch :)

The Dutch-Belgian show as being in allegedly two languages one of which supposedly English, is fundamentally nonsense. The fact you have seen the page edited like that for a long time is not much of any indication (lots of errors on Wilipedia go uncorrected for a long time, even years and years - especially when involving matters happening in non-english speaking countries because editors of those countries are probably concentrating on updating the subject or article topic in local language Wikipedia rather than the English version. Also not relevant is whether individuals on the show (contestants or judges and things like that speak English. That is the case for all kind of programs on Dutch TV. Also the title is totally irrelevant. This sounds to me like you have some bias to portray the show as English speaking for whatever reason. I don't know your agenda. but the program is in Dutch - it is booked as a Dutch language program and no where is there anyone POSITIVELY identifying the show as being a co-English language show. Where is the evidence of that Snow? Show me the money. So again, I don't know what your agenda is but you are perpetuating a GROSS FACTUAL ERROR by allowing that on the table.

Your first point: Completely unjustified. Maybe that "problem" may have been caused in past (my previous edit) but yesterdays edit has none of that problem (I used percentages precisely and deliberately in order to be flexible. I know what I'm doing. You yourself admit that you "don't have much experience formatting wiki tables for variant resolutions". Well I do have that experience. So whatever problem you may have had in the past does not exist now. --Loginnigol (talk) 13:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

No, I said I do have that experience. Years worth of it, and years with this table in particular. And you are incorrect, I'm afraid. I looked at the formatting under several resolutions immediately before making the most recent edit; the content of the frames was distorted such that the profile of the table was unnecessarily enlarged and much of the content was segmented into multiple lines (again, unnecessarily). But I've actually been giving some thought to this, and I think there may be an approach that can satisfy both positions. Please stand by until I have time to sandbox it; it may take a couple of days as my time is limited at present but I will do my best to expedite the matter. In the meantime, as this is a style matter, I'm asking you not edit war over it, in accordance with policy.

As to the English issue, you are correct that longevity is no guaruntee of accuracy, but at the same time this is clearly a difference of perception; there are no "official" languages for these shows and therefore we must use our own judgement in assessing which languages qualify as significant elements of the show. I have already made my case for why I believe English is a part of the show's presentation, but I don't yet see your counter argument. Do you disagree that English has been spoken in every episode? Do you disagree that one of the main judges speaks only in English? Or that all of the other personalities involved in the presentation and the contestants use it somewhat frequently? For the record, I may not be as fluent as you are in Dutch, but I do have an extensive formal background in linguistics and have seen the entire run of this show, so I'm not on bad footing. I'd like to hear your feedback, but so far your argument seems to me to be "No, it's not a language on the show" without further elucidation. Furthermore, don't you think it's a little hyperbolic to call this a "GROSS FACTUAL ERROR"? In any event, I would like to request that you not speculate that I have some sinister ulterior motive for my stance quite aside from doing what I feel is best for the article. Doing so is not only uncivil and distracting, it is also directly in conflict with Wikipedia policy. Please restrict your arguments to points of policy exclusively and perhaps try to approach me with the same civil and open-minded mindset which I have gone to great lengths to employ with you, despite disagreeing with you strongly.

As for the map, I understand how wikilinking works, thanks, and I understood your argument from the start. The question is whether that advantage, which is questionable (anyone who wishes to reference the map from another article can link directly to the file itself) is worth going against established policy (which says sections must have a significant enough amount of content to stand on their own). But of the three issues, its the one I'm closest to agreeing with you on, at present. Snow (talk) 13:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

You've got the facts upside down. I'm expanding the table. You're the one who's narrowing the table. So YOU are the one that is making items break into multiple lines (the narrower the column, the more lines (rows) a table cell item needs!

As to the Dutch STYCD issue. That one is your most mysterious and baffling claim. You said "we must use our own judgement" in assessing which languages a show is on. That is the most absurd thing I have ever heard. No it is not up to us. Television shows are by default officially affiliated to a language. So whatever is on that channel is on that channel's language UNLESS EXPLICITLY STATED OTHERWISE. That's how it works in Holland, and that's how it works in Belgium. --Loginnigol (talk) 14:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Please understand that after the most recent edits, this is my last effort to stabilize this situation before seeking administrator input and action. You are rapidly and unnecessarily taking this situation into an edit war, with no real basis in policy; in fact you are well in violation of it on several points.

Frankly, as regards the table formatting, I have serious questions about your experience in this area, despite your claims (though I will do you the justice of looking through your contributions when I have time before deciding for sure). But at the very least you have pretty much confirmed that you don't fully understand what effect your edits are having on this table and article with both your edits and comments. Your most recent edit extended the entire page beyond the margins of most standard resolutions. Despite your claims that you are improving the quality of the page for most users, you seem to have done no sandboxing of this change to see how it will actually look on the majority of standard resolutions. Your edit summaries also imply a certain lack of understanding of the technical complexities in this type of formatting, as well as policy on same; your most recent edit summary suggests that you are making the table "more flexible for all" but not only does this conflict with the fact that your version drags the article well off the monitor for most users, it also entirely misses the point that there is no ideal solution that will allow this particle table to display perfectly for everyone, as it has too many elements at work. You have to make compromises to meet the needs of the most common user, in general, but in particular, if the choice is between formatting an element to make the page too big to be contained on a common resolution and formatting it such that the tables looks a little short on a larger one, you must go with the smaller version, because Wikipedia has a specific policy that the need for horizontal scrolling is to be avoided. Even aside from this policy, I've also informed you of one which states that edit warring over style is not tolerated, and that if an absolute impasse is reached, the older style prevails, but this too you have ignored.

But then these are not the only policies you are violating while apparently being unaware of it. You also went instantly to suggesting that my inability to see things your way was evidence that I had some sort of secret agenda (apparently a linguistically imperialistic one?) driving me, apparently unaware that in doing so you bring your own ability to edit neutrally and assess content in a detached manner more into question that you do mine. That makes me question your general editing experience. And since we're now back on the subject of that content, let's look at your newest refinement of your argument. It bears repeating the last few statements you made as context for my response:

"Television shows are by default officially affiliated to a language. So whatever is on that channel is on that channel's language UNLESS EXPLICITLY STATED OTHERWISE. That's how it works in Holland, and that's how it works in Belgium."

Wikipedia's guidelines on how facts are assessed and presented is not defined exclusively (or even really in part) on points of Belgian and Dutch regulatory minutia; how is that you think that is the basis upon which we would make a content decision here? This tables reflects the languages used in the shows in question, not the legal complexities of how one of the twenty-five relevant nations organizes its televised broadcasts based on language. Your argument holds no water, not as far Wikipedia policy is concerned anyway. And if you want to exchange broadsides about motives, frankly these statements make it look like your decision is a lot more based on a position of arbitrary linguistic/cultural relativism than mine is. Regardless, this argument has no kind of traction when it comes to Wikipedia policy, which is not defined or constrained by linguistic policies of the Dutch or Belgian nation as regards the "official language" of a television station and by extension its shows. The average user of this table can reasonably be expected to want details about how the show is presented, not obscure regulatory principles on how shows are classified in one or two of the relevant nations. And we couldn't accommodate such a position even if we tried, since there are 25 nations on that list and they do not all share the same regulatory principles. The average person will look at that column, labelled "languages" and, I believe assume it to mean "the languages spoken regularly on this show", not "the official language of the channel that happens to air this show."

Please consider your next responses and actions on this matter with some diligence and research the applicable policies where you are not intimately familiar with them. I don't want anymore acrimony here and this situation is already blown out of proportion, which is why I approached you in a friendly and cooperative manner, embracing the majority of your changes, but honestly you've very quickly eroded my presumption of good faith with your nonconstructive comments, lack of focus on policy, and disruptive manner of editing. Snow (talk) 16:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)