Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision/Archive 22

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Granfcanuon in topic Consistency of 'Country in the Eurovision Song Contest' articles
Archive 15 ← Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25

Romania main page and year articles

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Not to call anyone out specifically, but is anyone else a little bugged that the Romania page is so markedly different from the other country pages? It feels very rigid and isolated, and every time I try to make an edit that's easily-sourced and aligns with similar pages (such as adding commentators and denoting years where Romania broadcast the contest pre-participation, the same way I did for other former Warsaw Pact countries like Hungary, Bulgaria, and Poland), it's rejected because it doesn't align with this specific vision. I'm also a little annoyed that a bunch of the year pages redirect to just pages on the specific songs. The year links aren't just for info on the song, they're to give info on every aspect of the country's participation that year, from the song's selection to its Eurovision score and the scores the country awarded. Romanian entries shouldn't get a free pass in that regard.--BugsFan17 (talk) 04:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@BugsFan17: Hi there! We can talk things out, that's not a problem, and you could have pinged me, I don't have any problems with that. However, I wouldn't say that I have a "specific vision" for Romania's page, but I just try to keep it to the standards of the other (non-Eurovision) FLs I've promoted in the past, and to implement things I've seen are used there. I cannot recall undoing one's (maybe your) edits just for pure fun, but rather because it was unsourced (or unclearly sourced) or because it didn't fit the thing I talked about earlier. And as for the year pages — I strongly feel that the pages for Romania's early years don't have any more notable and significant info than it is included in the song articles. I just feel like having the same information twice (on the songs and years pages) doesn't add up. Or to put it better: I could not find reliable sources with more information about those years; blogs are not reliable. Reply to this if you feel like. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 05:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
It would be a good idea potentially to talk about what sources are being used, because anything that can be backed by reliable sources should of course be included. We do have a list of sources used in our articles detailing status and reliability, and there is a Wikipedia-wide list of external sources which we should follow as well. Of course our articles aren't going to be perfect all the time but it's something to keep a look out for!
As for the points raised above, definitely I think broadcast in any country pre- or post-participation should be detailed in the country article, however I find that information on contests in the 70s and 80s for former Warsaw Pact-countries can be very sparse. Taking for example Poland's broadcast history I find this table a little difficult to read with all the different grey boxes. I think a better solution might be to detail in the section lead in prose exactly which contests were broadcast in the region prior to their official participation if no commentators are known. I think we can be flexible enough on this regard that if enough details are known prior to their participation (e.g. Poland's broadcast from 1991-1993) then we can still include that in the table. Thoughts?
For the redirects, I believe that if these articles have limited or no sourcing on them, as was the case with the Romania articles, then certainly I don't see an issue with redirecting. The way these Romanian song articles are set up I think covers many of the aspects of the "country in contest by year" article. However there is nothing stopping anyone from recreating these if they are so inclined, however if they are simply reverting to the last version without adding any new sources or other links to detail its veracity then it's very likely it will be reverted again to a redirect. I think quality over quantity should be our main goal, better to have a handful of really great articles than a million stubs in my opinion. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
I definitely agree with the points of @Sims2aholic8: and thank you for joining the discussion. Just to clarify things with the broadcast: this was BugsFan17's proposed version of the "Commentators and spokespersons" table. I am not rejecting the addition of new information—not at all—but the commentators you have added for years 1993 and 1996 are clearly unsourced, and that's why I removed them. And also the other commentators you have added (2002–2007, 2009, 2014, 2015)—they are all unsourced (!!) We cannot just assume these were the commentators. Even if they are included in the main ESC article like this one, because they are not backed up by any source there either. And I do find the cells from 1965 to 1990 indeed pretty unnecessary given the fact that they don't feature any info at all. We could add the fact that the contest was broadcast in Romania in those years if you guys are sure that book cites that thing. Btw, I am not even sure the book cites these conductors that are included now, but I just assumed good faith. Cartoon network freak (talk) 08:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
@BugsFan17: Thank you for starting a conversation! For anyone who has gone through the painstaking process of bringing an article to GA, FL, FA status etc, there can be a sense of ownership because you literally have to dedicate hours and hours to working on these articles. That's not to say every subsequent edit needs to be "approved", but the main editor is watching these articles like a hawk because an elaborate process has told them that they are "complete" or are at least in a great condition as is. Of course those editors don't own the articles, but they generally want to have a discussion about what you want to change. While I appreciate your efforts to add conductors, etc, I think you are cherry picking examples and making it seem like certain editors are out to get you. In my watchlist, I've seen recent edits you've made including this list on the France article and this section on the UK article, amongst others, with no sources provided. Occasionally when prompted, you go back and add a (unreliable) source, but it's forced. Honestly, I trust that the information you add is probably correct and it really helps to get started when you want to revamp an article and need good keywords to Google search with, however, that only flies on low quality articles. You're going to run into trouble when you start making unsourced "trust me" edits to articles that are held to much higher standards (GA, FA, FL). I think that's what brings us here today. Grk1011 (talk) 13:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Titles of Eurovision lists

Latest comment: 3 years ago14 comments4 people in discussion

One of the article title criteria is consistency. However, I recently noticed that the Eurovision Song Contest related lists aren't really consistent with their article titles. They are all formatted in one of two ways:

Lists of things in the Eurovision Song Contest Lists of Eurovision Song Contest things

I think it might be worth looking into making these more consistent? I personally prefer the "List of Eurovision Song Contest things" format, because that's what I often start typing into the search bar when I look for a Eurovision-related list, but I'm interested to see what others think. ―JochemvanHees (talk) 22:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I understand what you mean about searching and find all these more easily under one type of keyword order that then jumps all possible results, and understand your preference to the right title "list of Eurovision..." I also search a lot of times articles with such similar titles for specific stuff under umbrella-subjects and can't find, only to find later there are such articles just with different ordering/structure titles. So I support this, but for most subjects from above. For two subjects, "languages" and "countries", it's maybe worth and think looks better keeping under the left title.
With that to explain why I think it's under two different titles structures/order: I assume these differences stem from linguistics, that is in relation to the subject they deal with, because many of the subjects under the left title are for languages and countries, which are independent from the contest and so how they come to an expression "IN THE" contest. All stuff under the right title stem/exist from the contest, so as belonging to it: The "Eurovision Song Contest'S' - "winners", "jurors", "presenters", and "contestants". Although according to this, "entries" and "host cities" (under the left title), do also feat the right one as stem directly: as from entering the contest; and from "hosting" it, and host cities described as "OF THE" which further signs "belonging to" as apposed to the others "in the". So I also think "entries" and "host cities" can be moved under the right title, while perhaps keeping "languages" and "countries" under the left one, and for each chosen title, the second one may be added as a redirect. I don't know if that helps navigate eventually, but if so, this redirects will then help "jumping" the articles, when typing either way, on the search window. אומנות (talk) 00:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Checked further and there's redirect to "entries" as the right title-type - "List of Eurovision Song Contest entries", so already taken as also proper and shows/reminds me it is possible to redirect via the search bar. So still in favor too of turning this "entries" redirect to the official article's title while the current " in the" title to a redirect, and create such or even more similar redirects for others. Also since, for example, checked typing "List of Eurovision Song Contest host cities/countries" and it requires typing the whole title at the bar without seeing results, then click "Enter", then getting search page with few options, and then click the desired option ("list of host cities of the Eurovision...", which also creates 2-"of" phrasing). Though it's usually the first results onthe search pages, still the "entries" for example, enables title jump by mid-typing either of the titles at the bar and so "Enter" leads straight from there to the article. אומנות (talk) 02:40, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
These are actually already organized in a relatively consistent manner. The lists in the first column are things while those in the second column are people (the latter aligns well with WP:LISTNAME). Only the first two lists (the entries) would work in both naming conventions, the rest would be false or misleading titles. For example "List of languages in the Eurovision Song Contest" does not make sense as "List of Eurovision Song Contest languages" because there are no languages that are specific to Eurovision. The meaning actually changes. Countries, cities, and languages exist outside of the contest (column 1), but the presenters, winners, jurors, contestants, etc. (column 2) are defined by the contest. What people search for in the search box doesn't really come into play as redirects can be created for any common variations. Grk1011 (talk) 12:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
While, sure, as I pointed before the stemming/existing vs. independent/outsiders differences, but with that also how the redirects come as easier and faster play to find articles; as "entries" also does and as mine and JochemvanHees experiences. So still support taking advantage of possible variation redirects, especially if/since common variaitons. If on the other hand "countries"/"languages" considered completely improper to not even use as redirects by guidelines, sure. Still "host cities" defined by the contest, and also because of the repeating "of"; also shows view towards "belongs to" meaning, so still like JochemvanHees will support at least this under the 2nd title, and/or having a redirect too the other proper presentation even if just for host-cities. אומנות (talk) 14:29, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Grk1011's interpretation of this, and I think presently these lists do make sense as they are now from a linguistic point of view. If searching is an issue then I also agree that creating some redirects may be useful in guiding readers, but even so a general search should throw up these articles already even if the autofill function isn't invoked. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
First thanks for the 2nd comment also viewing and agreeing on the linguistics I raised, as wasn't 100% sure; figured that's the issue. With that "host-cities" is also defined by the contest as "entries" albeit in different wording manner; and "host" a key word here - was addressed only if was just "cities" like just "countries", and if there were articles for "host countries" they would also be "of the" (and not "in the") since defined-attached by/to the contest. And - here's another exact example and as straight official title - List of Olympic Games host cities.
And as you also agree on redirects as may be useful, and also the previous examples show they do indeed ease up, and there were some cases I couldn't find articles in other fields and only after typing few different wording attempts, managed to find or still failed to, we can therefore happily do this redirects which in some cases won't just ease but even increase the chance for new/newer readers/users to find altogether, who may type one title and won't notice/understand the specific parallel title on the search page, or give up trying typing more titles, while the redirect gives another option to land directly at the article. Not finding or thinking these articles don't exist, is also a miss for many other editing users, and as yourself, who contributed to such articles so of course wish for as much readers as possible to find or ease on getting to them. If "countries" and "languages" fall under guidelines as not proper even as redirects under this 2nd title, then therefore that's too bad... but if so, and for "host cities" of Eurovision+Junior+Young Musicians and other events'-host cities articles which may pop in the future or also already exist, then let's direct another option, alongside the still existing search page for similar titles. אומנות (talk) 17:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I think that you all made some great points. I just wanted to add that I agree now that the countries and languages articles should stay as they are because that makes more sense linguistically and semantically, but that the host cities and entries should be moved. I guess that since there's also a splitting proposal for List of entries in the Eurovision Song Contest, might as well do the rename while we're splitting it. ―JochemvanHees (talk) 00:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you again JochemvanHees for following up and your ongoing appreciative kind communication, and for adding there's discussion to split the entries, as I didn't notice/remember that, so now can further use several articles by periods there as well for redirect links. אומנות (talk) 05:19, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
For your agreement with me on host cities, I strengthen that yesterday also noticed same Olympic example for Paralympic games'-host cities and more, and even this: List of FIFA World Cup stadiums as just referring objects who independently exist and host other events (and not as "host stadiums") still under 2nd title type. So just move if you want. If still not accepted/reverted by others, it's clear by now we can use the 2nd title as redirect from such common use in regards to host places on Wikipedia, so you could try that. If/when Eurovision entries split, then the 2nd title at least as redirect for those new articles there. Ho and also for the thank you note-send yesterday, was really nice and helpful for me too to express ideas and thoughts exchanges with you both at the 2021 ESC and now here! אומנות (talk) 05:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
@אומנות: Thanks for pointing out the Olympics example, I hadn't realised previously! I'm happy to now support aligning the host cities and entries articles with the others in the right column. @JochemvanHees: Please do feel free to raise your renaming proposal as well in the splitting discussion. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 06:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your attention, further support (along your previous consideration) and appreciation for this too :-) alongside JochemvanHees' appreciation to all our thoughts. And yeah, before to me personally also sounded right to the ear to attach host cities as 2nd order. With that point again the found plain "stadiums" without "host" function in the title, though sounds less right to the ear. Because, if accepted too across Wikipedia as straight titles will be helpful/come to use, here at least as even technical redirect for Eurovision venues/host-cities, as well languages, countries and everything. Then jumps all such Eurovision articles under both titles. Especially the 2nd title as more general since first showing "Eurovision". And when you type at the bar "List of Eurov..." (when you reach typing "v"), the bar jumps all such including ESC-entries, which then redirects to the current "List of entries of...". So wanted to stress as for possibly all subjects and more the probably more such articles created in the long run. אומנות (talk) 07:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
I would also support "entries" and "host cities" moving to the other format given the points made above. Grk1011 (talk) 12:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Given the above consensus to move these pages, I have gone ahead and completed the moves. Grk1011 (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Redirect of "Country by year" articles

Latest comment: 3 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion

During my recent work in updating the voting tables across our "country by year" articles, I've noticed that we have a lot of stub articles with very little content that potentially would be best being blanked and redirected. Most of these articles detail internal selections from contests long before the internet and the same level of media reports as we have now, so in many cases they are very undersourced. For the most part these articles don't provide anything more beyond who represented the country and how well they did, which is already well covered in both the main year article and the country articles.

I have gone through all articles between 1956 and 2003, and I've compiled the following lists which contain my proposal for what should be redirected. I've not looked into articles from 2004 onwards, as I figure these would have better access to sources given more media attention online in the contest from then, but potentially these could also be reviewed for potential redirected. In many cases there are already several redirects in place for other countries in the same contest, so I don't believe this should be a controversial move, but I figured it would be best to raise here as well just in case anyone has any major concerns about redirecting these articles.

There are a number of cases where potentially stub articles should be kept, principally because the country in question was the winner of that particular year. I've marked these in the table below in a separate column, with winning countries marked by an asterisk (*). My proposal for these would be to redirect most of these and only keep those that competed in Congratulations: 50 Years of the Eurovision Song Contest, which are marked with a dagger (†). Again, if anyone has any objections and think all winners should remain then please do shout. In any case article histories will remain should anyone like to take a stab at developing these further down the line.Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Whoa, thanks for taking the time to do this. I think I support most of your proposals. For some participations that are probably notable, like the winning ones, it might be worth to draftify them and wait for people to provide sources. ―JochemvanHees (talk) 23:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for pulling this together! I wholeheartedly agree that something needs to be done about the quantity of "dead end" stub articles that we have. Your methodology makes sense and also acknowledges that there are exceptions if a treasure trove of information is uncovered about a particular year's participation, for example. It is essential that these articles have the {{WikiProject Eurovision}} banner on their talk pages with no "class=redirect" so that if by chance someone removes the redirect, it will automatically update and notify us via the quality log. Grk1011 (talk) 15:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your input! I hadn't thought about keeping "notable" articles in draft from, but I would be a bit hesitant; many of these articles are quite old now, some over 10 years now, and they've barely changed since their creation, so I don't think any new information that would improve these articles is particularly incoming any time soon. Any notable information related to the song I think would easily fit on that page, so I fear drafting any articles would just be kicking this into the long grass. Blanking these and redirecting I think seems the best option for now, and if anything new does turn up that warrants recreation then bring it on! Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
I forgot to respond to the draft comment above. Drafts are only for short term use and after 6 months they are automatically deleted. We have very few articles that would be appropriate drafts. It's basically a form of a user's sandbox, but geared towards collaboration. While I do see current participants being suitable draft candidates (we had some this year), none of us are actively trying to improve random articles from the 1960s, etc., which is what this discussion mostly relates to. Grk1011 (talk) 16:53, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Ah yeah that makes sense. I didn't know that drafts get deleted after half a year. I think it makes sense to blank and redirect them, and maybe add {{R with possibilities}}. ―JochemvanHees (talk) 17:35, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
My initial thought was to keep all articles with any extra/national-material as equal stand alone coverage for both types (just prose and/or big tables+juries-votes statistics visuals). Also since prose-describing selections procedures gives a further encyclopedic and helpful material as to understand the process compared to only tables listing competitors for example. With that, big tables can't be described in prose nor feat at country's general articles (to detail all years' tables at one place).
So for reaching out towards consensus, I can support blanking even articles with such extra prose-material - but as long as there's another interfacing article to contain-merge the extra material to, and with notice from us to find a place and move it before blanking such country-year articles so it won't get lost and also covered like the tbig tables articles. Naturally I didn't look at all on the proposed list, but already from seeing Italy-1956, several of Israel's articles, and compared to Sweden's articles which aren't listed at all - these are specific examples for my following concerns.
Italy-1956 popped up as I added myself the "National Selection" procedures details and with 2 valid sources, as well as shaped the lead and "At Eurovision" with extra explanations; Israel 1973 has info on the country's background of joining after initial thoughts at 1972 which doesn't appear on Israel's general article; Israel 1974 with further details on the number of performers problem and resolution; 1990 and 1998 extra material for internal selections/national presentations. In 1998 even material of 15 short-listed songs and naming other 2 besides the winner which were in the running.
With that, I can already find Italy-1956 national-selection as appropriate to be moved to "Sanremo 1956" (and that's why I didn't add the 1956-Sanremo competitors table at Italy-1956-Eurovision article). For Israel and any other country with prose (or even 3-4 songs tables which can perhaps be described in prose instead) - this can then also move to the general country's participation articles as a collection of paragraphs at one place. Speaking of national festivals articles, here reaching Sweden and it's "Melodifestivalen" - for example Sweden-1968 only covering what happened at Eurovision, and Sweden-1969 mostly just covering Eurovision as well, and anyway even has link to "Melodifestivalen 1969" within it which therefore covers the national competition. So I add also these Sweden's articles to the list if we blank such. That's as for my understanding from the comments above for just to blank and not also move all such additional material. If the intention is to move any such material or else keep it as stand alone article (if not finding another place for it), then great and agreed. אומנות (talk) 21:00, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
For removing country-year who won that year - I also agree with the initial comment they should be removed, but with that also all "50 Congratulations" with material already covered at that anniversaries article or at the country's general participation or song's specific article.
Eventually, the factor shouldn't be if it's contest winners or "Congratulations" participants, but rather if the material here isn't already completely covered or can be completely covered at another article. אומנות (talk) 21:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
I understand concerns about losing material in the blanking and redirecting exercise, however I am not suggesting these be deleted. In this way article histories will remain should anyone wish to recreate these articles at a future stage. As I said in a previous comment on an unrelated matter, I would prioritise qualify over quantity. I don't believe there should be an article about every single topic if there is no will to improve upon these. I appreciate your efforts אומנות in some of these articles, and for pointing out other situations. In the case of Sweden which you highlighted, I was aware of these stub articles, however my plan was to merge the relevant Melodifestivalen articles into these, as there is no point in having both of these articles, and I believe the ESC article should take precedence. Sanremo is a different case as it is a completely different contest that exists separately to Eurovision with some overlaps, but Melodifestivalen is ultimately their NF and there has been no edition of MF held without a Swedish participation. Apologies for not raising this point earlier.
My concerns as well is also regarding some of these NFs and where they are being sourced from. Of course it will be difficult to find reliable sources for contests several decades old now, but my thoughts as well is even if there is some information regarding a national final, unless it's backed by reliable sources I don't believe it should be hosted here. It's not as if Wikipedia is the sole repository of all knowledge, and this information exists elsewhere, but for me personally I just don't think having a thousand stub articles is preferable to having a handful of very good, properly sourced articles. I get that it's a "rock-and-hard-place" situation but we have to draw the line somewhere.
On your point regarding having this information covered elsewhere, where exactly do you think this should be covered? Any points information exists already in each contest's article, and there is most likely, or should be, brief overviews of what selection method was used for which year on the country articles, and any artist/song information should be included in the artist/song article. My main drive at the minute is to redirect articles where there was a redirect, so there really is nothing in most cases that should be moved at this point. If I'm wrong on this point then please do let me know as I'm struggling to think of a downside to redirecting a load of stub articles that basically just say "this artist was selected by this broadcaster for this country in this year's contest and achieved this place with these many points"? Sims2aholic8 (talk) 12:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Sims2aholic8 I do agree with you there's no need for these many thin articles as for just covering Eurovision, for this I suggested examples of gathering small paragraphs where there's extra material. As you asked now how material can be gathered to other articles, did you see what I wrote about Israel and possibly other countries main Eurovision participation pages as to gather such small paragraphs - for example? So that's one thing I can already suggest.
I moved Italy-1956 to Sanremo-1956 and tried pinging you there, but I didn't write the ping well. This material wasn't included at Sanremo for example and that was another thing that concerned me as for Italy and Sweden (and maybe other countries) with articles for their national selections - as for us to notice we can move material to those instead of blanking it. So if someone blanks, I ask he try to look for other interfacing articles.
So now I understand about Sweden - anyway that didn't bother me much as that was something I just suggested to add to your list, for your proposals, so sure, great with me too to direct/merge Melodifestivalen to Sweden-year.
But, what concerns me is there's a kind of inconsistency in regards to articles with poor tables and other articles, which I noticed from your list and even took few days to think deeply about and check some of these articles. And as I saw this morning for example you blanked Germany-1958 which actually describes a table albeit in prose, while you left Germany-1956 which shows the visual of the table. And also blanking articles as Austria-1957, Luxembourg-1957 which had some extra prose material (besides Eurovision participation itself).
So I'm not talking about articles that just list dates and who was chosen (as I also suggested at first blanking Sweden-1968 as only covering Eurovision), but I meant a lot or articles that have extra material which explains procedures, pointing songs/singers in prose - like Germany 1958. Take a look at Germany in the Eurovision Song Contest 1956 (with most songs unknown) while someone wisely wrote a prose at the Germany in the Eurovision Song Contest 1958 article, as to describe the external linked/sourced table in prose, you can see he lists the singers and the 2-3 known songs, same as Germany-1956 only in prose for 1958. Or Belgium-1957 - only describing 3 songs in a table (and without even points or placings known) and the singer is the same guy for all 3. This article could had also appear in prose, for example, so then you would had deleted it as well, for example, but it has this tiny table.
So it's that we still need to think of how to handle material, maybe to keep extra material as independent-articles still, and the second thing is this comparison between articles with small tables that sometimes have even less info (just songs/singers listings with barely a sentence about the procedure) compared to articles with prose but which actually give sometimes more deep info. אומנות (talk) 13:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Everyone seems to agree that stubs that only say "x participated at Eurovision, here's a table with their points" are useless and should be redirected to the appropriate page. So, there's clear consensus on which articles should be redirected. I think starting to redirect pages that have information beyond that is a bit hasty as of yet. If there's more on an article besides that basic stub, such as a bit of prose regarding the national selection, that shouldn't be redirected without discussion; it does seem rather arbitrary to redirect Germany 1958 when Germany 1956 had the same amount of information, just in a table form. It's probably worthwhile to keep any Country in ESC Year article for which they had a multi-song or multi-artist national final (except for Italy because Sanremo isn't strictly a Eurovision event), because that information wouldn't be appropriate for a general Country in ESC article or an article about the winning song. Sources can be found for all of those, we just have to look. (I would also like to add that if you have plans regarding the Melodifestivalen pages, that should've been included in your original proposal to ensure that everybody gets a clearer, fuller picture of your proposal, Sims2aholic8.) Mr. Gerbear|Talk 13:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Yeah those are fair points, thanks for your input. I'll hold my hands up on Germany 1958, I had maybe misread the situation there and felt there was less information presented than actually was, so mea culpa there. For future efforts I will be sure to assess these articles more robustly before making any redirects. And as for my Melodifestivalen approach, yes I do concede that I should have raised that initially and that that was an oversight on my part. Going forward I will focus my efforts on redirecting stub articles with no major topics beyond the fact a song was selected for a particular year and details on points awarded etc. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Internal selection "participants" in Russian articles

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I've seen a trend over the past month or so of unregistered users adding lists of acts which supposedly took part in Russian internal selections, citing ESCKaz. These IPs are invariable from Kazakhstan, and I know that ESCKaz is a banned source on WP Eurovision articles due to copyright violations, so I guess I wanted to get a bit more of a consensus on what we should do with these additions given the facts before I removed anything. I don't dispute the veracity of the participants or the selection process, but at the same time it is a banned source (unless things have changed?) so I think a discussion would be helpful as well on whether this stuff should be kept. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Can you link some diffs? Are these acts verified elsewhere? Mr. Gerbear|Talk 02:52, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
A few examples below. I have not been able to find anywhere else that details these acts; at least nowhere reliable beyond blogs that are most likely copying from ESCKaz. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 06:39, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
I think a few can be properly sourced, or at least to the extent that can be verified. ESCKaz is known to lift copy verbatim from other sites, so searching using the original Russian page from ESCKaz (especially using interview quotes) may yield results. For example, for 1995, Olga Dzusova's comments can be found here albeit without the other two names. The difficulty here is finding these old sources in English. But if ESCKaz is the only place we can find the information... we unfortunately can't keep the content per this wikiproject's sourcing guidelines. Mr. Gerbear|Talk 21:05, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Spokespersons sections

Latest comment: 2 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

I have some problems with these sections. First of all it's their position. They are currently together with the section about the broadcasts, even though the spokespersons don't have much to do with that (at least, not much more than each country's participants have to do with the broadcasters). I mean, the commentators and broadcasters go together because which commentator you have depends on the broadcaster, but the spokespersons are part of the show and not the broadcast.

Secondly, I have a problem with the small notes behind some but not all of the spokespersons's names. If I want to know who the person in question is, I can just look at their Wikipedia article right? It also really isn't that relevant. I mean, if (for example) one of the hosts performed in ESC before then that might be worth mentioning, but these spokespersons only appear on screen for thirty seconds or so if they are lucky. It's also not really consistent who gets and who doesn't get an explanation (as also became apparent in this recent discussion on the ESC 2021 page). Why does finishing 17th in the year 19whatever matter more than being some radio presenter in your country?

So here's my proposal: merge it with the 12 points section. Here's an example which I took from the most recent contest, JESC 2020 (I left out the citations for now):

N. Contestant Nation(s) giving 12 points Spokesperson
3   Belarus   Kazakhstan Saniya Zholzhaksynova
  Poland Marianna Józefina Piątkowska
  Serbia Darija Vračević
  France   Belarus Ksenia Galetskaya
  Malta Leah Mifsud
  Netherlands Robin de Haas
2   Georgia   Spain Melani García
  Ukraine Sophia Ivanko
  Kazakhstan   Georgia Marita Khvedelidze
  Russia Mikella Abramova and Khryusha
1   Netherlands   Germany Olivia
  Serbia   France Nathan Laface

Much cleaner, takes up much less space. ―JochemvanHees (talk) 23:24, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

If no one objects I think I'll start making some changes then? ―JochemvanHees (talk) 20:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Slight concern on my side as the structure of the 12 points tables is different on the ESC articles, where there is a cell for all countries that gave to a given country. The previous format that had a cell for each giving country over several tables was in contravention of MOS:NO-TABLES. This could potentially work for the JESC articles, however if we want to make all articles consistent then keeping the current format is probably best. Personally as well I find this proposed structure slightly confusing, as I feel it is a bit unclear whether the spokesperson relates to which country, given the merged cells. Obviously it relates to the latter, but for a casual reader unaware of the nuances of the contest it could cause issues. I am open to other suggestions for formatting changes on this section however, and I also agree with you on the notes point; anyone relevant will have their own article, so highlighting certain people could be redundant and also causes some consternation as seen recently on what tags to add and for whom. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 22:41, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Oh you're right – I hadn't seen that. I have been attempting various other ways to neatly include the spokespersons in the information that is already in the scoreboard section but it doesn't really work. I guess we could just keep it as a numbered list like it is now, but as a subsection in the scoreboard section? ―JochemvanHees (talk) 00:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes I think that could work, and is possibly a more suitable section for these details. A few other points that came to me as well: again not exactly necessary for JESC but definitely for the ESC articles is we need somewhere that details the voting order (other than the order used in the scoreboards) for contests from 2004 onwards; and from 2016 there are two separate tables for the jury and televoting 12 points, and although we could include the spokesperson in the jury table (as they announce the jury points), having the table in this structure would make the article much longer and somewhat harder to find the right information in my opinion. I would agree to including the jury spokespersons section with the scoreboards, removing the accompanying notes on former participation/hosting during, and potentially then renamed the "Scoreboard" section to "Voting" or something similar if that works? Sims2aholic8 (talk) 06:22, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Yeah I agree with that. I've been thinking about changing "Scoreboard" to "Voting"; although I like the idea, I think that "Voting" might be interpreted as only including the public vote. I think that "Scoreboard" in this case would be clearer because it includes all the awarding of points. ―JochemvanHees (talk) 00:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

American Song Contest

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Since NBC is confirmed to be the broadcaster I took some time to re-write the American Song Contest article to remove a maintenance tag and bring it more in line with ESC formatting (while using American English) where possible. I think the article could benefit from a good written Origins/History section that breifly explains ESC with a hatnote to History of the Eurovision Song Contest for further details along with properly sourced high profile incidental participations of American artists for other countries (like how Katrina and the Waves won for the UK in 1997 since Katrina Leskanich is from Kansas and Tamar Kaprelian's participation as part of Genealogy for Armenia.) It could include where Logo TV/Netflix aired ESC from 2016-2019 in the US and a possible mention to Eurovision Song Contest: The Story of Fire Saga along with information about the American Song Contest that was revealed prior to May 2021. I would write this myself but I don't have the time at the moment. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 04:02, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Category:Eurovision articles needing expert attention has been nominated for discussion

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Category:Eurovision articles needing expert attention has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Peaceray (talk) 18:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Notability of Eurovision 2020 songs

Latest comment: 2 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

I'm doubting that all of the 2020 songs meet WP:NSONG, and some of the articles are trivial right now. Some such as Alcohol You are clearly notable and are good articles, but all of the information in the Freaky! article is also included in San Marino in the Eurovision Song Contest 2020 (and in more detail, with more sources). If the former can't be developed futher in its own right then I'd propose merging it into the latter article.  dummelaksen  (talk • contribs) 18:39, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I think this would need to be discussed on a per-song basis. Looking at Category:Eurovision songs of 2020, most appear to be perfectly fine articles, with many reaching the charts. But I agree that it doesn't look like "Freaky!" currently meets the notability criteria. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 00:15, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
@Jochem van Hees: I brought it up here because of the WikiProject's policy of creating articles for all songs, but I think you're right.  dummelaksen  (talk • contribs) 19:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Oh, you're right. I think we might want to update those goals. An earlier discussion also resulted in some of the "Country in the contest year" being blanked and redirected. The WikiProject's goals state that all songs and participations should have an article which is not really true. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 20:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
This might be a good time to refocus the project in general. We might want to "rebrand" as "WikiProject Song Contests" or something like that and set up Eurovision as a WP:TASKFORCE. Talk page templates would then have an additional field to classify them as belonging to a specific contest. As we've grown to include more and more similar contests, we are not just about Eurovision anymore.
To respond to the actual question about the songs, for a lot of them, being in Eurovision is their "only" claim to fame per our notability criteria. I would caution you from making judgement calls based on their current status/length as I believe nearly all of them can be expanded to Good Articles like Alcohol You. Freaky! can certainly be expanded and I know this because I filtered through articles writing the San Marino in ESC GA, but I, personally, didn't want to write about the song itself. That's true for many of these song articles and doesn't speak much to their overall notability. Additionally, sometimes merging can discourage future expansion and be counterproductive. I would remove any notability tags you've placed and jump right into whether each song is notable or not through the formal process. Let's not drag this out for the 2020 songs. Grk1011 (talk) 13:45, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
I would agree that almost all songs under the current scope of the WikiProject are capable of being expanded, and I think having competed in Eurovision (or in the case of 2020, being selected to compete at Eurovision) is a notable feature. Is there scope for improvements? Absolutely, however I think that goes for every article under our remit. As the user who initiated the "country in the contest by year" blanking-and-redirecting exercise, there are some differences between those two types of article in my opinion that makes it an easier exercise to justify blanking; for songs I would concur that a formal case-by-case process may be the best solution, because there is certainly a wealth of information out there for songs (e.g. chart information, release dates, publishing info etc.) that may not exist for an internal selection process by a participating broadcaster over 50 years ago.
The suggestion of rebranding this WikiProject has been kicking about for a while, and I also believe this may be a great opportunity to drive this forward. Restructuring the project and creating separate task forces to focus on Eurovision, Junior, Turkvision, the American contest when it starts, other contests, and then also for songs and BLPs, would mean that individuals can focus their energies and potentially then also potentially more easily share the load of improving these articles that perhaps don't get as much attention. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:38, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Jury breakdown at Eurovision 2021

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello all!

I just added the detailed jury/tele breakdown in the "___ in the Eurovision Song Contest 2021" articles and I noticed an odd change on Eurovision.tv:

Eligible contests now have a separate "Jury" page, which lacks identifiers from A to E. Moreover, the jurors are now sorted "alphabetically" (actually just by Unicode code points, so for example alyona alyona is listed last for Ukraine this year just because she's all lowercase).

I also briefly re-checked 2019 — looking at Australia's jury vote in the first semi-final, the columns have stayed in the same order, but the new "Jury" page shows the jurors in a different order than the original one.

Therefore, not only are we getting less data than we used to, but we also can't know for sure which juror gave which set of rankings this year, unless Eurovision.tv changes something. For the time being, I changed the affected table headers to "Juror X" (only for 2021).

How should we handle this situation going forward?

Furthermore, I'd appreciate it if someone else would add appropriate sources and any extra info to the relevant sections.

(Note that I will not be able to reply to this for several hours, as I feel like I've earned some sleep).  Andreyyshore 🆃︎ 🅲︎  04:38, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Since there is no clear link between the juror points and the jury members for this year, we can't assign members to points as we did before. Potentially this is by design, so that there is some protection for the jury members, but that is just speculation. For this year I think unless things change and the EBU do release the full breakdown with assigned members to points, what we have now is the best solution, outlining jurors by letter and just including the members above, stating that the exact correlation between member and points is not known. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 11:39, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Post note on this discussion, looking back to previous contests the jury members have also now been "randomised" (i.e. put in alphabetical order in a separate page), with a separate note stating that the jury results are not in the same order on the results pages. See the 2016 final jury members and the 2016 Ukraine results page. As these pages have been archived we have the exact votes for each jury member for contests between 2014 and 2019, which have been referenced on these article, but from 2021 onwards it seems the EBU are not announcing the exact votes per juror so we can't do the same going forwards. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 11:46, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Opening & interval acts in the infobox

Latest comment: 2 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Should the opening & interval acts be included in the infobox, I do feel they shouldn't be included anymore as they rather bloat the infobox now. -- AxG / ✉  18:32, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. The infobox is supposed to be helpful by summarising some of the article's key facts. This is not helpful, makes the summary less concise, and it's not a key fact. The parameters should just be removed from the infobox. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 21:56, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
@Jochem van Hees:, @AxG:. I also agree. My only concern is that in previous years, there were only one or two acts per show, so it didn't seem as overwhelming as it does on Eurovision Song Contest 2021. For example, Eurovision Song Contest 2004's doesn't bother me at all. Grk1011 (talk) 19:36, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
It is rather overwhelming as it currently stands, however I'm sure there is a way to keep these sections and make it a lot more concise, no? e.g. instead of spelling out every past winner in the "Rock the Roof" act, could we not make that one point, e.g. "Rock the Roof with past winners"? All this information should be covered further down in the article, at least in most recent contests or if not, it should be, so I think using the infobox as a touch-note to call out only a very high-level summary of the acts, such as the 2004 contest example, is a better alternative than including nothing there. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 20:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
As I've said I'd much rather all this be conveyed in the article text like 2021 where much more detail can be included, and [correct me if I'm wrong] the opening & interval act perimeters are the only ones that really have nothing to do with the competition aspect of the contest itself. I'd be up for a compact listing, but how compact can we make? -- AxG / ✉  20:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
I guess something like what I did on my sandbox here, although I wonder if just these titles would be useful for anyone. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 23:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Identifying jury members in Eurovision 2021 through social media

Latest comment: 2 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

I'd like to reach a consensus on a few instances I have seen where jury members from Eurovision 2021 have identified themselves and their rankings on social media, and whether this information should be included on the relevant articles. For example, on the UK jury one of the members indicated how they voted using tweets after the contest. I have concerns about using social media posts as sources, in general I question their reliability, but I'd appreciate some discussion on this in case I'm blowing this out of proportion. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 07:21, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree, let's use the official sources only. Identifying them through social media is borderline original research, and having only one or two of the five jury members identified makes it look like we just forgot to fill them in or something (I've already seen anonymous users "fill in the blanks" without any source). ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Agree that using official sources is best here. Somewhat related, but as long as they are verified accounts, I wouldn't be opposed to using some of them in prose. Like if a jury member had a critique or review of the song it could be included in the song's article with attribution to "jury member x". Grk1011 (talk) 19:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Yeah I think that's potentially a reasonable alternative. In keeping it in prose and saying that a certain member provided insight after the contest on how they voted, which can thus be attributed to "jury member x", while keeping the name out of the table perhaps? Sims2aholic8 (talk) 19:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't think there's much encyclopedic value in these kinds of tweets but sure if someone provides actual insights about their voting. I still think that identifying them would be original research unless they explicitly say "I am juror B" or something. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 22:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Yeah that's a fair assessment actually, most of the time it's a vague "I really liked X country" or "I placed these countries really high" and then from context of how the other jurors voted you can make the connection, so actually in most cases there never will be that explicit statement, and I'd be inclined to remove completely unless it is explicit. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 07:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
I would argue that even them saying "I am juror X" would not be the best kind of source, but we could certainly have their claims and opinions added separately, in prose, where available/appropriate. I also think that the names should stay out of the tables.  Andreyyshore 🆃︎ 🅲︎  10:56, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Eurovision Dance Contest country pages

Latest comment: 2 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Notifying project members that I have proposed daletion for all "[Country] in the Eurovision Dance Contest" articles. This contest has been inactive since 2008, there is very little chance this contest will resume, and all information included in these articles is already covered in the wider article on the contest and the yearly articles. If you disagree with this proposal, please raise any concerns through the relevant proposed deletion process. The articles considered for deletion are listed below. Please do also raise any other comments below. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Support. I agree with your assessment here. I looked at a couple of these just now and the only "benefit" I found was to be able to quickly see how a specific country did one year compared to the other two years. Not sure the value is there for that though since there are only three editions. Grk1011 (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support; I doubt that those individual participations were even notable in the first place. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 21:53, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Disagree; I strongly disagree with this, having dedicated quite a bit of time into editing the pages above! There was more detail added, and potentially could have been added to these regarding the participation of the countries, for example, on the Austria page, there was a lot more detail regarding their entries, including details such as the songs used that are not currently included in the main article, or information about the song's selection that was not relevant for the main article. As an alternative, instead of having 17 individual articles, could these all be combined into one, giving additional information regarding the two entries from each nation? I would be happy to work on a draft of this, just sorry I missed this discussion yesterday Wp27 (talk) 16:58, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
@Wp27: Thanks for contributing to this. I would like to note that those articles were subsequently blanked-and-redirected by another user after I had started these deletion proceedings, so that wasn't my plan. Thanks for reaching out on my talk page with your proposals as well; I looked at the draft article you are currently working on (Draft:Participation in the Eurovision Dance Contest), and I can see some merit to including these details. First impressions going by the draft for Austria and your points above:
  • We removed voting history sections from all our "Country in contest" articles a while ago, I think we agreed it could be considered original research, so I would remove these from this draft as well
  • On your point regarding songs not being included in the main articles, I have been wondering why that is. Given it was 12/13 years ago I can't remember if there was a decision not to include these? Personally I think these should be included, especially given that the first contest each couple performed two separate dances, which isn't called out at the moment in the tables.
I'll admit I'm torn on whether to back this article, as on the one hand you do raise good points about extra information that would be out of place in the year articles but I'm concerned about its notability as a contest that in comparison with ESC or JESC is more of a blip. I appreciate your passion for this as well though so if you can add new information that will build up our understanding of the contest then at least we should try. I'd also like to note that ESCKaz is considered a banned source by WikiProject Eurovision due to copyright violations, so as you're building out your draft please be wary of this and make sure any references are not pointed in their direction. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Many thanks for this, I will work on this in the coming days, would you recommend the hosting of these in a single article, or fleshing out of the original articles if they are restored? I will seek a source other than Esckaz that lists the songs that were used, and hopefully we can get that information added on the year pages. Best wishes Wp27 (talk) 11:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
I still believe that having individual articles for each country would fall on the poor side of notability guidance, given the short tenue of the contest and that most information is already covered in the existing year pages. I will reserve judgement on a single article covering all countries for now, as I am eager to hear the views of other project members as well on whether it would be a good edition. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 11:34, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Category:Georgia (country) in the Eurovision Song Contest has been nominated for renaming

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Category:Georgia (country) in the Eurovision Song Contest, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 08:36, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism: Philippines at Eurovision

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi everyone.

At List of countries in the Eurovision Song Contest we have a vandalism problem, specifically a Philippines related problem.

  • An editor called JaidenABS-CBN4 added the Philippines to the participants list at 12 June at 15:37
  • An editor called Jaiden's Channel has been attempting to add the Philippines at 12 June at various points between 2251 and a few minutes ago.

I'm not an admin so my powers are limited, and technically speaking I'm at 2 reverts within 24 hours (Well, literally, not technically.) Just something to keep an eye on and be aware of. I will try to do what I can within the constraints of 3RR.


doktorb wordsdeeds 22:05, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to remind you that per WP:3RRNO, reverting obvious examples is an exemption of the three revert rule, so you can keep undoing it while you (potentially) report the person. But I'll see if I can help with anything. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 22:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Chris Baldo for deletion

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chris Baldo is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Baldo until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Lucky102 (talk) 06:48, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Identical parameters in song infoboxes

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There's two infoboxes for Eurovision songs: {{Infobox song}}, and {{Infobox song contest entry}}. The latter is often used embedded in the former, but not always, such as in Kazakhstan in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2020 § Forever. This is why the infobox has some parameters that {{Infobox song}} has too, such as |lyricist= and |genre=. My problem is that, when the two infoboxes are used together, these parameters are often both used, meaning that the info appears twice. An example of this can be seen at A Million Voices (song).

So my proposal is to remove the duplicated parameters from {{Infobox song contest entry}} if it is embedded in {{Infobox song}}, and to make this clear on the template's documentation. Given that this is a problem on hundres of articles, maybe this could be a job for a bot. Another option is to automatically hide these parameters from the infobox if the |embed= parameter is set.

I raised this issue earlier this year at Template talk:Infobox song contest entry, but then I kind of forgot about it and not many people noticed it, so I'm posting it here now to get more consensus. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 21:26, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Column headers for the country in contest tables

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I noticed that there's quite some inconsistency between some of these articles. Taking some arbitrarily chosen examples, in Netherlands in ESC or Armenia in JESC there's a "Song" column, whearas in Greece in ESC and Albania in ESC it's titled "title". Also, it seems that most/all ESC and JESC articles use an "Artist" column, but in EYD and EYM it's "Participant". Also, I found this 2020 discussion in which people agreed to rename the "Year" column to "Contest", but I haven't found any article where this actually happened. So I thought I'd start a centralised discussion on this. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 22:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree that there is quite a bit of tidy up required to make everything more consistent, so many thanks for bringing this up! I suggest we go with the format used for the participants tables in the Andorra in ESC and Romania in ESC articles, given their GA status, and replicate this across the articles. Regarding EYM and EYD, "Participant" may be a better title given that these are musicians and dancers rather than singers, even though dance and music are clearly arts. I would be inclined to believe we should use "Participant" everywhere as it is less confusing, covers a wider range of acts and would be more consistent (the EBU in their contest pages uses "Contestant", which for me sounds a bit game show-y but is also a possibility). From what I can see about the "renaming "year" to "contest" discussion", that was also about a wider discussion regarding adding extra lines for years in which a country did not participate, which I would oppose. I think keeping this column as "year" is clearer and I don't see much reason to rename it at the moment given there is a line for each contest a country participated in and it's not as if there are multiple contests in a year. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 07:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree that we should be standardised so using "good" articles as a template would be a great place to start. My preference would be for "Contest" over "Year" as we tend to talk about the "N Contest" over the "Contest of N" Wider use would support this I feel. By the by, I think we should make some reference in tables to non-participated years, though I'm aware this has been the subject of great back-and-forth. doktorb wordsdeeds 20:04, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Oops, I forgot to reply to your comments. I agree that "participant" would probably be best here, as that's the reason they are listed in the table (not just because they are artists). However, I can't help but notice that the whole section is also called "Contestants". Would it make sense then to rename that as well, for the same reason we shouldn't use "contestant" in the table header? Maybe to "Participation overview"? Also, Category:Eurovision Song Contest entrants would probably have to be renamed as well? ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 21:15, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
I guess it would make sense to follow those two articles (wait what, why is one a GA and the other a FL?). But I'm not sure if the reviewers actually considered alternative names for the table columns (it at least wasn't mentioned in the reviews). We might as well use this discussion to standardise the tables rather than those two articles. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 21:34, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at commons:Commons talk:WikiProject Eurovision

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I started a discussion at commons:Commons talk:WikiProject Eurovision § Border of Crimea on Eurovision maps which affects the files used on ESC articles here too, so I'd like to invite people here as well. Keep in mind that the discussion involves someone who appears to be a new editor, so remember to assume good faith. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 22:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Deleted

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

The article about The Black Mamba (Portuguese band) that participated in this years Eurovision was deleted out of nowhere yesterday. While being within the criterias for inclusion. I have requested re-creation Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 July 18.--BabbaQ (talk) 08:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

It wasn't deleted, it looks like an improper speedy template was added. It appears to be "safe" for now unless the editor pursues a standard deletion process. Grk1011 (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
It was deleted. The admin restored it later at BabbaQ's request. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 18:14, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Well that's bizarre. Typically a driveby IP slapping a speedy delete template on an article doesn't get past an admin. Grk1011 (talk) 19:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
It was indeed a weird situation. Solved now though. But I agree, was surprised it was fully deleted based on a IP speedy deletion template.BabbaQ (talk) 20:00, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

FAR for Melodifestivalen

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have nominated Melodifestivalen for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Bumbubookworm (talk) 20:49, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

If anyone has time or familiarity with this, it would be great to save it from being delisted! Grk1011 (talk) 13:18, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Yugoslav perselection 1987.

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The rank table and the points award table is not correct.

It's true that Novi forili with song Ja sam za ples won, but ot with 74 points, but with 77 points. Second was Dragana Šarić (aka Baby Doll, or in serbian version Bebi Dol - last represent of Socialistic Federativ Republic of Yugoslavia in Rome 1991.) with song Zrno nežnosti. She colect 57 ponts. Third was Tereza Kesovija with song Tko mi je kriv with 47 points. Fourth was Moulin rouge 5. Josipa Lisac 6. Ana Kostovska 7. Massimo Savić 8. group Familija From 9th place till 20. is correct, but 20. was Meri Trošelj with song Ludo zelena with 1 points Last 4th places are correct. There landed Hazard - "Nocoj"; Suzana Perović - "U meni vatru ugasi"; Violeta Rexhepagiq - "Nuk te haroj"; Andrea & Tomica - "Poljubi me"

One more thing: During Socialistic Yugoslavia (which is not the same country as Federal Republic of Yugoslavia - Malmő 1992.) Autonomous Socialistic Regions Vojvodina and Kosovo had their official flags just like other federal units. The flag of Vojvodina were three vertical strips colored by three different colours: blue (left), yellow-gold (middle), and green (right) with red star in the middle. The flag of Kosovo was the same as Albanian is but above the eagles heats were a golden outline of a star. Please, correst these errors. Thanks you 213.149.61.249 (talk) 12:15, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Consistency of 'Country in the Eurovision Song Contest' articles

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

On the advice of Grk1011 I have decided to open a discussion here about consistency in the 'Country in the Eurovision Song Contest' articles. My main issue here is the lack of consistency throughout all of these pages, which is especially evident when comparing the Good/Featured List articles to the normal articles. As an example, in the articles for Romania, Andorra, and San Marino (which are all Good articles), I find there to be a lot of inconsistency with other pages. For example, the articles for San Marino and Andorra have citations for all of the languages, which looks clunky and doesn't really have a purpose when you take into account the descriptions of individual participation in the "Contest history" sections in both of them. In the article for Romania, the font size of the results is markedly different to all other similar articles, and none of the cells are merged where possible, which is inconsistent with every other article in the same vein. On a broader scale, not just on the aforementioned three articles, there is no consistent table size (which extends to similar articles but for Junior Eurovision and other related contests). It is very clear that to become a Featured List or a Good article there are a lot of requirements that must be fulfilled, and I respect the amount of work gone into them, and I am not immediately saying that the content of those articles need to be changed at all. I was a bit defensive on the Romania talk page, but that was because I was little tired of seeing well-meaning edits reverted without any substantial explanation, and what seemed like a very small number of people gatekeeping others from editing. My main issue is the lack of consistency all around - I would be more than happy to help change all of the other articles to fit Romania's outline or San Marino/Andorra's outline (though I do think the way the non-Good articles are formatted look more pleasing, but I'm not the judge of what is a Good article and what isn't). In a way this is purely a cosmetic issue, but to me it's more about cohesion. I don't mind which way this goes, I just would like to see a set solution agreed upon that can be applied to all 'Country in the Eurovision Song Contest' articles. Granfcanuon (talk) 18:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

@Granfcanuon: Thanks for raising this point. I certainly agree that consistency is definitely needed here, which can be difficult to achieve and maintain over 50+ articles (not including JESC and other contests). I brought Andorra to GA status and there wasn't a whole amount of time spent specifically on table formatting (e.g. table width, font size etc.) so I think there is some freedom for us to tailor the tables as we see fit. Potentially with the Romania article as this was a step above to FL there might have been some extra requirements there, but I am not sure, and I have not yet taken a look through the FL review for that article. I think coming to a consensus here on what we should do would be the best way forward, as a sign post to future editors that these are the formatting guidance we subscribe to for these articles. I can certainly pull together some ideas myself, but I would be keen to hear from others on what they would like to see as well. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
I agree; I raised a few issues last month but you're right there's inconsistencies throughout the whole article. Personally I would support doing a project-wide RfC or something about that, since there are quite a lot of inconsistencies like that. There have been a few of those in the past that seemed to be quite successful. (Sorry for only noticing this just now) ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 12:36, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
@Jochem van Hees: I would also support a project-wide RfC, since you are right in saying there are a lot of inconsistencies, some of which I didn't even mention in my original comment. Granfcanuon (talk) 21:53, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Eurovision/Archive_22&oldid=1050806915"