Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

Updating map of Europe that used on ESC, JESC etc. maps

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, I recently updated the map of Europe, which is used in maps like File:ESC 2017 Map.svg. I just updated the map from the old 2008 version of 2016 version of File:Blank map of Europe (with disputed regions).svg (or File:Blank map of Europe (without disputed regions).svg, it is not necessary at this topic). I also saved Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco, San Marino, Vatican, Malta and Australia boxes with legend behind the map zone specially for ESC Project. In my edit there are practically no non-consensus changes. I just updated the blank 2008 map (which we used till this day) under the current 2016 map of Europe (lakes, correction of boundaries and minimal unnoticed displacement, which is invisible in the infoboxes). You can see nonreverted version in File:ESC-JESC-EDC XXXX Map.svg. But my update in File:ESC 2017 Map.svg is reverted by Mihitza78 for unknown reason. I will be happy to hear your opinion. ← Alex Great ^talk_rus? 03:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Alex Great. I reverted your map update because this map is used on every Eurovision map, and if we go change one - we should change all of them. And also you colored Kosovo and Palestine with a green-gray color, for what I completely understand the reason. But as Kosovo states something about their participation every year and has a national broadcaster which is trying to participate, I think that the dotted border is enough to mark their unrecogntion by some countries. And it is marked that way on every Eurovision map, so I think it should stay that way. So, that's my opinion - and sorry for not leaving any reason why I reverted your edit. Mihitza78 talk 18:11, 24 April 2017 (CET)

Let us not forget Kosovo in the Eurovision Young Dancers. They have taken part in a Eurovision event. Which is why Kosovo does have a dotted border - as far as I can remember anyway. And for the record, File:ESC-JESC-EDC XXXX Map.svg was only created so that it can be used on the project's portal page. Wes Wolf ^Talk 02:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Mihitza78, If I'll change Kosovo and Palestine to grey colour and update all ESC-JESC-EYD-EYM-EDC-ECotY, then this updating can be exist. Isn't it? ← Alex Great ^talk_rus? 10:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Alex Great and Mihitza78: I'm wondering if File:ESC-JESC-EDC XXXX Map.svg should actually be renamed File:Eurovision (network) events map.svg, now that it is basically used for ESC, JESC, EDC, EYM, EYD, and EYC. Wes Wolf ^Talk 11:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I dont know. It's up to you to decide. The new name will not do anything. The file can be used to please wikis and other language sections under any name. ← Alex Great ^talk_rus? 12:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Alex Great, exactly as you said. If you change one map you have to do all of them. And Kosovo and Palestine should stay grey in my opinion. Mihitza78 talk 18:41, 26 April 2017 (CET)

Technically, @Mihitza78:, we wouldn't have to change all of them. The maps alone have changed over the years, in accordance with geographical border changes. The only changes should start from the year when Kosovo "self-proclaimed" independence, and the same for Palestine; regardless of their state of recognition. The EBU recognise them to some degree, and Kosovo have competed at the Eurovision Young Dancers 2011, and shown interest in ESC too. I believe, we use to have separate maps for each event (ESC, JESC, etc); but a consensus on merging them into a map-for-all-contests has resulted in the current blank version. As for my proposal on renaming the file, @Alex Great:, that is merely to simplify its context meaning. Let us say for example the EBU create a new contest - the file would look like ESC-JESC-EDC-EYC-EFG XXXX Map.svg... and so on. To simplify the name to "Eurovision (network) events map", would allow the name to serve its purpose regardless of any additional contests that may be added in the foreseeable future. Wes Wolf ^Talk 17:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Wesley Wolf: I see no point in keeping the file name as it is. It's clunky and would be far better without listing as many Eurovision events as possible. I'd say that your suggested change makes sense. Variable and file names are better readable than fully comprehensive. — Tuxipεdia^(talk) 19:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Alex Great, Mihitza78, and Tuxipedia: Update: The file has now been non-controvetially renamed to File:Eurovision events Map.svg. Now that is what I call a universal file name. Wes Wolf ^Talk 20:11, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm currently in my phone, but how well does the map matchup with the imagemap? -- AxG / ✉  21:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Imagemap works good, but some minor differences is still can be (but just 2-5 pixels in infobox). ← Alex Great ^talk_rus? 01:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Mihitza78 and Wesley Wolf: I already created all 62 new maps for ESC with saving history of the countries (borders, disolutions, reunifications etcetera). I spent 9 hours on it. I haven't uploaded maps to the Commons yet, becausr I want also update all JESC, EYD, EYM and another Europe maps such as semifinal voting and same specific Eurovision maps. When I will create all of this maps, I'll upload it instantly with Commonist. ← Alex Great ^talk_rus? 11:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Updated image map is here. -- AxG / ✉  17:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Alex Great: why are we even changing the maps in the first place? What needs to be changed? They are perfectly fine as they are. You only repair things that are broken. If something works perfectly fine, then it is not broken, and therefore does not need to be changed. No offence, but Alex you do seem to be meddling with the maps too often these days, and changing them to your preferred style. May we have to remind that you do not own anything. If you wish to adopt a new style, then please propose the changes and gain supported consensus. You have not unilateral veto to just make changes because you like thing to be "pretty". @AxG: I'm not sure what is different in your sandbox version, but it looks good nevertheless. Wes Wolf ^Talk 00:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@Mihitza78, AxG, and Tuxipedia: do you support my updating of all Eurovision maps such as I currently updated at this and This reverted version? ← Alex Great ^talk_rus? 02:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@Alex Great: it would be helpful if you actually provided an explanation as to what changes you have made, or propose to make. We are not mind-readers, and cannot see into your mind as to what it is you have changed to the maps. You will find communicating and explaining your proposal will go a long way to achieving a goal. Wes Wolf ^Talk 03:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Wes, why you can't see the difference between the two images, but Mihitza78 can?. Can you zoom in? I also say which differences I make above and in file upload description there. ← Alex Great ^talk_rus? 03:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Visual differences (don't pay attention to colors)

File:ESC 2018 Map.svg

File:ESC-JESC-EDC XXXX Map.svg

← Alex Great ^talk_rus? 03:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@Alex Great: Please do not patronise me, I do not find it amusing, especially placing images so big in size - I find it to be an insult and offensive. With that in mind, and in accordance with WP:ACCESS I have removed the 800px and replaced as file links. All you need to do is write down what has changed - maybe Wikipedia:Explanationism will help you with this concept that you seem to be finding so hard to grasp. And if the change is the inclusion of lakes, then I'm sorry to say this, but why include them? As Wikipedia says "most ideas are bad". While it is certainly a good thing for Wikipedia articles and images to be aesthetically pleasing or well laid out from a graphic design perspective, the mere appearance of an article is not a factor in whether the subject of the article is justifiably suitable for an article on Wikipedia. The lakes do not add any value to the image that is of significance to their use on Eurovision articles. If we are going to start adding lakes, then we might as well add them all, and rivers too. And that would be just damn silly and overkill. Keep them simple, free from clutter and over-graphical. I'm opposing the inclusion of such minor detailing to these map, and would support their immediate abolition. Wes Wolf ^Talk 04:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

And why the images on the Wikimedia must comply with the rules of the English section of Wikipedia? First rule of many sections of Wikipedia is be bold. So I try. My changes, as I described already, are the updating of the standard map of Europe (adding lakes as it is given on the standard map, improving the borders that have become more accurate and correct, adjusting the width of the borders). More information about the changes you can read on the page with the upload history of the original file. I also tried to preserve all aspects of the Eurovision project so that my changes were consensual and there were no disputes within the framework of the project. If you want, these changes to be the most consensual, then I can invite all participants of all the Eurovision wiki projects to discussion from all language sections. This will allow others to express themselves more independently. Because for the most part all the questions concerning Eurovision for some reason pass through you, where you are against, then refer to the manuals or essays, or to the rules. In some cases, you need to ignore all the rules, which I do. My changes do not violate anything that could spoil the content on Wikipedia. ← Alex Great ^talk_rus? 07:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@Alex Great: Oppose: Seeing as you've asked for my opinion, I'll give it freely. Wesley Wolf is correct to say that the lakes are rather out of place in a map that should be looking at geographic nations, not geological formations. While I appreciate what you are trying to do here, features like lakes are more useful in maps used in articles on military procedures, not so much competitions. I wasn't sure what Wes was getting at until I saw the pictures, but I don't think the changes are useful. Sorry for the trouble. — Tuxipεdia^(talk) 07:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@Tuxipedia: what if I'll delete lakes? What then? ← Alex Great ^talk_rus? 07:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@Alex Great: As far as I can tell, the lakes are the only significant difference between the two files, although there does seem to be a slight difference in the zoom. However, this seems negligible. I don't want to be a pain, but I just don't understand what you are changing, other than the lakes. — Tuxipεdia^(talk) 08:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Borders. See borders. See Crimea, Luxembourg and Malta, Greece islands, Faroe Islands and some Islands near Sweden. ← Alex Great ^talk_rus? 11:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@Alex Great:: you most certainly do not understand the concept of WP:BOLD. You are aware that is only applicable to written content in articles, and not graphical changes? When it comes to making major changes to images (like you have with lakes etc) then you need to be implementing WP:GLC, which explicitly states:

"Making major changes to the graphical layout of certain pages that are not articles requires caution (examples below). It is often best to test changes first (in a sandbox page in your userspace, or a subpage of the page in question), and to discuss the proposed change with other editors before making it live. When many users edit pages for layout, different plans can conflict, and the page may get worse rather than better. This is particularly true of highly visible pages, such as those linked to from the navigation boxes on the left of the screen. These often use intricate formatting to convey their information, and a lot of work has gone into making them as user-friendly as possible. Moreover some pages form groups whose formatting is intended to be uniform. You should not make unapproved design edits to these types of pages. Examples include the Main Page (which in any case is permanently protected), the Community Portal, the Featured content group of pages, and the group consisting of Portal:Contents and its subpages, as well as Portal:Current events. This does not apply to articles or normal portals.

— WP:GLC

You notice in the rule is states "you should not make unapproved edits to types of files that are on the Main Page, Community Portal, Featured content, and Project Portals". SO your change to what is now named File:Eurovision events Map.svg, was done without being approved through consensus, nor did you propose the change. So I strongly urge you to cease further changes, and revert any that you have done which did not have prior approval through a consensus. Also why have you annexed Crimea on the map? It is still a disputed region and should not be annexed on these maps, until official recognition is sought by the UN. What you've done here is actually a violation on a couple of Wikipedia conventions, which I should really reporting now, which could lead to yourself being on topic ban. If I were you, I would undo Crimea - as it is still part of Ukraine - although some will say it is now part of Russia. But this is what I mean with the region in a current dispute. It is like anyone changing Macedonia to FYR MAcedonia; they would receive a WP:NCMAC warning and placed on their sanction list, with WP:1RR restrictions. Do you really want to be restricted on English Wikipedia? Wes Wolf ^Talk 11:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me, Wes. But this rule works with images that upload in English Wikipedia directly. If your Project Portal opposed this changes on map it is not mean that Project Portal on Polish, Hebrew or Nederlands Wikipedia this oppose! ← Alex Great ^talk_rus? 11:49, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

What are you talking about, Wes. I did not move the Crimea to the territory of Russia. It is still attached to Ukraine. Look it up in the editor! ← Alex Great ^talk_rus? 11:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Wes, do not try to scare me and steal the blocking of my account. In connection with this statement that you hung on me what I did not do (the annexation of the Crimea), you can be sanctioned by yourself. Be careful. I say it again: I updated the map from the standard Blank map of Europe. The changes that I wanted to point out are the common borders of countries that have become more accurate. More precisely, look at the outlines! Well, wow, Wes. You always attack me and try to block it. This was already on the Wikimedia Commons, when you complained to the administrators about me. This is an attack of a personal nature. I want to say again: see the outlines of borders. And carefully see that Crimea is still part of Ukraine. ← Alex Great ^talk_rus? 11:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh dear, @Alex Great:, there is so much you have yet to learn with Wikipedia and Wikimedia. WP:BOLD is OK for Wikipedia of any language, but Commons discourages on being bold, and would rather we don't be bold (see Commons:Don't be bold). On Commons, being bold is rarely useful and more frequently disruptive. And seeing as you assume that being bold on Commons is OK, Actually shows your intent to be disrupt rather than contribute peacefully. To clarify what Commons requires us to do:

1. The stability of Commons images is relied on by websites within Wikimedia and outside. Changes to existing images may affect very many people.
2. Multi-lingualism within Commons, and across related projects and other websites, makes effective communication more difficult, heightening misunderstanding in the presence of sudden changes.
3. Much of Commons' content involves licensing and copyright issues, and changing anything in this area (such as the licensing of a file or the wording of a licensing template) may have legal implications.
4. Much of Commons work involves creating and maintaining a working categorisation scheme, which is complicated by issues of multi-lingualism. Changes to categorisation may not be transparent to other users, and the reasons for the scheme structure are not always clear or well-documented.
5. Many users active on other Wikimedia projects, who may be significantly affected by changes, log in on Commons only infrequently. Discussions about proposed changes need to take this into account.

I do not see that you have taken any of those rules into account. You've just made changes, and not sought a consensus. In your earlier comment, you stated that the "changes were consensual", yet I do not see anywhere that a consensus to your proposal was reached - which validates my argument that you just made the changes based on your preferable choice. As for trying to "scare you", I am doing no such thing. Advising you of the consequences is not "threatening to have you blocked". I'm sure you amongst others on here, would appreciate being informed of potential consequences, in case we were not aware of the implications we could be getting ourselves into. So being helpful is now an act of incivility? Wow, you seriously need a reality check. But if you do not appreciate helpful advice, then I will no longer give it you. And when you get into too much trouble and become blocked (if that ever happens) then do not expect me to come and save you. An old proverb you may wish to learn: "Give someone enough rope, and they will hang themselves" - that is basically what you are doing. Making changes en-mass, and not following the core rules of Wikimedia. Perhaps you should start to research your policies and rules before jumping into deeper trouble.

And to threaten me by saying I can be sanctioned just through advising you of a current dispute over Crimea, and the consequences that can be implemented, is not something that can be punished with a sanction. So yes, you have made a threat! And incorrectly stating that I can be sanctioned for discussing policy rules. Nobody can be sanctioned for discussing things. People can however be sanctioned for editing on areas that they hold a topic ban in that topical area - such as WP:NEWBLPBAN, which would impose a block on anyone who is in receipt of the ban and edits on BLP articles. Wes Wolf ^Talk 12:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@Alex Great: This section has escalated out of hand, but please understand I'll approach this matter with impartiality. Because my knowledge of European geography is somewhat limited, the changes don't mean a lot to me. However, it is my understanding given the file you have modified at commons is not necessarily the best to use, despite being found at WP:MAP. One person mentioned on the discussion page over two years ago that Crimea is practically disembodied from Ukraine, and they received no response. While I respect your efforts to fix borders, I don't see the changes as necessary or particularly useful.

Regardless of my view of the situation, I would prefer that this were solved diplomatically as is not currently the case. Wesley Wolf, please remember that Alex doesn't speak fluent English, and this can easily result in misunderstandings. I don't think there is a rush to solve this, so we should probably wait and hear the opinions of other editors before proceeding with any further changes. — Tuxipεdia^(talk) 05:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

This file is a same file, that was used for ESC maps 10 years ago. ← Alex Great ^talk_rus? 10:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I haven't been around on Wikipedia for half that long, but if it used to be in use, I presume there was a reason that the change was made away from that particular version. Before we revert to a file used ten years ago, I think we need to know the reasons it was changed in the first place, and analyze whether they were sound and still relevant. — Tuxipεdia^(talk) 10:41, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Having been here eleven years, I can say that when I started, ESC articles used these style GIF maps, and in around 2008 the maps were changed to these PNG versions, and some months later the current SVGs were added. -- AxG / ✉  11:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@Tuxipedia: I am aware of the language barrier, which is why I am trying my best to keep my context as simply as is possible. However, there are several issues that have come to light, of which I am now concerned about. Alex stated the "changes were consensual", implying that he has gained a WP:CONSENSUS from the rest of the community to add the lakes which to be honest are minor details. He has not provided links to show where this consensus was reached. I have looked everywhere and cannot find anything to validate his claim. He also contradicted that statement by saying he was being bold. To be bold, means making a change without consensus and hoping that everyone will be OK with it. So with that in mind, nobody can be bold and have consensus at the same time - which means his comment that consensus was reached is therefore a lie.

It has been pointed out that these map images are on WikiCommons, so that they can be used across the wider Wikimedia projects. WikiCommons is very explicit in their rules, and strictly stats that we must not be bold when making changes to images that are used across several Wikimedia projects, without seeking consensus first. If commons are telling us to do that, then why has Alex not proposed the changes and sought consensus? Why has he been bold in making his preferred cosmetic changes, when commons strictly tells us not to be bold. He has recreated several maps, and made original ones orphaned; which subsequently become deleted. That is clear signs of ownership and not taking the opinions of the wider community into account - very selfish actions.

Before any further changes are made, I would suggest that Alex follows the rules set by Commons and Wikipedia, and not take it upon himself to make his own rules. From now on, Alex should propose any ideas and changes, allow others to discuss them. You never know, during those discussion even more improvements and ideas may be put forward. Once a consensus is reached, then update the images with the agreed changes. I don't want to seek intervention from admins at commons, as that is bullish and does not achieve any resolution whatsoever. Which is why I would appreciate that Alex Great slow down on these mass changes, and follow procedure properly. Wes Wolf ^Talk 12:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• @Alex Great: in your comment on 29 April 2017 (above) you stated "this file is a same file, that was used for ESC maps 10 years ago". How would you know of this when you only joined Wikipedia on 17 September 2013? That's is not even four years ago. For your sake I am assuming you made an error there and are not evading a block from a previous account; that would be serious sock pupperty, and admins are clamping down hard on historical socks. AxG has already pointed out that you are wrong on this occasion about the svg maps being used on ESC 10 years ago - so a lie has been caught out there. At least do your research before presenting evidence, we don't want to make ourselves look like fools.
• @Tuxipedia:, the problem we have here is the map that is being changed so that they include lakes (which are minor cosmetic changes anyway, and have nothing to do with the contest). Alex has stated which map he has used as the foundation map. Yet he does not understand the larger-scale impact he is having on other maps. If you look at File:Eurovision events Map.svg, AxG states in the summary description "NOT TO CHANGE THE IMAGE". And what does Alex Great go and do? He ignores the notification and changes things anyway without gaining consensual support. That my friend is bad practice and disruptive behaviour. Wes Wolf ^Talk 15:54, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@Wesley Wolf: I'm willing to accept that Alex is breaking Wikipedia protocols. This does not, however, mean he is doing so in bad faith, which is why I see no point in getting frustrated. He has offered to remove the lakes, but as the other changes don't appear to be helpful, it seems that we should go ahead, revert the changes and close the discussion. Unless somebody else has something constructive to contribute, I would say that I have nothing more to say on the matter. — Tuxipεdia^(talk) 21:23, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Wesley Wolf still trying to humiliate me by blaming lies and saying that my activities on Wikipedia are selfish. I joined Wikipedia not in 2013, but in 2011. Before that, I edited as anonymous. "this file is a same file, that was used for ESC maps 10 years ago" → Do you know that in Wikipedia and Commons exixt a history of the versions? I already wrote above and provided a link to the 10-year-old version: "Hi, I recently updated the map of Europe, which is used in maps like File:ESC 2017 Map.svg. I just updated the map from the old 2008 version of 2016 version of File:Blank map of Europe (with disputed regions).svg". ← Alex Great ^talk_rus? 04:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Alex Great: I have listened to both your statements and Wesley's statements and have come to my personal conclusion based upon evidence, not personal attacks. The file you point to is indeed from 2008, but AxG has already verified that it was not in use on ESC maps until later. But in the end, it is besides the point. The changes were not deemed constructive by the group as a whole and further discussion has proven fruitless. I'd advise you cut your losses and self-revert, more for your own sake than anybody else's. You are a competent editor, thus your status as patroller on Russian Wikipedia, and it would be unproductive to continue the discussion. — Tuxipεdia^(talk) 06:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you, thank you for your understanding. I also think that it is worthwhile to end this debate. I listened to both of your opinions. And in this case, since my proposal does not like the community, I will not offer such global changes to the maps anymore. I think that this topic can be closed. ← Alex Great ^talk_rus? 06:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Stub-class crisis

Following on from the discussion above, in which I raised the concerns of stubs being forgotten about. I would like to provide a couple of examples on what I meant by an article going stale, and then resurrected after given some TLC treatment by my own hands.

1. Albania in the Bala Turkvision Song Contest: Before it had 4 lines of text and 1 citation. And after it has paragraphs, sections, 7 citations, expanded 5-fold.
2. Crimea in the Bala Turkvision Song Contest: Before it had 3 lines of text and 2 citations. And after, it has paragraphs, sections, and 13 citations.

There is a total of 108 articles that I have listed as urgent expansion, and that is just Junior Eurovision, Turkvision, and Bala Turkvision, of which I have only managed to get through 11. Still a long way to go. And that doesn't include Young Musicians, Young Dancers, ABU Festivals, Choir of the Year, and many more. IS now the time to designate a team of project members to go through all of the stubs articles (2,677 in total), and assess them, deciding on if they can be expanded, or have their content merged. Any suggestions, or maybe volunteers to work on these stubs? Wes Wolf ^Talk 12:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Wesley Wolf: After the discussion here, you've successfully guilted me into getting around to touching up some of these articles. For the future, I'll keep a list of these articles I've touched up on in my sandbox, you can add it to your watchlist, and if you find the changes satisfactory, you can remove the article from the list and modify your list. — Tuxipεdia^(talk) 00:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

United States broadcasting history of Eurovision Song Contest

I've started a discussion about the history of Eurovision Song Contest being shown in the United States on Talk:List of countries in the Eurovision Song Contest#United States broadcasting history of Eurovision Song Contest if anyone would like to take a look at it. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 18:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Split Voting Results (50/50 column keep or remove) - MoS issue

MoS issue 2013 First Semi-Final
Place	Televoting	Rank	50/50	Points	Jury	Rank
1	Denmark	3.33	Denmark	167	Denmark	3.58
2	Russia	3.89	Russia	156	Russia	3.74
3	Ukraine	3.94	Ukraine	140	Moldova	4.32
4	Montenegro	7.33	Moldova	95	Ukraine	5.16
5	Lithuania	7.44	Belgium	75	Austria	6.32
6	Ireland	7.61	Netherlands	75	Netherlands	6.42
7	Belgium	7.72	Belarus	64	Belgium	6.63
8	Belarus	7.83	Ireland	54	Estonia	7.47
9	Netherlands	7.94	Lithuania	53	Belarus	8.26
10	Croatia	8.00	Estonia	52	Ireland	9.26
11	Moldova	8.28	Serbia	46	Lithuania	9.37
12	Serbia	8.39	Montenegro	41	Cyprus	9.47
13	Estonia	10.06	Croatia	38	Croatia	9.95
14	Cyprus	12.00	Austria	27	Montenegro	10.16
15	Austria	12.33	Cyprus	11	Serbia	10.95
16	Slovenia	13.17	Slovenia	8	Slovenia	11.47

@Wesley Wolf: @ThatJosh: I'm moving this discussion here from Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2017#Remove the 50/50 column in the split voting results?

I'm not sure what is going on with the collapsible split voting results I tried to find the talk discussion about adding in the 50/50 column but wasn't able to. It looks like however this was a recent change because the Eurovision Song Contest 2016 didn't have the 50/50 column until May 11th of this year (50/50 column added for Semi-Final 1, Semi Final 2 and Final). Then as of the recent version of the 2016 contest article the 50/50 split column is not present in Semi-Final 1 or 2 split voting results but is present in the final's split voting results. If this is the new format for these spit voting results tables then the Manual of Style needs to apply for all tables not just the final.

However my view on the matter is the collapsible split voting results doesn't need the 50/50 column because starting in 2016 that is essentially the total points each country has received (or pre-2106) the combined total. This information is already in the article twice once in the Results section and once in the actual scoreboards that breaks down the voting results point by point. I don't see the point in having this information in a third spot as well.

Now a second Manual of Style issue, while looking back at pre-2016 contests I noticed the split results table from Eurovision Song Contest 2013 Semi-Final 1 that I posted here on the right and I am utterly confused and so far its the only article I see with split voting tables like this and from 2011-present it is the only one that this "rank" column in it. No where in the article are these "ranks" explained and I have never seen anything like it. I have made no changes to change "rank" to "points" because again the last comment made in recent edits states this was a consensus decision. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 14:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@Alucard 16: this is jumping the gun a little bit, especially when it has been noted a new RfC will be initiated very soon, in which this will likely be discussed too. Posting this now is virtually forcing procedures to be rushed, and playing ignorance to real-life schedules of individuals. Place this on hold for a couple of days, please. Wes Wolf ^Talk 14:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Original research for commentators

Hey team. Following a lengthy discussion roughly on this topic, I have just begun gradually compiling a google spreadsheet containing a comprehensive list of every commentator and broadcaster who are marked as having broadcast ESC, JESC and any other significant Eurovision events you care to think of. You'll be able to view the progress here. As you can see, there is a massive amount of original research, with only a fraction of content being sourced. As I expect you all know, this violates Wikipedia's policies. This leads me to make a major point: Don't add a commentator or broadcaster without adding the supplementary citation, even if you use the same reference multiple times.

While I don't expect a rush of volunteers, I would appreciate every bit of help I can get to bringing Eurovision up to scratch. If you would like permissions to edit the file so that you can help compile the list, you can email me so that I can give you editing permissions. While there is no rush, I'm keen to source or remove all unsourced content when possible, rather than letting the issue linger. Thank you to anybody who can help out in any way, whether by extending the list or by adding references. All the best. — Tuxipεdia^(talk) 11:02, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Update: I have completed all the commentator information for the 50's and 60's. I still have 48 more Eurovision Song Contests to go and all of the other contests to go, however many there are of those. — Tuxipεdia^(talk) 09:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Director Credits

I believe that the the way in which the director or directors are considered for listing in the Wikipedia articles for each year's Eurovision Song Contest needs to be made more consistent across each year's respective articles, and reflect the new semi-standardized way in which directing credits are allocated on this event.

The current template, Template:Infobox song contest, notes that the director is "one who directs the contest". While in years prior to 2010 this was an unambiguous, as there was only ever one director involved, the recent involvement of multiple directors in five (5) of the last eight (8) contests has lead to inconsistent listing of directors and exclusion of some directors involved (2010, 2013, 2014, 2016, 2017).

To put the bottom line up front I believe that directors should be listed on the Wikipedia page if they are one or more of the persons who, to paraphrase the Directors Guild of America, "contributes to all creative elements relating to the making of the production and participates in molding and integrating them into one dramatic and aesthetic whole". The easiest way for us as wikipedia contributors (myself not being among the experienced of those) to determine who meets this is to consider who received a "directing" credit from each respective Contest's host broadcaster in the credits, be it director, multicamera director, multi cam director, co-, etc.

The Eurovision Song Contest is unique in its inclusion of "qualifiers" at the beginning of the director title. This is owed partially to the fact that Eurovision is consistently produced by new production companies and host broadcasters as it changes hands, each bringing a different credit convention as well as often new language translations with these production companies and host broadcasters not having credits for their other programming in English. This is also owed to Eurovision's relative uniqueness having, in some instances, more than one television director. The existence of these qualifiers, and their inconsistent use, can be most credibly viewed by looking at the credits for years including 2010, 2013, 2014, 2016, and 2017, which are all available on popular video websites but I will not link to as there are so many.

The most common "qualifier" added in front of the title "director" is "multi camera". This common term does not distinguish a "multi camera director" to only be responsible for camera direction (and not other aspects), but rather is a standard job description used to distinguish directors working in multi camera environments (such as the Eurovision Song Contest) with other directors working in single camera environments (such as New Girl).

It cannot often, if ever, be determined from the presence or absence of a "qualifier" who would be included, if each article is to follow the same template as is done here on Wikipedia. For example, if only "director" was recognized, there would be no director listed for either 2013 or 2016, where both directors were "multi camera directors" in the Grand Final.

In this proposal, the method to credit both or all three directors in 2010 and 2016 would remain the same, and the omitted directors would be added to 2013, 2014, and 2017.

The question was very smartly raised regarding where the line would be drawn as to who else may have to be added as a result of examining how directors are listed. Professionals with titles including "stage director" are involved in Eurovision, which is also an uncommon term in the rest of the production world (referring to theatrical direction and choreography, vs a stage manager, a different role). However, it is my opinion that a line can be easily drawn by holding up such other titles to the test "is this a -television- directing credit", vs a title on a television show which includes the word "director". 1st Assistant Directors, Stage Directors, Art Directors, and the likes would all continue to not need to be listed, as they are unrelated but for their inclusion of the word "director".

Finally, I would like to extend a thank you to @Wesley Wolf:, a much more experienced wikipedia editor and Eurovision contributor than myself, for bringing about an interesting discussion. SkyMark (talk) 03:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

To editor SkyMark: just so you are aware, I have read this but have not chosen to comment at this moment in time. I'm allowing time for others to share their views first. However, I have pinned this in my discussion list, and will comment if nobody else has by 31 May. P.S. thank you for the kind words of gratitude, most sincere and noble of you. Wes Wolf ^Talk 23:27, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Support: @SkyMark: Sorry for taking a month to respond. I finished my exams for the semester yesterday, so I'm only just getting round to doing some stuff. I initially opposed the idea, but having taken a look at Infobox television's usage, such as on Shortland Street or Seinfeld, I now reckon it could work. I suggest we change "Director" to "Directed by". I'll wait a week or two, and unless somebody objects, I'll go ahead and be bold. — Tuxipεdia^(talk) 01:13, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I decided to go ahead and make the change to Infobox song contest rather than wait. It seems non-controversial. If you want, you can add the appropriate people to past contests with multiple directors. — Tuxipεdia^(talk) 00:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Artist and song information

Recently, I created the first "Country in the Turkvision Song Contest Year" article, specifically Azerbaijan in the Turkvision Song Contest 2013. I intend to make more, but it opens up the necessary question: Do we want to merge biographical articles such as Farid Hasanov with these articles like we do for "Country in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest Year" articles? Hasanov has a maintenance tag for notablility, so this seems like a slightly more appropriate way to provide information on the participants. — Tuxipεdia^(talk) 11:18, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@BabbaQ: It's only right that I ping you about this given that it is your article that I'm discussing merging. What do you think? — Tuxipεdia^(talk) 12:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion a AfD is in order for Farid. Since it is not a clear Merging article. There are some merit. A AfD is my suggestion.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:28, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead with the merger in the end, because it simply makes sense to add the artist and song information title to "Country in the Turkvision Song Contest Year" articles. There are now four such articles which have this layout, and hopefully more if I ever find the time. — Tuxipεdia^(talk) 09:00, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Project coordination

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm letting you guys know that our project coordinator, Wesley Wolf, has been inactive since July and an IP address, presumably him, has edited his talk page notice, saying he has indefinitely stopped editing Wikipedia. He was a valued member of the WikiProject and I hope he does choose to return in the future.

With that all said, we have been left without a project coordinator. I believe that there are some editors in our midst who have the technical expertise required for the role, but obviously it should be noted that the role can be demanding. Wes was under a lot off stress, which seems partly to be the reason he has stopped editing. I hope that somebody is willing to take on the responsibility. Also, there is nothing wrong with more than one project coordinator. Personally, I'd like to nominate AxG to take on the role, given their experience and dedication to the project over the years. That being said, I think there are multiple other editors who should consider the job, such as Fort esc, Jjj1238 and Sims2aholic8.

If you would like to take on the role, even if you aren't listed above, please say so. Also, if you know someone who has the right expertise, please nominate them. If somebody nominates themselves or accepts their nomination, and you would like to, please say that you support a decision for them to take on the role. Thank you all editors. — Tuxipεdia^(talk) 22:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm very honored that you'd consider me for the position, but unfortunately I would not be able to take it. I edit as much as I can now, and with me graduating university soon I believe that my time for editing will begin decreasing even more now that I'll have a full-time job. I would happily endorse any of the other people you recommended for the position. And if you're reading this Wes, thank you for mentoring me throughout my beginnings as an editor, you're a great guy. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 22:30, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the nomination Tuxipedia (took me by surprise) but I honestly don't believe i'm experienced enough to take up such a important role by myself for the Project. In my opinion i'm still very much a "beginner" when it comes to Wikipedia. However, I would at least consider working with other members to help lessen the workload. If possible, a few project coordinators would be a good idea. Fort esc (talk) 00:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@Fort esc: I don't know you as well as I've known Wes, but I've generally been aware of your presence, particularly on less popular subjects like the Eurovision Choir of the Year. I'm generally of the impression that you've been vocal in discussions over the years and seem like a good editor in general, even if you aren't as experienced as Wes was.

If you're feeling uncertain based upon whether you would or wouldn't be able to take on the role, check out this page Wes wrote four years ago. I discovered it a day or so ago and I'm not sure if anyone other than Wes has ever seen it. I noticed that it mentions a switch to a system of having elected coordinators, although for the short time I've been in the project, Wes was all on his own. I'm more than happy to share the role of coordinator over the summer break which starts in a couple of days, although I probably won't be able to keep that up come March when my studies start again. — Tuxipεdia^(talk) 01:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@AxG and Sims2aholic8: In case you guys haven't seen this already, I'm pinging you to let you know. — Tuxipεdia^(talk) 11:36, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I've actually been dipping into here throughout the initial pinged post, thinking of what to say. Alas I had not known that Wesley Wolf had taken an 'indefinite leave of absence', but I hope he will return. But reading the below does either makes me feel somewhat old or Tuxipedia a stalker (lol), I won't say no, but ideally believe that we should have two coordinators, Wikipedia is a voluntary hobby for most of us, and it should not be stressful, and drive people away. So I'm hopeful that someone else will put their name forward. -- AxG / ✉  18:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

@AxG: Ha yes, we all have to do some wikistalking every now and then when we nominate somebody for a position. But I'd already been aware of your involvement in the group, particularly given your occasional comment regarding templates, part of the reason you always struck me as competent. Fort esc said he would consider sharing the role, so I suppose you would accept your nomination if he decides to take on the position? I doubt we have enough active (ones watching the talk page) members to go through with the vote, but given Jjj1238 and I both endorse your position, I'm sure we can just agree for you to become the coordinators without further hassle. That being said, if Fort esc decides against taking on the position, and nobody else does, I will offer to share the role with you. — Tuxipεdia^(talk) 08:41, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@Fort esc: Given that AxG has accepted the role, it's really up to you whether you wish to be project coordinator alongside them. Given that nobody has come here to protest or complain, a simple confirmation will suffice. No need for a whole nomination process when we know it would just pass. Of course, if you don't want to be project coordinator, no worries; I can help AxG temporarily until we find somebody else. — Tuxipεdia^(talk) 02:15, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I would like to take up the position. Thanks, Fort esc (talk) 15:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Nomination: AxG

I'd like to nominate AxG to take the role of project coordinator for WikiProject Eurovision. AxG first edited articles within the project's scope in 2006, has been a member of the project at least since 2008 and was briefly an editor at the Eurovision Newsdesk in 2010. They've contributed over 45,000 edits to en.wikipedia.org over the years and has various user rights that are proof of their capabilities. All of these contribute to AxG being, in my opinion, the best candidate for the position of project coordinator, should they choose to accept this nomination. — Tuxipεdia^(talk) 23:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Fort esc (talk) 00:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I hereby support. -- AxG / ✉  19:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Continuation: Changes to Template:Esc

Just a quick continuation from 'Changes to Template:Esc, {{Esccnty}} was a template that was not and has still not been updated; I didn't forget about it (I did), these will be updated when I get AutoWikiBrowser to work again. -- AxG / ✉  18:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Golly, that was ages ago. Was that just simplifying the input parameters? — Tuxipεdia^(talk) 06:26, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes removing the 'j=' and 'x=' stuff, plus simplifying the code itself for easy future updates. -- AxG / ✉  15:16, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done -- AxG / ✉  21:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merger of [Abu/Tsc], [Abu/Tsc]yr & [Abu/Tsc]cnty into existing templates

As the above is done, I now propose that the following templates be merged

• {{Abu}} & {{Tsc}} into {{Esc}}
• {{Abuyr}} & {{Tscyr}} into {{Escyr}}
• {{Abucnty}} & {{Tsccnty}} into {{Esccnty}}. -- AxG / ✉  21:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Support: We also need to look into fixing the Turkvision Song Contest templates so that they can handle all territories. For instance, {{Tsc|Moscow}} creates {{Tsc|Moscow}} when it should create {{Tsccnty|Moscow}}, meaning that we have to type {{flagicon|Moscow Oblast}} {{Tsccnty|Moscow}} instead, which is much longer. There are various other territories that it can't handle currently. Of course, it could take too much time to do for too little worth, but I'd consider it if Turkvision does continue (which seems unlikely at the moment). — Tuxipεdia^(talk) 23:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I've not been told that these didn't work. So that's a whole new challenge to sort. -- AxG / ✉  13:16, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

List of countries in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest

Fort esc already knows, but for several months, I've been experimenting on the List of countries in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest article. Given that the List of countries in the Eurovision Song Contest article is a featured list, I thought it might be possible to improve the former by using the latter. The changes are complete as far as I'm concerned, asides from perhaps the matter of some references, Kosovo and its disputed tag. Normally, I would post on the page's talk page, but given that this is an important article to the WikiProject, I thought I'd let everyone here know.

Here is the current version, and here is the proposed version. The changes, both big and small, are:

• Rewrite of the lead to include three paragraphs instead of one.
• Vertical image box with pictures of various entrants alongside the participants' table.
• Expansion of the prose regarding the participants.
• Replacement of legend with smaller colour boxes.
• Replacement of "X"s with less obtrusive "-"s.
• Addition of "Unsuccessful attempts to participate" section (contains Bosnia and Herzegovina, Germany and Slovakia)
• List of broadcasts from countries which have never participated.
• Link to Eurovision portal
• Columnar references

If you don't like any of the changes, feel free to say so. I'll only roll out changes to things that you guys actually think we should change. — Tuxipεdia^(talk) 02:36, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I have rolled out the changes. If anybody has any objections to them, please raise them on the talk page there, including the addition of many references and a note regarding Kosovo. Thank you. — Tuxipεdia^(talk) 11:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation links on pages tagged by this wikiproject

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Eurovision

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod ^talk 15:30, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Bosnia and Herzegovina in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest

I noticed that this protected redirect needs to point to List of countries in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest#Bosnia and Herzegovina, so if somebody with appropriate permissions could alter that, it would be appreciated. — Tuxipεdia^(talk) 03:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Ted Gärdestad, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 12 March 2018 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Split Results for 2009, 2014, and 2015

In cases where there has been no jury vote or televote, some lists are including that country's respective other method (this usually applies to San Marino not having a televote), and I personally prefer this method. For some other lists, the points are omitted altogether. The 2015 final is just bizarre. Serbia's "jury" total is 12, which excludes the 22 points it received from jury-less Macedonia and Montenegro, but San Marino's jury is included in the televoting total (which is most noticeable in the UK's televoting score). What on earth is going on? And whatever happens, can we not agree on a consistent protocol? Spa-Franks (talk) 06:01, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Photogallery

I noticed a lot of pages have photo galleries now. Is there any reason why they are all "Photogallery"? I don't believe it's one word unless this is a case of my American English bias. I propose renaming the sections "Photo gallery". Grk1011 (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, feel free to rename them. Thanks, Fort esc (talk) 14:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Barbara Dex Award imagery

Hello fellow Eurovision fans! I took some time today to brush up the Barbara Dex Award with more text, enhanced table, a map and, most importantly, sources. However, one important feature is still missing: Photos of the ugly dresses the acts were awared the BDA for: I re-used some that were previously in the now-removed "photogallery" section and used some I happend to find on Commons, but most entries are still lacking any form of imagery. Because there are little to no naming conventions on Commons, it is difficult to find images appropriate to the cause, I'd like to turn to you. It'd be great if you could aid me in finding images, for all performances that are listed in the table, in which the on-stage outfit(s) is/are fully and clearly visible. Good examples: 1, 2; bad examples: 3, 4. Regards. Lordtobi (✉) 15:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eurovision boycott 2019

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eurovision boycott 2019 . ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 14:58, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Request for protection on the article of Magdalena Tul (Poland 2011)

There has been some concerted efforts by different IP's to put a narrative saying that Magdalena Tull will convert to Islam, which is basically an unsubstantiated crystal ball claim. Where can I request protection for the article?

Not A Superhero (talk) 18:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Macedonia name change

Because of the name change that Macedonia has done, this means that all articles from 1996 to 2018 would have the country red-linked now because of the change. Not Homura (talk) 00:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Do you have an example of this concern? This isn't the first country to have a name change that affects the continuity of the participation. Grk1011 (talk) 16:46, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

On pretty much every year page 2017 and older. Something was changed on the template level, but I'm not exactly sure where or how to fix it.

Also, it's not the first country to have a name change, yes, but the fact is that the country participated under the previous name in previous contests. Changing the name retroactively on year pages doesn't seem right. Mr. Gerbear|Talk 21:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Looks like it's not a local change that we could fix easily. We might need to add some sort of extra field, similar to what we do to show the various flags a country might have over the years. @AxG:, would you be able to assist? Grk1011 (talk) 01:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

There is a name= field, so put that in the template like so:{{Esc|Macedonia|name=Macedonia|y=2018}} will produce: Macedonia. But that does not change the link, and includes 'North' in the link, so we may have to rely on some new redirects for now, until a proper fix is ready. -- AxG / ✉  12:43, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

We properly won't be the only one that is going to have this issue that we are facing. Not Homura (talk) 05:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Update: Everything back to normal Template:Country data Macedonia has been reverted removing 'North', with Template:Country data North Macedonia to be used for North Macedonia. -- AxG / ✉  16:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Updating the assessment templates

Could an admin please update Template:WikiProject_Eurovision/class to remove "draft class" and add "redirect class"? The instructions on how to do this are available here. Grk1011 (talk) 19:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@Grk1011: Done. -- AxG / ✉  13:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, though I don't think I got the code right to have the template add them to the category? This was so much easier for me when they weren't all protected. Grk1011 (talk) 13:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and turn off "importance" for redirect if possible! Grk1011 (talk) 21:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Future contests

I've started a discussion about the 2020 contest page if anyone is interested in commenting. Grk1011 (talk) 18:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of Wiwibloggs and Eurovix on the reliable sources noticeboard

There is a discussion on the reliability of Wiwibloggs (wiwibloggs.com) and Eurovix (eurovix.com) on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at WP:RSN § Wiwibloggs and Eurovoix. — Newslinger talk 09:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Portal:Eurovision Song Contest

Portal:Eurovision Song Contest, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Eurovision Song Contest and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Eurovision Song Contest during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:42, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Move request at L'amour est bleu

A requested move discussion has been initiated for L'amour est bleu to be moved to Love is Blue. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion at Talk:L'amour est bleu#Requested move 5 June 2019. --Scolaire (talk) 19:09, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Assessments

I've been doing a lot of work on the assessment backlog recently, but while most articles align with the examples in our assessment criteria, there are a few things I want to discuss:

1. Should all entrants and songs for a country's selection process be within the project's umbrella or just the selected entries/entrants?
2. Should winning songs have a higher "importance" rating (currently all songs are low priority).
3. Should individual national selection articles be on the same "importance" scale as the contest itself? For example, is Melodifestivalen 2019 "mid" importance like Sweden in the Eurovision Song Contest 2019 or should it be "low"? The general topic article for a national selection is already "high" like Melodifestivalen, but should that be "mid" because it's not super important to the Contest overall?
4. Should composers, writers, commentators, spokespeople, etc be under the project's umbrella and if so, at what importance level?

My feelings are 1) no 2) no 3) no 4) undecided. Thoughts? Grk1011 (talk) 20:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I boldy went ahead and started working on "no on 1" by removing the project banner from songs and entrants that only participated in local national finals. We already have a large number of articles to look after and I feel like we should focus on songs and entrants that actually made it to Eurovision (or a sister contest). Still looking for more input on these 4 items! Grk1011 (talk) 21:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

1) no - as Grk1011 said, we should focus on the songs that actually made it to Eurovision. 2) undecided. 3) undecided 4) yes - if the actual performers are under the project’s umbrella, then the writers and composers should also be. Thalaja (talk) 15:18, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I will begin to implement #4 for composers, writers, lyricists, choreographers, etc., since they are part of the song and its performance ("low" on the importance scale), but I'm still on the fence about commentators and spokespeople. We should have at least GA status as a goal for all of our articles, but other than a sentence or two in their articles about Eurovision, it would be real struggle for them to get there under our umbrella. Grk1011 (talk) 20:37, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

1) no 2) no 3) no and 4) divided: I agree with Grk10111 here. Those who are involved in a song should be of importance, but in my opinion lower importance than the actual performers. Commentators and spokespersons should not be under the umbrella, since in essence they have not any importance for the Eurovision Song Contest and they are not what Eurovision is about. Hhl95 02:30, 27 July 2019 (UTC+2)

Hello

Hello, I just wanted to know if this WikiProject is still... alive?. Nobody really checks it, this talk page is basically empty, the newsletter hasn’t had a new issue for a couple years and overall it feels abandoned. I would love to help reinvent it because I think it would be so cool to have a place for us Eurovision fans to talk, learn and just overall have fun. If anyone ever wants to chat just come to my talk page and say hello. Have a great day, Thalaja (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I've been posting a lot of questions above and not getting anywhere. Not sure why others haven't been checking this page? :( Grk1011 (talk) 14:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

@Grk1011:, I'm personally terribly sorry; I saw your comment a bunch of times for the past months, I just really didn't know what to think. I thought hard about it a few times, but these issues are quite the dilemma for me; they cover broad aspects (which is exactly the dilemma I know) with indeed blurry boundaries. I can try to think about it some more and respond my opinion if you still want.

@Thalaja:, it will be cool if you know and want to help reinvent and maintain, maybe with Grk1011 - as I know you usually maintain here Grk1011 (unless I'm wrong)? Also, Thalaja, indeed it can be fun discussing here, and actually this is the ideal place to discuss issues effecting a whole spectrum of articles; formatting, styling and content on Eurovision articles; also annual contests compared to local contests and such. And - of course, also talk-maintenance tags and definitions, as Grk1011 raised above. אומנות (talk) 21:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello Grk1011 and אומנות, I just wanted to know if any of you wanted to help me “reinvent” this WikiProject. I have a couple ideas so if you want to talk about it, just leave a reply to this message either here or on my talk page. Have a great day, Thalaja (talk) 00:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Thalaja I would love to read your ideas, also about designs. I'm not that versed with technical tricks, I am most useful and focused about content presentation if that helps you. אומנות (talk) 09:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello אומנות, thanks for wanting to help! Here are a few of my ideas.

• Issue monthly newsletters The last issue of the Eurovision newsletter was released just over 4 years ago. It’s a perfect time to recreate it due to Eurovision 2020 preparations having just started.
• Recreate the Eurovision Cup The last edition of the Eurovision Cup took place in 2015. It would be a great way to start and improve Eurovision related articles.
• Send mass messages This one is one of the hardest to do due to it requiring at least one of us to be a mass message sender. The reason we should send mass messages is because if we do, we could recruit new members and send newsletters faster.
• Change colour of WikiProject Currently, this WikiProject is the colour #F6F6E2, which is a very faded yellow. I think that we should change this due to it making the WikiProject look a bit old. The only issue is that this page should be readable by people with Color blindness so we can’t do anything too crazy.

Those are just a couple of ideas I have, if you want to know any more just let me know. Thalaja (talk) 14:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Thalaja, I think it's great to update others who wish, via newsletters, and mass messages, to recruit new contributors (I personally tend to keep track myself and so not need notifications). I personally don't have experience in this technical fields, but I think Grk1011 can advise, if and once he may be available. Maybe Dimsar01 also has some experience? The Eurovision cup - also great, as long as you or someone knows and have time to monitor and have a system so that the points will be accurately calculated (to avoid any possibility of bad feel/arguing from competitors). I also agree with your suggestion to freshen the page colour, and as you said, stay sensitive to everyone's eyes, so I think it will still have to be kept something more faded rather than vivid, and still maybe more vivid than the current color as you said.אומנות (talk) 17:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@אומנות: Thanks for the feedback, sorry I didn’t reply right away, i’ve been researching the Eurovision Cup for a while and I didn’t have a lot of time to check this talk page. I’ve also been researching colour blindness so that we can pick a colour that looks good for those with and without colour blindness but I haven’t found one yet. If you find one, let me know. Thalaja (talk) 19:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Thalaja, you are too kind, you can even respond only after few days or whenever, you are volunteering here, no pressure, and especially as you were busy here too for keeping researching how great of you! :-) I briefly looked now, especially for kinds of light blue/green which transfer a calming effect. While the bunch of project pages I saw were white, I did find this [1]. It also has the touch of light blue - within white which therefore creates kind of elegant frame, while the blue is like the picture, looks very elegant to me. It's a Nel blu dipinto di WHITE :). אומנות (talk) 19:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Ho actually its the usual thin white frame, then blue, with white content within. Somehow got confused. BTW, took me 3 times (3 edits) until I managed to link this properly, see what I mean with my tendency for technique miss-functions? ;-) I think that looks very stylish, maybe we can add some further decorative elements. What do you think? אומנות (talk) 19:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@אומנות: I really like the blue. It definitely looks better than the current colour. Thalaja (talk) 21:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Thalaja okay, great! In fact, what's most elegant to me is the thin darker blue surrounding the lighter blue, which actually feats the most to the "Nel blu dipinto di blu". You know what? We can add more darker blue frames (or other colour's darker shades) - covering on top of each other (like a Babushka) around the main more faded blue, as they are frames with no writing anyway so won't bother the eyes, while still giving more vivid-colorful feel. If we go with blue, we can also incorporate "Blue in the blue" as slogan at the top, as reference to the most successful Eurovision song ever, and actually at top 10/20 of the best selling singles (and albums) of all time. Also, I just looked at your user page - amazing mountain picks photos, also dominant by blue and white! אומנות (talk) 22:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@אומנות: I like how the blue looks good and can also be related to Eurovision due to Nel blu, dipinto di blu. Also thanks! your userpage is also very good, more minimalistic. Thalaja (talk) 14:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@Thalaja: Thank you too for all your will and feedback-back to me. Yeah... my user page is just the simple prosaic stuff, just as my contributions usually are. Sometimes I think maybe I want to decorate it some, but don't have the energy to start with that. My page was even completely empty until eventually somewhere in 2013 I added this small descriptions about myself, and my interests. :) Well, hope others join and say what they think about your ideas and our thoughts. אומנות (talk) 15:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I think I was the last editor to "reinvent" the project maybe 10 years ago. I've definitely not been as active since then after laying out a lot of the framework. It got to be too much work to manage and other editors have since taken the lead. It's been pretty dormant for the last 3 or 4 years it seems. Regarding the Newsletter, I had always delivered it with AutoWikiBrowser since we're only talking a few dozen members. There is still a good number of the old "core group" active in other areas of Wiki, mainly @AxG:, @Sims2aholic8:, and @BabbaQ:, however with the loss of CT Cooper and Wesley Wolf, the most recent coordinators, I think we've just been sort of treading water. I fully support anyone with the time to bring us all together! Also, shout out to @Cartoon network freak: for the amazing work on getting so many Romanian articles up to Good Article status! Grk1011 (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Eventually all it needs is users with further knowledge, and permission for technical abilities, which I'm sure @Thalaja: can acquire for creating newsletters and mass messengers if they wish, or just use the AutoWikiBrowser. I actually thought you also had this privileges, Grk1011, which was the reason I earlier pinged you. So we can simply progress with this tools, for the ideas suggested by Thalaja and also once further feedback to our design thoughts and overall thoughts. אומנות (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Actually all Romanian Eurovision entries have been promoted to GA status, and I'm waiting for the topic to be promoted [2]. This would be the first GT for this Eurovision project. I also contribute to other Eurovision articles in case I'm really into the song, e.g.: "Rhythm Inside" or "Taken By a Stranger" ... Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@אומנות: I’ll definetly check out AutoWikiBrowser, so far it looks complicated but I think i’ll figure it out. By the way, if i’m a bit inactive on this talk page for a bit it’s because i’m waiting for other editors to tell us their thoughts on our ideas. Thalaja (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Sure @Thalaja: I understand :) and of course only if you are up to it, yeah there is just waiting now, we can also use our right to turn this to a small RFC, in few days perhaps to get more feedback. @Cartoon network freak:, do you may have a thought to spare to our blue frames and writing suggestions? Or something else? And congratulations for your hard work on the Romanian entries! :) אומנות (talk) 20:18, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think any of us have a problem with someone stepping up to manage the WikiProject. Maybe start with a mass message notifying all members that something is up? I feel like rebranding/colors can happen later. Grk1011 (talk) 17:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I guess no one’s replied yet. I’ll check this page again in a few days, then we can start “reinventing” it. Hopefully some editors will give us some feedback soon :| ○ [ Thalaja ] ○ 19:43, 27 June 2019

@Thalaja: I think this is a good idea. About time the project was reinvented and it hopefully will become more active amongst the members, as I imagine not many are aware of this "area" of Wikipedia. A mass message should be put out to give everyone a chance to reply or we could try pinging some of the old "core group" again? Regards, Fort esc (talk) 20:24, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@Thalaja: I saw some days ago that you worked on your sendbox on the Newsletter content and design. To me it looks beautiful - as you also incorporated-maintained a golden square, with frames of blue. I can add my opinion now to this, by saying that light blue and gold is one of my favorite colors combinations.

If there isn't much feedback or interest for people to comment it's because it's anyway only about the design and freshening up colors of this page which is also not Wikipedia's mainspace, and it only goes to show that currently nobody wants or thinks its needed to also propose himself alongside you or give more design ideas. If someone would want, he would come to this project page to open a new discussion - even if he never came here before - to show his interest in these matters - which is exactly what you did as well as already waited patiently for several weeks.

@Fort esc: I think there are at least like 30 people I see very active (also most registered for newspapers) and many veteran editors working for years on Eurovision articles, including you ad me; as a whole lot big load of a core-group without any selective few who stand out in some way from others, so I agree with your first suggestion - Thalaja can and should use the newsletter as a mass-massenger.

Thalaja, just go for sending the newspapers and freshen the colors of this to add some blue frames or whatever if you want; my specific "Nel blu dipinto di blu" idea can wait a bit further, I don't mind. And just so you know that though I check this page frequently I'm also now starting to think of registrating - just to get this beautiful colors-designs and content to my talk page - will be worth it. :-) Thank you very much for your work and patience. אומנות (talk) 00:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@אומנות: Thanks for the kind words. I really love the “Nel blu dipinto di blu” idea, I just didn’t know how it would look and that’s why I didn’t implement it but if we can come out with a way to make it look really nice, i’ll definitely implement it in next month’s newsletter as this month’s Newsletter is scheduled to be released in a couple days. Also, thank you very much for working with me through this whole conversation. ○ [ Thalaja ] ○ 01:48, 28 June 2019

@Thalaja: It's really a pleasure and so also truly fun for me to discuss and support someone as diligent and caring as you. Especially when I just suggest and you both suggest and mainly do in practice, thank you. Sorry I'm not much able to help with preparing slogan designs, with frames and color styles. And awesome! I didn't thought about planting a slogan in the newslatter as well, I just thought about putting it on this page's top - and now I think of a flying/flapping wings icon or of a bird or a butterfly, on a blue background, with maybe white writting inside of the slogan or dark gold letters - now that you had inspired me with the blue-gold design. If you know how to experiment with writting designs; or even something different than my suggestion of course if you wish, I will be most happy. If you wanna keep working on your sandbox and ping me for my feedback, or if just add and decorate this page already the way you are able to and see feat, I will be just as happy. And now that I realize you gave further thought for decorations for the newsletter - thank you so much. :) אומנות (talk) 03:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)