Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Merge proposal for Grethe Ingmann to Grethe and Jørgen Ingmann

I have proposed a merger for Grethe Ingmann to the Grethe and Jørgen Ingmann article. You are all welcome to participate in this discussion since this article is under part of this WikiProject's scope.Bleubeatle (talk) 11:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

If you're going to propose one to be merged, then wouldn't it have been logical to have proposed the other one too? There's individual articles for both Grethe Ingmann and Jørgen Ingmann - LOL. Wesley☀Mouse 12:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect information!!!

On the Participating countries part of the Eurovision Song Contest page. There is a picture of Europe that shows countries that have participated in Green and countries that are eligable but haven't ect...

I've noticed that on the map of Europe it shows the Greenland has competed in the Eurovision. I know in some peoples opinions Greenland is sometimes associated with being a transcontinental country that is apart of North America & Europe BUT Greenland has never competed in the Eurovision (To date). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karlwhen (talk • contribs) 20:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, I hadn't noticed this before. It seems a new map file was uploaded on 29 March 2012 by Дмитрий-5-Аверин (talk · contribs). So many errors with the image too, one being it states the file is in SVG format, but when saved to computer says its actually in JPEG format. Secondly, the files size seems to be very large at 712kb, compared to the average files size of 414kb on all other ESC by year pages. This is going to need some work to find out the exact point of time the user changed the map on Eurovision Song Contest page, and either revert their changes, or just simply re-do and replace a new map. Wesley☀Mouse 09:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, just as I had thought. Original version showing the correct map without Greenland shaded in green; and the version when Дмитрий-5-Аверин (talk · contribs) changed the map to their uploaded version. I'll just re-work the current SVG format, and upload asap. Wesley☀Mouse 09:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done - Fixed the map. There were loads of errors on the original version. Andorra, Lichtenstein, Malta, Monaco, San Marino, and Vatican were not showing on the original version, but are now showing on the revised version. Also, Lichtenstein attempted to participate in 1976 but had to withdraw as they had no TV station. This should have been highlighted as purple on the map to stipulate the fact, and hadn't been done. Greenland is now grey, as it should have been from the start. File size has now reduced to 413kb, in-lin with other maps on across the project. Wesley☀Mouse 10:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Malmö Arena at GAN

Hi. After a couple of days of work and copy editing by Cliftonian I have nominated Malmö Arena for GAN. Would anyone be able to review the process? --Reckless182 (talk) 14:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Ooooohhh I'm jumping around with excitement and clapping my hands like an excited Drama Queen teehee. I had noticed the GAN show up on the watchlist, and has already listed it down on the next edition of the project newsletter as a page milestone. The best of luck on this nomination - I can't believe that this project has now got 3 GA nominations in the space of a month - we must be a bloody good team of editors. Deserves some inspirational barnstars being dished out I think. Wesley Mouse 14:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Great to hear that we have a lot going on at the moment. Anyone of you two interested in reviewing the GAN? --Reckless182 (talk) 18:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind, Arsenikk is reviewing it now :) --Reckless182 (talk) 11:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

A few things that wouldn't go amiss

Eurovision template in general

This should follow other templates such as {{Eurovision Song Contest 2012}}.

Example:

(Ideally I want countries into one sub-box with two sub-sub-divisions but my template skills are terrible).

No offence, but we have extensively covered the template issue once before Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision/Archive 6#Template duplications and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision/Archive 7#Nomination for deletion of Obsolete templates in which a decision was reached, resulting in how the templates look now. And I did spend many man-hours reformatting the templates and manually rolling them out too. So I cannot see this latest proposal going to blossom any further from this point, especially with the length of time spent discussing it last time. Wesley Mouse 11:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, I think my brain has just malfunctioned. Someone slap me with a trout and pour hot coffee over my head in a hope it will wake me up. Wesley Mouse 11:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Right, in regards to the template suggestion, at the time of rolling out the current versions, I had planned to reformat one for the "general" template, but with one thing and another got side-tracked away from it. The task is still on my "to-do list", and I'll try and get that brought up to date by tonight. I can also use AWB to rollout the templates which will speed up the process. Just make sure the relevant articles have category tags to makes life easier. Wesley Mouse 11:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I have a few slight issues in regards to the template suggestion. Firstly, group 1 'Countries'; should really be divided into active and inactive. Otherwise we could be misleading the general reader into thinking they are all active participants, when they are not. Group 2 'Countries that no longer exist': the header could be better worded in my honest opinion. It looks a bit, well, as if we're blatantly saying a country has vanished off the face of the Earth, and we could be offending citizens of those former nations. Also, what about the other links on the current version? Links to the portal, OGAE, etc... they should be included too. I'll work on an improved version and include on here shortly. Wesley Mouse 14:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I've reworked the amalgamated template as suggested above, and while I was at it, noticed that we have three different templates for winners (Template:Winning performers of the Eurovision Song Contest, Template:Winning songs of the Eurovision Song Contest, and Template:Winning songwriters of the Eurovision Song Contest). I've also done an amalgamated version for those too.

Any comments about these, or should I start a rollout using AWB? Wesley Mouse 20:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about my little rant earlier - engine to neutral. It would still be better if we could have it all in one template (without looking too cluttered. Spa-Franks (talk) 21:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Huh, what rant earlier? Did I miss something? And I agree that we should look at ways to improve the templates, even if it means amalgamating some together that are covering similar subjects. This helps to reduce the number of templates that the project uses, and also makes life easier when it comes to maintenance updating for them. I have provided two template examples above, one for the general usage, and one for the winners - stylizing them similar to Template:Eurovision Song Contest 2012. Wesley Mouse 21:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

[INSERT COUNTRY] in the Eurovision Song Contest [INSERT YEAR]

There is a lack of inconsistency in these articles and some articles (and winners!) have red links and therefore don't even exist - Israel 1998 being one example.

Example can be found at User:Spa-Franks/Eurovision-Countries-Year.

• These are going to be discussed once the RfC discussion for Eurovision Sony Contest by [INSERT YEAR] has been completed. So we're best allowing that process to continue. Wesley Mouse 14:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

[INSERT COUNTRY] in the Eurovision Song Contest

Some of these articles are incredibly biased, Romania being one example. It seems as if the writer wants Romania to do very well, "The success from last year continued...."

• These are going to be discussed once the RfC discussion for Eurovision Sony Contest by [INSERT YEAR] has been completed. So we're best allowing that process to continue. Wesley Mouse 14:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Articles for different editions of National Selection

I'm not quite sure why we have articles like a Melodi Grand Prix 2007 and several Melodifestivalen articles when they can be put into a sub-heading in the "X in the Eurovision Song Contest XXXX" articles. Spa-Franks (talk) 11:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Surely these competitions are notable enough to warrant their own articles? --Reckless182 (talk) 11:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

In regards to the Melodifestivalen articles, those shows are notable in their own right and do warrant an article of their own really. Although we could discuss these in an RfC-style debate to discuss layout issues, and see if we can uniform them into similar styles of Eurovision articles. Wesley Mouse 11:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Thats a good idea. --Reckless182 (talk) 14:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I've just thought more on this, after noticing that Melodifestivalen is a FA-class. DO you really want to get rid of those? Its achieved FA for a reason I'm assuming. Wesley Mouse 23:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't mean getting rid of pages such as Eurovision: Your Country Needs You, I mean getting rid of pages such as Melodi Grand Prix 2007 rather than Melodi Grand Prix. We don't have articles like Eurovision: Your Country Needs You 2010, do we? Spa-Franks (talk) 12:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

They still warrant their own article by notability. As would the 2010 edition of Eurovision: Your Country Needs You. --Reckless182 (talk) 21:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Lena Meyer-Landrut

hello,

just wanted to say that the article Lena Meyer-Landrut is now a GA. Congrats! Regards.--GoP_T^C_N 21:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

RfC on the article layout of Eurovision Song Contest by year articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This RfC will attempt to address what sections and content should normally be included in Eurovision Song Contest by year articles, such as Eurovision Song Contest 2010, Eurovision Song Contest 2010 and so on. CT Cooper · talk 12:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

---

At least initially, this RfC will primarily be on a section-by-section basis with discussion on if a section listed should be included or not, and if so, what content should it contain and how should it be formatted i.e. as a table, list, or prose? This would be also a good opportunity to discuss if any sections should be split into sub-articles, although proposals on the overall layout and ordering of sections should probably wait until later to avoid things getting overcomplicated. It is the eventual ambition here that the project will develop a guideline page on how ESC by year articles should be laid out for reference every year when one is created, to avoid the need to rehash the same discussions again and again. If this RfC is a success, it may be repeated for the ESC by country articles and any others as necessary. CT Cooper · talk 20:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Section-by-section

Feel free to add any other sections which need discussion as appropriate. The is based off the most recent three post-event ESC by year articles, these being Eurovision Song Contest 2010, Eurovision Song Contest 2011, and Eurovision Song Contest 2012. CT Cooper · talk 20:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• OK everyone; I've taken into account all the ideas/suggestions that have been put forward so far on this RFC, and implemented them into a test article via my sandbox, just to give a rough idea how these annual ESC and JESC article would look like. In your spare time, could you please visit the links that I have provided, and take at look at both test versions - casting any comments/opinions about them on this RFC thread. Thank You! Wesley☀Mouse 00:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
• Skeleton draft article of ESC by year
• Skeleton draft article JESC by year.

Lead

• Clearly this is needed, but any thoughts on what should be included? WP:LEAD is applicable here. CT Cooper · talk 20:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
• Do we really need to duplicate the number of entries to date in this section? Such information is already used in the infobox, and 9 times out of 10, people only update the figure in the infobox without updating the figure in this section too. Wesley☀Mouse 20:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• Really, yes because the lead is supposed to summarize the article and the participating countries is key information. CT Cooper · talk 13:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Of course, yes; silly me. I forgot about the lead being a summary of the article. I had an official brain fart moment. Wesley☀Mouse 10:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Infobox

• Clearly this is appropriate, but any thoughts on any changes to the content? WP:INFOBOX is relevant here. CT Cooper · talk 20:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'm interested in peoples views on this (since I spend a lot of time working on it). Do people like the layout? the new map with 'ImageMap'? etc. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 21:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Ohhh yes, the new map with hidden wikilinks is absolutely fantastic; one of your best inventions to date. The layout could be one to look into, but not overly important in my opinion. Perhaps an easier flow of sections within it. Wesley☀Mouse 13:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• I think the infobox layout is great, and the new participation map is supurb, but the only thing I dont agree with is the inclusion of 'Nul Points'. Does it really have to be in the infobox? I know its a part of Eurovision and all that but does it warrant a place in the infobox? Maybe it could be replaced with second place or something similar? ShaneMc2010 15:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

  I don't have a strong opinion, but nul points is a well known feature of Eurovision in culture and I can see why it gets a special position. CT Cooper · talk 13:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Presenters

• I don't think this needs to have its own section, but in general no information should just be in the infobox. Presenters might do well in the format section. CT Cooper · talk 13:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Participating countries

• Temporal matters are important here i.e. how should the section change over time, particularly pre and post the final list of confirmed participants released by the EBU in around December every year. Complexities relating to what sources are reliable e.t.c. should probably be kept back for a separate RfC. CT Cooper · talk 20:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

One thing that does concern me is the urge to add "possibles". Shouldn't we just stick to the facts and only list the ones who have confirmed via reliable sourced references? Possibles could end up being an endless list of speculation and we're not suppose to engage in crystal ball-style activities. Wesley☀Mouse 04:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree. "Possible" participations, even referenced, are too speculative and I support their removal in ESC and JESC per year articles. – Kosm1fent 19:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree to be honest. As long as the source is reliable, is specific to the year in question, and doesn't require significant interpretation to say it means a country might participate (i.e. not a violation of WP:NOR), then I don't see it as a problem. CT Cooper · talk 13:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Scoreboards

• This is only a minor contribution, but in the scoreboards where a country aligns with itself, eg. (Serbia, Serbia) and the square is darker than normal, even though the majority of Eurovision fans should be able to figure out that the reason is because a country can not vote for itself, perhaps this should be made clearer for those of whom are not as experienced in the world of Eurovision. Perhaps with a colour legend or something? Cathairawr (talk) 10:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

  In the words of the parrot off the Aldi adverts - I "like it, like it, like it". Wesley☀Mouse 11:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

  Yes, clearer information for a general audience is usually a good idea. CT Cooper · talk 13:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• I have always wondered to be honest on if these scoreboards are overkill and that the tables of results are enough - certainly some more deletionist leaning editors might think that. CT Cooper · talk 14:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Scoreboards in JESC articles are okay, since the amount of countries is usually small. However in ESC, and especially scoreboards of the final feature 40+ countries each, and they are extremely difficult to read and follow (can't stress "extremely" enough). IMO they should be made more compact or not included at all, as in their current state they do more bad than good. – Kosm1fent 19:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
• I like having the full scoreboard as part of the article, maybe I'm a bit biased since I took on the task for ESC 2012. I think the scoreboards are nice visual piece that's uniform with other television programmes/competitions on Wikipedia. I do think that the country-country square (ex, Serbia-Serbia) should be darker only because I think the existing color is too light to even notice a difference! Dfizzles (talk) 00:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
• I tried thinking of ways to compact the information into a more legible fashion; however, I haven't come up with something successfully yet. I do, however, still stand by the final scoreboard being included in the article. But if the project decides to take a new viewpoint on the scoreboards, I suggest having the scoreboards hide-able, leaving it up to a user to decide if they want to read more about the specific contest. Dfizzles (talk) 04:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• That isn't a bad idea, but may conflict with MOS:SCROLL. CT Cooper · talk 13:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• London 2012 article uses a collapsible table on the "partners" section, which shows the Olympic sponsors. So if they are able to use one for that, then perhaps we could get away with using them for scoreboards too? Wesley☀Mouse 14:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, there is a small exemption which could apply to the scoreboards, especially since the results are also given elsewhere. CT Cooper · talk 18:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• I've been working on major improvements to the older articles (ESC 1956, ESC 1957, ESC 1958, ESC 1959, ESC 1960, ESC 1961, and ESC 1962) by expanding them as much as possible, rewriting proses that had been copy/pasted from Eurovision.tv history pages, and also adding a little insight into the host cities/host venues (also giving the option for viewers to visit the respective pages if they so choose). The scoreboards have also altered slightly, with the winning country now being highlighted in gold, and the country-country square (ex, Yugoslavia-Yugoslavia) being given a darker colour (#AAAAAA). The extensive work on these has reclassified their assessments from a start-class, to a C-class. Now if the impact is that good on these earlier articles, then just think what it could do to the more recent ones which are already at C-class. We could potentially be looking at a massive chunk of GA-class articles at this rate - and all with thanks to this RfC, and the valuable suggestions put froward from you guys. I think that is worthy of a teamwork barnstar for everyone. Wesley☀Mouse 18:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Marcel Bezençon Awards

• Although I am sceptical about these being included, I don't anything wrong in having a brief prose with them, and then the table of winners under that. Also, having the section header wikilinked is a bit excessive and from what I gather against MOS:HEAD anyway. Again, I have tested an idea on the 2012 article to which I have added a brief prose, and placed the wikilink to Marcel Bezençon Awards in that section, and removed it from the header; in-line with MOS:HEAD. Another option would be to add links for the Marcel and OGAE pages to the "see also" section, and remove the table of winners altogether from annual pages. Wesley☀Mouse 20:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

  I think the Marcel Bezençon Awards are an important part of Eurovision. I'm not sure whether tables are such a good idea since each award is based around a different field. If we listed the three winners in just porse I think this would look better and hold the same information. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 00:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

  I think the tables just makes it look neater. Popsiclesare (talk) 07:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

  If tables are to be used in respect of neatness, then a prose would be a mandatory thing then surely. Eurovision fans know what these awards are for; but what about readers who don't know? We're suppose to put across information in a manner that would cover everyone including the unfamiliar reader. So a prose explaining what these awards are and the details within the tables is a logical step forward. Wesley☀Mouse 11:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

  I agree with Sims2aholic. Having one row tables is a bit odd and information should generally be presented in prose by default as that is best for articles per WP:TABLES. Wes is right that prose is mandatory in any case - tables on their own is not going to work with for a general audience. CT Cooper · talk 13:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• I remain sceptical if this should have a dedicated section. If it is in prose then it could be combined with the OGAE info and made into a new awards section. Going even further, perhaps it could be merged with the participating countries section. CT Cooper · talk 13:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Lack of sources remains an issue here. Wes has sourced the Eurovision Song Contest 2012 version, but the earlier version remain unsourced and by reverting attempts to remove them, BigHaz (talk · contribs) and Sukbhirsinghsangha (talk · contribs) have inherited the burden. If by the time this RfC concludes, that burden is not resolved, I will not be very impressed, but if a conversion to prose or similar is to occur, two birds can be killed in one stone, and the issue will be resolved another way. CT Cooper · talk 14:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, I took the burden on myself to add a sourced prose to the 2012 article; and that was a temporary solution to see if others appreciated the prose; before I did a copy/paste of that prose to other articles that also have Marcel sections. However, nobody commented either way until now; then I didn't go ahead in mass-adding that prose. If the new prose on the 2012 article is OK, and its OK with others too, then I don't mind taking on the burden this once, and adding the prose elsewhere. Wesley☀Mouse 14:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• As I said earlier, I would prefer a 100% prose version, although the ESC 2012 article section is clearly presented better than the other sections elsewhere. CT Cooper · talk 15:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• I've just improved the presentational layout of these awards on the 2012 article. If this new layout is suitable, then I don't mind rolling it out across the other articles too. Wesley☀Mouse 15:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, that is a clear improvement. I would be more happy to accept tables if there is just one. CT Cooper · talk 15:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• As Ned Flanders says, okaley dokaley, I'll get cracking and implement the improvement across the other articles. I might not get them all done today, as I'm off out later. Going to see the Olympic Torch relay pass through a neighbouring town at 7am tomorrow. Wesley☀Mouse 15:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• Feel free to do them now if you wish; I have no objections to make. However, this RfC still has a long way to go and so there is a possibility of further changes down the line if anyone comes along and proposes them. CT Cooper · talk 15:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Winner by OGAE members

• Information on the OGEA poll winners in each year has been added to each year page under the radar. I'm not sure whether they belong on the year pages themselves. The information has also been added to the OGAE page itself, which might be more appropriate since it's a OGAE event. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 00:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Giving an OGAE poll its own section is excessive in my opinion - see #Marcel Bezençon Awards for some ideas on merging. Failing that, having it all on the OGAE article may be enough. CT Cooper · talk 13:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Don't you think it would be better to show how many points the OGAE winner actually got in the OGAE poll? Now it lists the result we already know in the contest, which is mentioned before. I think it would be more interesting to actually see how many points it got in their poll. - Jetro (talk) 22:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
• I agree with Jetro. Showing the points for the contest itself is confusing. OGAE tables (if they are to be implemented) should show the points for that, and the Marcel awards (obviously) wouldn't need a points column. Wesley☀Mouse 16:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
• I think a mention of who won the OGAE award and with how many points would be appropriate. A full table is only appropriate for the OGAE article, I'm afraid. – Kosm1fent 19:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
• Aye, sorry; that's what I meant just a table that shows the OGAE winner for that particular year, not the entire table showing all the results. Wesley☀Mouse 19:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
• Great work! I love how it is now. (See the 2012 article.) I think it doesn't serve any specific purpose to have the medal colours on it, but that's something minor I won't pursue. - Jetro (talk) 20:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
• Thanks. The 2012 article is currently under a good article review based on its current format. Some feedback has come through already, and those issues been fixed. Overall, its looking good chances for the project to get its first annual page to a GA status. And if that does happen, then it shows the new style/layout is causing a huge impact for all the right reasons. Wesley☀Mouse 21:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Incidents

• This is an ideal (and logical) section to hold any controversies etc. Currently, the 2012 article has a section on Human Rights issued being implemented into a section covering venue location. In my honest opinion, a section headed "Venue" should be covering venue related issues; whereas human right controversies etc should be sectioned under something more beneficial to its topic. Wesley☀Mouse 20:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• The section was re-named location as the human rights issues are related to the location. I on the whole remain very sceptical about controversy/incident sections, particularly when they are buried under tables and lists at the end of the article, which really does not help the article flow well or look well structured at all. If one controversy/incident is to have its own section it should just be named after that controversy/incidents, rather than using generic titles. It should be noted that the words "controversy" and "incident" have precise meanings and there is a danger of them being misused. On the whole, I think controversy/incident sections should be a last resort with a priority being given to merge the content into other parts of the article. Temporary controversy/incident sections in the heat of the moment may be okay per WP:CSECTION, with the eventual aim of integrating them into the rest of the article. CT Cooper · talk 13:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Controversial incidents should only be included if they can be verified by ridiculously-high-reliable sources (not tabloid media, that is, only big news organisations). – Kosm1fent 19:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
• Yes, yes, yes, and in case you didn't hear me, YES!. I like Kosmo's suggestion; only use "very high reliable" sources, such as Eurovision.tv; news.bbc.co.uk; or any other news pages belonging to the national broadcasters. Anything else shouldn't be used. Wesley☀Mouse 19:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Commentators

• I have never been a massive fan of these lists, and perhaps we should look again about splitting off commentators/spokespersons into a separate list. At the very least, there should be an explanation on what commentators are for a general audience - the list on its own isn't very helpful. CT Cooper · talk 13:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Voting and spokespersons / Spokespersons

• Previous annual pages have voting and spokespersons headed separately (each with the respective country flags also listed), which in my opinion is not only duplicating information but adding more byte usage to an article. I experimented with an idea on the 2012 article, in which I amalgamated the two sections, into one "super-section". This allows us to list the voting order using the nations flags, and list next to them the spokespersons too. Something like this could do with being implemented across the entire project. Wesley☀Mouse 20:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

  I like what you have done with adding the spokespersons to the voting order list. Information about each spokesperson added afterwards however I think makes it look untidy since it's in columns. I'm not opposed to adding information for each person, but I think adding them as footnotes would make it look better. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 00:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

  I hadn't even noticed the information about each spokesperson being added after them. They weren't there when I amalgamated the sections together - hmmm. But yes, I agree; either footnote them, or remove them completely. Wesley☀Mouse 00:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

  I like the new format a lot as it is more compact and self-explanatory. I think the notes, even as footnotes, are trivial and should be removed. There are separate biographies for people to find out about the spokespersons, and we should stick with what is relevant for the ESC in that year. CT Cooper · talk 14:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Per #Commentators I think we should look again at splitting this information off into a separate list article - either together with commentators or separately. CT Cooper · talk 14:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Another suggestion is we could amalgamate voting/spokespersons/commentators/broadcasting into one section. Write a prose for it, and then place the details into a table (yes another table lol). An example of how that would look is as follows:

Each year a draw takes place by the EBU to determine the order in which the votes are announced. The table below shows the order in which votes were cast during the 2012 contest along with the spokeperson who is responsible for announcing the votes for their respective country. Each national broadcaster may also send a commentator to the contest, in order to provide coverage of the contest in their own native language(s). Details of the commentators and the broadcasting station for which they represented are also included in the table below.

Voting order	Country	Spokesperson	Commentator(s)	Broadcaster
01	Albania	Andri Xhanhu	-	-
02	Montenegro	Marija Markovic	-	-
03	Romania	Paula Seling	Gianina Corondan and Leonard Miron	TVR1
N/A	Australia	N/A	Julia Zemiro and Sam Pang	SBS

Wesley☀Mouse 11:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

What my oppion on the Commentators and Spokespeople is to keep them in the order of Draw that the country performed in between 1956 and 2003, and then between 2004 to date (2013) is to have the Commentators put in the same order as either on the night of the final - followed by commentators for the countries who didn't make it past the semi's or have the commentators and spokespeople in the order of the voting draw (since 2004) and the countries who don't participate but vow to send commentators eg. Australia to be put last out of the commentators rather in alphabetical order. Mrluke485 (talk) 14:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The combined example that I designed above, would give readers the option to sort the columns as this wish to view them, whether it be in voting order, alphabetical order, etc. Although when the table is initially set-up, the countries should be listed in the table by voting order first, and then other countries (such as Australia etc) would appear in alphabetical order afterwards. Wesley☀Mouse 13:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, fair enought, What about the radio commentators? Mrluke485 (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

D'oh! I forgot about radio commentators. We might have to think about this one in more depth. Wesley☀Mouse 14:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I prefer 'Broadcaster' to 'Broadcasting' :D -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 22:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I've just tweaked the table above slightly; and you're right - it does look better as 'broadcaster' rather than 'broadcasting'. Wesley☀Mouse 13:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there is a way to use multirows. (Like, having two or more rows inside a single cell), we could add the comentators in one of these. I would check it myself, but my laptop is dying, so my internet time has been drastically reduced.Not A Superhero (talk) 18:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I actually like this table, a lot. It contains all the information needed and looks far neater than a whole big list at the bottom. Cathairawr✝ 16:15, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Hmmmm. I would much rather like to see a separate list of spokespersons and commentators (List of commentators and spokespersons in the Eurovision Song Contest 20XX for example). Although the section format in ESC 2012 is better than before, it is still causing length problems to the article (more than 100K large). I'd say write some prose on the main article about notable people being spokespersons or commentators, and link to the list with a hatnote. Much clearer. – Kosm1fent 19:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I've had a bit more time to think this one over in more depth. A complete table of commentators. spokespersons, broadcasting, all listed in voting order may be excessive not just in looks but size too. Are commentators that necessary for these articles? Spokespersons yes, as they get their 5-minutes of broadcast when announcing points, so they would warrant a mention in an article. But commentators? Viewers in Slovenia (for example) would only know of the commentators for their broadcast, they wouldn't know who is broadcasting in other countries, and probably don't give a toss either. The commentators are notable people yes, but only for the channel/country for which they are commentating for. A way around this, would be to keep the style as it currently stands in ESC 2012, with a column list of countries in voting order, and the spokespersons listed next to them (without the notes saying if they are former participants). Then get rid of the commentator section entirely, and replace with a similar column-styled list of countries and the respective channels which carried out the national broadcasts. Wesley☀Mouse 11:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that commentators should be removed, even if it isn't of great importance for everyone. But I like the table lay-out proposed here. I agree, also, in removing earlier participations. That has nothing to do in the article, but if you go on their articles, you will find it. - Jetro (talk) 19:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree completly that earlier participants is trivial and irrelevant, and shouldn't be here. I don't consider spokespersons to be considerably more or less important than commentators, and opinions on this are a matter of point-of-view, so really it has to be both or neither in my opinion. As I said earlier, I remain open minded about splitting these off into a separate article. CT Cooper · talk 13:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Broadcasting

• This section seems to have gone down hill in recent years, going from well written prose to just another list - compare Eurovision Song Contest 2008#Broadcasting and Eurovision Song Contest 2011#Broadcasting. I prefer the older format a lot more. CT Cooper · talk 14:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

National jury members

• Like with commentators and spokespersons, possibly separate article(s) would be appropriate for this. I am open minded about one article per year or one article for all years. In any case, a prose explanation is needed for what juries are and what they do, which has of course varied from year-to-year. CT Cooper · talk 14:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Returning artists

• I see nothing wrong with this, but perhaps there could be an extra column indicating the song(s) they performed in previous year(s)?

Cathairawr (talk) 10:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• That is a good idea, and interesting to see how the table would be presented. Especially with artists who have returned more than once, such as Lys Assis (Switzerland) and Chiara (Malta); who have both entered 3 times now. We'd end up with having to have 3 columns for situations like this wouldn't we!? Another thing worth thinking about, is Junior Eurovision Artists, who cross-over to the adult edition. 2012 could have seen this happen twice if the former-JESC artists of Sweden and Norway had been selected. OK they are not returning artists in respect of ESC, but they have participated in a contest belonging to the Eurovision Network. Would we classify those as returns; upgrades; cross-overs; or something else. Wesley☀Mouse 10:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• I remain very sceptical about this section in general, it was rolled out without project consensus and seems to be an example of presenting information of interest to fans rather than a general accidence. If we are going to have a returning artists section; why not a returning jury members/commentators/spokespersons/countries? Detailed information on previous results is going off topic in my view, and a clear prose based explanation will be needed on what gets included for the benefit of a general audience - something which takes-up space. Ultimately, we have BLP articles for people to find out about what artists did in the past. CT Cooper · talk 14:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• This section could actually be scrapped/improved all together in theory. A complete removal of this section and the tables, can be replaced by adding a prose in the format/participating countries section. We could always write something like (and I'll use 2012 for an example); "On 17 January 2012, the EBU announced that forty-three countries would take part in the 2012 contest. The 57th edition sees the return of Montenegro, which last participated in 2009, as well as the withdrawal of Poland and Armenia. The draw to determine the running order for the semi-finals and final took place on 20 March 2012. In addition, the contest saw the return of four artists who had participated in previous editions of the contest. Jónsi for Iceland (previous entry in 2004); Jedward for Ireland (previous entry in 2011); Kalipo for Macedonia (took part in the pre-qualifying round of 1996); and Željko Joksimović for Serbia (who previously represented Serbia and Montenegro in 2004)." - Wesley☀Mouse 15:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• I like this suggestion, a lot, Wesley. It will tidy the whole thing up and make it a lot less jam-packed with information that could be withdrawn. Excellent suggestion. Cathairawr✝ 16:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
• I think integrating into the rest of the article in prose is a good suggestion. CT Cooper · talk 13:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Other countries

• Year after year, people seem to have an urge to include withdrawn/non-returning countries to an article. A section like this (as used in the 2012 article) would cover that area, and also there are always sources published every year that your add notability and verifiability to content included into this section; while at the same time keeping viewers informed of why such'n'such a nation decided to withdraw/not return to the contest that particular year. Wesley☀Mouse 21:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

  I don't think adding information about countries that have shown no interest in the contest for several years should be added. Luxembourg hasn't entered since 1993 and has shown no interest since then. Adding countries that withdrew from the current contest would need to be featured, as would news of possible returns that didn't work out (i.e. Liechtenstein, San Marino 2010, etc), but repeating the same story again and again, year after year is just taking up space. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 00:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

  I agree, a line to be draw there with Luxembourg and other countries that have shown no interest, or not even had sourced news about inklings of returns. Take 2012 for example, Luxembourg is listed, but that is only because there was an inkling that they may return and a source that accompanied that, and then a further sourced report stating the return wasn't going to happen afterall. Instances like that could be included. Wesley☀Mouse 00:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

  I agree with Wes, if there is coverage (from reliable sources) which is relevant to the year in question, it should be included, if not, then it shouldn't. That is bare WP:V/WP:NPOV position, and I'm sceptical about arbitrary rules which go further. CT Cooper · talk 14:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• :: Agreed. Otherwise we would have to report every year that Morocco isn't returning yet. Not A Superhero (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

See also

• WP:SEEALSO applies here. CT Cooper · talk 20:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
• This would be a good place to link any sub-articles on spokespersons/commentators/juries e.t.c. if not linked elsewhere. CT Cooper · talk 14:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

References

• Clearly needed, but formatting issues may be worth discussing. CT Cooper · talk 20:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• Hmmm I've seen a few articles list the refs into 3-column sections. Something like this being used more often would be a good idea. Wesley☀Mouse 21:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

We could ideally use this section as an opportunity to discuss which sources we should use as reliable too. So far, Eurovision.tv; ESCToday.com; ESCKaz are used regularly. ESCDaily and their sister-company ESCXtra have so far been reliable and accurate with their reports. Plus they were a handy back-up when ESCToday got hacked into and 12-years of their work gone within seconds. Oikotimes is semi-reliable; and should only be used if they source where their reports came from; as it is known that registered members of that website can also create news articles too, which is dangerous really. Eurovisiontimes, is good enough and has been used in the past, as has the BBC's Eurovision page. Eurovoix appears to be a newish site and reporting similar news that ESCToday publish, again they also source their details, which is an added bonus. Any others that reliable enough that we can list as "Reliable Sources" for future reference? Wesley☀Mouse 12:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• If we have broad agreement then I have no objection, but such discussions have gotten very long and complicated in the past and often need an RfC of their own. Your analysis above of what is reliable makes sense to me. CT Cooper · talk 15:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, I also think that a separate RfC for reliable sources would be more appropriate. – Kosm1fent 19:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

External links

• WP:EL applies here. Note that it should always be titled "External links" per WP:LAYOUT even if there is only one link. CT Cooper · talk 20:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
• Link to the Eurovision.tv website should be enough. Allowing in fansites is just going to open the flood gates and is more trouble than its worth. Many videos on YouTube are copyvios and those should not be linked to per WP:YT. CT Cooper · talk 14:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Other issues

• Any other section and RfC related issues go here. CT Cooper · talk 20:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Not the year articles, but the Country articles and the 'Hosting' section, why does this section include flags, I don't see a point in them their. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 14:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I think I read somewhere at the top of this RfC, that the country articles are being covered in a different RfC once this one has concluded. But you have got a point though. Wesley☀Mouse 14:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• In the '(Country) in the Eurovision Song Contest' articles, in the contestants section, Ive noticed that there is no highlighted colour on the chart which indicates that they did not qualify for the final. I know there is X's which tell you this but would it not be better if there was a colour to show this? For example red = last place, but isn't not qualifying worse than last place? So, effectively couldnt red still be for last place but orange or something like that be for Not Qualifying? Ireland for example, could benefit from something ike this Ireland in the Eurovision Song Contest#Contestants. ShaneMc2010 16:16, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• Please refer to the other thread below, ShaneMc2010. Also, this RFC discussion is only in regards to ESC/JESC by year article, and not (Country) in the Eurovision. A new RFC will be opened covering those articles as soon as this one concludes (see notice at the top of RFC thread). Regards, Wesley☀Mouse 16:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• Aren't those proposed article formats technically called "manuals of style"? I saw Wesley refer to them as "templates" at the beginning of this RfC. – Kosm1fent 19:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
• Yes they are manual of style, and I did mention that in the RFC reminder that I issued today. I referred to the tests in my sandbox as templates, as basically that is what they are. They're a skeleton version of articles, based on the manual of style suggestions put forward here, which makes the skeleton format a "rough template/draft". Wesley☀Mouse 19:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• Everyone associates templates on Wikipedia in a different context than its actual definition. A template is a stencil, pattern, or overlay used in graphic arts; or a pre-developed page layout in electronic or paper media used to make new pages with a similar design, pattern, or style. Which would officially make the draft version that are in my sandboxes as "pre-developed page layout (aka template)". Wesley☀Mouse

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Summary

Since this discussion seem to have died and has run for two months, I think it is time to close it and summarize what has occurred. I was a participant, so any disagreements should be posted below this summary.

• Lead: Agreement that the lead should help summarize the article. No large changes have been proposed.
• Infobox: Approval of the current use of maps; no consensus on removing "null points".
• Venue/Location: No discussion.
• Presenters: No consensus on removal or changes.
• Format: No discussion.
• Participating countries: No consensus on inclusion/exclusion of "possibles".
• Results: No discussion.
• Scoreboards: No consensus on removal, but having them hidden by default and some cosmetic changes appear to have been agreed.
• Marcel Bezençon Awards: No clear consensus has been established on inclusion/exclusion or the presentation of this section, with various proposals being made. However, a new format with a mixture of tables and prose with full sourcing has received significant support and has been rolled out.
• Winner by OGAE members: No clear consensus has been established on inclusion/exclusion or the presentation of this section, with various proposals being made. However, a new format with a mixture of tables and prose with full sourcing has received significant support and has been rolled out.
• Incidents: No consensus on if incidents should have their own section or should be part of other sections. Some support for use of only high quality reliable sources.
• Commentators and Voting and spokespersons / Spokespersons: Extensive discussion with various proposals being made, none of which got a clear consensus - with proposals to have these lists on separate pages or to keep them where they are but with more compact formatting.
• Broadcasting: No consensus on removal or changes.
• National jury members: No consensus on removal or changes.
• Returning artists: No consensus on removal or changes, with some support for integrating the section with the rest of the article.
• Other countries: Agreement that only content based on coverage specific to the year in question should be included, although finer details may need more discussion.
• Notes: No discussion.
• See also: Noted that this would be a good place to link any sub-articles or lists.
• References: Need established for further discussion on choice of sources.
• External links: Noted that the title should always be in plural, with the view that fansites should be excluded remaining uncontested.
• Other issues: Need established for an RfC on "Country in the Eurovision Song Contest" articles. Skelten draft articles have been created: one for the ESC, and one for the JESC.

CT Cooper · talk 16:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Would you like me to move the skeleton draft articles, which you highlighted in the summary, to sub-pages belonging to the project? Thus we would be able to provide a links to them on the project's home page. Wesley Mouse 17:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a good idea. Probably after some breathing space, I will think about starting the RfC on the Country by year articles. CT Cooper · talk 18:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Done. Wikipedia:WikiProject Eurovision/Eurovision Song Contest and Wikipedia:WikiProject Eurovision/Junior Eurovision Song Contest. I've also updated the right panel on the WP:EURO home page so that it too has a quick link access to these drafts. Wesley Mouse 19:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The old Germany vs number of wins debate

This topic has been raised several times in the past no doubt. And I can fully understand that their first win in 1982 is technically as West Germany, and 2010 win as a Unified Germany. However, according to the EBU now, they are now recognising that Germany have won on map twice and not even mentioning the West Germany/Unified Germany scenario. Seeing as this is now sourced officially, shouldn't we now be changing the maps to reflect what the EBU are recognising? P.S. Having fun in London, very busy and lively atmosphere on the Olympic Park. Wesley Mouse 16:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Look at this

Take a look at this AfD for a Eurovision related article on Suntribe. Users with Eurovision knowledge needed here.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

History of Asiavision Song Contest

There is a dispute taking place at Talk:ABU Song Festivals 2012 in regards to the history of the contest. A user is stating that Asiavision Song Contest, Our Sound, and ABU Song Festivals are not related; and that the ABU only own the rights to the latter. Our Sound (formerly Asiavision Song Contest) was scheduled to take place in 2011 during the 48th ABU General Assembly, in Mumbai, India. If the ABU didn't own the show concept, why would they host an event? Secondly, the ABU are now hosting two shows ABU Radio/ABU TV Song Festivals, also to take place during an ABU General Assembly meeting. Its a little too coincidental that two different shows scheduled to take place at an ABU meeting wouldn't be related to each other historically. Anyhow, please feel free to participate in the discussion. Thanks Wesley Mouse 22:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I am the user mentioned and I would really appreciate Eurovision project members getting involved in this debate. Meanwhile, I have to note that information on "Our Sound was scheduled to take part in 2011 during the 48th ABU General Assembly" is incorrect, as Our Sound was set for November 2010 and then cancelled indefinitely, without being rescheduled for November 2011. Anyway, if you have knowledge of the sources of ABU/Our Sound history and relations you're welcome to comment on the issue at Talk:ABU Song Festivals 2012. Thank you. Ruslanovich (talk) 23:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Voting history on [Country] in the Eurovision Song Contest articles

I am starting to have serious doubts over these sections now on articles. Lately a lot of them seem to be getting altered by IPs, and there is no proof to show what they are adding is correct or malicious vandalism. The only way to verify the edits as being true would be to physically add up all the votes - and that is a waste of editors times, not to mention original research. Would now not the be perfect time to discuss these and perhaps remove them all entirely? Wesley Mouse 10:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Original research is open to interpretation - I think it's just mathematics, not original research, just like saying that "Rybak achieved an average of X points per country." Spa-Franks (talk) 13:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe so, but to get to that mathematical equation means looking through the scoreboard archives of every contest. The scoreboards are sourced, but to add up the points over a 57-year period would mean original mathematical research of a cluster of sourced material. Its like recently I have noticed IPs alter the voting history, which some have been clear vandalism to give their favourite country higher scores than they actually achieved. In order for me to verify their edit I have to manually visit every contest scoreboard and add up a tally to see if their edit is true or fake. And to be honest, as an editor I have better things to do with my time, like improving articles, rather than trawl through scoreboard archives to verify a voting history table. Wesley Mouse 13:50, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I've just looked into this quickly. WP:CALC reads "Routine calculations do not count as original research. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, is allowed provided there is consensus among editors that the calculation is an obvious, correct, and meaningful reflection of the sources. See also Category:Conversion templates". Maybe as a long shot idea, we should store these tables as templates, which members of this project would know where to find them and update them accordingly. Will remove the element of IP's randomly changing voting history tallies to their preferred vandalised versions. Wesley Mouse 13:55, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Eurovision

It has been brought to my attention that we're not suppose to place a country flag next to the host broadcaster in Template:Infobox Eurovision. This apparently goes against MOS:FLAG. So I thought we might as well discuss this further as a project to see what others feel about having a flag icon next to a host broadcaster. Are they overuse of flags? Are there other ways we could improve the host broadcaster field of these infoboxes? Wesley Mouse 18:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I seem to remember I placed the flag on the host broadcaster field, due to space (I mean we are only looking at 3+ letter abbreviations etc.) I didn't put it in the arena section due to space. I have no problem with that flag being their or not.

But remember it is not a blanket ban on them ('Generally'). With the flag+country ones on {{Esc}}, I've said many times, that Eurovision is an 'international competition', and WP:INFOBOXFLAG says: 'Examples of acceptable exceptions would be ... infoboxes that include international competitions'; which I'm sure Eurovision is. :) -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 20:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not overly fussed either way myself with the usage of flagicons next to the host broadcaster. It was Drmies (talk · contribs) who pointed out to me that they shouldn't be there for broadcasters, and from what I gather it is as if we are trying to say AVRO, means AVRO is a country with the same flag as Netherlands. So I see where Drmies is coming from there. According to Thumperward (talk · contribs) (a user with expertise in the infobox field) has stated that they shouldn't be there for a host broadcaster, nor should they be there to list "début, withdraw, returns" etc. Yet he, like yourself AxG pointed out, WP:INFOBOXFLAG does leave it open to project member consensus whether we include them or not - but only in regards to the début etc, not for host broadcaster. So do we blanket ban them in regards to host broadcasters, or throw caution to the wind and say "sod it, we're different and ignore the rules". Wesley Mouse 20:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

This will be short, but how do war articles and their infoboxes do it, I've seen numerous use {{Flag}} Persons name (examples: (1) (2) (3)). Now a person is not a country, but it means belonging to that country I feel we are only following what they are doing with AVRO belonging to that country. If that makes sense. Throw it open for a vote? -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 21:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

That is an interesting point AxG with some good examples too. Although the way I interpret those, they have a flag key sectioned as 'belligerents' - that lists all the flags and their nation. And then in other sections under it they just use a flag and a person's name. Maybe that is how they get around the situation. I suppose our "key of nations" would be shown in the participating countries, could that be the loop-hole we need to work around this issue? I noticed WP:INFOBOXFLAG permits FIFA World Cup and Olympics to use flags in infoboxes. But looking on those articles only FIFA ones have a flag in them with the name of the country next to it (not a flag icon on its own). The Olympics (for example London 2012) don't seem to have any that I can see; unless the guidelines mean NOC articles as they do have flags in the infobox but again they hold the country name next to the flag. Maybe that is what Drmies and Thumperward mean by not having just a flag icon with a TV broadcaster next to it. Perhaps these are only done when there is a key to show which nation the flag icon belongs to. Does this mean we need to revisit the previously closed RfC just to rediscuss these boxes? Wesley Mouse 11:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Map in Commons

In Commons an user insert continously like confirmated Malta and Italy, using like sources two articles that don't speak about confirmations: for Italy i reverted in it.wiki, en.wiki and also in nl.wiki, because the source speaks about Festival di Sanremo, that it isn't a selection method for finding the Italian representant like the Swedish Melodifestivalen, but an autonomous festival used in the last two years by a jury, but the presence of Festival di Sanremo is not a confirmation of Italian participation, because it was organized also in period 1998-2010, when Italy didn't participate; for Malta i reverted in nl.wiki and the source is only a fan post.

Can someone stop him to insert in map continuosly false informations? --Gce (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

San Remo has ran longer than ESC itself, just because they have confirmed San Remo for next year, does not mean they have any interest, currently, in participating in the ESC. The translated source does say "Although the method of selection of Italian television for the Eurovision Song 2013 is not yet made public". -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 23:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, but Yondes totally ignored it. Thanks for your edit in Commons. --Gce (talk) 23:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Montenegro participation

Is this source reliable to confirm the Montenegro participation or not? --Gce (talk) 08:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I would say no, he may want to represent Montenegro, but that decision is down to RTCG as to whether they enter in 2013. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 19:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Project reform

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Wesley asked that I close this RfC now that it has run out of steam, and I'm happy to do so. Overall, I don't see any consensus for specific proposals, and I'm therefore closing this RfC as no consensus reached. Most of the discussion centred on biographies and WP:ONEEVENT, and how the project should treat them, although some more radical proposals, such as closing the WikiProject entirely, were put forward. Editors in favour of project reform tended to argue that this project was out of touch with policy and the desires of the wider community, causing tension and the creation of articles which were doomed to be merged/deleted. On the other hand, editors opposing project reform tended to disagree that WP:ONEEVENT conflicted with the practices of this project, and feared mass deletions, endless notability debates, and damage to the primary goal of the project in extending coverage of Eurovision related issues.

I'm not going to say who is right or wrong, but further discussion on specific proposals once the dust has settled might be worth considering. CT Cooper · talk 21:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

---

Thread discussion

Hello fellow Eurofans,

As some of you may have noticed, there have been some overly heated debates following some deletion nominations of Eurovision participant and/or song entry articles. Throughout the discussions several wiki-guidances have been brought up, which contradict each other and has caused confusion leading up to unnecessary incivility between members. This has concerned me somewhat, and has caused me to investigate how this is happening, and look into ways to prevent it from happening again in the future. One of the project's goals sways towards acceptability to mass-create articles for every participant and song, regardless of notability etc. This goal is very misleading and may be a core reasons to why articles are being deleted and arguments breaking out. So what I would like to propose is a review into the project's main goals and a possible reform in how we operate as a team. Before such reform can take place though, we need to establish the views of other members in order to reach a mutual consensus and get things back on track. Remember that the main aim as editors on Wikipedia is to contribute to high standard articles. So if we end up creating articles and leaving them in stub-class status rather than working to achieve GA/FA/FL standards then naturally the stubs are going to be susceptible to deletion nominations.

Please feel free to !vote using support or oppose and stating your views on this reform proposal. Regards (Wes) Wesley Mouse 16:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Strong support The project is a mess at it's current state. As Wes said, the goals for the project are currently to create as many articles as possible, even if they fail notably. Statυs (talk) 16:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Strong oppose I think this is a matter for Wikipedia's guidelines to be rethought rather than this project. I'd personally have all those stubs as long as we can (and will) work towards them. In those AfDs WP:ONEEVENT has been brought up, but most of these will have been in two events, Eurovision and the National Selection programme. Spa-Franks (talk) 17:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

  Changes to Wikipedia policies and guidelines are not going to happen without support wider than one project. Currently counter-arguments against merging/deletion due to BIO1E are not sticking with the wider community, so the current situation is unsustainable. I believe Eurovision and the national selection are close enough to be considered one event in context WP:BIO1E, whose aim is to avoid having biographies simply re-state what is covered in other articles e.g. an article on an artist discussing the national selection and Eurovision participation with a bit of biographical information, then a country in the contest by year article repeating the bio article minus the biography information. The aims can still say to create such bios, just not en masse without consideration for policies and guidelines, although as the importance system reflects - bios and song articles are not a core part of this project. CT Cooper · talk 17:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Just a very long comment saying why I oppose....

Firstly, if this reform is forced through, then every single time a contestant is selected we will have to have a very long discussion about whether every contestant is notable or not. Every year, April will be a real headache, as it has been suggested that "only the top 10" should have articles to themselves. Of course, the top 10 is not decided in April - so what will we do? Guess? Even after the competition, some people who finish outside the top 10 could be "granted" notability - and again, at every "nomination", there will be a long discussion which will, in no doubt, even if it's 30 or 40 years down the line, someone will put up a nomination asking for reform to basically remove these hastily flawed reforms. The same goes for the songs as well. If these reforms are put in place then the impracticality of running Project: Eurovision could be nightmarish; these reforms should not be implemented.

Secondly, members of the public often come to Wikipedia for research, be it for general knowledge, pub quizzes, or anything else. If we start having a mass deletion/merge then the project is incomplete and no doubt a member of the public will, one day, crawl along Wikipedia, find a page, and go, "where's it gone!?" Above all else, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias must inform the general public. Many people come to Wikipedia for Eurovision information rather than sites (which they might not even know exist) such as eurovision.tv. For Wikipedia's "Eurovision department" to no longer be a complete and thorough encyclopedia would be a shambolic decision; these reforms must not be implemented.

Finally, I was trawling through a few people's talk pages and finding that they had agreed to a mass deletion "behind our backs". This is the lazy option. People who care about Eurovision during the "off-season" try to work hard and destubbify lots of articles. It's completely demoralising to find that your work and pictures are nominated for a deletion. Deleting and/or merging a rough estimate of 500 pages, I feel, is just morally wrong. These reforms are simply bowing down to their wishes which wish to undermine the entire project; these reforms should not be implemented.

Yours, Spa-Franks (talk) 08:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

If people want information about each contestant ever, they can go to Wikia. Wikipedia isn't a fansite for Eurovision contestants, it's a place for notable information on notable individuals. Statυs (talk) 09:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

"Firstly, if this reform is forced through, then every single time a contestant is selected we will have to have a very long discussion about whether every contestant is notable or not. Every year, April will be a real headache, as it has been suggested that "only the top 10" should have articles to themselves."

It really should be quite simple; if the bio article is only going to be about what they did in Eurovision, then one should not be created. Notability once gained does not go away per WP:TEMPORARY, so there won't be a need for single AfD or discussion if users make the proper checks before starting an article on a subject. I am not aware of the top ten proposal, but I would not support it - it is arbitrary and misses the point completely. Someone who finises last in Eurovision can have a bio if there is anything in the bio worth nothing other than their participation, and vice versa applies for a winner - although winning the contest will normally result in other events which would justify an article.

"If these reforms are put in place then the impracticality of running Project: Eurovision could be nightmarish; these reforms should not be implemented."

Most projects run on a case-by-case basis when it comes to article inclusion, and they run fine.

"Secondly, members of the public often come to Wikipedia for research, be it for general knowledge, pub quizzes, or anything else. If we start having a mass deletion/merge then the project is incomplete and no doubt a member of the public will, one day, crawl along Wikipedia, find a page, and go, "where's it gone!?"

This decision has been made as bio articles frequently duplicate the country in the contest by year articles in the information they contain, so very little will be lost by the merges, and with re-directs I doubt such questions will be asked. The main gain will be one more complete article against two fragmented ones.

"Many people come to Wikipedia for Eurovision information rather than sites (which they might not even know exist) such as eurovision.tv."

Wikipedia fulfils a fundamentally different function from the EBU and Eurovision fansites - a point which project members too often miss. Wikipedia is to provide a summary of human knowledge for a general audience - and that should be reflected in the article content of Eurovision articles.

"Finally, I was trawling through a few people's talk pages and finding that they had agreed to a mass deletion "behind our backs". This is the lazy option."

There has been no agreement on any mass deletion, only two individual AfDs which have been well advertised. Bio articles will only be merged if they have no potential beyond what someone did at Eurovision, meaning a policy compliant article cannot be written about them. Nothing will likely happen without more merge discussions or AfDs.

"People who care about Eurovision during the "off-season" try to work hard and destubbify lots of articles."

I take issue with what this comment seems to be implying - the aim of a WikiProject is to help improve the content of a defined topic area for the purpose of building an encyclopedia within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines - this contradicts the belief that WikiProject exists to "care about" or otherwise facilitate that topic itself, particularity if such an aim appears to trump the spirit and policies of this project. WikiProject Eurovision does not exist to promote or help the interests of the Eurovision Song Contest, any more than WikiProject China exists is to promote or help the interests of China. From my experience, the less feelings and emotion editors have about the subject their editing, the better.

"It's completely demoralising to find that your work and pictures are nominated for a deletion. Deleting and/or merging a rough estimate of 500 pages, I feel, is just morally wrong. These reforms are simply bowing down to their wishes which wish to undermine the entire project; these reforms should not be implemented."

There was a clear warning to those contributing this content: "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." This is a wiki, and while deletion is never desirable, keeping content which is inappropriate because people worked hard on it is a non-starter - see WP:MERCY. I myself have had content I contributed lost, and anyway, the proposals being made here are to merge, not delete. The revision history of merged articles will remain and in many cases a large amount of the content will be saved and merged over. If anything, I see the loss of content argument as grounds to go ahead with the merging - as the longer this project's practices drift from that of policy, then the more painful any re-sync will be. CT Cooper · talk 19:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Those stub articles have been a headache for a while. They never seem to turn into anything too meaningful and use a lot of resources to maintain. If we no longer have articles for every song and singer we won't be as complete, but is it really necessary to know the early life of a girl who sang once in a competition, came in last, and never did anything else? Grk1011 (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

"Firstly, if this reform is forced through, then every single time a contestant is selected we will have to have a very long discussion about whether every contestant is notable or not. Every year, April will be a real headache, as it has been suggested that "only the top 10" should have articles to themselves."

Someone did some homework to have found that I had spoken about a top-10 idea in a pre-RfC discussion - but it was only an idea and one that I decided not to use when I created this RfC as I had thought more about it and knew a top-10 idea wouldn't work. The fact that I had mentioned that in a pre-RFC on another user's talk page should have been a clear indication that it was brainstorming ideas of what to mention in a new RFC debate. Wesley Mouse 13:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah doing a "Top10 only" thing will be like asking for trouble and never ending debates. I will only support a reform that will not mean that every year around February-April there will be AfDs made on all newly created articles of the singer/band that has qualified for Eurovision. And does not give the go-ahead to some mass-AfD or Mass-merge of articles of singers outside the Top10. --BabbaQ (talk) 17:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Close the WikiProject: it is so narrow in scope, that it will definitely lead to problems with notability. I would suggest making it a task force within WikiProject Music and use their criteria, guidelines, etc. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

  I don't see what that would achieve, as we have our own assessment standards, newsletters e.t.c. which are working fine, and even as a task force the project would still have aims - so that wouldn't even side-step this issue. This project currently covers 4,557 articles, and while it won't happen, even if all the low-importance rated material was got rid of, meaning all songs and biographical articles, then there would still have 2,143 articles to look after - making us a small WikiProject, but still a sustainable one. The majority of this project's attention goes on articles specifically about the contests, of which few have WP:N issues and there existence is rarely challenged. I would like us to have more members to help improve all these articles, but we do have a solid membership base as it is. Also I should point out that putting WikiProject Eurovision with WikiProject Music would't work as this project covers all contests under the Eurovision Network - not just the song contest, two of which fall under Wikipedia:WikiProject Dance instead. CT Cooper · talk 16:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Considering, predisposed to support reform I would like to look more deeply at the project, the contentious AfDs, and so forth, I've largely run into what I must assume are the results of this WikiProject in the course of spending two years referencing unreferenced biographies. Many of those that I found could not be reliably sourced to WP:GNG, and in many cases little or no effort had been made to provide a single source at all, in some cases, sitting for years. Along with one or two other groups (voice/dub actors, Thai footballers, and Gaelic hurlers), Eurovision contestent articles were memorable for their frequency in the pile of sixty thousand unsourced BLPs we addressed. I'm also completely unclear on what specific reforms would be beneficial. So, as I said, "considering.", mostly discussing here to suggest, from a relatively outside point of view, that there may in fact be a problem. (Or not.) --j⚛e decker^talk 01:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying wholeheartedly that a reform has to be done, just opened this RfC to test the waters and see if members feel the project goals and the way the project operates need to be reviewed. If people agree that the project is all over the place and could do with some tweaking here and there, then we can progress further into the RFC by brainstorming ideas with each other on what we want the project to be doing, how we envision it to be done, and what we want to achieve out of the work we do as a team on here. The six project goals could end up being discussed with some altered or discarded or new goals created. We could even discuss the way the project's main page is set out - would we need to redesign that to make it more easy navigable and hope it attracts new members to join the project? All these are but some of the ideas brainstorming in my little head at the moment, will be interesting to see other ideas from folk. Wesley Mouse 02:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - Sorry but I have to oppose this one. It will ONLY lead to conflicts and never ending debates on notability. There has to be other ways to handle this. And to my knowledge this seems to be a huge issue for just a few users and not the majority.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• The reform suggestion isn't just about reviewing the project goals, but also a possible sprucing up of the main project page in a hope it will make it more inviting for new members to join the project. I have noticed some project pages have a WOW appeal to them (check WP:OLY for an example), while this one is a little bland. I've been tempted to redesign this project's main page in my sandbox to give rough ideas. Wesley Mouse 12:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.