Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision/Archive 16

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Eurovision. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

→

Method of selection

NO CONSENSUS

Discussion has been active for 2 months with no overall consensus reached. Continue using current style without the addition of a new column for now. This debate can be reviewed again in the future. Wes Mouse ✒ 11:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

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.

Moved from Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2016

– Optional message. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 10:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Once we have a table for the participants, I think we should add 'Method of Selection' till the countries are allocated to semi-finals. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.213.143 (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Oppose: - this information is already noted on the individual country articles. Duplicating such information to this article is unnecessary. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 07:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Support – I reckon this is quite a good idea, as long as it's only a small note rather than a full explanatory note explaining, for example, the ins and outs of the Melodifestivalen system. I don't think many people would be interested in going to all 40-or-so pages to find out this information, and we can easily put it into a clean table arrangement. So I am in full support of this. – Hshook (talk) 08:25, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for moving the discussion :) – Hshook (talk) 10:22, 13 June 2015 (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.

Multilingual files

WITHDRAWN

Proposal has been tested on various browsing software. Technical difficulties were discovered when people used certain types of browser, and being unable to view rotated text. Nominator withdrew proposal. Wes Mouse ✒ 12:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

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.

Hello, if you interested, plz participate in this discussion. ← Alex Great ^talk_rus? 12:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

@Alex Great: I have removed both my own and AxG's names, as you pinged us, thus potentially violating WP:CANVASS. In future just bring such discussions to the attention of the entire project and not singling out specific members to participate. Regards. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 22:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, it's all because in Russian Wikipedia doesn't exist this rule. ← Alex Great ^talk_rus? 08:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Rotated text for tables

Do we really need all these files? Today I found out that all of these features in SVG for these files can be done directly in the text of HTML. I spent some time and created {{Rotated text}}. It does all the same, that our files. I made it especially for the tables and it is desirable to use it in tables. Example of use specified in the documentation. I very much hope that your browsers support all the way I have and display everything as correctly as if it were the same files at Commons. I also created shortcuts. Here is an example:

{{rot|Moldova}}

Unfortunately naked text without table looks bad. Therefore it is better to use in the table:

More information Voting results, {{rotated text|Total Score}} ...

Voting procedure used: 50% Jury & televote		Voting results
Voting procedure used: 50% Jury & televote		{{rotated text\|Total Score}}	{{rotated text\|Moldova}}	{{rotated text\|Armenia}}	{{rotated text\|Belgium}}	{{rotated text\|Bosnia and Herzegovina\|10.5}}	{{rotated text\|Finland}}	{{rotated text\|United Kingdom}}
{{rotated text\|Contestants\|16\|align=center}}	Moldova	41		6
	Armenia	77	4		12	5		7
	Belgium	149	5	1		12	12	6
	Netherlands	33			6		3
	Finland	13
	Greece	81	3	8	3	6	2

Close

If the text is long, it is best to use the second parameter is the size of the text. For example: {{rot|Bosnia and Herzegovina|10.5}}. You can also use another shortcut {{rtxt|Bosnia and Herzegovina|10.5}} If the "rot" looks awful. See the code of table for understanding. ← Alex Great ^talk_rus? 08:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately this does not seem to work in Firefox 38.0.5, and Pale Moon 24.3.1. Works in Chrome 43, IE 11 *shockingly* and Safari for iOS. -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 17:43, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I know it. Because Firefox and same browser used old technology and rotated text doesn't support in it. ~~I.e. it is bad way, isnt' it? If yes, then I will continue my work for SVG multilingual files.~~ ← Alex Great ^talk_rus? 08:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Currently only Internet Explorer 8 and above, and Webkit browsers (Chrome, Safari, Opera 15.0+, Android native browser) support rendering the text in top-to-bottom, left-to-right format. Other browsers will render the text as left-to-right, top-to-bottom. For users of Firefox version 38.0 and above, you need to open the about:config page, and set layout.css.vertical-text.enabled as true to enable it.
— Template:MongolUnicode

I do it, and in my Firefox browser it's already work. ← Alex Great ^talk_rus? 08:41, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

The text has not rotated. I am using Chrome OS. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 10:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I am using Chrome 43.0.2357.130 m and text is rotated. It mean that template idea is crashed. Ok, I will continue my work for SVG multilingual files. ← Alex Great ^talk_rus? 13:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

@Alex Great:, I do not mean that I am using Chrome internet browser. What I mean is that I am using a Chromebook, which is made by Acer and is not like a computer or laptop. When I switch my netbook on, I cannot create a "personal profile" like you would with Microsoft Windows; I have to use my Google account in order to be able to use my netbook software. This software for whatever reason, does not enable me to view rotated text. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 00:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. I understand. If this template doesn't work correctly in all browser and OS, I think is bad idea for articles. But I try. ← Alex Great ^talk_rus? 04:39, 1 July 2015 (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.

Proposal to change how results sections are handled

DEBATE CONTINUED BELOW

This thread has been split into two segments. The first segment on the proposal to create a subpages on voting history sections on country articles, and supages for the scoreboards on annual ESC page, has been closed. This is due to the fact that such methods are not permitted per WP:SUB. However, אומנות has put forward another proposal, which has been sub-sectioned within this thread. Wes Mouse ✒ 01:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

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.

It has dawned on me for quite some time now that the scoreboards, result table, and voting history on articles such as 'Eurovision Song Contest [year]' and '[Country] in the Eurovision Song Contest' have become under attack from IP's altering them so that the scores/votes do not correspond to the official scores/votes published by the EBU. All of this ends up in registered Wikipedian's and/or Project Eurovision members having to go back, check eurovision.tv and restore the altered sections back to their official standings. So how can this be rectified and reduce the chances of IP's from vandalising them, whilst still allowing those IP who do edit constructively to carry on doing so?

Well here is the proposal to fix all of that...

Each article would have a sub-page, just like we do for talk pages that have sub-pages for archived content and a sub-page for the FAQ's part. The results would be hidden in a sub-page that only we as members would know how to find and edit it. IP's wouldn't have a clue where to look for these "hidden pages". The new sub-page results section could then be semi-protected indefinitely (just in case an IP does slip through the net), thus meaning the main articles would no longer require to be protected and allow the legitimate constructive IP's to carry on editing properly.

So for example, we would have Eurovision Song Contest 2015, but without the results/scoreboards physically written in the article. The results alone would be in Eurovision Song Contest 2015/Results. Then in the main article itself we would just add {{/Results}} and that would include the content from the sub-page into the main article, allowing registered users to edit the sub-page, but protect the results from IP vandalism. Does this proposal sound reasonable, practical, and have functionality? Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 14:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

This is where {{#lsth: PageName | SectionName }} would be more useful, e.g. I can transclude from the Eurovision Song Contest 2015 article what's under the header ==Semi-final 1== below: The first semi-final took place on 19 May 2015 at 21:00 CEST. 16 countries took part in the first semi-final. All the countries competing in this semi-final were eligible to vote, plus Australia,^[1] Austria, France and Spain.^[2] The highlighted countries qualified for the final.

Qualifiers

More information R/O, Country ...

Results of the first semi-final of the Eurovision Song Contest 2015^[3]^[4]
R/O	Country	Artist	Song	Points	Place
1	Moldova	Eduard Romanyuta	"I Want Your Love"	41	11
2	Armenia	Genealogy	"Face the Shadow"	77	7
3	Belgium	Loïc Nottet	"Rhythm Inside"	149	2
4	Netherlands	Trijntje Oosterhuis	"Walk Along"	33	14
5	Finland	Pertti Kurikan Nimipäivät	"Aina mun pitää"	13	16
6	Greece	Maria Elena Kyriakou	"One Last Breath"	81	6
7	Estonia	Elina Born and Stig Rästa	"Goodbye to Yesterday"	105	3
8	Macedonia	Daniel Kajmakoski	"Autumn Leaves"	28	15
9	Serbia	Bojana Stamenov	"Beauty Never Lies"	63	9
10	Hungary	Boggie	"Wars for Nothing"	67	8
11	Belarus	Uzari and Maimuna	"Time"	39	12
12	Russia	Polina Gagarina	"A Million Voices"	182	1
13	Denmark	Anti Social Media	"The Way You Are"	33	13
14	Albania	Elhaida Dani	"I'm Alive"	62	10
15	Romania	Voltaj	"De la capăt"	89	5
16	Georgia	Nina Sublatti	"Warrior"	98	4

Close

. So say if you just put the results tables themselves into the one page rather than in multiple. As for protecting the pages, that's difficult, but maybe it would be easier to keep track in a separate page anyway? -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 21:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Fantastic idea. I'm not completely around all the ins and outs of Mediawiki, so I'm not sure what AxG is suggesting, but would there be any issues with simply creating a template for each semi and the final. locking the templates, and then using that instead? – Hshook (talk) 07:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm really not for supporting this if your goal is to stop IP users, Wes. IPs are human too, and we all often have to deal with registered users doing the same vandalism. Mr. Gerbear|Talk 00:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

While I can see some merits in this proposal, I'm afraid that as per WP:SUB, the use of sub-pages in the mainspace is not allowed. I don't think creating a template will be a goer either, as templates are supposed to be for generic content for use across many articles, and one created for transclusion for just one article will be swiftly Tfd'd. CT Cooper · talk 02:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

@Mr. Gerbear: I never said to "stop IP users". I said the idea is to reduce the high volume of IP vandalism on these results sections. Which I'm sure is tiresome to the majority of us.

Chris, I wasn't aware of WP:SUB, so thank you for highlighting that out to me. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 08:59, 10 July 2015 (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.

Section renaming and scoreboard tables status

NO CONSENSUS

Debate has been inactive for over a month. Only two participants in the discussion, with no overall outcome reached. As there have been multiple issues raised in various areas over manual of style, accessibility, and icon decoration in recent weeks, then perhaps it is time to reassess how articles should be addressed? Wes Mouse ✒ 12:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

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 take the results-reference of this discussion to bring the matter of "Results" title for the entries full-details table, which I touched in the past. I wanted to comment about this along with bringing the "WP:Subpage" and WP:"Lists" policies which I read some days ago following this discussion; though I wasn't entirely sure if the WP:Subpages firmly applies to non-mainspace. Now that this is resolved, yet in regards to the status of results/scoreboards, I highlight the difference between the entries-details table and between the full-scores and maximum/12 points tables.

The full entries details table, showing - country/singer/song/song-translation/points/place - is the presentation of the representatives, a full-info of each country's entry and overall participation, an integral comprehensive info for the article. "Results" title which only address the last 2 columns points/place is heavily twisting for its full function. The older contests with one final night would be better to title it as "Details" under the "Participants" section (or a different title if someone can suggest), while some of the articles for last year's contests use the simple "Final" and "Semi Final" titles, so that "Details" sub-sub-title can introduce the entries table over there as well.

As for the scoreboards and the other points introductions tables, I do support of collapsing them within the articles - for their full numbers-detailing which I believe is challenged or borderline for encyclopedic/human knowledge value; That is while on the other hand the Jury/Public split results (which is collapsed) is more valuable as summarizing the songs-ranking difference between the small groups of industry-professionals compared to the wide public. אומנות (talk) 10:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

There was quite a lot to take in there, and got me a little bit confused. But if what I think is being said, is that we add a new title of "details" above the participation table section on article pre-semifinals? Isn't the term "details" a bit over-ambiguous? WP:NATURAL (albeit for article titles) seems to show discouragement from any title that may have more than one meaning. To me, the term "details" could refer to details of venue, details of song, details of basically anything. I do like the idea, as long as a more disambiguated title can be conjured up. Although as there's been no confusion on those sections prior to the introduction of the semi-finals, and their current style is rather self-explanatory, then all I can think of it "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". @CT Cooper: on a different note though, now that you have cleared up the WP:SUB issue, do think this requires a closed/resolved tag? Wes Mouse ✒ 15:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

My comment simply touches 2 related issues – First, the inaccurate “Results” name for entries-table and second, its significance compared to the scoreboards, all of which you referred above as results/scores. I'm also naturally looking for more people’s views and you asked further clarification, so if you ask to close this thread for preference that I will open a separated one, I don’t have a problem doing so. So for now, I have no problem to explain further the 2 issues here:

For the first - Yes, I propose to name the entries-table with a level-3 title "Details" - under level-2 title "Participants" for the older contests (with a lot of them carrying the "Results" title), which therefore clears out that the table refers to details on the "Participants" - the umbrella-section title. However I don’t oppose more specific title as “Entries details” or “Competitors”, in case of a preceding general prose under “Participants” (such as info on interval act guests and other people in the show – other than competitors) that may benefit a sharper title for the table's content. Same goes for the newer semi-final contests: If there is a general-info prose about each of the 3 shows under “Semi Final” and “Final” titles, then I would support adding a lower-level specific title as well.

Yet, another suggestion I raise now - instead of any specific title - is presenting this table under a prose-sentence as: The following table shows the details of the competing performers, their songs and their final positions / in the first semi final / second semi final / final.

For the second issue - The significant entries table compared to the scoring tables (going into the deep detailing of only showing scores-numbers). I highlight the difference between the 2 with further reference to the current collapsed-status of the inclusive split public/jury rank tables which show the overall differances/similarities between the 2 kind of groups tastes. For that, I support for the least collapsing also the full scoreboards and 12-points tables with general doubt for their overall encyclopedic value. And, maybe the removal and replacement of “Results” name for the entries-table, as well as collapsing the full scoreboards, will reduce the attraction of vandalizing IP’s while still allowing IP’s in general to keep contributing for those tables. אומנות (talk) 23:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@אומנות: You misunderstood me with the results/scores thing (although I called it "scores/votes"), which is probably my fault for not being clearer. I created this thread to cover the same issue but in two aspects. When I said "scores" I meant the results table for the annual pages. When I said "votes" I meant the voting history sections on the country pages. Both the voting histories (on country pages such as Spain in the Eurovision Song Contest#Voting history) and the scoreboards (on annual pages such as Eurovision Song Contest 2015#Scoreboard) become under attack from vandalism. And I was using this thread to look into way to reduce the volume of vandalism. I wasn't focusing the debate primarily on the "results/participation" table, to which you are on about. Wes Mouse ✒ 01:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

The other point you raised about "collapsing the full scoreboards, will reduce the attraction of vandalizing IP’s". Unfortunately and evidently, it wouldn't. I have recently had to use the mop (as the admins call it) to clean up behind IP vandals who still attacked content within collapsed sections. Collapsing content is not going to deter an IP vandal, it is going to entice them even more. As for the proposal to rename "results", I think we should revert back to "Participating countries", like it use to be prior to the section renaming exercise. Wes Mouse ✒ 01:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I've split this thread into two segments, seeing as they are covering similar aspects. However, I've closed the first segment which is referring to the creation of subpages, whilst keeping the second segment on section renaming still active. Wes Mouse ✒ 01:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. Still, my arguments in regards to the full scoreboards are encyclopedic significance and comparison to the collapsed public/jury; the IP's remark was an optimistic-attempting side note, so I added to the title this discussion includes scoreboards status. As for "Results" name, I eventually tend towards my introduction-sentence suggest. As for "Participants" - it gives info on both countries status and people - singers/writers/composers, so I view the change of "Participating countries" to "Participants" as a simpler-more inclusive title. אומנות (talk) 09:49, 16 July 2015 (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.

Some missing articles

NO ACTION

Articles being added to newsletter. Wes Mouse ✒ 12:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

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 guys! Here is a list of some missing articles, ranked by iws. If somebody is interested. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 10:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

@Edgars2007: would it be OK to add that list to Wikipedia:WikiProject Eurovision/News#Article requests? I'm editor of the project newsletter, and that list would be handy, as I can add a selection each month. Wes Mouse ✒ 11:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, sure. Do whatever you want :) --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 12:00, 28 July 2015 (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.

References for #Proposal to change how results sections are handled

Eurovision 2016 Map

Labeled Section Transclusion

If you don't know what Labeled Section Transclusion is see Extension:Labeled Section Transclusion, it's a bit like the noinclude, includeonly tags etc. So for a while the Sweden in the Eurovision Song Contest 2016 article has had the {{#lsth}} tag on it under the 'Final' section as {{#lsth:Melodifestivalen 2016|Final}}, that basically means anything under 'Final' section at Melodifestivalen 2016 is put in "Sweden in the Eurovision Song Contest 2016" article, in this case the opening paragraph and table. I'd like to propose rolling out this extension to other articles, as it cuts down on editing of two tables to one and reduces any errors that the two tables could have. I've also added it to Uuden Musiikin Kilpailu, whilst using the <section begin=XX /> and <section end=XX /> tags on Finland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2016 around the table itself. -- AxG / ✉ / 10 years of editing 16:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I support its use wherever it may be useful. Good work adding that to those Swedish and Finnish articles. Pickette (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I support it too, with the potential of reduced errors from writing/copying tables and the editorial field time-save rationals, and as it can help stress the point of only showing the final participants list on countries articles instead of duplicating all quarter/semi-finals participants from existing yearly preselection-shows articles as mentioned above. Another good case for such helpful parameter is yearly San Remo articles for yearly Italy's ESC participation, in the years it acts as ESC preselection. אומנות (talk) 11:43, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Bypasser's comment. Just remember to not use <ref name="foo" />, but the full references, so anything get's screwed up. And there most probably should be some note, where to find content, because to somebody {{#lsth:Melodifestivalen 2016|Final}} may be very confusing. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 15:44, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

There is no need to include any tables from Sanremo Music Festival 2016 in the Italy in the Eurovision Song Contest 2016 article. Only the list of artists that competed in Sanremo is relevant for ESC. Pickette (talk) 16:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I talked generally about San Remo editions' final-evening tables, as all the 1950s-60s when it's winner artist+song went to ESC, tying the entire progress of an yearly San Remo to Italy's ESC representation like Melodifestivalen. I agree that a bulleted list suffice and best to present just artists names in San Remo and other events, in cases a committee selects another artist from the other competitors+song than it's national event's winner. אומנות (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Yugoslavia in the Eurovision:Language of performances

Eurovision The Party

I was thinking, should we create a separate Eurovision The Party article? As it will most likely become a annual event and closely connected to the ESC final with plenty of performers and voting announcement at the ESC final. I thought it would be appropriate to create one. Let me know what you think.BabbaQ (talk) 12:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Pickette:, @Wesley Mouse:, @AxG: , @AxG:.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:31, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Hm, I'm not sure that it may become an annual event, but no harm in creating a sandbox/draft to see how it will pan out. -- AxG / ✉ / 10 years of editing 16:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

It would probably be best to wait and see if it does become an annual event. It could just end up being a one time thing that Sweden organises. Pickette (talk) 22:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I thought it was only a one-off event? I'd be inclined to wait until at least 2017 to see if the event is continued. Otherwise such an article would probably fail notability. Wes Mouse ✒ 07:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@BabbaQ, AxG, and Pickette: I'd be more inclined to create an article for Eurovision in Concert which has been an annual event, or perhaps that would be better information to be included within each annual page under "Other Eurovision events"? Wes Mouse ✒ 19:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

You do so if you think that would be good :) But concerning Eurovision The Party it will (if it become an annual event) become intertwined with the Eurovision final. And will most likely involve some of the biggest ESC stars or star singers of the host nation. I am thinking about creating an article about Eurovision The Party even if it only will be a one off event. It will be segmets in the ESC final from the party such as the voting from Sweden etc.BabbaQ (talk) 19:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

@BabbaQ: I would personally hold off on the creation of an article for Eurovision: The Party just yet, per WP:EVENT. A one-off event isn't always notable enough to warrant an article, and must fulfil several notability criterion first, such as WP:EVENTCRIT, and WP:EFFECT. One could counter-argue and say that Congratulations: 50 Years of the Eurovision Song Contest and Eurovision Song Contest's Greatest Hits are one-off events, and yes they were. However, they were connected to a much bigger anniversary projects by the EBU which had a lasting effect. I'd be very inclined to follow AxG's suggestion and create a sandbox draft, a bit like I did for the Greatest Hit's. If the party event does become an annual thing, then notability will be stronger and increase the chances of fulfilling WP:GNG. Another view-point would be that Eurovision in Concert was suppose to be a one-off event and also included some of the biggest ESC stars. The concert alone has become an annual event, but yet does not have its own standalone article. Perhaps because they would then require an annual concert article to cover everything, as such data over time would make one standalone article very complex. Just imagine if we didn't have annual ESC articles and only updated the main Eurovision one. Now that we're on the 61st year, that article would be overly crowded with content. I think more thought and planning needs to be put into this, and a sandbox draft would be the best option forward until we know more information on continuity. Wes Mouse ✒ 11:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

OGAE

I bring a proposal to display OGAE ranking for each edition and also want to raise again a shorter rephrased OGAE definition (which I once discussed and was reduced from a more in-depth info) which I perceive as providing a clear yet more to the point description for the sole purpose of understanding its club members polls function on annual ESC articles. I have removed "international organisation" (already indicated at the "over 40 clubs from Europe and beyond") and some repetitions of members/forty clubs, while adding minor voting calculation explanation. Also without "...1984...Savonlinna, Finland...by Jari-Pekka Koikkalainen" since founder doesn't take special role or precedence for the current polls. "...non-governmental...political...non-profit" since there is no profit or politics indicated from the polls. That is with regards to this info described on the merit of OGAE's own article. Here is an example I made which seems to me an ad-hock organizational explanation for the poll conduct, with poll ranking for 2015:

"Organisation Générale des Amateurs de l'Eurovision (more commonly known as OGAE), a network organisation consisting of over forty Eurovision Song Contest fan clubs across Europe and beyond, conducts annual voting polls prior to each edition of the Eurovision Song Contest to rank the songs based on each club's members top 10 votes gathering. In the poll for the 2015 Contest, conducted from 1 to 10 May 2015 by forty-one clubs, a number of twenty-five out of the forty competing countries received top 10 points from at least one club. The winner was Italy with 367 points, positioned on a 25 points margin from second placed Sweden with 338 points, while third to fifth place positioned Estonia, Norway and Slovenia; sixth to tenth - Australia, Israel, Spain, Azerbaijan and Belgium; 11th to 15th - Russia, Albania, France, Montenegro and United Kingdom; 16th to 20th - Serbia, Netherlands, Germany, Romania and Iceland and 21st to 23rd - Macedonia, Greece and Georgia, respectively, with a tie for 24th and 25th place positioning Belarus and Czech Republic. The fifteen remaining competing countries (Footnote: Armenia, Austria, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Moldova, Poland, Portugal, San Marino and Switzerland) which failed to score any points, tied therefore for a last 26th place."

Further-reading description-footnote option is putting all the third to last places under it with the remaining non-scoring countries - referencing from the sentence I wrote: "a number of twenty-five out of the forty competing countries received top 10 points from at least one club." Leaving only winner and margin from second place at the paragraph.
There is the option of bulleted list with dividing to groups of like 5 or 10 places, however such option is a more minor form of space inflating, stylistically slides back to overweight.
If this is still excessive to others, even as partly footnoted, I would still support (instead of top 5 or a full hidden table) to just mention the winner and with the option of mentioning the margin from the second place, as included above.

אומנות (talk) 10:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm against highlighting the results of the OGAE vote so excessively and I think the readability of this section may also suffer with the above proposal. In my opinion, the prose should only highlight which country was the eventual winner as this section falls under "Other awards" section, which I think makes only the winner of the fan club vote relevant. The remaining results can all be posted in a collapsed table underneath the section so that anyone who is interested to view how the other countries fared may do so. Pickette (talk) 16:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I understand the prose is going by nature to more details, for which I also based the proposal of footnoting non-scoring countries list and a further-reading footnote option for all second/third to last places, to appear visible as two-further sentences flow out of the main winner info, while still using semicolon (;) or as a separate visible footnote under a dedicated further reading section. And of course the description wording can also be discussed. From viewing this in this way, let alone a separate visible footnote, my view is that a table to function as separate columns for each rank and for dedication for each country's points and also listing the remaining non-scoring countries, is further excessive and unwarranted. It also concerns me per the amount of the already bunch of hidden tables, on top of the many visible ones, that may create a complex of wondering between visible-hidden maze and the wonder of why so much stuff are dedicated in tables, yet to be hidden. So while I understand an issue with such prose, even footnote, I support just mentioning the winner with second place margin option.אומנות (talk) 07:40, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with @Pickette: here, and their suggestion is actually a better proposal, and one that I would happily accept and proceed with. Wes Mouse ✒ 11:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I understand all preferences and views and with that disagree with trying to determine what is better as I view arguments pro and against all options including within those I deliberated and presented, and as I keep the other option of just mentioning the winner for still deliberating about notability of the other places to appear at all. In any case, I was thinking of opening this as an RFC also in regards to the OGAE presentation opening which will give few more days and hopefully more comments for consensus. However even if then there won't be more comments, I will accept to proceed with Pickette's suggestion, if she prefers a hidden table to mention the other places at all, compared to just mentioning the winner. @Pickette: can you clarify your specific preference between a hidden table or just write first place. אומנות (talk) 12:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

This is clearly an active debate, so switching it into a RFC might be a little pointless, to say the least, as RFC's only last 30 days; and this debate could go on longer than that. Plus avoiding the RFC will allow this discussion to continue even after such option has been agreed upon. Wes Mouse ✒ 14:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

@אומנות: The prose should mention only the winner since that's what the section is intended to communicate: the winner as selected by the OGAE fan clubs. The collapsed table will contain the full results of that vote. Pickette (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I referred to an RFC for letting more time and participation before proceeding with any suggestion and forgot to point that I meant to tag RFC only if it doesn't get more feedback after some time, so I'm happy as well to keep as is.

I agree that under award view, it focuses the winner as the "awarded" one, but see this (and Barbara Dex) as an overall public-groups reception of the songs which is why I also see notable room for general descriptions, for which I added to my suggestion a sentence about how many countries received any score compared to the amount of those failing to rank top 10 in popularity from any club - as to shed more overview on a voting-poll. So I needed to explain this within my view as well, thanks for clarifying your position. אומנות (talk) 06:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Stats article

Source

Invitation to an online editathon

You are invited...
	Women in Entertainment worldwide online edit-a-thon Host: Women in Red June 2016 `#wikiwomeninred`

Eurovision AfD

AfD

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.

First of all, I have to say that I am disappointed at the Eurovision wikiproject members overall. We need more input from the "community" at AfDs concerning Eurovision related material. You all have extra knowledge about this topic in particular. Like for example now that Jovan Radomirs article is up for AfD more input from people with this knowledge would be good.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:57, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps some input about the Jovan Radomir article from @Fort esc:,@Whats new?:, @E.M.Gregory:,@RickinBaltimore: and @Werldwayd: . So pinging everyone. You make your own decisions. --BabbaQ (talk) 19:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@Fort esc: and @E.M.Gregory: could take a look at Jon Ola Sand as well. Appreciate it.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I saw I was pinged here, I'll have a look at the article in question. My only relation I'm guessing was my Keep vote in the Jon Ola Sand AfD? RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

My point being that people that have a knowledge about Eurovision material should be more proactive in articles. I might have been mistaken pinging you but, it is a free world. --BabbaQ (talk) 19:49, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

No worries, it's not my area of knowledge I'll admit, but I was just looking at the article straight from the view of if he met WP:GNG or not. I did the same with the Jovan Radomir article and again it appears he does meet GNG. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Good. I have improved the article some as well. It is in my opinion an article that would be strange to delete at this time. My point is that everyone can !vote however they like but I just want people with Eurovision knowledge to get more involved. But anyway, thank you.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi @BabbaQ: there seems to be some confusion about my knowledge of Wikipedia guidelines (and in general) as this is not an area i know much about currently. Although, i'd support the creation of a List page for Executive Supervisors which was suggested by Wesley? Fort esc (talk) 20:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

As I said it is a free country. But you can not deny that you edit plenty of Eurovision related article and your username is Fort esc. I mean it is obvious that you have knowledge about these topics. But you do what you like. My point is that with your obvious knowledge of Eurovision related material a opinion about if an article passes GNG or not should not be so hard. But any kind of input is always appreciated.BabbaQ (talk) 20:49, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@BabbaQ: please be careful with what you are saying. It is starting to come across as a serious breach of WP:CANVASS which would not go down well at AfD, and any !keep votes would be discarded as a result. Also bear in mind that even though @Fort esc: name may b obivious they like Eurovision and are a fan, does not mean they have policy knowledge. There are tons of rules on Wikipedia that not everyone is familiar with. And that is very clear with the discussion above on article size. If it were not for a member of the WP:GOCE, I would not have known that English translation columns were prohibited under WP:OR. So there are even policies and guidelines I still not fully understand, and that may be the same case for Fort esc. Wes Mouse ^Talk 21:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I am only wanting to inspiring people with knowledge about Eurovision to get more involved in the AfD processes and the articles overall. I have not mentioned that anyone needs to !vote in any direction. As I said, it is a free world. Regards,BabbaQ (talk) 21:27, 2 November 2016 (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.

Review on Eurovoix's reliability status

RESOLVED

Communication with Eurovoix has determined that no conflict of interest as occurred. Also further evidence was provided to show no copyright infringement between Eurovoix and Wikipedia content. Wes Mouse ^Talk 17:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

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.

Following on from a very lengthy debate at Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2017#Associates Members in which a user question a change at Eurovision.tv. It has emerged that a possible contamination of sources has now happened. Yoyo360 pointed out in this edit that the changes to the Eurovision website must have been made between June and August this year. The debate started on 18 October, and on 19 October Eurovoix publish this report, which uses the quote "between June and August this year the official wording on the Eurovision.tv regarding associate member broadcasters has been changed". Now talk about coincidences, but I feat that this is not. Especially with the context of the debate, the issue it was regarding, the fact Eurovoix has been mentioned on a Wikipedia talk page. And now they publish something that is virtually mirroring our debate. Puts their website into the same category as ESCKaz who also mirrored our content and has since been blacklisted as a usable source.

In light of this, how do the project members feel about how events have unfolded, and should we now refrain from using Eurovoix as a reliable and reputable source? Wes Mouse ^T@lk 22:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Wesley Mouse: Just to check one detail, I'm going to ask you a favor : could you go to this article, click the link of the word "Previously" and tell me if the months of the year appearing in the upper right of the page are in French or not. I don't know if this depends on the fact that my computer has its configuration in French or not, but if it is in French on your computer, then we'd be sure they used the link I gave you the first day of our argument. Otherwise I don't know, but in any case it is really likely they did take our argument as a source. Yoyo360 (talk) 22:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

They may not have used your link @Yoyo360: as I also posted web-archive links and I'm English. Anyway, clicking on the word "previously" brings up a link that contains the months of the year in English. And now ESCToday have published the same report. Something very strange is happening, and I smell a mole within here. Now it puts the use of both websites under scrutiny. We better start looking for new reliable and non-contaminated websites to use in future, otherwise we won't be able to write articles on Eurovision. Rest in Peace - ProjectEurovision! Wes Mouse ^T@lk 22:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Wesley Mouse: The link of ESCToday you just provided was made before our thread. It is even the first reason why I came to ask you. And in any case, all websites about Eurovision get inspiration the ones from the others. It is regular that Eurovoix or Wiwibloggs (for instance) cites ESCToday Yoyo360 (talk) 22:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Yoyo360: the ESCToday link was not before our thread. You posted the thread at 21:30 GMT. ESCToday post their report at 21:45 GMT - 15 minutes after your thread. And inspiration from each website is one thing. But posting reports following a debate from Wikipedia is not exactly "inspiring" it is becoming involved and causing a chaotic conflict of interest. ESCKaz did not gain "inspiration" from us. They copied word for word from our articles and claimed the work as their own without attributing Wikipedia. CT Cooper and Pickette had numerous email conversations with ESCKaz about that matter and ESCKaz would not take responsibility. Now we have the same situation again, only this time with Eurovoix and ESCToday, which means they've plagiarised from an active and on-going debate and published a report. So we can no longer use sources about the potential debut of associate members, because of the contaminated sources. Wes Mouse ^T@lk 22:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Wesley Mouse: Yes it was published before, because it IS why I came on the Wikipedia page. It was posted on 9:45 pm CEST, which two hours ahead of GMT. When I posted the thread, it was indeed 9:30 GMT, which makes 11:30 CEST. Our thread began nearly two hours after the parution of the article. If you still doubt, look the time it was posted on their Facebook page. It was way before our thread Yoyo360 (talk) 22:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Wesley Mouse: In any case, I hope you won't be really angry for the consequences our thread had Yoyo360 (talk) 23:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Yoyo360: I'm not angry. I'm more disappointed that a situation that has happened twice already has done so again for a third time. We, including myself, need to remember these talk pages are just as publicly visible as their articles - expect the project talk pages like this, which a member would need to know about its existence, whereas the general public does not. Perhaps the associate debate would have been better off starting in here, or at least moved in here. We may not have been in this mess then. Suppose that is why they say article talk pages are for content disputes, and projects oversee topical areas so more general debates can be conducted "privately". Wes Mouse ^T@lk 23:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I've taken it upon myself to intervene and have emailed Mr Granger at Eurovoix to have him explain why his article has mirrored an active and on-going debate, and also uses a web-archive link that we had provided also in the debate. Hopefully we will get answers and this matter resolved swiftly. Wes Mouse ^T@lk 23:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Wesley Mouse: Well I don't know what to say. I didn't know we'd arrive here. I hope the email will work. At the moment we still have ESCToday staying neutral. But for the others I don't know. Now, if you'll excuse me I need to sleep. So, I'll keep on looking the updates here, just to know what it'll become. Bye

Yoyo360 (talk) 23:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Goodnight and sleep well @Yoyo360:. I'll not be too far behind in the sleeping department. Wes Mouse ^T@lk 23:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Wesley Mouse: Good night to you too then. I'll guess we'll have to talk again right here, so see ya Yoyo360 (talk) 23:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Yoyo360: I've had a reply back from Anthony Granger at Eurovoix, and I can confirm that they did not use our discussion as a root for their article. In fact they used 2 posts from a Twitter user, which use the same content that was mentioned on our discussion, including a link to the web-archive which brought up the month/year in French when clicked upon. I shall not providing those tweets on here as it could cause and issue with WP:OUTING just in case the twitter user is also a Wikipedian, thus keeping privacy intact. So it is safe to say that Eurovoix can continue to be used as a citation. However, I am inclined to avoid using the one in question, purely with it being closely related to our discussion on Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2017. We would not want to raise suspicion in the future and then have to explain all of this yet again. Wes Mouse ^T@lk 13:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Wesley Mouse: I've also spoken a little bit with him on Facebook, and he gave me the tweets. Of course I won't publish them, but if you look at it really closely, they were published just a few minutes before I gave them on our thread. So in fact, I'm not even the only one having searched when this text appeared. But you're totally right, we should not use the link of eurovoix, at least for this time. And eventually, everything is fine. Great. Yoyo360 (talk) 17:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Yoyo360: I am very dubious now with what you have written above. You say you spoke to him on Facebook and he gave you the same tweets. How do you know the tweets you received via Facebook and the ones I received via email are the same tweets? Neither of us have published the tweet links on here due to potential WP:OUTING, so we cannot compare that they are the same. Therefore it is impossible to say they are the same, unless you are either the twitter user or Anthony Granger. Also, Mr Granger doesn't have a Facebook page in his "Eurovoix" editorial name. So how could you have contact him, unless you knew his real-life name. Only one person on Wikipedia knows my real name and is actual friends with me on Facebook. You wouldn't know how to find me on Facebook without knowing my true identity. So I find your comment above rather peculiar and suspicious to say the least. Also, web-archive links are always in English. The fact yours cam up in French will have something to do with the translation tool that all web browsers have. Doesn't matter what link is pasted on here, it will always be in English, unless the url has a language parameter which is visible, for example /fr or /en. All links for web-archive that have been provided here by yourself, myself, and via the twitter account are the same url address. Therefore they are in the same language. And for the record, the last sentence you wrote is word-for-word identical to the one I received in the email reply from Eurovoix. Way too coincidental for my liking. Wes Mouse ^T@lk 01:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@Wesley Mouse: Well in fact I don't know they're the same, you're right, but I just supposed they were because that would be logical, as he explained to me that he used tweets, and he explained it to you too. Aaand, I know it was him because I contacted him on the Facebook page of Eurovoix and he signed the reply he gave me. And honestly, I didn't at all you received that sentence in your reply from Eurovoix. I don't know at all what's written in it ! I'm sorry if it seems strange but this time it is a true coincidence. I'm not the only one to use this little sentence. Yoyo360 (talk) 05:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@Yoyo360: I still find it very strange, and when I get a gut-feeling hunch, then it tends to be right 99% of the time. The sentence you used was "But you're totally right, we should not us the link of eurovoix, at least for this time. And eventually, everything is fine". The sentence from Granger's email read as follows: "But you're totally right, Wikipedia should probably not use the Eurovoix link in question, at least on this occasion. And hopefully, everything will fine for future Eurovoix links to be used on Wikipedia?". Now do you see the similarities of written context and the sounding from it? They are beyond coincidence in my opinion. But I suppose one shall have to assume good faith and hope that it is a coincidence and nothing sinister. Wes Mouse ^Talk 09:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@Wesley Mouse: I don't know how I could prove it to you, but I can assure you I'm not working for Eurovoix, and I'm not Anthony Granger either, and I absolutely didn't know this sentence. I even thought you were refering to when I said 'And eventually, everything is fine. Great.' only, not another bigger part of my message. Yoyo360 (talk) 17:23, 21 October 2016 (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.

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision/Archive 16

Method of selection

Multilingual files

Rotated text for tables

Proposal to change how results sections are handled

Section renaming and scoreboard tables status

Some missing articles

References for #Proposal to change how results sections are handled

Eurovision 2016 Map

Labeled Section Transclusion

Yugoslavia in the Eurovision:Language of performances

Eurovision The Party

OGAE

Stats article

Source

Invitation to an online editathon

Eurovision AfD

AfD

Review on Eurovoix's reliability status

Template:Infobox song contest

Related Articles

Timelines

Top Qs

Fact Checks