# Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision

 Main page Discussion Article alerts Newsletter Department Assessment A-Class review Members Portal
WikiProject Eurovision (Rated Project-class)
This page is part of WikiProject Eurovision, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Eurovision-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.
Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

## Turkvision 2013

Hello fellow Eurovisionairies. Eurovoix.com and Hurriyet Daily News have both published that Turkey are to launch in December 2013 their own version of Eurovosion called "Turkvision". As almost all of the participating countries will be within the EBU region, would we be accepting this new contest into our project scope? And if so, do we create an article now, or wait for new information to be published. WesleyMouse 20:34, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I think this would be within our scope. Most media coverage for the event is hype because of association with Eurovision, though, so let's wait a bit so we can establish notability for yearly articles. A main Turkvision article would be ok, but let's not start making individual countries and years yet. I'm saying this mostly because there are a lot of other regional song contests we don't even have articles for, like the Baltic Song Contest, for instance, that are already well-established but not covered by Wikipedia. 22:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, country articles would be too soon. That's why I waited for the second ABU TV Song Festival before creating country articles for those. And I'm waiting for more on the 2nd ABU Radio version before setting up country articles on them too. WesleyMouse 22:21, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Wait wait wait, hold up. Turkvision has been around since at least 2011.[1] We need to take these new articles with a grain of salt because it seems like they're drumming it up to be a new contest to contrast with Eurovision when it's not new at all. 22:28, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
I say, do a Turkvision main article. But wait with the 2013 article etc. Interesting. But will likely become a "non event" when it comes to coverage and status of the contest like most of the "Eurovision spin-offs.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
But at the same time I do not see the harm in making stub for Turkvision 2013 after reading in the sources you provided that the dates for the contest has been announced.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Update: The current news is definitely overhype. Turkvision 2013 is the FOURTH Turkvision song contest. They merely took a break last year.[2] 22:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
From what I understand was that Turkvision before was simply an internal contest. Now they will expand it this year to all of these other countries.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I think we may be confusing two concepts here. Looking at the second link Gerbear provided, that is for Türkçe Sözlü Müzik Festīvalī (or "Türkçevīzyon") for short, which was a music festival that took place between 11-14 September 2013 in the Denizli Municipality. Eurovoix and Daily News state a new show called "Turkvision" will take place in Eskişehir during the 19-23 December this year. WesleyMouse 22:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe Wesley is the one of us three that are totally correct here. I think so too, considering the name difference.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:56, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, not to brag here. But the one thing that I stood out was the two logos. Gerbear's second link uses a totally different logo (Türkçevīzyon 2013) compared to the one shown on the promo photo of Eurovoix (Türkvīzyon). The "ce" is missing from the second logo. WesleyMouse 23:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, I see. I didn't notice that at all. So Türkvīzyon is totally different from Türkçevīzyon. What the hell, TRT. Similarly, I would stay away from considering Eurovoix a reliable source as they are merely reporting on Hurriyet's report, from which they took that photo too. In any case, I'm looking for news on the TRT's website regarding this. 23:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) On the contrary regarding Eurovoix, I have to disagree. Rule number one in journalism is, if there's only one source, then there might as well be no source at all. But if there are several sources, then it becomes verifiable and hold credibility. The fact that Hurriyet were the primary news source, and Eurovoix are sourcing them, makes Eurovoix a secondary source, purely because we can verify that what Eurovoix are reporting by checking on their sources. (If that makes sense). WesleyMouse 23:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
I've checked Oikotimes (which can be semi-reliable) and they have a clip of the announcement made on TRT. So that adds more weight to Eurovoix's reliability status. WesleyMouse 23:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
No, not at all. If anything, that shows Oikotimes being considerably more reliable than Eurovoix. There WAS one source, and that was Hurriyet, from which Eurovoix took all its information. What you say is correct: if there's only one source, there might as well be no source at all. The fact that Eurovoix used the only source, which was as good as no source, doesn't prove their reliability. We cannot at all verify that Eurovoix independently verifies whether what Hurriet reported on was true or not. That first rule of journalism requires several, independent sources, of which Eurovoix does not qualify because their report was completely dependent on Hurriyet.
Also, Hurriyet was a secondary source because they were there at the announcement, which was in itself the primary source. Eurovoix is a tertiary source, and did a report from a report. If anything, Hurriet would have sufficed, but seeing Oikotimes has a video of the announcement, I'd rather cite them than Eurovoix. 23:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Play caution to using Oikotimes on the references. There was a discussion over a year ago, and they were deemed semi-reliable. From what I recall, if a source states another source within their report (even if it is only one) then it was deemed reliable. TRT held a press conference for the concept launch, which a lot of local "Turkic" media would have been in attendance (Hurriyet Daily News being one of them). We cannot speculate or assume why Eurovoix chose to use them as a source. Perhaps that was the first source that shown up during their research, and they decided to go ahead and quote them as a source. But since Eurovoix made the report, there have now been multiple others too, including Oikotimes which chose to use a TV clip as their source, and Eurovisiontimes.com who also chose to source Hurriyet's report. Eurovoix have been pretty reliable in the past, and have been favoured amongst many project members too. WesleyMouse 23:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Two sources (1 and 2) stating that Bosnia-Herzegovina, along with hosts Turkey, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan have confirmed participation in Turkvision 2013. Wesley Mᴥuse 19:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

One thing to take note of is that Eurovoix says BHRT is sending the Turkvision entry for Bosnia and Herzegovina, but their source does not say so. There's no confirmation of networks at this point, I think? 01:50, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
That's why I asked someone over at Croatian-Wikipedia to translate the foreign source from Mondo, they replied to my email (strangely enough) to say that the source read as "Going to Turkvision, BiH confirmed.. etc etc... So far Turkvision is a local competition, and this year there will be, BiH, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan , Kyrgyzstan ... Croatian television had not yet received an invitation, the head of international relations HRT Tanja Simic and recalled that Croatia has been a participant in two competitions organized by Turkish television.". I have asked our colleague over at hr:Wikipedia to comment on here with the translation, but I haven't a clue what is taking them so long. Wesley Mᴥuse 02:11, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, a full translation would be useful, but I don't see a mention of the Eurovision Bosnian broadcaster. It's probably a different network sponsoring the entry? 03:09, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I wonder if checking our project membership list will help, see if someone on our project is able to translate. Will speed up the process instead of waiting for our Cortaian-counterpart at hr:Wikipedia to finally wander over here. Wesley Mᴥuse 03:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Well hello, I just did the translation on this news item you wanted. The translation is a bit garbled, because I followed the original, and they didn't really make an effort at forming proper sentences.

B&H won't go to Eurosong, would go to Turkovision instead

Turkey is organising a contest alike Eurosong, where countries historically and culturally linked to Turkey would participate

B&H confirmed going to the Turkovision, with the justification that campaigns aimed at the Eurosong are too expensive nowadays, and the country's colours will be defended by "Emir and the Frozen Kamels", is conveyed by local media and they further state that on this Turkish version of the Eurosong 20 nations would participate.

In order to successfully compete for the best song of Europe, next year every country to compete at Turkovision will organise their own national selection of their representative at this musical review.

They will be singing on their native languages, and the final evening will be, as this year, held around the Christmas holidays.

Since last year Turkey has decided to boycott Eurovision because of the rule that Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Spain be placed directly into the finale. Up until now Turkovision has been a local contest, and this year, except for B&H, performing will be Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan...

"Croatian television has not yet received an invitation", stated Tanja Šimić, overseer of international relations at HRT, and reminded that Croatia was so far a participant of two contests organised by the Turkish television.

As for the reliability of the source, I have some doubts, but that's for you to decide. Was glad to be of use (I hope)!--$\color{Blue}\mathcal{M}$$\color{Blue}\vec{( e\ ,}$$\color{Blue}t )$ 11:35, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for translating the source for us Mátyás, it is a huge help. And as you hold doubts on its reliability, that will give us something to think about. Wesley Mᴥuse 14:34, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Oh well, someone was eager to create Türkvizyon anyway without having a wander over here to see what we were discussing about the topic. Wesley Mᴥuse 23:47, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I was looking at Eurovoix and it appears that it is not BHRT that are taking part in the contest but instead a private channel called Hayat TV. I checked on the official website and they also list Hayat TV as the participating broadcaster for Bosnia & Herzegovina. (Moldova96 (talk) 12:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC))

## Columns for commentators

Resolved

The sections that detail the commentators for the 2012 and 2013 contests are quite text heavy. I would like to suggest that in such cases, the commentators section be split into two columns rather than three in order to improve the neatness of the section and make the section less cluttered and easier to read. Pickette (talk) 02:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Pickette, would you like me to add this discussion to the newsletter which has just been sent out, just to make everyone aware of it? Wesley Mᴥuse 02:30, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes please. Pickette (talk) 02:35, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Done - see here, and you're officially famous as your name is in print on the newsletter LOL. Wesley Mᴥuse 02:42, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
• I know from when a test was done during the RfC a year ago, that people liked the layout done to ESC 2012. But I must say that Pickette's suggestion of using a case-by-case discretion based on whether 2 or 3 columns would provide a more neat presentation is very plausible and one that should be given serious consideration as well as warm support from other project members. Wesley Mᴥuse 02:59, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
• Pickette, I've just had a thought. As the GA reviews are scheduled to take place towards the end of October, perhaps allowing this "unofficial" RfC to run until Sunday 13 October, and if nobody adds any objections, then go ahead and roll out your proposal. Does that sound OK with you? Wesley Mᴥuse 20:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good. Pickette (talk) 21:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I also wondered briefly once, that 2 columns will look more "spaced" for such detailed text as of 2012-2013 commentators, so I support your suggestion too Pickette. אומנות (talk) 03:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
• There appears to be no objections from other project members, so I think it is safe to implement the change. Wesley Mᴥuse 12:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

## Project categories nominated for deletion

For the attention of all ProjectEurovision members,

Category:Eurovision Song Contest presenters and Category:Junior Eurovision Song Contest presenters have both been nominated for deletion and it is vital that everyone shares there view on the relevent discussions, whether it be to Keep, Merge, or Delete.

Thank you. Wesley Mᴥuse 02:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

## Nomination for deletion of Template:Türkvizyon 2013

This requires input from Project Members, if possible. Template:Türkvizyon 2013 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Wesley Mᴥuse 23:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

## Country by ESC Year info box

I just wanted to bring this to the attention of whoever is able to fix this issue. The template that contains the preceding and forthcoming navigation in the country by year info box does not function to skip years where a country didn't participate. This will probably come up for this year in particular since the Portuguese and Bosnian pages will have to navigate back to 2012 and skip 2013. I don't know how to fix it myself so perhaps someone who is skilled in this area could do so if they have time. Thanks. Pickette (talk) 23:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

It isn't broken. There's manual fields that may be used to get around the "skip a year" issue. If you look on Template:Infobox ESC entry, there are optional data-fields that can be used to get around complexed issues
{{Infobox ESC entry <!-- See Wikipedia:WikiProject Eurovision Song Contest-->
| song         = {{flagicon|enter_name_of_country_here}} #Required
| image        =
| caption      =
| year         = #Required
| country      = #Required
| artist       =
| genre        =
| language     =
| languages    =
| composer     =
| lyricist     =
| conductor    =
| place        =
| points       =
| place_semi   =
| points_semi  =
| prev         =
| prev_year    =
| next         =
| next_year    =
}}

The bottom six will enable you to get around this issue. Hope this answers your question, Pickette. Wesley Mᴥuse 23:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't think we're talking about the same infobox template. I'm referring to this one: Template:Infobox ESC National Year. Pickette (talk) 03:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Ohhh, that one. Apologies, my head is all over the place at the minute. I never realised how stressful it was to plan my wedding and juggle work on here too. Feel free to pour hot coffee down my throat lol. I'm rather confident when it comes to modifying these sort of templates. Leave it with me and I'll see what I can do, and I'll drop a note on here if I manage to fix it. Wesley Mᴥuse 04:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I've had a look, and the coding was already there to begin with, but the template document doesn't provide hints on how to get around the year problem.
This is the normal template for consecutive years
{{Infobox ESC National Year <!-- See Wikipedia:WikiProject Eurovision Song Contest-->
| Year                   =
| Contest                =
| Country                =
| Preselection           =
| Preselection date      =
| Entrant                =
| Song                   =
| SF result              =
| Final result           =
}}

To manipulate the year (in this case for Portugal) use this format
{{Infobox ESC National Year <!-- See Wikipedia:WikiProject Eurovision Song Contest-->
| Year2                  =
| Contest                =
| Country                =
| Preselection           =
| Preselection date      =
| Entrant                =
| Song                   =
| SF result              =
| Final result           =
| Prev                   =
| Next                   =
}}

This will allow you to manually input the previous and next dates. Wesley Mᴥuse 04:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

## Galleries on Country in ESC articles

I noticed that people are adding galleries to all of the articles. I thought there was a discussion here that was against adding galleries and furthermore even to remove the numerous pictures that get shoved in the articles in favour of having just one or two based on the amount of text. So I'm just double checking on that because I'm going to start removing those galleries soon. Pickette (talk) 22:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Hold fire, Pickette. There is a discussion taking place elsewhere between CT Cooper and FortEsc (see User talk:Fort esc#Creation of galleries). As there is confusion between policies and two RfC's on the matter. From what I gather, there will be a full Project debate regarding these soon. But obviously with the festive period vast approaching, then it would probably be the new year before the debate starts up. Wes Mᴥuse 22:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
This is in reply to the response to the comment from FortEsc's talk page ([3]). The only reason I commented there was because you wrote above that there was a discussion going on there. I think the RfC was pretty clear about photos being limited on these articles. You said on FortESC's talk page that "nobody could make up their minds", but that's not the case. I don't mind if there is another discussion about the matter but the most recent RfC about this was in favour of limiting pictures. Pickette (talk) 14:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Apologies for any confusion, Pickette. When I pointed out there was a discussion, I did make it clear that the discussion was between two editors only, and merely provide the link so you could observe what had been discussed. I would have thought you'd have acknowledged it was a private discussion between two editors, and not a free-for-all discussion without invitation from either one of the editors involved. One needs to remember that was someone else's talk page, where a discussion was taking place between two editor's specifically. I thought the fact I noted over there that I would discuss further on CT Cooper's would have been clear that I was not wishing to intrude on a talk page belong to someone else. Commonsense should have been evident not to intrude openly, but with caution (which is what I did). I think my words may have been over-looked though. As I said at Fortesc, I was referring solely to the gallery section of the RfC and not the entire RfC in general. And people could not make their minds up on galleries, the fact that some wanted to remove all images, some wanted to limit them, and then there was the suggestion of a gallery section, shows there was indecisiveness on this particular topic. CT Cooper noted ta FortEsc that he would re-open this debate again in due course, but I would assume he is playing tactful logic here and allowing the busy festive period to pass first. Which is only fair, as the majority of us will be feeling the stresses of the pre-Christmas season. It would be ideal to re-boot the gallery topic early in the new year, allow everyone to enjoy Christmas parties, and then we'd all have a fresh rejuvenated heads to be able to focus on this topic properly and not haphazardly. There's no urgency at the moment, and the way things stand is not going to cause too much distress for the sake of 3 weeks waiting. Wes Mᴥuse 17:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay, we should both keep in mind that next time a conversation is occurring between two users on a particular user's talk page that we should both take any extraneous conversations to a different page. The RfC had three people supporting the limit of pictures versus you who suggested the idea of a gallery but then you even said that it could be "overzealous". There wasn't a debate about adding galleries or not but it was clear that the majority of those who did comment wanted the limiting of photos which I would assume is against the idea of adding galleries. Anyway I'll wait for the discussion whenever it is planned to begin. Pickette (talk) 17:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, I agree with what you said about conversations taking place on other's talk pages. My fault really for confusing matters more than needed to be. I was visiting Fortesc to post a new thread about something else (which I have just remember I still haven't done, through being side-tracked with this). It was when I noticed Coop highlight a discussion from 2010. And as I knew Coop had been off-wiki for a while, I thought it was polite to swiftly point out to him about the RfC in 2013. Which if you note, Coop did acknowledge this and even thanked me. When he made a question, which I assumed as for myself, I then knew that it would be better for me to respond on Coop's page, and not clutter up Fortesc's - as that conversation was between he and Coop only. I suppose I should have point that out above too, when I made you aware of their discussion. But I assumed that you would have realised they were discussing between themselves, and that you would have read what they spoke of, and hoped you'd have brought it back to this page. To be fair, even I was not aware of the discussion in 2010. Anyhow, I shall await with patience for Coop to reboot this in the new year. May I wish you and yours a Merry Christmas, Pickette. Wes Mᴥuse 19:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

## Contestants Grid

Can we change the "X" denotations on the contestants grid to the format used bellow? :) User:Karlwhen Talk 00:05am, (GMT)

Year Artist Language Title Final Points Semi Points
1996 Kaliopi Macedonian "Samo ti" (Само ти) Did not qualify to Grand Final 26 14
1998 Vlado Janevski Macedonian "Ne zori, zoro" (Не зори, зоро) 19 16 No Semi-Finals
2000 XXL Macedonian "100% te ljubam" (100% те љубам) 15 29
2002 Karolina Gočeva Macedonian "Od nas zavisi" (Од нас зависи) 19 25
2004 Toše Proeski English "Life" 14 47 10 71
2005 Martin Vučić English "Make My Day" 17 52 9 97
2006 Elena Risteska English, Macedonian "Ninanajna" (Нинанајна) 12 56 10 76
2007 Karolina Gočeva Macedonian "Mojot svet" (Мојот свет) 14 73 9 97
2008 Tamara, Vrčak & Adrian English "Let Me Love You" Did not qualify to Grand Final 10* 64
2009 Next Time Macedonian "Nešto što kje ostane" (Нешто што ќе остане) 10* 45
2010 Gjoko Taneski, Billy Zver & Pejčin Macedonian "Jas ja imam silata" (Јас ја имам силата) 15 37
2011 Vlatko Ilievski Macedonian "Rusinka" (Русинкa) 16 36
2012 Kaliopi Macedonian "Crno i belo" (Црно и бело) 13 71 9 53
2013 Esma & Lozano Macedonian, Romani "Pred da se razdeni" (Пред да се раздени) Did not qualify to Grand Final 16 28
2014 Tijana Dapčević[1] Macedonian[2] "Pobeda"[2] (Победа)

I quite like this idea. Although the wording for 1996 needs to be changed. You're making it sound like there were semifinals back then, when in actual fact there was not, it was a mere qualification round for all participants. If other's like this idea, then roll it out. But only if other's agree to it. Wes Mᴥuse 06:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).