Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision

Home

Talk

Article
Alerts

Assessment

Quality
Articles

Popular
Pages

Formatting
& Guidance

News DeskArchiveMembers

On Notability of OGAE Contests

Hello! Has the notability of OGAE Contests--such as the OGAE Second Chance Contest, OGAE Video Contest, and the OGAE Song Contest (results in a table on the OGAE page--been established? Each of the contests (and the main OGAE page, for that matter) are filled with Primary Sources with no secondary, neutral sources establishing notability, violating the WP:WHYN guideline. Mr. Gerbear|Talk 01:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, there has never been any discussion on the issue – the current pages are just the result of the slow expansion of OGAE related pages by various editors. On notability, yes at face value the pages do clearly fail WP:N. Though I'll be very surprised if the OGAE Second Chance Contest isn't notable at all, and a Google search does seem to indicate some third-party sources, the year-by-year articles though may be more debatable. CT Cooper · talk 17:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, the yearly articles are definitely overkill, imo. That stuff should go into OGAE archives, not Wikipedia. Can you provide some examples of third-party Second Chance Contest sources though? I don't think Eurovision fansites would count as establishing notability though... Mr. Gerbear|Talk 00:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Cooper did say a Google search indicates some third-party sources, so I would assume if one were to do a Google search, that one would find those sources without having to ask someone else to retrieve them for others to view. It's not that difficult to do the research for oneself. However to the discussion at hand, I seem to recall OGAE contests being mentioned briefly in a plethora of other threads (most of which are now in the archives). I, myself, have worked on expanding some of the articles but with slow caution. Yes, I found a lot of sources through Google searching; and still considering whether to merge them all into one main article or not. Notability is a grey area in all fairness. For something to be notable these days means it needs to be well-known and have received coverage on the internet by sources. The issue is what may be well-known to one person, may not be as well-known to another - without internet coverage or the curiosity to search for such information via the means of the internet. As Cooper has already established that some third-party sources can be ascertained if one were to do a Google search, highlights the fact that there are some coverage of these contests, thus some notability is out there, merely for the fact that some people know of the existence of these contests. An encyclopaedia is there to provide knowledge of information to those who may not have known of such information. I kow that notability is a major factor here, but it is becoming more commonly known that the average Joe Blogs tends to look to Wikipedia as a fountain of information, rather than searching on Google or other search engines. I have encountered many people who when asked the question about a random topic, come to Wikipedia first to find information, before thinking about searching on Google. Perhaps this Wikipedia is evolving in a way it never expected to evolve into? Wes Mouse 17:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, while insightful, this isn't a discussion on what Wikipedia is (and I do disagree on some of your points); this is a discussion on whether the OGAE contests should be covered in such detail. I asked for links because my own Google-ing didn't find any third-party sources. They are all either the official OGAE pages or Eurovision sites. This alone does not establish notability as non-neutral sources (and by non-neutral I mean something not dedicated to Eurovision). I would really agree that they should all just be merged into one article. Each individual year needs to have notability established, which would be difficult. For example, the OGAE Second Chance contest from 2004 is never discussed outside the fan world, but Eurovision 1958 is. Mr. Gerbear|Talk 01:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with that interpretation of WP:N. Content from the OGAE wouldn't count towards notability and articles shouldn't be built based on such sources, in the same way that content from the EBU wouldn't count towards notability in Eurovision articles. A Eurovision site can be used to establish notability as long as it is independent of the contest/issue in question and it's reliable. ESCToday for example meets both those criteria, and I see no reason why the use of such sources would't allow a WP:NPOV compliant article to be built. I believe we also consider ESCDaily and Eurovoix to be reliable too. The contest has also featured in other tertiary sources such as the Encyclopedia of Icelandic Music. Offline sources can be hard to get hard of but their use is allowed on Wikipedia and demonstrating that they cover a topic can count towards notability. CT Cooper · talk 14:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The thing is that Eurovision fansites and news sites do not have a neutral point of view. They cover Eurovision, and therefore all the minutia that surround it. They are not third party sources as their coverage implies a bias towards Eurovision-related media. Also, the Encyclopedia of Icelandic Music is sourced from Wikipedia, according to the first page, which means it cannot help determine notability. However, there are independent, third-party sources that mention the Second Chance Contest (which in itself doesn't establish notability). I did already concede that the Second Chance Contest is most likely fine. It's all those individual years that may not be what Wikipedia is for. Mr. Gerbear|Talk 05:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know any source that don't have a bias of some sort, whether that be coverage bias, viewpoint bias, or something else – though if I'm mistaken, please name some. Or to put it another way, a reductio ad absurdum response to this argument is that nothing is ever notable because there is no such thing as a neutral source when one defines bias that broadly.

While it is true that one of the justifications for the notability guidelines is ensuring that it is possible to write a neutral article on a subject by having a sufficient range of third-party sources to draw from, rather than just relying on sources directly connected to the subject which are likely to be of only one viewpoint; it is not the case that third-party sources have to be "neutral" to count towards notability. Per WP:YESPOV, the sources themselves can be as biased as they like; it is only Wikipedia itself that has to be neutral by giving appropriate weightings to viewpoints based on their coverage in reliable sources – the community has judged that this cannot be done properly if there are no third-party sources to work with from the start. The definition of a third-party source is one that it is independent from the subject matter, with Wikipedia also requiring that such sources be reliable. Note that independence and neutrality are different things, as are reliability and neutrality. For example, a privately owned newspaper could publish a negative (i.e. biased) article about a politician, but still have such an article be factually accurate (i.e. reliable); yet it would still be considered an independent third-party source for an article on said politician. It's worth noting that neutrality and bias are not mentioned at all in the general notability guideline itself, because "neutral" sources are not required to establish notability, only independent and reliable ones are.

It appears we do agree that the main OGAE Second Chance Contest article is notable, and while I'm pleased this is the case, I'm rather confused on how this came about. So far no satisfactory non-Eurovision sources on the Second Chance Contest have been presented. So how did you reach the conclusion that the Second Chance Contest is notable at all based on your interpretation of WP:N? CT Cooper · talk 18:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Whoa late reply, sorry. But, anyway, I said the Second Chance Contest page is fine mostly because you said you did find some sources that talked about it. I haven't been able to find any, myself.

As for my rationale behind not using Eurovision news sites to establish notability, yeah, I meant independence and not neutrality. Sorry for the confusion. Eurovision news sites are, by definition, not independent from the topic of Eurovision. I'm looking through WP:EVENT right now and OGAE contests by year do not check out. Mr. Gerbear|Talk 23:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not following the logic that Eurovision news sites are not independent from the topic of Eurovision and I don't understand how one could interpret the WP:GNG in that way. Does that mean biological journals can't be used in biological articles because they are by definition not independent from the topic of biology? I don't think so. I'm not really seeing the relevance of WP:EVENT. While Eurovision contests are technically events, this subject specific notability guideline (SNG) was written to deal with the problem with people creating articles on local events which receive a very short-term burst of localized news coverage, but lack any long-term significance, such as a traffic accident in a village. WP:NOTNEWS covers this but it is vague, hence the need for an additional guideline. Eurovision related contests were not what the drafters had in mind. In any case, SNGs only supplement the GNG by providing an alternative path to notability – an article is required to pass one or the other, not both. In other words, once the GNG is satisfied, the SNGs become irrelevant. CT Cooper · talk 20:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Consider that Eurovision fansites would of course report on every bit of Eurovision minutia, whether it would be notable on Wikipedia or not. Where Eurovision goes, they follow; ergo, not independent. See the Indiscriminate Sources portion of the Independent Sources Essay. This is essentially what my viewpoint is. This isn't policy, I know, but it is a viewpoint other editors do share. It's not that you can't USE them in articles as sources. You just can't use them to establish notability.

Also, It's not a hard science like biology; notability is incomparable (especially as there are separate guidelines for those topics).

Also, OGAE's yearly contests, individually, don't have long-term significance. It would be difficult to prove otherwise. We're not talking about Eurovision events at all here, but a fan club's event, hosted on the internet. There's no real show hosted in a host city, the artists are, most often, not personally involved, and it's only these fan club members who vote. It's pretty much a fan-run contest, occurring entirely within this group of fans, except it has an OGAE stamp on it. I admit, I am extremely interested in the results myself, as a fan of Eurovision, but I personally have serious doubt when it comes to whether these individual contests are notable for Wikipedia. Mr. Gerbear|Talk 03:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The WP:GNG is universal and applies to everything, and while there are subtle differences to how notability is applied to different topic areas, comparisons can certainly be made. As I've stated above, SNGs establish an alternative path to notability in addition to the GNG. Note that I used the term "Eurovision contests" broadly as being any event related to the Eurovision topic area, and I stand by my position that WP:EVENT isn't really relevant here, as it was not written for these sorts of articles.

Per my earlier explanations, policies and guidelines are clear that independence means separation from the topic itself; it has nothing to do with what the sources specialize in. For Eurovision contests, this means sources which are independent of broadcasters, the EBU, and in this case, the OGAE. For a topic in biology, that would mean sources independent of the person conducting the experiment or similar. Even if one is to accept Wikipedia:Independent sources#Indiscriminate sources, it is actually saying that such sources are independent, they're just indiscriminate. So it looks like we've jumped from Eurovision sources not being usable for notability because they're not neutral, to them not being usable because they're not independent, to now them not being usable because they're indiscriminate. I don't accept this new position any more than the previous ones. For starters, different Eurovision sources cover things differently, so treating them all as the same is inappropriate. It's also clear that they don't cover every fan-made contest on the internet; they choose to cover OGAE especially. Furthermore, they're coverage also goes beyond simply announcing the dates, the results etc. and gives critical and extensive coverage which is exactly what's needed to satisfy the GNG.

If Eurovision sources are not accepted as counting towards notability, as it stands, all OGAE Second Chance Contest articles will probably be deleted as being non-notable. It will also make a large number of other articles which fall under this project vulnerable as well. Fortunately, I'm confident that if taken to AfD, the extensive coverage of a variety of Eurovision sources will be accepted as making the OGAE Second Chance Contest article notable for inclusion. Whether there is extensive enough coverage for each year, I'm much more doubtful, simply because coverage is thin, even including Eurovision sources. CT Cooper · talk 15:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you really want to establish that these Eurovision fan and news sites are independent of OGAE, it will be difficult. ESCToday, for one, collaborates with OGAE International. (And a good chunk of writers from every other site out there are members of an OGAE Club.) The main problem here, and what I've been saying all along, is that the current articles rely exclusively on OGAE's official sites, and these articles haven't established notability yet because of these.

What other articles are you concerned about regarding the establishment of notability? All the contests are notable, as well as all the artists who are chosen to participate in each year, as well as the song they perform, not because they're in news articles, but because of the sheer international scale of this contest.

(WP:INDY says "Some sources, while apparently independent, are indiscriminate." Which implies that they may not be independent or reliable. But this is a moot point; we can argue forever about the interpretation of policy.) Mr. Gerbear|Talk 17:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

It's been known by this project for years that ESCToday has links with the EBU (and others), though that knowledge has not resulted in any consensus that they're not a third-party source or lack editorial independence. Having a writer who is an OGAE member is a trivial matter – writers are often members of a large number of organizations and still operate independently. Ultimately, I'm not very interested in what WP:INDY says or doesn't say as it is an essay, and it is policies and guidelines which dictate what is and isn't included in the encyclopedia, but as I've already explained above, I don't regard it as relevant in this case because Eurovision sources are not "indiscriminate" in their coverage of OGAE contests.

"Sheer international scale" does not make something notable, nor does being "local" make something non-notable. There have been many attempts to include geographic scope into notability considerations but there has never been community consensus for it, with the exemption of WP:EVENT, which does apply it to topics with very short bursts of localized news coverage. Regardless, the OGAE and it's activities are as international as Eurovision itself, but that doesn't make it notable. Reliable and third-party source coverage of its activities is what makes it notable.

As for other Eurovision articles, the main contest articles could get enough non-Eurovision source coverage to establish notability, but others such as the "C in the Eurovision Song Contest YYYY" articles, might struggle in places if Eurovision sources were arbitrary excluded from counting towards notability. Certainly any current de facto presumptions that that all entries in every year deserve their own article would have to end. I'm not very concerned at this point though, as I believe policies, guidelines and community consensus are on the side of reliable third-party Eurovision sources counting towards notability. However, I'm happy to ask for a third opinion if necessary. CT Cooper · talk 18:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, at this point, I think a third opinion could help clear things up. I cannot foresee much agreement if it's just the two of us going back and forth. Mr. Gerbear|Talk 03:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

You may wish to hold off on the third opinion, as I have added a section in the latest edition of the newsletter (scheduled to be mailed out in a day or two). Hopefully that will get some additional members to take part. And if that fails, then I suppose a 3O would be next. Wes Mouse 06:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't say this discussion has been unproductive, but I'm not seeing agreement forming either, so some further input would be welcome. There are some additional points I could make on a few issues, but I'll leave that for now. CT Cooper · talk 14:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, definitely not unproductive at all. If anything I've learned a lot about Wikipedia policy on notability and sourcing, and the other side of the argument from mine. It's extremely productive, but agreement has been difficult to reach. Mr. Gerbear|Talk 07:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Yo! :) Any updates on this? I'd rather not have this productive discussion go to waste. :( Mr. Gerbear|Talk 01:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on the finer points of notability. However, there seems to be a consensus that the current collection of OGAE articles needs to be trimmed down significantly. CT Cooper · talk 15:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I thought I'd give contribute my views on this, since you seem to be in need for more opinions. I think the Second Chance Contest is definitely notable, as you had previously agreed upon, and I think all of the OGAE contests do have some notability, but may not be notable enough to require their own pages. I would suggest merging the Video Contest winners onto the main OGAE page, since as an OGAE contest it is notable but not to the degree that the Second Chance contest is. In terms of the yearly Second Chance pages, I would agree that they could be trimmed back, and I think that a discussion on which contests would be deemed notable would be beneficial.

On whether reliable third-party Eurovision sources count towards notability, I would have to say that they do. Not every fan contest is covered by these sites, but far from it, as I believe OGAE contests are the only ones they cover, therefore I think by that they're undoubtedly notable. Eurovision websites cover Eurovision news, but I believe they don't cover every single facet of the fan side of things, for example the results of fan contests at OGAE galas in different countries. On whether every single annual Second Chance page is notable needs to be discussed, and they could be trimmed back if the necessary notability isn't found. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 17:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Expert attention

This is a notice about Category:Eurovision articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 06:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Underage Performers

Thanks for removing the Speedy deletes yesterday, after placing the one on the Betty page I noticed these were all Junior Eurovision performers. Because of the BLP issues they appear on the Cleanup Listing for WikiProject Musicians. The serious issue of having a page for an underage performer with BLP issues had me implement the WP:SPEEDY. It does appear however that none of these articles have any significant 3rd party sources attributed to them, only the EBU bio's. I would question the need to have individual pages for each performer under WP:NOTREPOSITORY. And while the contest is notable, the performers have yet to achieve any notability under WP:MUSIC. I would strongly suggest merging these, but will leave them considering you are the admin mostly dealing with them. Karst (talk) 08:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Karst, the merging of these articles is something that generally does happen after the contest - depending of course on specific factors. The fact that these performers have won a national preselection in order to represent their country at Junior Eurovision (JESC) makes them notable in their respective countries. The articles then get generated for those who have a keen interest in JESC. Once the contest is over and the top-3 performers are known, then the remainder tend to get merged into their respective [Country] in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest article. Another issue however that I found is in the past, WikiProject Euovision are not as eager in making articles for these younger performers, unless of course they already hold substantial notability. But for bizarre reasons these last 2 contests, a small group of users are haphazardly creating new articles for both artist and song, and not taking into account the WP:GNG and of course the WP:NOTREPOSITORY guidance you pointed out above. This may be a matter worth raising again at WT:ESC for broader input. Wes Mouse 12:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, have put WT:ESC on my watch list and will help when required. Peace. Karst (talk) 12:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Karst, I've copy/paste this entire thread onto this project talk page, then people have a better idea and not need to visit my talk page to see the initial discussion. Wes Mouse 22:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

60th anniversary show

A discussion started over on my talk page recently in regards to the announcement of the 60th Anniversary Show for Eurovision, along with the selection of the host venue, location, and presenters. However, the dates of the show, along with what the show's title will be are unknown. So to prevent speculative guessing of article titles, and potential page move wars over personal preferences, I've made a start drafting an article here which members are welcome to help contribute towards. This way we are able to keep adding sources somewhere, as well as keep on building the article, until we know what the show will be call, so that we can then move the draft into main article space under its official show name (which should be known in the next coming weeks or months).   Wes Mouse | chat  00:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

ESC 2014

The Eurovision Song Contest 2014 article has just passed the GA-review. I want to take out some time to say excellent job all project members who worked on the article. Keep rollin' :) Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 22:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

@Jonas Vinther: I've added it to the Newsdesk, so that it will get a mention in the next edition of Project News. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 01:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Composer and lyricist information

Hi guys! I have a suggestion. Since the participating songwriters of each participating country is quite vital information, the names ought to be included on wikipedia in a nice and neat way that makes the information easy to find for the readers. As they are technically participants, and are featured in the on-screen credits in the Eurovision Song Contest graphics, it's information that is highly relevant. Yet, articles are often lacking when it comes to this. It would probably be too inconvenient and difficult to present the names of all composers and lyricists on the main article of each Eurovision year. There are simply too many names, and it would mess up the look of the entry tables. However, my suggestion is to instead make sure to include that information in the separate article for each national entry. (e.g. in "Finland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2015" and so on). Right now the names of the songwriters representing the country are sometimes mentioned in the main text of the articles, and sometimes not. I would suggest to include the names in the article's info box of the entry/participation, and/or at least in the article's main text. What do you think about that idea? Zouki08 (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Against: Composers are listed in the articles but putting them in the infobox would clutter it up (some songs can have a bunch of composers) and also they're not exactly vital enough to have to include in the infobox which focuses on the main points of each country's participation (artist, song, national selection, etc.) 02:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Composers within the main Eurovision by year articles would be too zealous and as Zouki08 noted, would make them look cluttered. However the composer and lyricists are mentioned in the respective articles such as "[Country] in the Eurovision Song Contest [Year]" - with some just being mentioned in the respective song article itself. I don't see why such data couldn't be added to the infobox - after all is is a "box of information" is it not? Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 08:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. As you say, it's what an info box is for. And I don't think it would look too cluttered. Especially not if grouping them all under "Songwriters" or so, rather than doing composers and lyricists separately (which in many cases would mean repeating the same names twice). Zouki08 (talk) 11:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@Zouki08: hang on a second. We are still discussing the inclusion of such content only within articles such as Finland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2014, and not in articles such as Eurovision Song Contest 2014? The latter would make the article cluttered and may cause confusion to the general reader. If someone wanted to know who wrote the song, then they can easily click on the link for the respective country's page and/or the song article. Adding a full list of composers and lyricists within the main Eurovision article would be overzealous. Also as was discussed here, a consensus was reached for articles such as Eurovision Song Contest 2015, which resulted in a structured article layout, that project members are using. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 12:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Sorry if what I wrote above was confusing. Only in pages such as Finland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2014, not in Eurovision Song Contest 2014. (In theory it would be nice to be able to have such info on those pages too, of course. But with the current format there just isn't room for it anywhere, so it would require too much of a re-design. Which wouldn't be a good idea). So I don't propose any change to the main Eurovision article. What I mean is simply to include "Selected songwriter(s)" in the info box, underneath "Selected singer" and "Selected song". And there add both the composers and lyricists of that entry, rather than having a separate field for "composer" and "lyricist". Zouki08 (talk) 12:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah I see. Yes, on country articles within the infobox - that is a good idea. @CT Cooper: this could be something worth looking into and discussing at a RfC for [Country] in the Eurovision Song Contest [by year]. Unless if the project community at large does not object to such an improvement to the infobox, then I'd be more than happy to looking into updating the template. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 13:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, let's wait a bit more and see if there's more feedback regarding this. Zouki08 (talk) 15:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Is there any way we can see an example of what an infobox would look like with this extra field? In particular, I'd like to see an example with an entry that has many writers credited in order to see what it looks like. Other than that, composers are always at the very least mentioned in the table of entries for the national finals or in the actual text for internal selections. An alternative to the infobox could be something that Jjj1238 has done in Macedonia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2015 article where writers of the selected entry are also emphasized in the lead of the article. Pickette (talk) 16:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there is a physical way to show an example without having to edit/save the actual template. And to create a "prototype" just for viewing purpose, and then it not be used, would mean more work for whoever has to delete it all. Although I could try and use my sandbox(s) and see if I can get round it that way. Alternatively we could add a new field, and also make sure we use the {{Collapsible list}} within that field, so if there are multiple names, that we're giving the option to view them by collapsing the list into view (if that makes sense). Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 16:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@Zouki08: and Pickette Er folks! I've just gone to copy the syntax from the template and have discovered that the template has already got a writers field and has done for some time. We add | Writer = under the "song" parameter - I've used Macedonia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2015 as an example of how the field is suppose to be used. Why isn't this documented on the template document itself? Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 16:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Correction, it hasn't been done for some time. Zouki08 updated the template by adding a new field on November, without gaining a clear consensus that it needed to be updated first. Easy mistake to make, but we do need to make sure we seek consensus, especially when it comes to templates that are used across so many articles. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 16:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh! Sorry. I indeed did change it a couple of days ago, before I posted this suggestion, to test how/if it would in thge infoboxes on the national pages (and it indeed worked just fine, just like what you did for the Macedonia 2015 page just now). I thought I had undone the revision since then, but seems I didn't. I apologize, I realise now I should have waited for a concensus. I've been editing articles on wikipedia for quite some time, but not on this level for long, and am still learning how it all works. :-) Zouki08 (talk) 17:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. In a way it helped to provide an example (as pointed out with Macedonia 2015). I think if we used the writers field and also the {{Collapsible list}} within that field, then it could just work, and would note that the composer/lyricists are of the selected entry for that country. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 17:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure about the {{Collapsible list}}. Maybe just for cases where the number of writers are too many to fit into the info box in a nice and neat way? Because I suspect that if people need to click an extra time to see it, they usually won't. To me, it looks quite fine without the collapsible list. Check out Estonia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2014 for an example. Zouki08 (talk) 17:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

The use of {{Collapsible list}} is optional and would only be used if there is a long list of names that would just make the infbox look hideously untidy. It is just a useful template to help "neaten" things up. Of course if there is only one, maybe two maximum names then the collapsed list would not be required. It would just be down to common-sense when to implement its usage. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 18:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

OK. Agree completely. Zouki08 (talk) 18:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I think if there are more than 2-3 names the collapsible list should be used. Also I prefer when each name is on its own line instead of the names being added as a continuous list separated with commas. Before anything is agreed to however, changes to all articles that use this infobox should be considered. There are many articles so it's a lot of work. Pickette (talk) 02:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the non-use of comma separation, Pickette. Vertical list, seeing as the template name "collapsible list" is a bit of a give-away (although I can think of one user right now who would just ignore that and do things their way just to get the rest of the project to "clean-up" after them... long story, but it is giving me a headache how many times they have to be told about WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:CITE; and still violate them and not even be blocked by now). Anyhow, yes it would also be hard work as there are well over 1000 ESC articles that would need the modification, not to mention the JESC ones too. But I'm sure if a small group of us worked together on this, we'd get them updated in no time. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 02:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Vertical list would look much better than comma separation. How is that best done, when the names are not part of a collapsible list? I tried it, but it ended up showing only the top name. And yes, this is a lot of work. But indeed, it shouldn't take too much time especially if we are a group of people doing it.Zouki08 (talk) 09:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

You'd do it like this, Zouki08.

{{Collapsible list
 | title = Composer/Lyricists
 | Person 1
 | Person 2
 | Person 3
 | and so on
}}

Hope this helps. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 13:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Wesley Mouse. However, what I meant was; how is it done for names listed when they're *not* listed as a collapsible list? So that e.g. two names will still be vertically listed and not separated by commas. Although maybe you and Pickette only meant that it should be done for the collapsible lists, and not otherwise? Zouki08 (talk) 14:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

You could either use {{unbulleted list}} or line break (<br/>). Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 14:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Great. Thanks for all the help! I'm ready to start editing as soon as this change has been proper agreed upon. Zouki08 (talk) 23:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Sine there's been no more objections to this... Shall we begin inplementing this in the existing and upcoming articles now? Zouki08 (talk) 13:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

@Zouki08: 7 days is generally too soon to decide that all will be ok. I'd give it another week or two, especially now that I've gotten everyone's attention in the #Haphazard methods thread. After all there is no rush. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 15:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Hey guys! Now Wes has caught my attention, I thought I'd give my views too. I pretty much agree with everything that you've come up with on this, and the example on Macedonia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2015 looks great! I suppose if collapsible lists were to be used it's therefore feasible that you could have separate lists for composers and lyricists, depending if there's consensus on this of course. But overall I think it's a great idea. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 17:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Doing separate ones for composers and lyricists would indeed make sense, as that's how it's credited on-screen in Eurovision. But then the question is, would it be separate ones for all articles, including songs where the composers and lyricists are the same people? It would mean repeating the same name twice, which would just mean there's more need to use collapsible lists where it would otherwise end up being too much text in the info box. And I think we should avoid using collapsible lists for this as much as possible, and only use it where it's necessary. Zouki08 (talk) 11:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

How about putting (C) and (L) next to the names to show composer and lyricist. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 16:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

That could be a nice, if it looks good. Maybe we should try it out. And (CL) for those who are credited for both music and lyrics?Zouki08 (talk) 00:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

In those cases we would simply put (C/L). Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 11:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Some people might not know what these letters mean though. How will you explain what (C/L), (C) and (L) mean in that box? Maybe the field "Selected songwriters" should be split into "Selected Composer(s)" and "Selected Lyricist(s)" and any list of names that exceeds more than two for each category can be collapsed. Or for songs that have the same names for both lyricists and composers can use the field "Selected songwriters" while others that differ can use the other two (if that makes sense). Pickette (talk) 18:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

{{Abbr}} -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 19:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Pickette, I agree, it would possibly be confusing. Personally I agree that splitting it into "Selected Composer(s)" and "Selected Lyricist(s)" would be fine. (And a joint one for entries where it's the same people credited on both, or when the split isn't known, as you just suggested). I would also prefer this because it would mean that less articles would need collapsible lists. (Since in many cases there would be less names in each field, when they're split up). As long as people don't think the info box becomes too crowded then? With separate fields for composers and lyricists, and by allowing up to two names for each without the use of collapsible lists, then there could be four visible names in total. (Which, in my opinion, is not a bad thing). Although then one might as well also allow up two four visible names even in cases where it'll be a joint field for composers and lyricists. It would only take up the same amount of space. Zouki08 (talk) 17:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@Zouki08:, I'd wait a bit if I were you. The template itself has been nominated for deletion. The fact it will affect hundreds of articles, seems to be irrelevant. But who am I to argue, when I get accused of all sorts for defending such templates. To be honest, the discouraging attitude and willingness to cast such disgusting allegations from some users is causing me to think about leaving Wikipedia. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 00:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this template is nominated for deletion though. Other templates were nominated to be merged into this template unless I missed something. Pickette (talk) 01:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Merge or deletion, it would still be wise to put on-hold any mass rollout of the changes. We don't know what will be merged where. There is even talk of merging them all into a "infobox music" or something obscure. And I have suggested at the very bottom thread of looking into the possibility of all-in-one universal infboxes that would house the necessary parameters for each contest type. Currently if were were to use a Eurovision infobox on an ABU contest - the input of a year would cause problems as the syntax only recognised Eurovision in that template, so would direct an ABU link to a ESC page. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 01:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Maps showing the points allocated to the winning song

Hey

Ireland 1996

Latvia 2002

I created some maps that show which country gave how many points to the winning song (examples to the right). I inserted them only to the German articles, but you are welcome to use them for other languages. You can find the maps here. --Avis28 (talk) 13:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how we would be able to incorporate these into the article. Would they be for the country article (such as Ireland in the Eurovision Song Contest 1996), or the yearly Eurovision pages (like Eurovision Song Contest 2002)? I'm just concerned that people may get confused with them, as the yearly articles have maps all over the place, and too many would easily confuse a person. They would look good in country pages, rather than annual contest pages.Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 13:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the maps are a nice idea, and they're very well-made. But indeed, it could potentially be a bit much on the annual contest pages? On the other hand, if they're included on the country pages, it would be weird if it isn't the same for all entries. Not just the ones that won the contest. All country pages should preferrably have the same format and include the same information (in this case, these maps). But that would probably be too much work. Zouki08 (talk) 15:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I recall someone attempted to use similar maps on annual pages before, and a huge discussion took place and resulted in their removal as pure overkill of maps. I've been searching for the last couple of hours to find the discussion, but as there are that many talk pages, both active and archived, that its like hunting for a needle in a haystack. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 15:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I initially thought they could be a good idea for the country pages (such as Ireland in the Eurovision Song Contest 1996), but it would look weird if they were only found on the winning entries and not every country taking part, and I think the format of each page should be the same ultimately. It would be a good idea to consult the previous discussion in regards to the annual pages, and discuss if there's any way to incorporate them into the annual pages in a way that makes it less confusing. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 18:16, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I suppose the most sensible way to incorporate them into the annual pages would be to do it in a similar way that the split jury/televote result is featured on the annual pages of recent editions. I.e. first hidden, and only appearing by clicking "Show". Zouki08 (talk) 12:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

One could also argue and say why have these maps just for the winning country and not all the others too. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 15:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes indeed. That would make the most sense. And that's why this thing seems like too much work, most likely. Unless someone wants to make maps for over 1,400 entries. Zouki08 (talk) 23:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Haphazard methods

Now I know some will probably moan at what I'm about to say, but I think CT Cooper would agree, and will most likely have a few words himself to say in regards to this. But, some members lately seem to be lacking the obvious principle of organisation when it comes to the project as a whole. This haphazard approach is starting to cause a bit of chaos and confusion across the project spectrum, and I feel it needs to be addressed once and for all. There's been biographical articles rapidly created that just have one line, and that's in lead format and nothing more to expand on it. Articles like this become quick candidates for speedy deletion criteria with most falling foul of general notability guidelines - and in turn some of those deletion debates turn into a bloodshed battlefield with the odd diva tantrums thrown in for good measure, and all because we feel deflated it was an article you spent time in making, and all the hard work had been for nothing. All that can be easily avoided if we steered clear of our haphazardly ways, and started to pull together as a team. Do a bit of research, check to see if notability is warranted and that a standalone article is likely to be safe from the grasps of the deletionists.

Also new styles seem to be getting rolled out without checking prior Project Consensus to see if there may be reasons these ideas have not been used. Take that little extra time to just come along to this project page, put forward our proposals and new ideas, discussed them as a team, then we would not be wasting our time creating something only to end up it being deleted. We should have discussed the idea, discovered if it is worthwhile, then used our time to create and roll out the new ideas. The project prides itself on consistency, on high quality, on uniformity. And at the moment, none of that is blending together. Take for example the RfC back in 2012, in which people took time to discuss how Eurovision by Year articles should look. All of the ideas that were put forward, we utilised, we pulled them together to produce a prototype article, which in turn resulted in not just 1, not 2, but FIVE annual article that fall under our project gaining GA status; with the first one now been upgrade even higher to A-Class; and is on the verge of becoming the first ever annual contest article to be granted feature article status. That is a massive achievement for this project, and all down to the fact that this project's members engaged in team work discussion to achieve this goal. This project has always been seen as a piss-take from around the community; with negative statements like "Project Eurovision think they can just do what they like and disregard policies and guidelines", or "what makes Project Eurovision so special from any other project". Well, we need to change that negative outlook around, and show people that we are a serious project; that we do take policies and guidelines seriously; that we are here to produce high quality articles.

So let's turn this around, let's start rebuilding this project to the highest of respect it has ever seen. Look around at other projects, such as Project Military History and Project Olympics - they thrive on high standards, they thrive on working and pulling together as a team - why can't we shine like they do? So is it time we got our acts together or what? Well that shining starts here! Share your views, discuss what could be done to turn things around, but keep it civil, and comment on the issue, not the on the users. Thank you! Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 04:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree fully with Wesley! I feel like I contribute and would also like for other users to help out more.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I also agree with you and I will try my best to make this project better. --Redpower94 (talk) 12:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree Wesley. I'm not a member of Project Military History, but know for a fact they have a much higher standard. I will do what I can to help the project and set a good example. However, as I stated before, I will most likely not be as active in terms of creating new content until after the annual contest of this year. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 13:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Not to sound like a broken record here or anything, but I also fully agree with you Wesley! I might not have as active to the project recently, but I will definitely try to do more to help out and make this project better. In regards to consensus, I think that some more guidance on how we format Country by Year articles would be a great step forward. I realise this may be harder to do compared to the Eurovision by Year pages, since different countries take differing approaches to their selections, but having a discussion on what should and shouldn't be included can hardly be a bad thing! Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 13:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, BabbaQ, Redpower94, Jonas Vinther, and Sims2aholic8 - for once I am speechless at the positive responses so far. At first I felt as though this needed to be addresses, and then after sleeping on it, felt like I had just stuck my head deep into a hornet's nest, and braced myself for an onslaught of hornet stings. But WOW, I had not realised just how many people actually agreed on this point of view. Its like something I read on Wikipedia, that I have found to be so inspiring, yet helpful in regards to the way I see myself contributing. Feel free to read WP:TIND, in which it mentions the key factors here that we all seem to fall foul of the traps around Wikipedia. For example, there is no rush to create articles; we can afford to take our time to consider matters before creating a potentially "deleted" article. Some people have the idea that its all about being the first name on the edit history as "creator" of the article. But Wikipedia is not a competition, so what if someone gets there first - they may have only created a stub, but our initial research into the subject matter may expand that stub into a good article - and that research will be a major significant towards the article, than the person who "got their name down as creator first". A lot of us could do with reading WP:TIND and soak up the words. Believe me, they are powerful and give that "Eureka!" feeling that one finally gets the understanding of what Wikipedia is really about. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 15:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Ditto what has been said above. Spa-Franks (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Why was this message marked as "urgent"? Unless someone's life was unexpectedly in the balance, I seriously doubt that anything about the project could be considered "urgent". Please remove me from further updates. Fryede (talk) 01:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

@Fryede: The fact of the matter is that it was marked as "urgent" so that it drew everyone's attention to something that is of greater importance. And it is proven by the fact that members who have commented above also agree that everyone which has been said is of immense importance for the project as a whole. People have wandered into edit disputes over how articles should be written etc, disputes that result in members being blocked, and they are avoidable if people just stopped, took a bit of care and responsibility, and started to communicate with each other as a team - there is no I in team. All these issues need to be addressed urgently, such as discussing categorization - which lately has gone all over the place; there's article layout; and so many other issues that when an RfC is created on this very talk page that nobody even gives a toss to participate, and then you get some folk who just moan because something is being done to a way that they dislike. Things only change if people like you and anyone else, just engages in debates so that everyone has a clear perspective of what the project is about and what needs to be done, and how it should be done. That's why we can pull together and avoid having people blocked through sheer idleness. If you seriously doubt that a project could not be considered urgent, then why be a part of a project? But if you wish to stop receiving messages then I'm sure you are capable of taking your name off the mailing list. But looking at the responses above, the "urgency" is clearly appreciated by some. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 06:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Could you point to some examples where there have recently been issues? Which articles need attention specifically, perhaps we could work on some of the cases. I fail to see this sudden urgency, the points you make seem to be very general and could be applied to most of Wikipedia. Still, I'd be interested in getting certain things corrected and articles improved.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 09:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

For starters Tuzapicabit, there are all the active alerts that hardly anyone from the project seem to take part in any more, and then wonder why articles/categories/templates etc get deleted all of a sudden. There are former alerts that have now closed which could have done with membership participation. Then there are the newsletters that get sent out, if people read them they would see all the things that need work doing - and there are tons!

There has also been numerous RfC's (all of which are now archived 1, 2, 3, and 4) that could have had much greater input from members.

Other discussions have taken place more recently, were only a couple of members take part, and nobody else gives a toss. #On Notability of OGAE Contests, CT Cooper and Mr. Gerbear have been waiting for the last 3 months to see what other members thing of a proposal. #Requests of creation has a list of articles that may need creating. #Underage Performers came under question, with a lot of JESC bios under threat of deletion. #Composer and lyricist information, Zouki08 is waiting to see if their proposal is fine, and if it is safe to roll out the change. #Maps showing the points allocated to the winning song, another editor proposing about maps. Its as if people have just lost interest in the project, or just can't be bothered about team work.

f the message you received about this just said "debate taking place" or along those lines, would you have come along here to see and take part? The fact I labelled it as "urgent" was so that it got everyone's attention, so that people of this project could finally pull their fingers out their ass and start to work together as a team, discuss things about the project, how things should be operated. And it has clearly worked, because more people have participated in this very discussion, then they have done in any other discussion on this project page. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 09:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, importance and urgency are different things, but I do naturally relate to the frustration of only a very small group of project members taking part in discussions. I would say though that if editors have nothing to say or nothing to object to, that's fine, it only gets problematic when people complain about the outcome of a discussion soon after it's finished, having being invited to take part and not having done so. CT Cooper · talk 20:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I do agree with what a lot of Wesley is saying and it echoes what I said in the most recent newsletter. However, I think we should take a moment to look on the positives – I've been a member of this WikiProject now for well over five years and I've seen a huge change. This project has gone from being one which practically all Eurovision article editors ignore, to one in which is very active and large proportion do and a lot of teamwork takes place. This change has had strong repercussions for the quality of Eurovision articles, where the norm used to be policy violating disasters, compared to now where the average article is at least of reasonable quality. This project will always have its critics, particularly from the "Wikipedia should be like Encyclopaedia Britannica" minded editors, simply because of our topic area, but we are certainly taken more seriously than we used to be. There is still plenty which can be done better, and there are a lot of discussions that still need to take place. I myself am thinking about moving on to other Wikipedia activities which need my attention more. I'll still be around, but I'll let others take over the day-to-day management, and one could argue that's already happened! CT Cooper · talk 20:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Main issues

These are just a few things that crop up at various discussion pages, and it is concerning if this project's ethics are being pulled up and judged. Also people shouldn't have to be told what work needs improving, I'm pretty sure we are capable enough to look for things to do. For example:

1. Categorisation: this has cropped up a few times, and in the last few CfD's it has been pointed out that our categorisation is (to repeat the quote used) "somewhat disorganised". Do we need to review this? Should we start from scratch, beginning at the top and making our way down?
2. Article structure: at a recent featured article review, a lot of things were pointed out that this project is suppose to be doing, but we never have done. Such as citations in the lead, apparently they are not suppose to be there. Citations go in the main article body, the lead is just to summarise the article. If an article were to become a feature article candidate, the reviewers would all say the same "remove the citations from the lead". Should we be making sure that our contribution style is following GA/FA criteria, so that these articles can get promoted quickly and easily?
3. Content: Some content lately has been added without any citations and we all now citations are vital so that we are able to verify that what we write is not original research - let's fix that issue and source stuff. Another article in had word-for-word copy of everything written from the Eurovision.tv article about a JESC artist. That is just outrageous copyright violation, and something we should be strictly avoiding. Use your own words, don't plagiarise words from the journalists.
4. Article alerts which tells us if any debates need our attention.
5. Assessment stats which shows us all the articles B class and below that require expansion to bring them to GA/FA standard.
6. Quality articles shows which articles are at GA/FA standard, but also ones that have been demoted - those demoted ones need work to bring them back up to standard.

And then the newsletter which I add a selection of articles in the maintenance tasks section, they need huge amounts of work doing to them. Anything else that needs addressing, then add it to this list. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 11:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Twitter as sources

There has been a recent discussion at Talk:Junior Eurovision Song Contest#Twitter in regards to the use of Twitter posts as sources. In accordance with WP:Twitter they are allowed, but with caution. The tweets need to be outright confirmation, and any ambiguity with the wording would mean the tweet posts should not be treated as 100% confirmation. For example, a fan had posts several questions on the official Junior Eurovision Twitter page, regarding country participation. JESC's replies were that they "hoped" or a country were "likely" to be taking part. Such statements are exception claims. When dealing with exceptional claims of this nature, we need exceptional sources for additional verification - such as a sourced statement from the national broadcasters that collaborates their participation intentions. If there are none, then the information would be more suitably placed in the "other countries" section, with a brief comment to show that it is a tweet on the official (J)ESC page in response to a fan's question, but an official announcement from the broadcaster has yet to be publicised. That way we are covering our backs, and not breaking the spirit of WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOR, or WP:SELFPUB (in the event it is one of our tweets that is answered). On the other hand, if the tweet is from the official broadcaster, then they should be fine to use as confirmation.

Any objections to us following this guidance? Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 11:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that caution should be exercised. On the one hand, there is no doubt that the Twitter source discussed is the official account of the contest organizers. But their language is indeed ambiguous, as I guess they use it more for publicity, building up hype, etc., than for accurate reporting. I don't think the claims are "exceptional" as this word is used in WP policy more to describe "fringe" statements that go against common knowledge of a subject, but they definitely (second point in WP:SELFPUB) "involve claims about third parties" (the broadcasters). So better be careful and wait for a statement from the broadcasters. On a side note, I don't think it matters that the tweets come as answers to questions asked by twitter users who are also active on Wikipedia: as long as the statement is coming from an official source and is publicly available (i.e. not a private email that a wikipedia user claims to have received), there is no problem AFAIK. Susuman77 (talk) 11:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

@Susuman77:, they are exceptional to some degree. Point 2 of WP:EXCEPTIONAL which mentions "challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources". Tweets of this nature are easily challenged. As it is the official JESC Twitter account, makes it primary. And responding to a fans question, is close to self-publishing of sorts. That point also has an in-line citation, which touches on the point of "promotional material"; and as you pointed out, these tweets could just be for publicity and hype building (promotional hype, for choice of phrase). Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 13:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Mass nomination of contest templates

There are a lot of contest templates being nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 December 6, all with ridiculous reasons behind each of them. The following have been nominated under the respective reasons:

1. Template:Infobox Cân i Gymru National Year - an apparent fork of Template:Infobox ESC National Year.
2. Template:Infobox Sanremo Music Festival - redundant to {{Infobox music festival}} and {{Infobox recurring event}}. I like to know how that can be so, when they are clearly different.
3. Template:Infobox ABU Radio - a fork of {{Infobox Eurovision}}. Clearly not a fork, as the Eurovision deals with annual, ABU Radio is biennial.

These nominations require serious attention from project members. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 20:22, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

• Note: - the above is in no way a means of canvassing, and is merely to make project members aware of a series of TfD noms that require participation. Members are fully aware that they are capable of making their own decision on whether a template should be kept, deleted, or merged. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 21:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:CANVASS, a guideline which your post breaches considerably. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Does it heck breach it considerably. Notifying this project of TfD's is reasonable, as not everyone has the alerts page on their watchlist - which has been noted on a thread above. Also the deletion log for 6 December strangely enough is just all your nominations. Someone pissed you off to cause you to go on a deletion nomination spree? Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 21:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

In a way it kinda is though since you loaded your post with reasons against the deletions rather than just pointing out that they were nominated and let people from this project arrive to their own decision. I don't know much about merging of templates but a lot of these templates do seem similar and perhaps it would be better for them to be merged. Pickette (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

That was not the manner I was trying to express the issue though, Pickette. I added the reasons so people could see in brief of the nom rationales. But the debate of reorganising this project is still taking place above, which includes looking into how we are categorising things, and of course templates would be raised too. This project is going to encounter a lot of RfC's over the next couple of months to address these issues, so that we are better structured, and can mass-delete obsolete templates/categories etc. Saves on heated deletion debates then, as we would have resolved such issues via a RfC. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 21:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

• I've struck through the POV-ish comments, as I was only questioning, not trying to force an opinion. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 21:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

• I agree that it would be better to discuss mergers here and work something out rather than having piecemeal TfDs, which currently seem to be causing more trouble than their worth. It is perfectly appropriate to notify a WikiProject on some possible changes to templates; it was unfortunate that the notifications weren't neutral, and I recently complained about an editor doing something similar elsewhere. However, I know Wesley well enough to know what he's overall aim here – which is to get a resolution that all involved parties will be happy with. Going through people's archives to dig-up things to use against them is very unhelpful, particuarly as the full context of old discussions won't be apparent at face value. CT Cooper · talk 14:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Restructuring

Following on from the discussions that took place 2 weeks ago on the project, regarding haphazard methods and the need to review a restructuring debate into recategorisation, template review, article layout review, etc. I have therefore opened up this "all-in-one" RfC with the aim to try and cover everything at once. Feel free to comment on any areas, and provide any improvement suggestions. Thank you. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 13:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Categorisation

Discussion on our categorisation procedure. Do we have too many? Do we need more? Could some be merged or reorganised better? Please add your comments below. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 22:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Templates

See also: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 December 6 § Song content temapltes

Discussion on our templates procedure. Do we have too many? Do we need more? Could some be merged or reorganised better? Could templates such as {{Infobox ABU Radio}} and similar ones be merged into a "all-in-one" type template that would have parameters that allows us to have one template used across the different contests which fall under our scope, and avoid the need to have separate ones for ABU, Intervision, Turkvizyon, Eurovision, etc... Please add your comments below. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 22:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

We have a lot of infobox templates that could probably be recreated into an "all-in-one" version that is flexible and used across all the different kinds of contests this project looks after:

• {{Infobox ABU country}} and {{Infobox Eurovision country}} could possible become an all-in-one {{Infobox Song Contest country}}.
• {{Infobox ABU Radio}}, {{Infobox ABU TV}}, and {{Infobox Eurovision}} could possible become an all-in-one {{Infobox Song Contest}}.
• {{Infobox Cân i Gymru National Year}} and {{Infobox ESC National Year}} could become an all-in-one {{Infobox Song Contest National Year}}.
• {{Infobox ESC entry}} could be improved to an all-in-one {{Infobox Song Contest entry}}.

Any ideas how these could be merged into an all-in-one version, and would it make life simpler? Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 23:15, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I think all of these should indeed be merged. They are literally the same thing. Wouldn't the addition of a field to one main template that allows identification of the contest in question be the solution to this? I don't know much about merging or creating templates so if there are legitimate reasons about why this shouldn't be done then please let me know. Pickette (talk) 14:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

@Pickette: I'm not that technically minded to be able to play around with such complex syntax; and I even had to seek the help from AxG when it came to doing similar coding changes for the {{Escyr}} templates. To have a universal infobox, we are going to need to decide what should be included, in what order it should be listed. And then we have the issue of rolling them out across hundreds of articles. No doubt such action would get left to a single-individual to rollout, as usual. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 15:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Note These templates were already being discussed at TfD. Wesley Mouse stated this section in attempt to close down that discussion. I collapsed, it, but (s)he has reverted me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Factual note @Pigsonthewing: Firstly Wes (short for Wesley) is clearly a male name, so do not offend me by referring to me as "she". Secondly you "collapsed" the entirety of this thread that is covering not just templates, but other issues too - so I had not "reverted" per se, but restored a multi-purpose RfC that you forced to close in an attempt to get your own way. Thirdly, I have NOT started this in an attempt to close down your piecemeal TfD's (which has been noted above). If you actually took a little more time in your actions and researched, you will have noticed this project has been discussing templates and such for the past 2 frigging weeks at #Haphazard methods. Learn to read before casting bullish accusations. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 17:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Additional note: This is not the first time that the above-named user has attempted to mass-nominate Project ESC templates. The same was done in March 2014. Clear signs of "not liking the outcome" are evident for the fact the templates are re-nominated 9 months later using the same rationale as before (which for the record resulted in the templates being kept). I would appreciate if the user peacefully refrained from participation here, as their behaviour is causing distress and more harm than good. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 17:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Your claims here are both untrue, as any fool can see; and constitute further canvassing, about which you have already been warned. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:48, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you even know the definition of the word canvass? Clearly not. My claims are untrue? Er let's see "These templates were already being discussed at TfD. Wesley Mouse stated this section in attempt to close down that discussion. I collapsed, it, but (s)he has reverted me." You definitely referred to me as "she" - fact!. And this thread alone is not canvassing, it is a continuation of something that was promised 2 weeks ago at #Haphazard methods. You clearly do not like the fact that it has been proven a debate has been ongoing for the last 2 weeks. You've mass-nominated piecemeal TfD's. Did you even read the comments from the admin above and the stern telling off you were given for "digging-up" archived material that had no face value. Crawl back in your hole and leave the project to sort its own active messes. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 17:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Andy and Wesley, this really has gone on long enough. I really don't want this to escalate to ANI, and I don't think anyone else does either. Yes the canvassing by Wesley was inappropriate, and many of his responses have been needlessly inflammatory. For example, clearly calling someone "(s)he" is common on Wikipedia as some don't like the singular they and there are plenty of females with male sounding usernames and vice versa. Using "(s)he" is not malicious, and at worse should result in a polite note that one wishes to be referred to as "he" or "she". That said, let him who is without sin cast the first stone. Going through someone's talk page archives to find some dirt to use on them is highly inappropriate – Wesley had a legitimate grievance there which should have at least been acknowledged. Also saying that starting this RfC constitutes "shutting down" the TfDs has little basis in fact. A discussion on the overall strategy with templates should be allowed to take place, and then this followed-up at existing or future TfD nomination. All should be welcome to participate in these discussions. So can we agree to a cease fire and move on? CT Cooper · talk 20:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I think it's fair to point out that there was no previous ongoing discussion about these templates during the past two weeks. I don't even think these templates would be under discussion today had they not been nominated for merging. Pickette (talk) 20:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your good-faith intervention. However, you seem to be lacking some of the important facts. The response to someone who blatantly canvasses (which can include immediate and indefinite blocks) depends on whether or not they've done it before. It was therefore entirely legitimate to look at his talk page archives for prior warnings (not "dirt"); and he has no "legitimate grievance". I said that this RfC was an attempt to close down the TfDs. Wesley has explicitly and repeatedly asked that the TfDs be shut down specifically because of this new discussion ("Request to postpone TfD so that the discussions can conclude "; " Admin closure of these should be taken to allow the active project discussion to conclude its course" - both on the 6 Dec TfD page). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I stand by my analysis. Digging things up, if it has to be done, is for ANI or another user conduct venue, not for a content based discussion, where it will do nothing but cause bad feeling and turn it into a mudslinging contest. Also if users insist on going through people's talk page archives, they should familiarise themselves with the full facts of the matters they review before passing judgement, as talk page discussions are often missing important context. I happen to be familiar with what happened in the year-and-a-half old discussion you cited and the accusations of canvassing by Welsey in that incidence were not justified. In this incidence they were justified, but there's still been a lot of exaggeration which has achieved nothing but added fuel to the fire. Wesley's notifications were clearly non-neutral, but they were public and openly disclosed, and some of the offending content has been struck, so this was far from the most serious incident of canvassing in Wikipedia history. It was for an uninvolved admin to decide what action to take, but I would suspect at worse a firm warning would be given – a block was not likely, and an indefinite block was out of the question.

Welsey has the liberty to request the closure of any XfD, and in this case he asked for the TfDs to be postponed while the discussion here takes place, so at worst he was trying to move the discussion from one place or another. He did not engage in an edit war to achieve that, so there has been no violation of Wikipedia policy by him on this issue. It is unlikely that his request will be accepted, but he is not trying to "shut down" all discussions on the templates, and implying otherwise is not helpful. The tragic irony is here that there is close to a consensus on merging the templates, only the details need to be worked out, so there is no reason for this feud to have occurred. CT Cooper · talk 18:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The accusations of canvassing by Welsey in that incident may indeed have been not justified; but since I made no claim that they were, your comment is a straw man fallacy (as is your comment about edit warring); I merely cited them as evidence that Wesley was aware of the concept (in the Wikipedia sense) of canvassing. Furthermore, while it is true that he is at liberty to ask for any TfD to be closed, I was pointing out the falsehood of the claim that he had not done so. WP:CANVASS makes no exclusion for canvassing which is "public and openly disclosed" (indeed, it prohibits "hidden" canvassing separately), not subsequently struck (though f course still easily readable). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Your point that you were intending to point out that Wesley was aware of what canvassing was is noted, though I still question whether it is appropriate to dig through people's archives for a content discussion. It would also have been helpful if you had make that clear earlier rather than allowing things to escalate, as any reasonable person might have interpreted your citing of that old discussion in a post accusing Wesley of canvassing as suggesting that Wesley has a history of canvassing. As for straw man fallacies, you've just made one. I worded my comments carefully and explicitly stated that Wesley had violated the WP:CANVASS guideline, for which I am familiar with. I never said at any point that it "makes exclusions" for publicly and openly disclosed notifications, I just said the fact that Wesley did openly disclose the notifications made the issue far less serious than was being portrayed. Or to put it another way with legal terminology, openly disclosing canvassing is not a defence but it is a mitigating factor, as it shows there was no intent to manipulate discussions in a covert manner. CT Cooper · talk 18:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Assessment

Looking at the importance scale on our assessment, maybe this is also worth a review? What should be deemed as being of low, mid, high, and top importance? Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 13:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Project scope

Anything else that could do with a review by the project? Its scope: are we covering too much? Would a task force be better to cover non-Eurovision? Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 13:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The OGAE contests are covered in way too much detail. I've raised concerns about this before. OGAE is a fan club and the results of each and everyone of their contests is quite irrelevant and really don't hold any kind of real significance in the world of Eurovision. Pickette (talk) 14:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

@Pickette: OGAE has been discussed at #On Notability of OGAE Contests (above), and is still waiting for members to actively participate in the debate. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 15:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Article layout

Article layout: do we need to review the layout again? I have noticed the country by year ones (especially the 2014 for Austria and Netherlands) have a lot of good work done and the layout is superb. Should we follow the same layout across all country by year articles? Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 13:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

We should wait and see the results of the GA nominations before considering changing the layouts. I agree the layouts are nice however. Discussions in the past pointed out that layouts for these articles will be different depending on the type of selection though. Pickette (talk) 14:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that we're ultimately pending the GA review so that we have a rough idea what to be aiming for. But I think the main structure that has been used would work across the board, regardless of the selection process used. Having a 1) Lead; 2) Background; 3) Before Eurovision; 4) At Eurovision; 5) After Eurovision; and thus allows us to go into sub-topics in the "Before Eurovision" section dependant on the selection of entry. The main headers would provide a main backbone. And as we know each country does things differently, we would be able to detail such content within sub-headers and be placed into a corresponding main "backbone" header, that suits it best. For example; the "Before Eurovision" could house "National selection" or "Internal selection" as a sub-header; the main header would also enable us to add information on how the entry was promoted etc. At Eurovision would enable us to mention the entry at the contest, and the voting etc. After Eurovision allows us to mention "what happened next" kind of thing. An article in theory is like a book, it needs a start, a middle, and an end.

• • The lead is like reading the back of the book that gives brief insight into what the book is about.
  • "Background" would be like a prologue.
  • "Before Eurovision" would be the beginning.
  • "At Eurovision" would be the middle.
  • "After Eurovision" would be the end.

Makes sense to me anyway. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 15:15, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

ESC 1973 logo

Hello guyz. I need a question. Which image is realy correct for Contest of 1973? In English Wikipedia have this image, Russian have this image, and source for most images Eurovision logos in Wikipedia have this image. I don't know, where is true? ← Alex Great ^talk_rus? 11:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The official ESC site has this so I would say that this is the correct logo. Pickette (talk) 13:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, I found some images that differs with other logos. My analysis:

• 1956­-1972 logos no differs in all websites
• 1973 logo (see above)
• 1974­-2004 logos no differs in all websites
• 2005 logo (Official, Diggiloo, Wiki): Both differ with Official
• 2006 logo (Official, Diggiloo, Wiki): ALL differs
• 2007 logo (Official, Diggiloo, Wiki): ALL differs
• 2008 logo (Official, Diggiloo, Wiki): ALL differs / Official News differs with all
• 2009 logo (Official, Diggiloo, Wiki): At this only Diggiloo logo correctly displayed russian flag colors (blue instead lightblue)
• 2010 logo (Official, Diggiloo, Wiki): Both differ with Official
• 2011 logo (Official, Diggiloo, Wiki): ALL differs / Official News differs with all
• 2012 logo (Official, Diggiloo, Wiki): Both differs with Diggiloo, and Official differ with Wiki only in color and background
• 2013 logo (Official, Diggiloo, Wiki): ALL differs ← Alex Great ^talk_rus?
• 2013 logo (Official, Diggiloo haven't page, Wiki): Official differs with Wiki only in surrounded Diamond's background
• 2015 logo (no data, no differs between Wiki and Official website at this moment)

This is my alalysis, what you say? ← Alex Great ^talk_rus? 14:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• The official logo for 1973 is this one. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 13:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. What about another logos above? ← Alex Great ^talk_rus? 14:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I would say the others are fine, most of them just include the sub-logo from each year's theme that the broadcaster developed. I'm only unsure about 2006 since it has completely different designs paired together with the standard ESC logo. Pickette (talk) 15:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Scoreboard's files with J in the end of name

Why in all images of Scoreboard's vertical texts uses word 'J' at the and of filename? Do you disagree if I rename (request to rename) all this images to "File:ESC<Country>.svg" without J? I want to help other wikis (Czech, Hungarian, Polish and other) to translate this text in many languages (only SVG) and if, for example, Czech use in scoreboard ESCMaltaJ.svg and ESCBelgie.svg that can very annoying for fast reading of the table. I hope that you understand me. ← Alex Great ^talk_rus? 19:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@Alex Great: I'm guessing the 'J' is connected with Junior Eurovision. If nobody has objections to renaming them, then I have file mover rights and can do the changes, saving the need to request them to be changed. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 13:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

This is not a Junior Eurovision. See all countries (Lebanon, Iceland and other non-Junior participated countries + Rest of the World). You're filemover in the Commons? I merged all texts into Commons (local files remain to the discretion of administrators - delete or do not). If this action is'nt problem, Wes, can you rename all files in Commons with redirect (just in case)? ← Alex Great ^talk_rus? 14:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I will happily rename them, as long as nobody has any objections. I wouldn't want to move them at present just in case there is a valid reason for the 'J' to be used. The last thing we want is to cause heated problems by moving files without a clear consensus. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 14:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Damn and blast. File mover rights are for Wiki only, not commons. (sulks). I have made a request for the contestants image, using the #6 rationale, which seems logical to me. I doubt these file moves would be contested by anyone, so if you want to do the same for all the others, Alex Great, then feel free to do so. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 14:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, I will be apply renaming request on the same criteria that did you have with renaming of «Contestants». With the consensus, I think that most of the files already called without the letter J (Meanwhile, I helped to the Czechs and the Dutch), still remains a redirect. ← Alex Great ^talk_rus? 18:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)