Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision

Archives

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

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

---

This RfC will attempt to address what sections and content should normally be included in Eurovision Song Contest by country articles, such as Romania in the Eurovision Song Contest, United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest, as well as Ukraine in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest and so on. Wesley ☮ Mouse 15:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

---

As promised at the previous RfC on the layout of Eurovision Song Contest by year articles, now that the dust has settled, it is time to restart an RfC on the country ones as well (the previous RfC can be found in the talk archives. Like before, at least initially, this RfC will primarily be on a section-by-section basis with discussion on if a section listed should be included or not, and if so, what content should it contain and how should it be formatted i.e. as a table, list, or prose? This would be also a good opportunity to discuss if any sections should be split into sub-articles. The results of this RfC will be used to determine how such articles should be laid out in the future. Please note that this RfC also covers the Junior Eurovision Song Contest and any other sister/spin-off contests covered under WikiProject Eurovision where applicable. Wesley♦Mouse 11:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Section-by-section

Feel free to add any other sections which need discussion as appropriate. This listing includes a section if it is present in two or more Eurovision Song Contest by country articles, these being articls listed under countries at Template:Eurovision Song Contest. Wesley♦Mouse 11:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Lead

• Add comments here.

Infobox

• Add comments here.

History

• There are many variations in how history content is presented across articles. Often there is simply a history section, as in Albania in the Eurovision Song Contest as the heading across articles, or there is just an absences section instead (e.g. Portugal in the Eurovision Song Contest), or sometimes history related content is split into several sections, as in Italy in the Eurovision Song Contest. Wesley♦Mouse 11:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

We should probably standardize what goes in the history section, and some sort of outline on how it should be written, just for consistency's sake. Mr. Gerbear (talk) 06:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree with you on that one Mr Gerbear. I've posted a few suggestions throughout this RfC. Wesley ☮ Mouse 14:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Records

• Sometimes appears, as in Ireland in the Eurovision Song Contest. Wesley♦Mouse 11:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Seems very trivial and unnecessary. If it can't be incorporated into the history section then it's probably not worth mentioning at all. Pickette (talk) 19:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

That probably would be better to be fair. It would help to expand the history section. And some articles do not even have history sections, so this approach would help in creating such sections too. Wesley ☮ Mouse 13:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of the records section, at least in the state that it exists in that Ireland article. Not only is it not sourced, but it's actually just trivia. Nothing listed is actually a "record" that Ireland holds. Relevant facts about the country's participation can be in the history section. Off the top of my head, I can think of Greece placing in the top 10 since the introduction of the semi-finals in 2004 (with the exception of 2012) as the type of trivia that would be okay; that fact is also well publicized. Things like Ireland averaged 74 points per contest are way too trivial. Grk1011 (talk) 18:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Contestants

Should incorporate links to individual country by year articles. Also, a limit on the amount of pictures that get added? Pickette (talk) 19:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Links yes I agree. Pictures, could we not have a "gallery" section towards the end of the article, and place them all in there? Wesley ☮ Mouse 13:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we need to include pictures in this section. Have one or two pictures of participants from noteworthy years in the history section. The rest can be on the individual country by year pages. I don't think these haphazardly placed pictures add much to the article anyway. Grk1011 (talk) 18:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with you regarding the images. I had tested something on Ukraine in the Eurovision Song Contest by placing the images into a gallery section, purely for comparison reasons. But even I think that adopting that option would be overzealous. What's that phrase? "Less is more". Wesley ☮ Mouse 19:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

There should definitely be some sort of limit to pictures. There is a golden ratio of pictures to content, and the only pictures that should be added are those that support content. thetwosean 17:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetwosean (talk • contribs)

Voting history

About the "Most points given" and "Most points received", I think that we should make it clear what points are given and how. I am personally in favor of separating completely points given in finals and points given in semifinals, and I'm not too strongly opposed to keep only points given in finals.

One think I'm completely in favor is removing anything that goes like "NOTE: The tables with points from 2004 include points awarded in both finals and semi-finals where the highest point from the final/semi-final is picked." I think this metodology is kind of arbitrary and the results are unclear. Not A Superhero (talk) 15:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I had mentioned on the old RfC for these that the voting history can be a bit of a hindrance at times. They are constantly a target of IP vandals, and when they do alter them, then we are having to manually re-calculate the voting history (which is now in its 58th year) and goes against WP:SYNTHNOT, which then makes the calculation original research as there is no actual website that contains these overall voting results. And also it was pointed out last time by CT Cooper that they violate the spirit of WP:NOR and WP:SYNTHESIS. So I still support a full removal them, unless someone can convince me that they are more valuable than a headache and are not violating any guidelines. Wesley♦Mouse 15:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Does this website suffice for a source? I think that it's best to keep this information in the article as it is valuable. Mr. Gerbear (talk) 06:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Ooohh something like that would mean that we're not infringing WP:SYHTHNOT, WP:NOR, and WP:SYNTHESIS. I wonder if there is a way that we could protect just these sections from the grubby hands of vandals? Wesley♦Mouse 13:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

MrGerbear, that website you provided has been an absolute godsend of help. All this week I've done an extensive exercise across all the country articles and updated the voting history sections accordingly using the database from that website. So if any of them change between now and the next Eurovision, then we are safe to say they're vandalism edits. I've also been bold and simplified the section headers for these sections. All of them used "Voting history (19xx - 20xx)". Why have include a chronological period in the section header? A simple "Voting history" as a title is very self-explanatory to show what that section is all about. A very brief prose that I have used (for example "As of xxxx, 'Country' voting history is as follows..."). That allows us to be flexible with the years, and removed the need to include years in the section header. I've also modified the tables themselves, and the look much better than they previously were. So I am now more inclined to support these sections existence. Although perhaps a short paragraph to explain a bit about them would be an even bigger improvement. Wesley ☮ Mouse 13:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

*Moved from Talk:United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest#New Voting Design. Wesley ☮ Mouse 13:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I was wondering if we could replace the current voting section on the UK's page with the section bellow that I've designed. The design I've created is minimal and takes up less space, it is optional to look at with a "Hide" or "show" feature and also includes all vote to and from the UK since the 1950's, unlike the current design which only starts from 1975. I believe we should not ignore votes from 1957-1974 as they are a crucial part of the UK's voting history. This new design also shows how the UK's voting patterns have changed over the decades. This design is also perfect for years to come. Please look at the design fully before deciding. :) Karl (talk) 12:37 (BST/GMT) 18 July 2013.

In the Grand Final, the United Kingdom has received the most points from;
Rank	Country	Points	1950's	1960's	1970's	1980's	1990's	2000's	2010's
1	Ireland	216	X	7	42	50	43	53	21
2	Switzerland	206	5	34	49	55	55	6	2
3	France	189	1	15	60	45	62	5	1
4	Austria	188	3	7	44	63	59	12	0
5	Belgium	180	2	13	57	37	64	6	1
	Germany		0	8	70	50	34	18	0
6	Portugal	176	X	3	56	51	51	12	3
7	Luxembourg	172	1	26	59	65	21	X	X
8	Sweden	168	0	15	36	67	45	4	1
9	Norway	157	X	20	59	52	21	4	1
10	Netherlands	150	6	17	54	36	32	5	0
11	Spain	147	X	14	39	47	32	11	4
12	Israel	145	X	X	39	45	50	10	1
13	Finland	141	X	14	51	49	19	8	0
14	Denmark	140	1	11	10	56	46	13	3
15	Turkey	129	X	X	9	61	44	9	6
16	Italy	124	0	10	37	38	29	X	10
17	Malta	121	X	X	18	X	39	52	12
18	Yugoslavia	95	X	7	53	25	10	X	X
19	Greece	85	X	X	16	23	25	19	2
20	Monaco	83	2	10	71	X	X	0	X
21	Cyprus	80	X	X	X	21	39	16	4
22	Croatia	64	X	X	X	X	52	12	0
23	Estonia	44	X	X	X	X	25	14	5
24	Slovenia	38	X	X	X	X	25	11	2
25	Poland	34	X	X	X	X	25	9	0
26	Bosnia and Herzegovina	33	X	X	X	X	22	11	0
	Hungary		X	X	X	X	32	1	0
	Iceland		X	X	X	1	28	2	2
27	Russia	32	X	X	X	X	18	10	4
28	Macedonia	25	X	X	X	X	10	10	5
29	Latvia	24	X	X	X	X	X	17	7
30	Lithuania	22	X	X	X	X	5	14	3
31	Romania	20	X	X	X	X	12	5	3
32	Bulgaria	19	X	X	X	X	X	7	12
33	Slovakia	17	X	X	X	X	10	7	0
34	Albania	16	X	X	X	X	X	9	7
35	Armenia	9	X	X	X	X	X	7	2
	Ukraine		X	X	X	X	X	6	3
36	Morocco	8	X	X	X	8	X	X	X
	San Marino		X	X	X	X	X	6	2
	Serbia		X	X	X	X	X	8	0
37	Azerbaijan	7	X	X	X	X	X	0	7
38	Andorra	6	X	X	X	X	X	6	X
	Belarus		X	X	X	X	X	4	2
	Czech Republic		X	X	X	X	X	6	X
39	Moldova	5	X	X	X	X	X	1	4
40	Georgia	3	X	X	X	X	X	0	3
41	Montenegro	0	X	X	X	X	X	0	0
	Serbia and Montenegro		X	X	X	X	X	0	X

In the Grand Final, the United Kingdom has given the most points to;
Rank	Country	Points	1950's	1960's	1970's	1980's	1990's	2000's	2010's
1	Ireland	240	X	3	52	45	68	42	30
2	Sweden	175	0	2	26	37	51	44	15
3	Germany	168	0	8	32	63	27	28	10
4	Switzerland	165	5	9	42	64	35	0	10
5	Denmark	119	4	4	3	42	10	33	23
6	Greece	118	X	X	5	21	7	65	20
7	France	113	2	9	55	14	12	19	2
8	Israel	110	X	X	31	30	34	12	3
9	Norway	109	X	1	23	29	25	31	0
10	Belgium	108	2	5	47	28	14	9	3
11	Austria	99	2	10	11	29	36	9	2
12	Turkey	94	X	X	1	16	17	49	11
13	Malta	93	X	X	9	X	39	33	12
14	Luxembourg	87	1	3	46	31	6	X	X
15	Netherlands	72	2	3	34	2	24	1	6
16	Cyprus	71	X	X	X	25	30	16	0
	Spain		X	4	25	16	11	6	9
17	Yugoslavia	69	X	6	16	42	5	X	X
18	Iceland	68	X	X	X	0	48	14	6
19	Finland	64	X	8	31	13	0	12	0
20	Italy	62	2	9	36	5	3	X	7
21	Monaco	55	0	9	46	X	X	0	X
22	Estonia	53	X	X	X	X	23	26	4
23	Latvia	37	X	X	X	X	X	37	0
24	Portugal	36	X	0	15	8	13	0	0
25	Lithuania	34	X	X	X	X	0	21	13
26	Russia	33	X	X	X	X	5	15	13
27	Ukraine	30	X	X	X	X	X	20	10
28	Poland	18	X	X	X	X	12	6	0
	Romania		X	X	X	X	0	6	12
29	Slovakia	16	X	X	X	X	10	6	0
30	Croatia	15	X	X	X	X	15	0	0
31	Hungary	12	X	X	X	X	10	2	0
32	Moldova	10	X	X	X	X	X	2	8
33	Azerbaijan	5	X	X	X	X	X	3	2
	Bulgaria		X	X	X	X	X	5	0
34	Bosnia and Herzegovina	4	X	X	X	X	0	4	0
35	Serbia and Montenegro	3	X	X	X	X	X	3	X
36	Albania	2	X	X	X	X	X	1	1
37	Armenia	0	X	X	X	X	X	0	0
	Belarus		X	X	X	X	X	0	0
	Georgia		X	X	X	X	X	0	0
	Macedonia		X	X	X	X	0	0	0
	Morocco		X	X	X	0	X	X	X
	Serbia		X	X	X	X	X	0	0
	Slovakia		X	X	X	X	0	0	0

In the Semi-Finals, the United Kingdom has given the most points to;
Rank	Country	Points	2000's	2010's
1	Lithuania	58	22	36
2	Turkey	49	34	15
3	Cyprus	46	39	7
4	Ireland	36	20	16
5	Malta	31	19	12
6	Denmark	30	18	12
	Sweden		19	11
7	Iceland	27	20	7
8	Finland	22	16	6
	Romania		10	12
9	Greece	20	12	8
10	Bulgaria	17	6	11
	Netherlands		5	12
10	Portugal	16	13	3
11	Hungary	15	5	10
12	Israel	14	9	5
13	Latvia	13	13	0
	Ukraine		7	6
13	Albania	12	12	0
	Bosnia and Herzegovina		11	1
	Estonia		1	11
14	Russia	10	0	10
15	Poland	9	4	5
16	Armenia	8	8	0
	Serbia		5	3
	Serbia and Montenegro		8	X
17	Norway	7	7	0
18	Belgium	5	0	5
	Moldova		5	0
19	Azerbaijan	4	0	4
20	Switzerland	2	0	2
21	Austria	1	0	1
	Georgia		0	1
22	Andorra	0	0	X
	Belarus		0	0
	Croatia		0	0
	Czech Republic		0	X
	Macedonia		0	0
	Monaco		0	X
	Montenegro		0	0
	San Marino		0	0
	Slovakia		0	0
	Slovenia		0	0

• X denotes that the country giving or receiving points did not compete in that decade.
• Andorra, Czech Republic, Montenegro and San Marino are not in the points given by the United Kingdom in the Grand Final grid as they are yet to qualify to a Grand Final.

Very strong oppose: The voting history should only show a top-5 per previous consensus that has been in place for many years now, and has worked perfectly throughout. Collapsible boxes in articles are not to be used (see MOS:COLLAPSE) unless they are consolidating information already covered within articles, such as the ones used to show split results on Eurovision by Year articles. The main results are kept uncollapsible, whilst the split results are collapsed. On articles such as these, the voting history is not mentioned within the articles, and therefore hiding the content in collapsed boxes would be infeasible. Wesley ☮ Mouse 13:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Very Strongly Agree: Why should it only remain top-5? People are getting very confused by the current voting sections because;

• They do not include years between 1956-1974
• They can't find out how many points the United Kingdom has given to another country that is not in the top 5.

The grid design that has been offered is highly detailed and explains what countries gave and received which points within which decade. This design that has been offered gives the reader more information then the lack of which is currently being offered. Whether it's collapsed or not, I think your "dumbing" the readers by refusing to have this... It's like your saying they're too stupid to open or hide a box. "On articles such as these, the voting history is not mentioned within the articles", then can we change this so it is? -_-! Karl 16:28 18 July 2013 (GMT/BST) —Preceding undated comment added 15:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

No Karl, I am not "dumbing" a reader. It is manual of style policy, there's no ifs and buts about it. The guidelines state it cannot be done that way. And a top 5 is by far easier to have rather than "padding" the article with the entire voting history. If we expand it further, then we're giving the vandals more to vandalise. Are you prepare to start tidying up after them 24 hours a day, 7 days a week? The top 5 is precise and sufficient on these articles - which has been the case ever since this project has been in operation. Also your proposal stipulates you agree anyway, so why emphasis it further by stating "very strong agree"? Without sounding pragmatic here, but there are strong signs of incompetence or lack of grasping guidelines/policies which are put in place to aid us in how to right the perfect article. Deviating away from them (in the way that your proposal would be doing) would only make things worse, not better. Don't fix what isn't broken. Did you read any of the policy that I linked to above? If not, then please read it carefully at MOS:COLLAPSE. Also the voting history on ALL articles cover voting from 1957 to present day. I know this, as I spent hours and hours tidying up all the voting tables to show the correct voting history from 1957 onwards. Wesley ☮ Mouse 16:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Hostings

• Present in Austria in the Eurovision Song Contest and a few others. Wesley♦Mouse 11:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Marcel Bezençon Awards

• As I wrote under at the OGAE section and as I wrote above at the ESC annual articles at the location section - presenting only brief-necessery background on this organization, after and in relation, to country's achievements in one or more of it's awards-categories, and blend it as a paragraph alongside OGAE paragraph, split public/jury results paragraph under sub-section "Achivements", and alongside sub-section of "Incidents" - and put all of this under the scope of section "Country's participation in public" or "Country's participation in public and media". אומנות (talk) 22:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

We do have the history section on some articles (which could do with being expanded to all articles to be fair). But how about a new section "Participation", which we could then sub-section "contestants" into that, and also "Other awards" as a sub-section which will allow us to amalgamate into prose format all the other awards such as MBA, OGAE (if agreed) and Congratulations: 50 Years. Wesley ☮ Mouse 13:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is my opinion in regards to "Conrgatulations", it's independent with it's own wide public vote as in every annual ESC + It's inclusion of previous popular songs to compete again for a title a-la "champion of champions" furthers it as more impressive than an annual ESC. On the other hand, "MBA"-"OGAE" are other "token of appreciation" in parallel to each annual contest that has it's own public-jury voting. In other words, I see "50's congratulations show" as it's own glorified ESC edition, and "MBA"+"OGAE" as an addition to each annual ESC edition. Therefore I'm not sure if it's not better mentioning a country's achievement at "Congratulations" at the same general section of contestants through the years, or blend it with Marcel and OGAE.

I personaly don't mind calling the section "Participation", but I still think the sub-section should be than called "Public and Media" with including all kinds of acceptance - split public/jury results and I also add now about "betting-odds" (if betting agencies managed to predict a winning country in a certain year, with info about it's odd-relation-numbers according to amount of gamblers - there are articles on ESCToday every year, such as about Sweden before 2012 ESC and few that followed predictions for Denmark before 2013 ESC), also the "Commentators" table is aprropriate as it shows which TV-stations provided media-reviewers that supply explenations and their own opinions to the public during the broadcast. And then another paragraph for OGAE/MBA and other votings. Since I view the other awards as one paragraph within few paragraphs of covering public and media aspects, I think that "Other Awards" title should be sub-sub-section-level and also be called "Other Titles". I think of the Marcel Awards as more appreciation achievemnts in reagrds to acceptance, rather than material awards, and I see a "title"-achievement even more as reflecting in regards to the OGAE. אומנות (talk) 12:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Winnner by OGAE members

• Example: Hungary in the Eurovision Song Contest. Wesley♦Mouse 11:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Winning a fan poll doesn't seem that important to highlight in such a way. Pickette (talk) 19:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Well actually, I think the OGAE sections are just as important of a section as the rest of the Eurovision-related material. It did seem to be in favour by some at the last RfC that this could do with being improved in the way we did on Eurovision by Year articles merge this, the Marcel Bezençon and the Congratulations:50 Years sections together under the header "Other awards". Add a brief prose to explain what they are with a hatnote to direct to the main article. And then style them in the same way as we have on ESC by year articles too. Besides, some of the songs from national selections go onto OGAE Second Chance Contests and furthermore win those contests. So we could do with finding a way to tie-together the two (Eurovision/OGAE). And IMHO the only way we could do that is by using the "country" articles. Would be a shame to see all that hard work on improving the OGAE articles go to waste. Wesley♦Mouse 02:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so. The Marcel Bezençon awards and the Congratulations: 50 Years event are created/endorsed by the EBU, while the OGAE voting is just a fan poll for fans and who they pick as the "winner" is irrelevant and pretty trivial. The other contests OGAE organizes are as notable as the various fan contests organized across the internet. Pickette (talk) 13:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually you are incorrect there Pickette, believe me I should know - I have been spending long hours researching these so that I can get the respective articles improved to a high standard. The Marcel Bezençon awards have been around since 2002. In 2002/2003 OGAE were responsible for awarding the "Fan Award", which was endorsed by the EBU. Since then the award recipients have been decided by the international press, the commentators, and a jury. Also OGAE is recognised by the EBU as a trustworthy organisation. The inclusion of OGAE material is just as important to country articles as they are to the annual articles - and with a lot of significant support from a lot of project members in the past in regards to the inclusion on annual articles. Wesley♦Mouse 14:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd only include the 2002/2003 Marcel Bezençon Fan award then as that is the only time the OGAE voting was actually recognized as an achievement of some kind. It has since been discontinued for whatever reason. I don't support the inclusion of various OGAE factoids across the Eurovision articles. Just because the EBU has recognized the OGAE as a trustworthy organisation for fans doesn't make everything they vote on or do notable and relevant. Pickette (talk) 14:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

So the simple fact that OGAE are voting on Eurovision songs that are mentioned on Eurovision articles means they should be ignored!? Have you forgotten Pickete that we are discussing Country in the Eurovision Song Contest articles here? Marcel Bezençon has its own article, so if we're to no longer include OGAE, then we should no longer include Marcel Bezençon either. We shouldn't be favouring one over the other - they are both as equally recognised as the other, and they are both in relation to Eurovision, which is the main factor here. OGAE is just as notable as the Eurovision Song Contest - so to exclude something that is notable from an article is just utterly pathetic. I think one needs to familiarise themselves with WP:GNG guidelines. Wesley♦Mouse 15:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Before saying that OGAE is as notable as the ESC (which I don't follow: how does a fan organization match the contest in notability?) are there multiple, third-party, non-Eurovision-centric sources that cover the OGAE? Only then can they be notable enough for inclusion. You also say that OGAE is trustworthy to the EBU, but you link to an OGAE page. We need third-party sources to verify everything. Re-read WP:GNG, sources must be ""independent of the subject".

Try taking yourself out of the Eurovision bubble: would you think the OGAE is notable? Mr. Gerbear (talk) 15:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

In answer to your question regarding third-party sources Gerbear, yes. ESCToday, ESCXtra, and other Eurovision websites all mention and have links to OGAE clubs. And one only needs to search for OGAE on Eurovision.tv to find that they too show support for OGAE by reading the numerous articles published by the EBU. We have also used OGAE sources for citing material such as confirmed participation on Eurovision by Year articles throughout the years. As for the other contests, OK they are organised by a "fan club", but those contests contain songs from national preselections, and unless I have misunderstood the meaning of a national selection for the last god knows how many years, then there is the connection between OGAE and Eurovision, which the two could do with being tied together to add knowledge to the general reader. And the only way to do that would be via Eurovision articles and vice versa. Take for example 2012 contest. Pastora from Spain went to Baku with the song that won the national selection, although she did not win in Baku. Yet on the otherhand, one of the other songs from the same national final went onto the OGAE Second Chance Contest and won that. Notability that one of Spain's songs from their preselection process (which are mentioned on Country in Eurovision articles) should really have a mention. Wesley♦Mouse 15:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Hardly any source outside of Eurovision fansites mention OGAE contests and fanclubs and the winners of their voting. Eurovision fansites only report on it because they cater specifically to Eurovision fans. In the scope of the contest and the country in the contest, it's entirely irrelevant. The Marcel Bezençon Awards are organized and distributed by the EBU during the contest and are a part of the contest. OGAE voting and their various contest results are only relevant to Eurovision fans. Pickette (talk) 16:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Well naturally OGAE will only be mentioned on Eurovision-related fansites - the clue is in the name "Organisation Générale des Amateurs de l'Eurovision". You're not exactly going to find them mentioned elsewhere now are you! The same goes for Eurovision; the majority of news is reported on Eurovision-related fansites. The Marcel Bezençon Awards were not created by the EBU, they were founded in 2002 by Christer Björkman, who was Sweden's representative at Eurovision 1992. And if OGAE contest results are only relevant to Eurovision fans, then why do so many former Eurovision participants agree to participate in the respective OGAE contests, and graciously accept the awards they win? Why do so many representatives also attend OGAE club meetings? If OGAE is not important to this project, then why do we include them within out project scope? The fact that it is fan-based is irrelevant here. The fact that there is a connection between Eurovision and OGAE, needs to be outlined and that connection portrayed across to the unfamiliar reader (one who is none the wiser about Eurovision) about the success that some participants from National Selection Shows, which are organised by the national broadcasters, which are also members of the EBU. So when we write about Pastora Soler in Spain in the Eurovision Song Contest 2012, and mention that "Quédate conmigo" won the ticket to Baku, while another of her entries from the same selection show "Tu vida es tu vida", which finished 2nd in the national selection, went on to OGAE Second Chance Contest 2012, and came 1st. That isn't important enough to mention to the general reader? Well if that's the case, then why bother even mentioning any of the other songs that too part in national selections on these articles? Might as well be simple and only write about the songs that were only selected. Wesley♦Mouse 16:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The fact that OGAE contests aren't mentioned elsewhere is a good reason why they shouldn't be mentioned on Wikipedia either. The fanclub results are irrelevant to the entry and the contest. I don't know why OGAE is in this project's scope, to me it seems like a bunch of fan articles with information only a fan would ever look for. It instills some kind of false importance that a song with no competing stake won an online second chance fan contest. It's way too trivial and irrelevant in my opinion. As for covering national finals, they provide background into how an entry was selected to represent a particular nation; an entry that is actually competing in the Eurovision Song Contest. And the Marcel Bezençon Awards are integrated into the lead-up to the contest and covered on eurovision.tv with a news article and a video recording. Pickette (talk) 17:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Wesley, the important thing here is that we must only include things from sources that are independent from the topic in discussion. Things that don't primarily have to do with Eurovision.

Also, it's faulty logic in saying that taking a closer look at OGAE's notability would lead to ignoring national selections. They have little to do with each other's notability. Mr. Gerbear (talk) 18:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

My view is that both OGAE and Marcel Bezencon achivements are sided with additional but not main value achievemnts, can't be equal to the actual voting and info of ESC evening-shows, but also that OGAE have value and interest for the ESC from public-fans point of view.
Story: I myself was involved in some activities-parties of OGAE-Israel and I saw that after all, it's a very small group of fans (like 70) and that the voting is very casual. Also, there is the simple fact that OGAE and Marcel voting isn't influencing ESC outcome (unlike ESC vote and also national finals that choose entries for forming the international contest, like has been said). Also, the OGAE consists of only hundreds of amateur fans, while ESC vote is based on hundred-thousands of people with maybe millions of text-votes and professional juries with some of them being well-known. On the other hand, OGAE members doing vast activities including making organized trips in different ESC countries as well as bringing many ESC singers (like in 2012 Izabo from Israel and Valentina Monetta from San-Marino attended the party in Israel), and in 2013 it is known that SVT saved many standing-places close to the stage for OGAE mambers, as well that in previous years OGAE members get "journalists-cards" to attend press-centers and get places in the audiance. Overall, during the last years the OGAE is one of the factors that keep ESC alive with it's massive-eager fan support and activities, while some of the public lost interest in ESC compared to older years. And I also agree that it's natural that OGAE news will are mentioned on ESC news sites - since this is their place and connection. Also news about ESC contest itself are mostly mentioned on ESC-sites throughout the year and only mentioned in the wider-media some days before and after the international contest and on a certain country's wider-media some days before and after it's own national contest/selection.
So I agree in parts and disagree in parts with the other views. (And my view relate to both Countries in ESC articles and Annual ESC articles - as I wrote here above at the Location section). Both this OGAE and Marcel awards shouldn't be emphasized equally with different sections and tables like the info and table of the country's ESC entries and voting achievements. They should be mentioned briefly in a regular text of seperate paragraphs under a united section, with focusing on the country's awards in them and then give only necessery background informtaion about OGAE and Marcel Bezencon - so the article stays focused on the relevent issue and not written in a way that it enters the OGAE and and Marcel Bezencon "worlds". Only information about the essence and function of the organization in relations to ESC - without mentioning founders and things as that it's not political/non-govermental. It's enough to write that it's a fan club organization and give reference within the paragraph to the main OGAE article - where all this other details are elaborating on the organization.
אומנות (talk) 22:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed idea

Hypothetical example with Italy with imaginary examples of winning some Marcel awards, some OGAE awards : Taking achivements and incidents of this country's overall ESC participation and specific entries - in regards to media and public attention and acceptance - and put them on "Italy in the Eurovision Song Contest" article like this: (SECTION:) Country's participation in public (or: Country's participation in public and media) (SMALLER TITLE OF SUB-SECTION:) Achivements (paragraph and table about Public vs. Jury results:) From the year 2008 onwards, the EBU based the Eurovision Song Contest voting on the scale of counting the public votes as 50% and the jury votes as 50% of the outcome, with also publishing after the contest's finals the split results. Here is how the public and the jury voted for Italy seperately since 2008: (Underneath this paragraph adding a table with columns of Year, Public's placing, Jury placing on final and semi-final - in the case of Italy only final. This table elaborates on the first table that shows the final and semi song's title/language/performer/overall-combined placing - and give the achivement of each song from 2008 onwards from the public and jury's views. However there is no need for scores, only placings - useless to write how many points the song achieved when there isn't introduction of other country's songs from that year to compare with. On the other hand it's good to write placing and in brackets how many songs competed in each year - giving an idea about the quntity, competing field). (Paragraph about Marcel Bezencon:) In 2007, Italy's entry "La-Li-Pop" performed by "x" and compsed by "Xx", "Z" and "M", won the Composer Award of the Marcel Bezençon Awards for most original composition, as voted by a jury consisting of the 2007 contest's entries composers. In 2011, Italy's entry "Madness of Love" won the Press Award, as voted on by the accredited media and press during the 2011 event, and the Artistic Award as voted on by the commentators, with the Marcel Bezencon organization holding three categories; Press Award, Artistic Award and Composer Award, first handed out during the Eurovision Song Contest 2002 and which are named after the creator of the Eurovision Song Contest - Marcel Bezençon. (Paragraph about OGAE:) In 2007 and 2012, Italy's respective entries: "La-Li-Pop" and "L'amore è femmina (Out of Love)", won the voting of OGAE - Organisation Générale des Amateurs de l'Eurovision, an international organisation that was founded in 1984 and consists of a network of 40 Eurovision Song Contest fan clubs across Europe and beyond. (SMALLER TITLE OF SUB-SECTION:) Incidents In 1974, Italy's entry "Si" by Gigliola Cinquetti was censored from radio and television stations in Italy due to claims of political message before the Italian elections, in 1985 Italy originaly had an entry named "I love Italy" which was accused by critics of plagiarism and was replaced with the entry "Magic ho Magic"...

In my view, this is the most valuable and interesting way to present such public and media information in all ESC articles - capturing it under such section of public and media acceptance and achivements. As for other contests of OGAE (like with the example of Pastora Soler which her song that finished 2nd in the NF won OGAE second chance), my view is that it's not relevent anymore to "Country in Eurovision" articles since it's about songs that didn't reach ESC to begin with. But on the same scale, I think such information can be blend in more specific articles such as: "Spain in the 2012 Eurovision Song Contest" or "Spain's National Final for 2012 ESC" - in a way that shows how this specific national final songs that were performed by Pastora Soler, as comprising this specific national-final event - got accepted and what other awards and titles they achieved within the public and the media.
אומנות (talk) 22:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I think an Other Awards section with a brief paragraph referring only to whether a particular entry was the winner of the OGAE vote is better than letting it have its own section and including a table. But I would only support OGAE facts being referred to when they are in regards to voting for the entries in a particular Eurovision Song Contest. References to contests that the OGAE organize, such as Second Chance, should be left out of all Eurovision articles, in my opinion. The contests they organize are purely fan material of interest to only OGAE members and possibly some other Eurovision fans. Pickette (talk) 18:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I have noticed a slight error on my part. I forgot the RfC I rebooted was just for Country in Eurovision; and not Country in Eurovision by Year articles. When I mentioned about national selection songs that went onto OGAE being noted in articles, it was on the Country by Year articles; to which they would be better included; as it we would be providing informative details regarding a song that took part in a national final. Wesley♦Mouse 12:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Eurovision fans are NOT automatic OGAE members though, which is what I getting at. Pickette (talk) 14:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

You should stick to discussing the matter at hand rather than me as a user. Pickette (talk) 15:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I've simply been discussing this OGAE matter here. I never made a personal remark about you or discussed anything other than the topic of this particular discussion. Feel free to re-read this discussion. Pickette (talk) 16:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I wont comment on that because I'm not going to derail this discussion with stuff like this. I've done nothing wrong here and I've stayed on topic. If you have a personal issue with me, you can comment on my talk page. Pickette (talk) 17:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what your question is really? But maybe you can clarify a bit and ask it on my talk page and I'll answer. Pickette (talk) 18:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Wesley, I don't know what the history is here between you and Pickette, but I can see nothing rude about the way he has responded to you above. Please could you lower the tone - this is after all a public place for discussing the article. AndrewRT(Talk) 15:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, Wesley, I think it's you that needs to take a Wikibreak. I saw no condescension coming from Pickette at all. The first sign of hostility was when you said "OGAE members are Eurovision fans, d'oh!" This was unwarranted; her statement never contradicted that. All she was saying that in the greater scheme of things, OGAE-organized contests are non-notable. And then you say "Calm down Pickette before you give yourself a hernia," after what seemed like a natural, non-offensive response from Pickette. The only attitude I see in this entire discussion stemmed from you, Wesley, which mostly comes from a lack of comprehension in what Pickette is trying to say. Please assume good faith, and keep calm and rational. Disagreement does not equal a personal attack.

Also, I chanced upon Pickette's talk page where you both agreed on an Interaction Ban. Does this mean that Pickette is no longer welcome in this discussion, as you are involved as well, Wesley? I find this rather disconcerting.

All in all though, I agree with אומנות's format. I do prefer sticking to prose rather than putting things into tables, which is more encyclopedic. Mr. Gerbear (talk) 06:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Gerbear, we are discussing the matter on Wesley Mouse's talk page. If you're interested in knowing what is happening in regards to this, you can look there. For the record, I don't endorse Wesley Mouse's account of the events on AndrewRT's talk page and I've never sent malicious emails to Wesley Mouse or anyone on Wikipedia for that matter. I didn't even know email was possible on Wikipedia until I was accused of doing such a thing. Pickette (talk) 20:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to make amends with each other. Hopefully everything turns out well for the good of the Project. Mr. Gerbear (talk) 00:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I've had a bit of an idea regarding this section, and would love to read the views of others. Details on OGAE would probably be better off being included in articles such as Austria in the OGAE Second Chance Contests, although there are no such articles as of yet, and they would probably fail the odd wikipolicy here or there. But if such articles were allowed, then would this be a better solution to the whole OGAE issue? At the end of the day the contests must be notable enough for them to be reported on Eurovision-related websites. What is notable to one may not be notable to another, but nevertheless notability is there. It is like what is common knowledge to one person may not be as common of knowledge to another. And without spreading that knowledge, then we would not be assisting it to become common knowledge to everyone. And then perhaps in articles that this RfC is covering, we would only need to briefly mention them in prose format perhaps using the suggestion that אומנות (talk · contribs) mentioned above? And I still think that mentioning any song that failed in a national final but gained success in an OGAE contest could be worthwhile adding brief detail about, but of course in their respective annual pages such as Spain in the Eurovision Song Contest 2012. Wesley ☮ Mouse 13:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Commentators and spokespersons

• Some variations in the heading across articles. Wesley♦Mouse 11:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations: 50 Years of the Eurovision Song Contest

• Present where applicable, such as in Turkey in the Eurovision Song Contest. Wesley♦Mouse 11:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Incorporate into history section? Pickette (talk) 19:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd support putting it in the history section. It was a one time event and can be summarized in a sentence or two. Grk1011 (talk) 19:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Notes

• Add comments here.

See also

• This one could be easy enough. The only "see also" that would be applicable would be if a country has also participated in JESC (or in the case of Turkey, Russia, Azerbaijan, who are also eligible to participate in the ABU Song Festivals), then a link to those articles in the event they do decide to participate in them. And looking at the reports on the ABU website, Turkey are hosting the 52nd ABU General Assembly in 2015, which with that comes the hosting of the ABU TV Song Festival 2015, and the host country are expected to submit an entry into that contest (apparently). Wesley ☮ Mouse 14:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

References

• Add comments here.

External links

• I think the links that would be idealogical for these articles would be: the country's profile page on Eurovision.tv; and a link to their National Broadcaster's official Eurovision website (if they have one). Wesley ☮ Mouse 13:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Other issues

• Discuss any other issues which don't fit under a section heading here. And I would suggest that all project members be notified of this discussion. Wesley♦Mouse 11:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I have been invited to comment here by the RFC Bot and come here as an outsider not aware of the history, so apologies if I'm repeating something that has already been discussed.

I am entirely unconvinced of the value of this approach. What is relevant, reliably supported or stylistically desirable will vary considerably over the articles in this section. It would make more sense to write each article individually based on the information that is available in reliable sources and relevant to the particular country and/or year. The danger with the standardised template approach is that we will end up forcing in unsourced or poorly sourced information just because it says so in the template. Hope this is helpful. AndrewRT(Talk) 15:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Summary

Since this discussion has expired, I think it is time to officially close it and summarize what has occurred. I was a participant, so any disagreements should be posted below this summary.

• Lead: No discussion.
• Infobox: No discussion.
• History: No clear consensus was established. However, standardisation of what should go in this section for consistency was suggested.
• Records: Agreement that this section was trivial, and that it should be merged into the History section.
• Contestants: Agreement to include wikilinks to individual 'Country by Year' articles. Any pictures to be moved. Any that are relevant to content within the History section be moved there, and the rest from noteworthy years, be moved to a new section at the bottom entitled Picture gallery.
• Voting history: Voting history should be kept to a top-5 only, with a written prose to explain what these sections are.
• Hosting: No discussion. Although a written prose explaining what the tables are for would be preferable.
• Marcel Bezençon Awards: No clear consensus has been established on inclusion/exclusion or the presentation of this section, with various proposals being made. However, the format ("Other awards") currently used on Eurovision by Year articles with a mixture of tables and prose with full sourcing received significant support.
• Winner by OGAE members: No clear consensus has been established on inclusion/exclusion or the presentation of this section, with various proposals being made. However, the format ("Other awards") currently used on Eurovision by Year articles with a mixture of tables and prose with full sourcing received significant support.
• Commentators and spokespersons: No discussion. Although a written prose explaining what the tables are for would be preferable.
• Congratulations: 50 Years of the Eurovision Song Contest: No clear consensus has been established on inclusion/exclusion or the presentation of this section, with various proposals being made. However, the format ("Other awards") currently used on Eurovision by Year articles with a mixture of tables and prose with full sourcing received significant support.
• Notes: No discussion.
• See also: No discussion.
• References: No discussion.
• External links: No discussion.
• Other issues: No clear discussion was established. However, it was noted that what is relevant, reliably supported or stylistically desirable will vary considerably over articles on a case-by-case basis. It was also noted that each article should be written on an individual basis, which is true that it should. But to maintain some kind of consistency on how each article is presented I.E. section-by-section would be logical.

Wesley Mᴥuse 19:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Other awards section: Presenting the "Other Awards" in prose only - this got a significant support, and not a mixture of tables and prose. Under "Marcel Bezençon Awards" you (Wesley Mouse) wrote: how about a new section "Participation", which we could then sub-section "contestants" into that, and also "Other awards" as a sub-section which will allow us to amalgamate into prose format all the other awards such as MBA, OGAE (if agreed) and Congratulations: 50 Years. That was also after and in regards to my proposal under "OGAE Winners" - to present the awards and other public reception within prose only. Under the "Ogae winners" you also wrote: "Perhaps in articles that this RfC is covering, we would only need to briefly mention them in prose format perhaps using the suggestion that אומנות (talk · contribs) mentioned above? So you were positive yourself towards prose only. Also, "Pickette" and "Mr. Gerbear" supported maintaining prose. Pickette wrote: "Yeah I think an Other Awards section with a brief paragraph referring only to whether a particular entry was the winner of the OGAE vote is better than letting it have its own section and including a table. And Mr. Gerbear wrote: "I agree with אומנות's format. I do prefer sticking to prose rather than putting things into tables, which is more encyclopedic.". So out of 4 users, 3 supported prose only and 1 (you) at least positive, if not also in favour, for presenting prose. אומנות (talk) 10:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

It would appear that you may have misinterpreted the summarising above. It clearly reads "No clear consensus has been established on inclusion/exclusion or the presentation of this section, with various proposals being made. However, the format ("Other awards") currently used on Eurovision by Year articles with a mixture of tables and prose with full sourcing received significant support.". This does not mean that everyone who commented on this section gave support, but the fact that one user (myself) did needed to be summarised. As only 4 editors comments, with a 3-1 split that 1 is significant in terms of percentages (75% to 25% split). Because no overall consensus was reached, then the method currently in use would continue - and I do not mean merging into "other awards". Wesley Mᴥuse 13:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

It was obvious you would go for your "misinterpreted what I said" step. The "no clear consensus for inclusion/exclusion" isn't relevent at this point, as the OGAE+MBA material currently stays; And 3 editors wrote in favour of prose and 1 (yourself) wrote forward also to blend that material within prose-paragraphs, after you saw my proposal is a good compromise that can soften Pickette and Mr. Gerbear to the inclusion of OGAE details in these articles. Otherwise the discussion would have just stayed in regards to presenting OGAE on countries-articles in tables - when both other editors still clearly objected presenting OGAE details at all on ESC-countries articles. Both I and eventually Pickette supported mentioning OGAE winners with clarifying from the get go that it under the term it would be in a paragraph and not highlighted in a table. And Mr. Gerbear preference to prose rather then tables was also in reply to my proposal. So no, there could have never be any significant support nor whatsoever support to a prose+tables mixture.

Furthermore, when I was the only one who supported you in regards to even mentioning "OGAE 2nd chance" contests on specific countries in specific ESCs (as "Spain in 2012 ESC") - you were eager to implement a prose-proposal further to these article-types in order to try and get agreement to include these over there; You self-offered to combine other OGAE's contests awards details within prose-pargraphs and sub-sections - also at those types of articles. Now, that you archived the above discussion and managed to keep your precious OGAE-details at least on the countries articles (until next RFC), you ignore the agreements and discussion-progress that surrounded the prose-proposals, including the one you "proposed". This way all the OGAE material will stay - and within prose+tables as well - so you get your way. The problem is that you had to support using prose and play along with the rest of the editors - speaking of eating the cake and having it too.

(Personal attack removed)

If nobody else will care for the consensus that was established here in regards to ESC-countries and the amount of time and energy that was invested in all these prose-proposals (including your own!) that you seek to diminish, so be it. If Pickette and Mr. Gerbear will clarify here again that/if they indeed meant introducing the other awards within prose alone, and still desire to follow it, then this is the method that will be in use according to the discretion shown by this above discussion. If tables will still stay to present such awards - and Pickette and Mr. Gerbear and other users may go back to the start position with saying they don't want OGAE to appear on countries articles at all, I will fully support them. אומנות (talk) 01:24, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPA - thank you. You accuse me of bullying, when I was only replying to your comment. I closed down this RfC as I was the user who opened it up, which is the correct procedure to do. And not only that you have the audacity to threaten me? Are you for real? Do you really want to be blocked for threatening another user? You are one brave man. Oh and for the record, consensus was not reached. 3 people were in favour of one proposal, 1 person in favour of another, and 70 other project members did not comment. So the 70 no comments leave the situation in "no overall consensus" territory. Wesley Mᴥuse 10:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

San Marino in the Eurovision Song Contest 2014

Resolved

Is it still too early to create such an article? I thought about making it but the information announced so far is limited to the announcement of the artist. Pickette (talk) 19:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm 50/50 on this one. In my opinion I would say such articles should be created as soon as there is information regarding national selections. However, others tend to say wait until there is a plethora of details, so that we avoid premature articles becoming victim to the deletionists, who are always so eager to place WP:PRODs on such "minimal" articles (which is a phrase I have seen deletionists use in the past) - although I would probably defend the article if a PROD did appear on it. We know Valentina has been pre-selected for now, but that's about as much information that we know. Would it be better to highlight this early information on San Marino in the Eurovision Song Contest for now, and then expand into its own annual article once we know more on the selection process? Wesley ☮ Mouse 19:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Colour codes for last placings

Resolved

We could do with reviewing key-colour for last placings (red background) on the 'Country in Eurovision' articles only. As every will be aware, wikilinks are in blue text, and having that on red backgrounds causes chromostereopsis, which has been known to cause migraines and in some rare circumstances epileptic seizures. From a safety prospective, this needs to be reviewed urgently, so that we can make the relevant alterations with immediate effect. Wesley ☮ Mouse 17:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Current method on 'Country' in the Eurovision Song Contest

1st	2nd	3rd	Last
1976	1986	1996	2006

Alternatives for last placings

1.  2008 
2.  2009 
3.  2010 
4.  2011 
5.  2012 
6.  2013 
7.  2014 

Hm. I have two questions: 1) Is it really necessary for the last placer to be specially colored? And 2) I'm not very sure chromostereopsis on such a small scale would be too triggering, really? Isn't it flashing red-blue images that trigger them too and not still images? Mr. Gerbear (talk) 19:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea why last placing have been specially coloured, in my opinion what is so special about finishing last that it warrants a colour? But hey-ho, I'll go along with the majority if people want to cease using colour on last places. And still images have been known to trigger seizures too, not just flashing images. A friend of mine has had many a seizure in the past from still imaged chromostereopsis. Wesley ☮ Mouse 19:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. I suggest we do away with the color entirely. If not, No. 4 would be a good alternative. Thanks for the added info about these images. Now I know to be more careful with these in the future. Mr. Gerbear (talk) 20:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Grins like a Cheshire cat - I'm with you on the abolishment of using colour to highlight last place. Wonder if others would be in agreement too? Wesley ☮ Mouse 21:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

In terms of Eurovision there are only two important colours, the qualifying colour and gold for first. Second, third and last really mean nothing.

But also remember that the table borders can change colour.

-- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 21:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

It depends on the use. If it will be used in the year articles I still don't agree on putting colors (for 1st, 2nd, 3rd and last places). Just the qualifiers and the winner in the final should be colored. If it is for the countries' articles then it's okay. I think that the 6th color should be used for the last places. Dimitris ♪ (talk) 21:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with both AxG and Dimitris. Sorry I should have stipulated from the start that I was referring to 'Country' in Eurovision articles which seem to be using colours for 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and last place. The annual ESC articles should remain as they are with only colours to show qualifiers and the winner. Although I have noticed other language wikis use a pastel-green for qualifiers rather than the colour we use. Would green be a better option for us to adopt in these circumstances? Wesley ☮ Mouse 21:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the pastel green would be better, yes. As for the table border colors, I think it would look too different from Wikipedia style if that was implemented for last places in the Country articles. Mr. Gerbear (talk) 00:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the point in changing the qualified colour, it's just a big editing change we don't need as it does not change the nature of the content, and also some use green and some use the same colour we do there's no standard. P.s. I'm a blue person myself. -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 12:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

As for "X Country in ESC", I support introducing colours for 1st, 2nd, 3rd and last places, as it highlights every country's success and failures in relation to the field of other songs - according to the focus of the article on a specific country's ESC histroy. As for the annual ESC articles I prefer only highlighting first place for the winner of X-year. For highlighting last place (on X-country article), I prefer option 6 and then option 4. My opinion is like Dimitris' opinion. Also, I like pastel green but I prefer light-golden-orange like colour. But also as axg mentioned, if there is already a majority of articles that use a certain colour for qualifiers and winner, and 2nd-3rd places (that don't have colours that annoy the eye as red-blue for the last place), than it's better to keep this standard colours and only replace the red-blue of the last place. אומנות (talk) 12:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not too keen on color-coding last places. Most of the tables (except for the scoreboards) are sortable, so the last place could be found relatively easy. I like the way it is currently set up (qualifiers and 1st). After all, the emphasis of the concert really is on who wins it all. The other finishing places aren't focused on. I think using as little colors as possible would keep the articles visually clean. Dfizzles (talk) 23:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Dfizzles, you have realised we're not discussing the main annual articles, but articles such as France in the Eurovision Song Contest, which do highlight last place. Wesley ☮ Mouse 23:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

While I like the red we use right now, I admit is quite hard on the eyes, and if there's any possibility that someone might suffer some damage from it, I'm all in favor of changing it ASAP. From the color proposals, I like number 4. I also thought about black, but I'm not sure how readable a wikilink would be over a black background. Not A Superhero (talk) 01:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I've added a black test to the proposals for comparison sake. Wesley ☮ Mouse 03:35, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, that's a big no from me. (But thanks for considering it anyway) So, I guess pink or pastel orange are our better options. Not A Superhero (talk) 03:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Upon reviewing everyone's views on this, it would appear that options 4 and 6 are both preferable. As option 4 is pink (a paler shade of red), would everyone be OK if we went ahead with that choice? I've implemented option 4 onto Norway in the Eurovision Song Contest, to show how it would look. Wesley ☮ Mouse 15:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I actually like that a lot! It looks a lot more pleasant. Mr. Gerbear|Talk 19:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I've been bold and rolled it out using AWB across all the articles. So I assume we're safe to say this topic is resolved!? Thank you everyone who contributed. Wesley ☮ Mouse 20:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

We have a new contest being launched in December

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. Wesley ☮ Mouse 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. Mr. Gerbear|Talk 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. Wesley ☮ Mouse 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. Mr. Gerbear|Talk 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] Mr. Gerbear|Talk 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. Wesley ☮ Mouse 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. Wesley ☮ Mouse 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. Mr. Gerbear|Talk 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). Wesley ☮ Mouse 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. Wesley ☮ Mouse 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. Mr. Gerbear|Talk 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. Wesley ☮ Mouse 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)

A-class assessments

Unlike good articles and featured articles which have their own nominations board (WP:GAN and WP:FAR respectively), the A-class review does not. According to the information at WP:ACLASS there are two methods, "basic" and "formal":

Basic method

For WikiProjects without a formal A-Class review process, the proposal to promote to A-Class should be made on the article's talk page. To be granted, the proposal should supported by two uninvolved editors, with no significant opposes. The review should also be noted on the project's discussion page.

Formal WikiProject review

A more formal review may be useful for some WikiProjects, such as the method used successfully at the Military History project. The method is summarized below:

1. Add A-Class=current to the WikiProject banner at the top of the article's talk page, click on the "currently undergoing" link that appears then write up your nomination.
2. Add your nomination (via transclusion) to the review section of the WikiProject.
3. Others from the WikiProject review the article.
4. A coordinator from the project closes the review, and (if successful) the article is tagged and listed as A-Class.

Based on the information above, as we do not have a formal A-class reviewing team then we're to go about the "basic method". However, as we're a reasonably large-ish project, I would like to invite members of the project to discuss whether we should form an A-class reviewing section, and thus we'd have be able to operate a "formal WikiProject reviewing team", similar to how WikiProject Military history have theirs set up? The project doesn't have any A-class articles at this present time, although we do have the classification on our assessment scale, and there are a few articles that could be potential A-class. Does anyone have any objections or comments to this proposal? Wesley Mᴥuse 16:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Looking at an A-class assessment at Talk:Lockheed D-21, the classification would only be placed on our project banner, and other projects would remain at GA-class or B-class, until they decide to review for A-class themselves. Wesley Mᴥuse 16:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)