Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

TBD vs TBA

I know for quite some time that on annual Eurovision articles that we have used the abbreviation "TBD". But I feel this abbreviation is causing confusion with some editors. According to To be announced the definitions are as follows:

• To be announced (TBA) implies that the event concept has been developed, but is not yet suitable for public announcement.
• To be confirmed (TBC) suggests that a decision has been made, but is awaiting final (formal) confirmation from authorities and/or organizers.
• To be determined (TBD) designates that the appropriateness, feasibility, or location of a given event is yet to be assessed.

The reason I bring this up is because ESCSamuel has constantly added TBD for Russia on Eurovision Song Contest 2015, despite there being no sources to verify this - although logic prevails that Russia have until 16 March anyway. But in this case I think the abbreviation should be TBA (to be announced) which would protect us from original research on the basis that we cannot find a source explicitly from Russia, but using logic that Russia have until 16 March (EBU head of delegation meeting) to announce their participant. The same applies for he United Kingdom, which shows TBD 7 March. The BBC already decided their representative in February, but are making the public announcement/reveal on 7 March - which would practically make that be TBA (to be announced). Do members feel we should be using the correct terminology on these cases?

• To be determined (TBD) for national selection which the representative decision is based on a public vote
• To be announced (TBA) for internal selections which the representative has already been determined by the national broadcaster, but the "announcement" has yet to be made.

Does this sound reasonable and something that could be used from now and in years to come?Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 21:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

To me TBA, is something like the UK right now, they have an artist, but they've not announced who it is. TBD for me is something like a national final with multiple artists competing, with the winner being determined from a public/jury vote. I hope that makes sense, but that's how I've always imagined it like anyway, but I could be wrong. -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 21:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

That's the same way as I see it too, AxG. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 21:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Of the remaining countries for ESC 2015 we have:

• Internal announcements - Belgium, Russia, Montenegro, San Marino, Azerbaijan, Poland, Australia, and United Kingdom: which have already been selected internally, but the official announcement on that decision is yet "to be announced" - we use TBA.
• National selections - Romania, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Austria: which are "to be determined" by a voting system - we use TBD.

Would anyone have objections to these being changed with immediate effect on Eurovision 2015 article? Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 22:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it matters too much, but Wikipedia wouldn't be Wikipedia without concerning itself with technicalities. I'm happy with this proposed system of distinguishing TBA/TBD. CT Cooper · talk 22:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I've been bold and made the changes. However, I am aware that consensus can change, so if anyone disagrees with the change then feel free to make those concerns known here and then discussions on how such changes can be made. I've also simplified the citations for already selected song and artists. We were adding citations next to each one as they were selected. But I have discovered that eurovision.tv were updating their respective pages for both semis and the final, so I've used them on the country/artist/song columns - this should make life easier and reduce the need to cite each selected participant/song as they happen, as the EBU will have updated their citations in due course, which in turn updates the cited ref we use. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 23:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Merging of all winners templates

There are three templates dedicated to Eurovision winners:

1. {{Winning performers of the Eurovision Song Contest}}
2. {{Winning songs of the Eurovision Song Contest}} and
3. {{Winning songwriters of the Eurovision Song Contest}}.

Following the success with similar merges of various other Eurovision navigational templates that combined multiple types into a more manageable all-in-one version, I hereby propose the same method for these three. Such merger will make it much easier to maintain and update one template, rather than 3 separate ones. Plus it also reduces the number of templates required; and enables us to have an all-in-one template covering what is simply the same topic - List of Eurovision Song Contest winners. The new template name that I propose is {{List of Eurovision Song Contest winners}} which will contain information on winning countries, songs, performers, and songwriters - and the mock-up example can be found here. Any objections or views on this proposal? If there is a reasonable amount of support for this to go ahead, then I shall page-move the mock-up design and rollout the new version using AWB. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 15:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea and I'm happy to carry out the admin side of the merger if there are no objections raised. The draft at User:Wesley Mouse/sandbox/3 looks good to me. CT Cooper · talk 18:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

@CT Cooper: I've been bold and copied the work from my sandbox into the new template space, and AWB'd the changes. There are a few redirected template names that perhaps could do with being deleted.

• Template:Eurovision winning compiosers
• Template:Eurovision winning composers
• Template:Eurovision winning songwriters
• Template:Eurovision winners
• Template:Eurovision Winning Songs
• Template:Eurovision winning songs

As for the previous templates, they may require a HistMerge into the new version, or deleted.

• Template:Winning songwriters of the Eurovision Song Contest → Template:Winning performers of the Eurovision Song Contest; then
• Template:Winning performers of the Eurovision Song Contest → Template:Winning songs of the Eurovision Song Contest; then
• Template:Winning songs of the Eurovision Song Contest → Template:List of Eurovision Song Contest winners.

Merging the history like this should (I hope) keep all the history of the 3 previous versions in tact on the newer version. If that is possible. I will do the same format for the Junior Eurovision winners template. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 18:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Wes. I've history merged the three old template. I'll leave the old re-directs for now as a bot should come along and repair them automatically. I'll check them again tomorrow just to be safe. CT Cooper · talk 21:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Chris. I've finished the work and rollout of {{List of Junior Eurovision Song Contest winners}} too, so its predecessor {{Junior Eurovision Song Contest winners}} may also require a HistMerge. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 21:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Good work. The history was moved over when you moved the template for that one so no further action is needed. CT Cooper · talk 22:06, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I forgot it did that. I feel pooped and ready for a coffee refill after the busy day I've had on here. Updating templates; rolling them out; intervening in a 3RR dispute between 2 editors over at edit warring noticeboard, plus offering to and finally doing a re-write of the copied text on an article; and creating new articles too. It's a tiresome life being a Wikipedian, lol. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 22:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I've gone over all the left over re-directs and everything is in order. If there are any further issues, please let me know.. CT Cooper · talk 23:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Kosovo as part of Yugoslavia

• 
• 
• 

Hey guys! I think that we need color Kosovo in JESC and ESC maps with purple. Purple in out maps is a color of «Countries which have competed in the contest as a part of another country, but never as a sovereignty.» I think, that right way is displaying Kosovo, because it participated in ESC as part of Yugoslavia, and in JESC as part of Serbia and Montenegro (at this time Kosovo have'nt independence). Same result we see in EYM map and EYD maps. I think it is right. If we have this criteria (purple color) that we need to color Kosovo on this maps. What do you say about it? ← Alex Great ^talk_rus? 11:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Additional question if "agree": Maybe we need to color Kosovo with hatches? I don't know, Kosov eligable to participate? If yes, that, I think, we need color it to hatched purple-grey (purple as part of Yugoslavia and grey with not-eligable (same way I did with Australia). ← Alex Great ^talk_rus? 11:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Kosovo participated at the Eurovision Young Dancers 2011. Why change the map style, when the previous way of using an insert to show Yugoslavia works well. As the quote says - if it isn't broken, don't fix it. Changing the legend meanings will cause mass-confusion. Currently green is for countries who have selected their representative. Yellow is for countries who have participated in the past. Purple is for confirmed countries. Giving all these colours new meanings, will just get confusing. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 11:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

  No no, Wes. My mistake about EYD. This map is right. I mean other maps. ← Alex Great ^talk_rus? 11:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• I'm starting to have a bit of a problem here too. I thought that if we have a proposal of change, that we discuss it first to reach a consensus to see if the change is favourable, then implement any changes on the maps. Not make the changes anyway, then propose it. It comes across as force-feeding people the change and telling us that it has to be that way or no way. Any changes already done to the maps should be reverted for now, then allow the discussions to take place. And if there is support for the proposed changes, only then do we change the map. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 11:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

  You probably understand me incorrectly. ← Alex Great ^talk_rus? 11:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• No I understand you perfectly. You have an idea. Yet you have made the changes and then come here to discuss the proposal. When you should really discuss the proposal, and then make the changes if there is a consensus of support for the proposed changes. Maybe you're thinking too eagerly, and not looking at the bigger impact such changes will cause. Kosovo would have to be three-way hatched, to show the following:

1. EYD - Green as Kosovo competed in their own right at EYD 2011, and also as part of Yugoslavia (1987–1991). Purple, as they have not competed as part of Serbia. And grey as they are not eligible to compete.
2. EYM - Green as Kosovo competed as part of Yugoslavia (1986–1992), as part of Serbia and Montenegro (2006), and as part of Serbia (2008–2014). Purple, as they have not competed as a sovereignty. And grey as they are not eligible to compete.
3. ESC - Green as Kosovo competed as part of Yugoslavia (1961–1992), as part of Serbia and Montenegro (2004–2006), and as part of Serbia (2007–2015). Purple, as they have not competed as a sovereignty. And grey as they are not eligible to compete.
4. JESC - Green as Kosovo competed as part of Serbia and Montenegro (2005), and as part of Serbia (2006–2014). Purple, as they have not competed as a sovereignty. And grey as they are not eligible to compete.

See the confusion, the complexity, and havoc such changes will cause. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 11:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. You understand me incorrectly. Why we will hatch it with 3 stripes? We have a special key for it:

  Countries which have competed in the contest as a part of another country (Yugoslavia), but never as a sovereignty.

It means that Kosovo must be hatched only 2 stripes, because:

1. EYD - Kosovo participates as sovereignty (and can eligable to participate in EYD) in EYD 2011. Full Green. No hatches.
2. EYM - Kosovo participates as part of Yugoslavia, S&M, and Serbia, but never as sovereignty. Hatched purple+grey (not eligable, maybe). Hatches.
3. ESC - Kosovo participates as part of Yugoslavia, S&M, and Serbia, but never as sovereignty. Hatched purple+grey (not eligable, maybe). Hatches.
4. JESC - Kosovo participates as part of S&M, and Serbia, but never as sovereignty. Hatched purple+grey (not eligable, maybe). Hatches.

I think this is right way. ← Alex Great ^talk_rus? 12:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Not quite me misunderstanding you; but vice verse. Kosovo was part of Yugoslavia prior to the Balkan break-up, yes? So Kosovo would be coloured purple to show they competed as part of Yugoslavia, but not in their own right. Kosovo was part of Serbia and Montenegro too, yes? So Kosovo would be coloured purple to show this, for the same reason as Yugoslavia. Kosovo was part of Serbia, yes? So again, Kosovo would be coloured purple to show yet again the sovereignty issue. Kosovo is now a "self-declared" independent country, but not eligible to compete in their won right, so would need to be coloured grey. But Kosovo have also competed in their own right at EYD, so they would need to be coloured green to show this. So yes, there would be a three-way hatched scheme on Kosovo. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 12:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

To simplify this matter. Yugoslavia, once a nation, consisted of several territories - Kosovo being one of them. So Kosovo have taken participated, but as part of Yugoslavia - so they this would need to be shown using green on Kosovo. Then the region was part of SM, again green as SM participated. Kosovo was then part of Serbia, again green, as they participated. Kosovo breaks away from Serbia. Now Kosovo would need purple to show they have participated as part of another country, green to show they have competed, and gry to show they are not eligible to compete in their own right. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 12:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

If you feel that I am not understanding you properly, shows that this proposal is causing confusion already. So imagine how others will get confused if it becomes an implemented change. On that basis, it be best to go back to the drawing board, reassess the ideas, and come back with a clearer proposal. In the meantime, reverse any changes that have already been made, without any agreement from others for such changes to have been implemented. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 12:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I would like to hear other users in this regard. The disagreement between the two parties can not lead to a consensus. ← Alex Great ^talk_rus? 07:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Hatched would be a good option IMHO. In general map-making this is often used to indicate a conflict situation. And this could apply to different areas within Europe that are somehow contested (ie parts of Moldova, Ukraine, Turkish Cyprus). In this context a green-grey combination would seem appropriate if they have participated in any contest - if they haven't it should simply be grey. This way a lengthy discussion on sovereignty can be avoided - as that really has no place here. Karst (talk) 09:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Australia hatched

Evidence that you have just made a change without seeking consensus for is visible at File:EurovisionParticipants.svg, in which you wrote in the revision history "Australia is a Special Guest Country in the 60th Anniversary of Eurovision Song Contest. Australia are not eligible to participate in the contest. And I hatched it". That is the wrong way to propose a change. It's like putting the Cart before the horse - and by that I mean, the cart wouldn't pull the horse, its the horse that pull the cart. Same idiom applied here - you don't make a change, then see consensus. You seek consensus, and then make the change. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 12:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

And for Australia:

1. ESC - Australia participates only one time as guest country, and it not eligable to participate by current rules of contest. Hatched green+grey (participates as sovereignty + not eligable). Hatches. ← Alex Great ^talk_rus? 12:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll move my original comment about Australia into its correct time-line position. Placing a reply directly about it was not the correct method. Yes, Australia have competed as a guest, but not eligible to continue for an indefinite period. But you cannot go changing the colour to a hatched version without seeking consensus first. These maps are not just being used on English Wikiepdia, but are used across multiple language Wikipedias. So such sole-handed change by yourself, without a wider community support is unacceptable. If there are other maps that you have changed without a wider community support, then I strongly urge you self-revert those changes, and then put forward a clear worded proposal of change, and see if people support or oppose it. And whatever that majority outcome is, will determine whether a change is necessary or not. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 12:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Again, I see only the differences between the two parties. 2 users - this is not the whole community. I would like to listen other users. As for the community: what are the boundaries of the community? Only the English Wikipedia? Commons? We do not have a single place where we could discuss such matters (if we do not do this on Commons). Many language sections did not even watch the progress of the file changes. With regard to changes in Australia: you cancel editing just because you annoyed that I did not talk about it with you? Or because I did wrong editing? This is also an important factor. If, for example, all users of the English Wikipedia will be against of this change, and all other Wikipedias will agree. Can this be considered a consensus? How can we ever talk about consensus when we do not discuss this fully with all project users of Eurovision or concerned with these people? "Consensus adopted by the community" means a kind of agreement among the three active cartographers (Alex, Wes, AxG)? This is wrong. We can also discuss and historical changes started by me on the maps of Europe's past: changes in the borders of Israel, insertion of West Berlin. When I started to work on this, I was guided by "so it will be better." Then I noticed how AxG also began to supplement and correct some countries. This means that he caught my idea about the historical boundaries of countries and adopted it. It was the consensus? Two users make edits without discussion with the "community" - is that correct? It is likely that if you followed these changes, then you would have canceled them all and start discussing. Many of the changes, I believe, does not need to be discussed. It makes no sense to discuss any detail. Even hatching of Kosovo and Australia is a trifle. The essence of Wikipedia is not a correct display of the participating countries of Eurovision, the essence of Wikipedia is filling of articles. Images is a tertiary or quaternary factor for articles.
As for discussions with the community very hard for me to communicate with you in a foreign language to me. It would be much easier to talk to you about it in Russian, and then I was able to lucidly explain my position. But, unfortunately, here I can not convince you because of the language barrier. ← Alex Great ^talk_rus? 07:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@Alex Great: what the hell are you on about? And why are you putting words into my mouth that I have not said? I have never implied that discussion between 2 users (yourself and I) are classified as a "community consensus". What I have said is that we need more users to participate in order to reach a "community consensus". Another thing you need to remember is that not all language Wikipedia need to use the same map file. If the Russia Wiki wanted to make their own version to use on their articles, then they are allowed to. They don't have to rely on using the Inter-Wiki-wide version that is at commons and is used on English Wiki amongst others. The file itself was created by English Wiki, and uploaded at commons. SO in answer to your question of where we would discuss such matters, then that would be English Wikipedia or at Commons - although one should also take note that not every user visits Commons, so you would find it harder to reach any sort of consensus.

"Consensus adopted by the community" is only something connected with WP:CONSENSUS - an English Wikipedia guideline. I do not know if the other language Wikipedia's have similar guidelines - but if they did, then I would have thought they too would only be connected with their respective Wikipedia's. I'm not aware of a consensus ruling that covers across all of Wikimedia.

And I do wish you would stop with casting false accusations about myself. To say "Australia: you cancel editing just because you annoyed that I did not talk about it with you" is a bad faith assumption to make. Have you forgotten that we are to assume good faith? The fact I reverted the change, was and still is by any other user, the correct procedure to have undergone. You should not have made the change anyway, not without discussing the proposal with the rest of the community - and you could have done that on the file's talk page. The way you did it was wrong and sly in the implementing of changes. I gave a valid explanation about this. Would you put a cart before a horse and expect the cart to pull the horse? No! You would put the horse before the cart, so that the horse can pull the cart. That method is applicable here too. We don't make a change, and then seek consensus on if such changes should be made. You seek consensus of a proposal, and then make such changes if a consensus is reached or if there have been no comments of objection after a reasonable length of time. So the procedure you should have followed was to propose the change, not make it then ask questions later.

Just see the examples I did above at #Merging of all winners templates and #TBD vs TBA. I had a proposed idea of change. I used my sandbox so that people could see how the changes would look. I did not go ahead and make the change first on actual template space. I then put forward my proposal. People discussed. As there were no objections after a reasonable period of time, then I took the bold step to make the changes and rollout the new template. That is the correct way around of doing things. We discuss proposals first, then make changes afterwards. We do not make changes first, then seek consensus on whether they should be made. As that is just a waste of time and discussion, as a user will have single-handedly made the changes anyway, without a care of what other's may think. If there are other maps that you have changed without seeing if they are required, then the burden is on you to revert the actions, and wait to see if people want those changes to be made. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 13:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• There are other areas too if you wish to get a wider-community input on debates. Various places can be found at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests: including third opinion, opening a Wikipedia:Requests for comment, and dispute resolution. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 13:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Eurovision Song Contest entry

Just thought I'd say here whether anyone would object if the colour of Template:Infobox Eurovision Song Contest entry was changed from  #99CCCC  to  #BFDFFF  to match it up with the other templates? -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 21:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Consistency throughout wins my vote! Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 21:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Done. -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 21:52, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

EYD maps

Hello, I updated Eurovision Young Dancers maps for better Canada on it. Plz update all imagemaps (clickable canada zone) that used in EYD articles. I mean this imagemaps. ← Alex Great ^talk_rus? 11:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@AxG: I think this one calls for your expertise. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 12:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

All done! -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 12:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I need your opinion about this changes. Is it good version of Canada for EYD maps? Or maybe old (3 unknown peninsulas) Canada style was better? ← Alex Great ^talk_rus? 13:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

this new version actually shows Canada as a whole, that's a lot better than what was before, it's like have Cornwall rather than the UK has a whole. -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 14:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

It looks better than it use to do when it only shown partial Canadian landmass. This new change shows Canada as a whole country. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 14:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Eurovision Young Dancers winners table

On a different note, there is a big error made by Alex Great on the file Eurovision Young Dancers winners map. Alex, you changed Spain to show 6 wins, when Spain has only won 5 times (as shown at Eurovision Young Dancers#List of contests) when they won in 1985, 1991, 1993, 1995, and 1997. I'm wondering if you may have got confused with the fact Spain has won 6 medals (5 gold, and 1 bronze). I feel this needs to be fixed; but what is the colour used to depict 5 wins? Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 14:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Stop, Wes. This is not an error. Wait me... I found proof about that. ← Alex Great ^talk_rus? 15:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@Wesley Mouse: Spain wins 6 times, because 6th winning year is 1989 where was 4 winners (France, UK, Switzerland, Spain). ← Alex Great ^talk_rus? 15:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about this situation more information. I completed your request. ← Alex Great ^talk_rus? 16:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@Alex Great: You tell me to stop? Why? All I did was point out an error and noted why it was an error. What you say about 1989 is being misinterpreted and thus incorrectly attributing Spain as a winner. In 1989 there were 4 prizes issued; the two main prizes and two special prizes. First place "Contemporary Dance" went to France, while first place for Classical Ballet went to the UK. The awards for Switzerland and Spain were only "special prizes" similar to awarding second place to each category. This is also noted on the official website. So unfortunately your interpretation that Spain won in 1989 is incorrect. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 16:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• More evidence that Spain has not won 6 times. Look at the history table itself on that link, they have Spain with 4 victories in 1991, 1993, 1995, and 1997. Look at that information, we need to re-write the entire winners section on the main article to reflect all the winners correctly. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 16:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that you'll be want to update a map, and I said stop to you. Ok, maybe you right about 1989 winners. I don't know about that. But Official website also displayed, that Spain wins 4 times. And more countries never participated in the contest (countries that participated in pre-qualification round). I think Official Website is a non sorce of information. We need independed sources about that. So at this time I think, that we need a consensus about that, and I change map to version where Spain wins 6 times and Switzerland never wins. I think this problem is resolved. But what about participation of non-qulifiers that displayed in another Wikipedias? I don't know. Where is a soruces about corrected participants and his dances and dancers? ← Alex Great ^talk_rus? 10:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

To tell someone to "stop" is a little bit abrupt and not a nice thing to say to anyone who is clearly being helpful to resolve this issue. The official source is bound to be the most accurate source of content, especially if other secondary sources are contradicting each other - then we turn to the primary source for a more reliable and accurate account of information. Establishing a consensus on this is not required, as common-sense would show that Wikipedia would rely on a primary source if other secondary sources have conflicting information. @CT Cooper: do you have any views on this? Would it be right to rely on what the EBU's official site shows as victory records, when other sources are conflicting with each other? Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 12:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Since the EBU run the contest and will thereby know what they're talking about, it seems reasonable to defer to them when sources contradict. One could possibly justify mentioning that other sources say different things, though my feeling is that this issue is too trivial for that i.e. it isn't a major point of controversy. CT Cooper · talk 12:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused as to why there is a 'gold, silver, bronze' medal count for the winners section anyway. The contest isn't exactly the Olympic Games or Commonwealth Games. And there are prizes issued for different categories. That section needs a complete rewrite, to take into account the different prizes, and how many times a country has gained a victory. That way we are inline with the data held by the EBU; which is more reliable and accurate, than all of the conflicting information from secondary sources. Once that is done, then the map itself can be re-looked at. As for what other language Wikipedias do, is there business at the end of the day. This is a problem that I have noticed ever since I joined Wikipedia; other languages use the same map files as English Wikipedia. And then we encounter file update disputes when another Wikipedia challenges any updates that English Wiki do and vice versa. What I shall do when I get a spare moment, it to review the article, and do a complete re-write. If all the other language versions of Wikipedia then wish to follow suit, then that is there choice. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 17:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Per the Official Format & Rules of the contest, 15 acts have won the title of Eurovision Young Dancer, since the inaugural contest in 1985. Spain hold the record for the most number of victories (four in total). SO the entire silver and bronze column on the parent article needs to be abolished as the rules do not mention the awarding of such "medals". What we need to be doing is follow the style format from other Eurovision events, such as ESC, JESC, and all the others. Just list the countries, when they made their début; when they withdrew (if they have done so); when they returned (if they had done so); the national broadcaster; and the number of victories. Simple enough and accurate according to the information that is readily available. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 17:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• @Alex Great: and @CT Cooper: - just a quick update on this situation and to inform you both that I have now completed a full re-write and restructuring of both Eurovision Young Dancers and its counterpart contest Eurovision Young Musicians. Both their official websites state in the "about the contest" that both contests are "connected" to each other. I'm guessing it is the "young" in the title that connects them. Anyhow, feel free to check both articles and share feedback at your leisure. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 10:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

  I've had a look. Certainly I believe both articles look a lot better now. I haven't found anything to complain about just yet! CT Cooper · talk 22:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Eurovision national final

Whilst browsing the Melodifestivalen 2015, I came across {{Infobox Eurovision national final}}, it seems this template got lost in the restructuring of the templates above, it's only used in around 50 articles, but, the fields used are too similar {{Infobox song contest}} with only {{{quarter}}} being the difference, so I propose that this is merged with Infobox song contest. -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 21:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd nom for TfD and would happily support its demise. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 23:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm happy to support a merger. CT Cooper · talk 23:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Merger sounds good too. I hereby pronounced {{Infobox Eurovision national final}} and {{Infobox song contest}} a happily married infobox couple. lol. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 00:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Although probably not strictly necessary given the little originality in the old template, I have taken the liberty of merging in the histories of both the documentation and the template itself, with appropriate re-directs created and tagged. CT Cooper · talk 13:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox song contest entry

So originally {{Infobox song contest entry}} within the {{Infobox single}} forced the fields to be centred, and so I've added left tags to "Infobox song contest entry" which sorts this problem out (e.g. Lonely Planet (song)), however, it does not seem to be working right with multiple names in the field at the moment (e.g. Face the Shadow). So still work in progress. -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 19:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Fixed! -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 22:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renaming the United Kingdom's National Final page

The United Kingdom has been using internal selections since 2011 now. Isn't it time to change the name and first photo of the page Eurovision: Your Country Needs You? This years internal selection presentation show was called "Our Song for Eurovision 2015". Surely this should count as the most modern name for the United Kingdom's national Finals/selection process? And shouldn't the official logo of "Our Song for Eurovision 2015" be used as the photo that sits in the top right information box? - Karl, (Talk: Karl) 11:18pm, 1 April 2015 (GMT) — Preceding undated comment added 22:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I think you are getting confused slightly. Eurovision: Your Country Needs You was a national selection, with the outcome determined by a public vote. Our Song for Eurovision 2015, was an internal selection, and not a "national selection" show. Secondly, you've brought this topic to the wrong page. I'm guessing you haven't seen all the previous debates at Talk:Eurovision: Your Country Needs You? Nearly all of the proposals got rejected. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 22:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Requesting review of Eurovision Song Contest 1998

I know I need more sources, but, in the words of Basil Fawlty, "otherwise OK"? Spa-Franks (talk) 22:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Pan Celtic Festival

Resolved

 – Template has been deleted. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 10:38, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Template:Pan Celtic Festival has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. According to its talk page, the template is part of this WikiProject. Scolaire (talk) 08:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Review of BuViSoCo sandbox articles

Yes this is WikiProject Eurovision - although we've expanded to other song contests. But I'm asking if anyone could review some sandbox articles that I've created for the Bundesvision Song Contest.

Template • 2005 • 2006 • 2007 • 2008 • 2009 • 2010 • 2011 • 2012 • 2013 • 2014 • 2015

Thanks. -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 18:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Since I've had no replies in the last couple of days, I've gone ahead and moved them to the article space, but I still would like help in improving the articles as well incoming links from songs, artists etc. to the articles. -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 19:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@AxG: they look well good. Yes, this project has expanded considerably with its contest scope - and the ABU have announced a new show entitled "ABU Dancing Festival"; yet another contest for us to watch lol. I'm starting to wonder though, if we need to be looking down the path of setting up task forces to deal with the different types of events? Such as Task Force EBU; Task for ABU. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 10:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

RM at Eres tú (Mocedades song)

Resolved

 – Article has been moved. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 10:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Eres tú (Mocedades song)#Requested move 3 May 2015, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Scolaire (talk) 13:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

"Current event" field in Infobox song contest country

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

FIFA World Cup

Founded	1930
Region	International (FIFA)
Number of teams	32 (finals) 209 (eligible to enter qualification)
Current champions	Germany (4th title)
Most successful team(s)	Brazil (5 titles)
2018 FIFA World Cup qualification

I would propose to add the field |current= to the "Song contest country" infobox. I thought it could look something like the "Infobox football tournament" when finished (the last field here on the right) and could then say "<Countryname> in the 2015 Eurovision Song Contest" with maybe a microphone (this one for example) and the current event clock (here) as an icon. I tried to make one, which you will find below, but if someone has a better idea, please share it :).

The finished infobox text could then look like this:

Australia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2015
Doing this, we wouldn't have to add the {{About||Australia's most recent participation|Australia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2015}} template to the beginning of every article. Please tell me your opinions. --Rayukk (talk) 09:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Looks nice! I think this is a good change and would streamline the creation of new articles. We would need to decide how long this would be placed on the article/s for though. – Hshook (talk) 11:33, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

• I support this proposal. Looks kinda cute in a "current event infobox" kinda of way. As for how long it would be on display, well that is simple to be honest. We already use {{current}} at the top of annual Eurovision articles, which is displayed from the day of semifinal 1 to the day after the grand final; so this time-frame would be logical. Also would it not be a good idea to add the same parameter to {{Infobox song contest}} as well as the proposal of adding it to {{Infobox song contest country}}? Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 12:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

- Where would the {{Infobox song contest}} point? I don't think it would fit in there, because the "song contest" template is basically only used in the yearly articles for the song contests (e.g. Eurovision Song Contest 2015). The "Eurovision Song Contest" article itself uses the infobox television show template, so if we used it in the infobox song contest template, it would just link to itself (i guess..). Rayukk (talk) 19:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

• I also support the proposal, of which I've made a test in my sandboxes, with the template here: User:AxG/sandbox/6, and a test example at User:AxG/sandbox/7, which uses | Current = Year -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 19:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

-Looks great! Rayukk (talk) 19:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I have added the parameter to the infobox. Check it → {{Infobox song contest country}} --Rayukk (talk) 22:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

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

@Rayukk: the coding for the new parameter will be more complexed than just getting it to add "in the Eurovision Song Contest" like you have done. That infobox is a universal template used not just on ESC articles, but on JESC, Turkvizyon, ABU Song Festivals. The current parameter will need some complexed coding so that we can also use "current" on other song contest articles. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 22:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

In my test above I did make sure that "in the Eurovision Song Contest" could be bypassed with the {{{Competition|}}} field with anything else, which did make it in the template. -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 22:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh so it does. Well then, it looks great. Well done folks! Wikibeers all-round. One question though. Do we need to update the template documentation with all these new parameters, so that people know A) they exist, and B) what their functionality is? Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 23:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Rayukk did update the template with the "Current=" field, but we could add these updates to the newsletter, and I'm pretty sure I'll be around next year when the new fields go live. -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 23:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Newsletter, good idea. I'll add it in the next edition. As for next year, I'll be around-ish. Planning on going to Sweden for ESC2016. Might as well attend my first ever one in my lifetime lol. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 23:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

SRG SSR listed at Requested moves

Resolved

 – Article has been moved. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 10:36, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for SRG SSR to be moved to Swiss Broadcasting Corporation. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Eurovision 2017 listed at Redirects for discussion

Resolved

 – All detailed articles have been deleted. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 10:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Eurovision 2017. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Tavix | Talk  18:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Armenia's voting at the Eurovision Song Contest for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Armenia's voting at the Eurovision Song Contest is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armenia's voting at the Eurovision Song Contest until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Other articles with similar contest have also been bundled into the deletion nomination. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 13:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Points awarded by...

Resolved

Can anyone else see the difference between this and this? I've removed the "width=20%" from the 2015 country articles due to it (for me) adding a line break for "12 points" and "10 points" which ugly. -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 17:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I like the second version. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 10:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

So you also see the break in text in the first version? -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 15:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I see no break in text in either versions. But having the table width like it was in the first version gave the table itself too much "empty space" between the text and the right-end of the table. The second version keeps them compact and neater. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 16:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest.--Lucas559 (talk) 22:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposed colouring changes to scoreboard and standardisation

Continuing on from a discussion that I started at Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2015#Jury & televote colours etc. The proposal is to remove the unneeded use of green for the 50/50 Jury & Televote and use the default table background colouring, change the 100% Televoting colour from  #F88017  to  #FFB36F , and change the 100% Jury colour from  #659EC7  to  #A4D1EF .

Old example from 2015:

Voting procedure used:   50% Jury & televote   100% Jury vote   100% Televoting

Proposed example for 2015:

Voting procedure used:   50% Jury & televote   100% Jury vote   100% Televoting

This will also help since these colours are not standard. Eurovision Song Contest 2003 currently uses  #FF9F9F  for televoting (default) and  #9F9FFF  for jury vote; Eurovision Song Contest 2003 adds  #CF9FCF  for a 50/50 Jury and televote. Eurovision Song Contest 2000 currently uses  #FFD700  for televoting (default) and  #9F9FFF  for jury vote. -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 20:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

• I fully support the proposal and loving the colour scheme. They are not as brash to the eye. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 20:47, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
• I agree too, way better to read and it doesn't sting the eye at the first glance. Rayukk (talk) 09:23, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
• I fully support this, but I think there needs to be a light green/other colour for 50/50, to keep the equal hierarchical prominence of each type. – Hshook (talk) 11:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd oppose the implementation of green for the 50/50 split; it would just be overkill of colour usage and overly-decorative. Keeping the 50/50 in its default grey colour is enough. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 12:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The main reason I began this proposal was for the green to go, so it's something I won't change. -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 16:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I just feel that having some with colour and some without draws unnecessary focus. Maybe we could try putting the green in, and toning all the colours down even more, or using a colour less bright, maybe a yellow. – Hshook (talk) 16:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Coming back to this after 10 days, and suggesting something else, and using [1] and [2] etc without colours? Although I prefer my suggesting above.

Voting procedure used: 50% Jury & televote [1] 100% Jury vote [2] 100% Televoting			[1]	[2]

-- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 07:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem with the [1] and [2]s, but my number one preference would be for something like this, with a toned-down green like  #A4EAA9  instead of a grey:

Voting procedure used:   50% Jury & televote   100% Jury vote   100% Televoting

– Hshook (talk) 07:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

To which I'm not moving on the fact that the green is not needed. -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 17:49, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm happy to discuss this with you (and whoever is interested), but a blunt response of "no" doesn't help. You don't have a veto on ideas (nobody does), and consensus is the goal. I would like to hear your response to my arguments above (about hierarchy). – Hshook (talk) 18:46, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Another option, with a slither of colour, the problem being this would add more code, but can be solved if put in a template.

Voting procedure used:   50% Jury & televote   100% Jury vote   100% Televoting

-- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 19:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks great! :) – Hshook (talk) 20:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm still not overly thrilled at the use of green. Why three colours? I see it as overkill, over-decoration, and Wikipedia is not about having an article all beautifully coloured and decorated. That's why there are guides and policies to avoid all that stuff. For example, WP:COLOUR encourages us to keep accessibility in mind and avoid colour-blindness. So keep it simple: if the votes are 50/50 split, then no need to "pretty it up" with a colour of its own right. Neutrality is best. And as they also say "less is more". Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 10:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't thought about the colourblindness issue. I do like the small bars of colour, perhaps we could replace the green bar with the grey, or get rid of it entirely? – Hshook (talk) 10:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Well getting rid of the green entirely (as originally proposed by AxG (talk · contribs)) would in effect make it grey anyway. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 10:34, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@Hshook and AxG: have we made any further progress on this issue? I had been thinking about it a little more, and read the colour blindness article in more depth. According to the article, the most common colours affected by people with the disorder are: red & green, blue & yellow, and black & white. Now the choice of colours proposed above are green, blue, and orange; with grey also mentioned. Seeing as green and blue are 2 of the main colours blindness affected by people, then we should try and avoid these (just to show resolvability to our colour-blind readers). Seeing as shades of brown are the only colour that do not seem to be an issue with sufferers of colour-blindness, then maybe looking into that spectrum of colours is worth testing out? (see example below):

Voting procedure used:   50% Jury & televote   100% Jury vote   100% Televoting

The colours used are:  #660000 ,  #996600 , and  #CCCC66 . What do you think? Does it work? Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 00:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I now realise that this is all very minor and I shouldn't have placed as much opposition to the changes as I did, and for that I apologise. So I now have no opposition to ditching the green if that is what people agree to. I'm unsure as to the suitability of the browns you mention as (although practical) they aren't very pretty. If we get rid of the green, and replace it with the regular template-grey. then we have a blue-orange split which I don't think would be too much of a problem for colourblind viewers as far as I understand. I do like the slivers of colour rather than the whole box being coloured, it's very minimal. – Hshook (talk) 07:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

@Hshook: colour-blindness is a complex topic, in all fairness. There are several types of colour blindness, with the most common ones being people who cannot tell the difference between red/green, blue/yellow/orange, and black/white/grey. When they view these colours, they don't see them as a normal person would do. They see them completely different, and sometimes as the same colour all together. As orange would be used alongside blue, then we may cause an issue with people who suffer blue/yellow/orange aspect of the disorder. We also need to remember that we are not here to make things look "pretty", but we are to make thinks accessible (which is what WP:COLOUR advises us to do). That was why the shades of brown (a colour that is distinctive with both people who suffer with colour-blindness and people who see colours normally) would be the logical choice to make. It makes brown, a somewhat universal colour between both sides of the disorder. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 10:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I know what colour-blindness is, but I also know that everyone can distinguish between a light colour and a dark colour. Having a set of (hideous) browns going from light to dark is fairly pointless because that could easily be a light-to-dark blue sequence, or green or pink or whatever. It's accessible either way. This is a sequential thing we're talking about, being a 0%-50%-100% split, so a sequential colour order would be appropriate. My vote is with blue or green as they are the least offensive to the eye. – Hshook (talk) 10:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

e.g.  #003387 ,  #6684B7 ,  #C1CDE2  – Hshook (talk) 10:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

@Hshook: browns may be hideous to one, but not so hideous to another. That just boils down to personal preferences - something that can comes across as pointy. Remember what WP:COLOUR notes, and you also agreed that you were unaware of the guidance. Also, blues and greens are the common colours that can cause difficulties for sufferers of colour-blindness. Swaying towards them is not exactly being helpful to those people now is it? And the example of blues used is like saying to a colour-blind sufferer "don't give a f**k if you can't see blue, I'm using it anyway because it looks pretty and I can see blue - ner ner". Of all te colours effected by colour-blindness, brown is the only one that doesn't cause issue with either type of people, whether they suffer with colour-blindness or not. Thus making the colour more universal in that respect. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 12:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding my point. I'm using only one colour specifically to suit colourblind people. The colour blue doesn't just disappear for people who are colourblind – that's what it appears you're claiming (to me). I'm talking in shades rather than distinct colours, the relative darkness of each colour is distinguishable no matter how you actually perceive the colour. Also blue is used throughout the site, for example links, the design of the edit toolbar, the logos of Wikimedia projects (etc), so blue is much more appropriate than brown which is not used anywhere substantial. – Hshook (talk) 13:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

@Hshook: I think you may be misunderstanding the entire point of what Wikipedia is all about. We're not here to make things look "pretty", we are here voluntarily to provide encyclopaedic content, that is easily accessible to every type of person, taking into account equality and disability. And I have never claimed that the colour blue just "disappears"; so I am somewhat perplexed as to how you interpreted me in saying such, when I never made any reference to the fact. Blue–yellow coluor blindness (a.k.a tritanomaly) are people who have difficulty discriminating between bluish and greenish hues, as well as yellowish and reddish hues. Someone who has tritanomaly, would see the blue, green, yellow, and red hues as all being the exact same colour. So using green for 50/50 split vote, blue for 1000% jury, and orange for 100% televote, would make all those colours look exactly the same, and so they would not be able to distinguish which colour code was for which voting type. Same distinguishing issues would occur if we use the blue shading (per your example); or shades of green, yellow, and red. A sufferer would just not know if Albania were 100% jury/televote, or 50/50 split vote. Brown on the other-hand, is the only colour that is not effected by anyone, so the colour-blind sufferer would clearly see the difference and be able to distinguish the voting types. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 14:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• @AxG: I have done a test with one of your examples above, which can be found at Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2014#Scoreboard. Hopefully this should give a feel of how it would look if rolled out live across all the other articles. Wes Mouse ✒ 11:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Article importance guidelines not being followed

From a scan of #Statistics, there seem to be many articles mislabeled with the wrong importance levels; examples include Believe in Me (Bonnie Tyler song) and Conchita Wurst being labeled as mid-importance when the guidelines suggest low. Should I or someone else go through and rearrange all of these properly, or would it be a better idea to discuss realignment of the importance scale? (Also, this is entirely unrelated, but this page's archive box overlaps the table of contents.) —烏Γ ^(kaw), 20:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

@KarasuGamma: Feel free to be bold and make the corrections according to the project's importance scale. Wes Mouse ✒ 10:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

This isn't strictly related to this work, but I've come across another question worth asking. Are some of the articles about broadcaster's individual channels within the project's scope, even if the contest isn't mentioned anywhere in the article, and thus it's unclear whether they're not a channel that officially carries ESC? Examples include DR1 and Eén. —烏Γ ^(kaw), 07:03, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

It is the broadcasting corporations that would come under scope, not the channels within the respective networks. So for example, BBC is the main corporation name and would be under scope. BBC One, BBC Two, are the channels belonging to the corporation, and therefore would not come under the scope. Wes Mouse ✒ 09:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Abolishment of Future-class from the project quality assessment scale

I have recently done a sweep through Wikipedia:WikiProject Eurovision/Assessment doing my routine assessment checks; and it dawned on me that the Future-Class Eurovision articles are not being tagged accordingly. We either forget to tag them to note a future event, or forget to untag them after the event has occurred. So I'm wondering if we as a project should abolish the use of the future class, and just use the standard quality classifications instead. Feel free to share support, oppose, or any views and comments on this that you may have. Thanks. Wes Mouse ✒ 18:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I am torned. In one way Future class could just as well be removed. But in another way it could be useful if used correctly. I think personally anyway that the Future tag could just as well be removed.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:11, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

They were introduced a long time ago by myself with the consent of other editors on grounds that articles on upcoming contests change so quickly that using the normal assessment scale was not appropriate. Introducing a Current-class was also considered, though this was rejected as the contests themselves never last that long. As of now, I don't have a strong opinion on the existance of Future-class, though I have noted in the past that this class has been underused. That said, I'm generally inclined to keep the status quo as while abolishing Future-class may remove one problem, it will re-introduce the old one that led to its introduction in the first place. CT Cooper · talk 16:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

List of countries in the Eurovision Song Contest

Can members please take a look at List of countries in the Eurovision Song Contest, this being a Wikipedia:Featured lists article, it seems to have introduced the EuroHearts, which the Project rejected on using. -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 19:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you, AxG. The usage of EuroHearts in that manner goes against WP:ICONDECORATION. I have restored the article back to its most recent stable version. Wes Mouse ✒ 10:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The editor who added that content recently put it back by creating Eurovision Song Contest records, which I've PROD-ed. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw), 01:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Creator removed my PROD, of course, so I've AfD'd it here. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw), 19:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Marie Serneholt

The upcoming week Serneholts article will appear as TAFI article of the week. For all members of the project and other interested users to edit and improve. --BabbaQ (talk) 17:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Propose restructure of Infobox song contest

I feel that Template:Infobox song contest is organized awkwardly and buries some of the more pertinent information.

• The winner is the second bit of data from the bottom, and though it is mentioned in the lead of that contest's article, it should be moved up and made more prominent as a defining feature of that contest. Even any awards of nul points are listed above the winner.
• I doubt that "Vote" needs a separate section. The two parameters I mentioned above could be worked to fit into the "Participation" box, which might be renamed to include "and Result", with the voting system line being placed at the bottom there.
• Is it significant enough to any given contest which entrants have returned or withdrawn, and therefore necessary to mention in the infobox as well as the prose?
• There is a notice regarding the potential to convert directly into a derivative of Template:Infobox. Is this viable, and can it be carried out to a noticeable benefit?

—⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 05:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree the winner should appear higher, being the highlight and reason for a contest. Similar principle example is the featured yearly Academy Awards with the infobox introducing the pertinent winner - "Best picture" as first parameter for "Highlight" section. However, I view ESC as based on general countries-field picture, so I tend to view returns/withdrawals as vital relevance to "Participation" following "number of entries" parameter. Overall I support merging winner+voting-system beneath it, to "Participation", but think beneath the debuts/returns/withdrawals. I don't see significance for "nul points" at the infobox, however, as it so happens (especially with old thin 1-3-5, 1-5 and 10 points distribution) that even 3-4 countries in edition don't collect any points and not much difference from last-places with mere few points. Mostly, causing an arbitrary "nul points: none" across all other editions articles.

Another thing - the "Dates" section is awkwardly-repetitive - "date"-wording and month+year for each semi and the final; repetition I also removed from lead-proses. Other Wikipedia's pages put simple "date" parameter, also for few-days events with registering just dates or period-frame. I suggest it's best to introduce like this: Dates: 12, 14, 16 May, perhaps with bracketed (2 semi-finals and final). Similar example is featured Fifa World Cup articles.

אומנות (talk) 14:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion at Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2016#Maps

Hello, there is an ongoing discussion on the size and position of Australia in maps at Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2016#Maps, please feel free to contribute. -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 18:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

New colour shape for Maps

  Participated countries

  Did not qualify from semi final

  Withdrawn countries

  Participated in the past, but not this year

  Non participants

Hey guyz. What about to displayed withdrawn countries? See for more map in right. ← Alex Great ^talk_rus? 09:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. There is nothing wrong with the current choice of colours. Why change something when it works perfectly fine as it stands? We only fix problems if they are broke, not if they are still workable. Wes Mouse ✒ 19:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

«Do not fix it, if not broken.» ← Alex Great ^talk_rus? 01:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Melodifestivalen 2016: Albin

So in Melodifestivalen 2016, there is an Albin Johnsén competing, and we have an article called Albin Sandqvist which is (was after my edit) had some info from and linked via Wikidata to Albin Johnsén on the Swedish Wikipedia. Wikidata got information from musicbrainz.org, but the two names have two (Johnsén (using our Albin Sandqvist as a bio))(Sandqvist) different articles on musicbrainz.org. However on swedishcharts.com there is Albin with songs from the Sandqvist musicbrainz.org bio and songs from the Johnsen bio, there is also this: with Johnsén and some songs not listed anywhere. I'm confused, and need some paracetamol and need help before my head explodes sorting it out. (Some pings since this place can be dead sometimes: @Wesley Mouse:@CT Cooper:@BabbaQ:@אומנות:) -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 20:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Yikes. Reading all that confused me too. Got any spare paracetamol there AxG? Wes Mouse ✒ 19:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Albin Johnsén is the person you are after :)BabbaQ (talk) 20:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Newsletter

I am wondering if the ESC newsletter will return or if it is discontinued? :)BabbaQ (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea, since it's now the beginning of the NF season. -- AxG / ✉ / 10 years of editing 20:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I've not had much chance to produce a new edition due to circumstances last year (the deaths of three family members between January and April 2015) as well as having to sell the house I lived in for all 36 years of my life, then having to move to a new location, and staring a new job etc. That's why they have no longer been produced monthly, and are merely by issue number now so that they can be issued when time permits me to do so. Wes Mouse ✒ 13:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, yes I hope you feel better now and that your life has begun to go back to a new normal Wesley! I hope to see some edition sooner or later when you feel ready. It is starting to get closer and closer to ESC. Exciting.BabbaQ (talk) 00:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Back when I was doing them monthly, I simply found it to be too much work. I think just publishing them on occasion/as needed is the best strategy. In any case, thank you for all your hard work Wesley, and I hope things look up for you soon. CT Cooper · talk 14:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, occasional postings seems to be the best. Like ahead of the ESC 2016.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:00, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Gradient or not?

Just a question but what do people prefer? The original legend here: {{Infobox song contest/Bundesvision Song Contest 2014}} at Bundesvision Song Contest 2014, or a gradient legend here: {{Infobox song contest/Bundesvision Song Contest 2015}} at Bundesvision Song Contest 2015? -- AxG / ✉ / 10 years of editing 00:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I like version with gradient. ← Alex Great ^talk_rus? 05:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support version 2, as used in the 2015 contest. Wes Mouse ✒ 11:54, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Point displays in the Country in the Eurovision Song Contest Year pages

There are users who have constantly been adding breakdowns of the televoting and jury voting points for each country in their respective page. I've seen others revert edits like these in the past and give WP:NOTSTATSBOOK as the reason so I've also reverted edits like these. I've also based the style of these articles on Austria in the Eurovision Song Contest 2014 and Netherlands in the Eurovision Song Contest 2014 as they achieved good article status and do not contain these point breakdowns. So what is everyone's opinion on adding these stats to the pages? Pickette (talk) 02:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I too have reverted such edits based on WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. Purely for the fact that the additions are duplicated information of the split voting results anyway. Point 3 of NOTSTATSBOOK explicitly states that Wikipedia is not a place to have "excessive listings of statistics", because "long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles". Keep the data pure and simple as is the case for the two GA articles that Pickette has rightfully pointed out. Wes Mouse ✒ 02:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I am one of those people that have added the point breakdowns. I did that because the entries in 2009 have this point breakdown and no one is removing those. And I also thought that people would find it interesting to see how many points a country got with the televoting or with the juries. The only reason I did this point breakdown is because I saw them on most of the Eurovision 2009 country pages. ThePhantomKid012 (talk) 02:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I personally do not see the point of adding these breakdowns as such points were never actually rewarded to these countries; the points they received were those of the combined rankings. Unless there is a way that it can be integrated into the article without there being a confusing mess of a dozen collapsed tables, then I would be against the addition of these tables. Articles from past years are largely in a neglected state so I would base how things should be done moving forward on articles such as Austria in the Eurovision Song Contest 2014 and Netherlands in the Eurovision Song Contest 2014, which have recently gained good article status. Pickette (talk) 04:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

@ThePhantomKid012: all those other articles you speak of shouldn't even have those breakdowns either. So if you do come across any, then please remove them and state in the edit summary that they go against WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. There is a lot of things that Wikipedia shouldn't have, and I would recommend having a browse through WP:NOT to see a full list of other things to avoid when contributing towards articles. As Pickette pointed out, those split breakdowns are not exactly points awarded. The split voting results alone covers such data in a much more neater fashion. Also, we shouldn't assume that others may find the information interesting. What may be interesting to one person, could be a complexity and data-overload to another user. Keep things simple, and avoid cluttering up with excessive statistical data. Wes Mouse ✒ 04:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)