Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2015/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Serbia on map

I know that the discussion have become again, but i can't understand why Kosovo isn't including in the Serbian territory. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.210.6.60 (talk) 20:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if I sound rude, but if you know that this has been discussed numerous times before but Kosovo remains as an independent territory, why are you bringing it up again? Consensus is that Kosovo should be represented as it is now and I can't see that changing any time soon. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 20:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I can't understand why Kosovo isn't with Serbia at the moment which is officialy a part of Serbia.. Sorry if that is a problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.210.6.60 (talk) 20:53, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

But the thing is, it isn't officially part of Serbia. That might be what Serbians believe, but not the majority of the international community. You may want to read into this topic at the Kosovo and International recognition of Kosovo articles. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 20:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes i have already read the article. You are right ok. Can i make a question? The votes of Kosovo (at the Eurovision) are including as a result of Serbian votes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.210.6.60 (talk) 21:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure but if it's the same as Crimea's situation, if people in Kosovo's phones are registered by Serbian providers, their votes will count as a part of Serbia's. If they're registered by Kosovar providers, then I believe they wouldn't be counted due to Kosovo not participating. I'm not the right person to ask this though as I know nothing about the technical side. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 21:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

It's complicated, yes, but EBU did allow Kosovo to participate in Eurovision Young Dancers, and there are a number of EBU members that do recognise Kosovo as an independent state. -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 21:31, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Kosovo is de facto independent country, but not officialy yet. It is still disputed territory. At maps in articles Member states of the United Nations, Member states of the Council of Europe, European Broadcasting Area and European Broadcasting Union Kosovo is part of Serbia, also at European Council official website: [1], [2] --Aca Srbin (talk) 16:34, 26 March 2015 (UCT)

@Aca Srbin: you might want to look at the map on European Broadcasting Union#Members again. From 2008 onwards, Kosovo is shown separate from Serbia. This is because of Kosovo in the Eurovision Young Dancers, Kosovo in the Eurovision Song Contest, and Kosovo in the Türkvizyon Song Contest - which requires Kosovo to be highlighted in their own right. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 02:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Norway

Norway has just decided its entry; Mørland and Debrah Scarlett with the song A Monster Like Me, and so the map should be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:FE0:C000:1:C4CE:D3EC:AA85:56C1 (talk) 22:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I've updated the map. -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 22:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Brilliant. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:FE0:C000:1:C4CE:D3EC:AA85:56C1 (talk) 00:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Language

In which language is "Adio"? National broadcasters can make political decisions, but poetry and lyricis of songs are works of art created by the writers. Lyricis are written by people from Serbia who speak the Serbian language. These are probably the same languages, but the only official Montenegrin. The song is definitely written in Serbian (the lyricis does not have any specific characteristics of the Montenegrin language), the question is in which language will be sung. I think we should mention that Montenegro have song in Serbian language when writers come from Serbia. According to the 2011 census, most citizens of Montenegro declared Serbian language as their mother tongue. --Aca Srbin (talk) 12:49, 28 March 2015 (UCT)

@Aca Srbin: Željko Joksimović may well be Serbian, but we cannot second guess that the song is written in Serbian. Željko may have written it in Montenegrin. Any such changes would go against WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOR. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 12:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Lyricists for this song are Marina Tucaković and Dejan Ivanović. They always write in the same language, but it is variously called. Again, according to the 2011 census, most citizens of Montenegro declared Serbian language as their mother tongue. Now, lyricists speak and write the Serbian language. It is not fair to them. I think we need to put a more detailed explanation, at least in the article about the song. --Aca Srbin (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2015 (UCT)

Unless there's a source that says the song's in Serbian, we can't simply assume it is because of its songwriters. Pretty much all of Montenegro's non-English songs were sung in Montenegrin and Montenegrin is also the national language of Montenegro, so we'd need reliable sources to state how this isn't Montenegrin for us to put that on the article. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 15:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

O.K. I understand. Montenegrin is the only official language in Montenegro and national broadcaster will probably announce that song is in Montenegrin. But, why the song must be only in the official language? Especially because most citizens of Montenegro declared Serbian language as their mother tongue and lyricists of this song speak and write the Serbian language. Maybe we have a situation in which the song was written in Serbian, but will be sung in Montenegrin. In this case, it is ok to in this article writes that song is in Montenegrin, but we should give a detailed explanation, at least in the article about the song. --Aca Srbin (talk) 18:53, 28 March 2015 (UCT)

@Aca Srbin: this is clearly turning into the classic case of "I don't hear you". Both myself and Jjj1238 have pointed out to you that we cannot add such notes that you propose; as it goes against all of the fundamental core policies within Wikipedia - such as no original research. To try and include a note saying "people from Montenegro speak Serbian due to a recent poll", is basically going off our own belief, and not verifying what the Eurovision sources state - and that being the song is in Montenegrin. Now let's just drop this language baton and move on peacefully. Because it is 100% clear that such proposed changes are not going to get the "all clear" to be implemented. Christ, if we really wanted to get picky over language terms, because we dislike Montenegrin, then we could ultimately change all of them to show they are performed in Indo-European or Balto-Slavic. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 00:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Found a reliable lyrics source that confirms the entry is in Montenegrin. I think that wraps up this case. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 15:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Gentlemen, I would like to remind you that the existence of a "Montenegrin language" is doubted by most linguists. Therefore, "Adio" is in one of the recogniesed versions of Serbo-Croatian (Serbian, Croatian, Bosniak...). Alexrybak (talk) 10:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Portuguese Commentator

Hélder Reis (the portuguese comentator in Eurovision 2009) is a commentator from Portugal this year in all shows. (source: RTP) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.136.189.150 (talk) 13 April 2015, 19:29 (UTC)

Column header for Australia

Hello all, I'm starting to work on the template for the scoreboards, as I'll actually be attending the live shows, Has a column header file been made for Australia yet? I'm not too sure of the font and font size that is being used for the other column headers, and I wouldn't want to mess up the continuity.

Dfizzles (talk) 02:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Her you go. -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 16:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

@Dfizzles: Why are we starting on scoreboards so soon? Let the contest take place first, then build it up from there. Afterall, we do need sources to verify the scoreboard content. Updating it live! is not what Wikipedia is about. We're not a live news reporting desk. People will be watching the show live so can see the results as they happen. Nobody is going to be watching this Wikipedia article hoping to receive running commentary. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 16:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

@Wesley Mouse: I like to work on a blank template in my Sandbox. The final product never makes it to the article until the scores are officially released by the EBU following the Grand Final. I'm going to actually be in Vienna this year rather than being in the US where I normally watch the shows. I'm just trying to take out all of the hard work of setting up the template.Dfizzles (talk) 18:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Its Wesley, I only shorten it to Wes on my signature. But thank you for explaining about the scoreboards. So you basically mean something like what I have set up in my sandbox? Although I have never managed to get chance to use it lol. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 10:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Greatest Hits show and archiving all the contests

Resolved

 – Agreement reached, and actions to move the content into the parent article under a new section, "Anniversaries", has been carried out. Wes Mouse (talk) 02:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

These EBU's projects don't show relevance to these article. "Greatest Hits" was held 2 months prior to 2015 ESC, featuring songs from the past 59 editions; precisely excluding 2015. The section is also news-worded for initial and later-changed details. Another project is described separately for archiving all contests since 1956, which begun in 2011 to be finalized before 2015 ESC. These projects with their time-frames only interface the 2015 ESC with no effect on it. I initially combined them under a "60th anniversary" title for a separate section. That was reverted so I left the "Greatest hits" section with its developments coverage, but still slightly shaped to some past tense, grammar and trimmed repetitions of "BBC host...60th anniversary" and co-hosts names, which were included in my earlier edit.

There is also Greates hits article covering that show's organizing. These anniversaries-projects, also 50th "Congratulations" show, are proper to appear in general detail at the main Eurovision Song Contest which covers the contest's history - with inner links to their detailed articles. אומנות (talk) 23:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Try looking at the previous discussions, most of which are archived. ESC 2015 is the SIXTIETH contest. Greatest Hits is celebrating SIXTY years. The grammar changes you have made now are good, well done. But the previous changes I.E. renaming of the section, removal of the hatnote - not good! Whatever happened to putting forward proposed changes like those, and seeking consensus? Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 00:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and as was noted in the edit summary "Regardless of other issues, there are unnecessary repetitions and current-news content, future and current tense, and minor grammar, that need shaping". Naturally it will read in current tense... broadcasting of the show has not completed in countries that are yet to broadcast the thing. Logic! Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 00:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think a Greatest Hits contest section should be in this article at all. It has little to do with the 60th contest itself; it is a self-contained show. It has nothing to do with the format of the Eurovision Song Contest at all. It could be mentioned as one of the events for the 60th anniversary, yes, perhaps, but an entire section is excessive. It could be mentioned like it is here for the Eurovision Song Contest main article because in that case, it's perfectly relevant. The 50th anniversary Congratulations show isn't mentioned at all in the 2005 page, so why should a TV concert celebrating ZERO songs from 2015 be on the 2015 page?

The same goes for archiving the past contests. It's only tangentially relevant to the 2015 contest because it was the set deadline. Nothing from the 2015 contest is contained in that archive. This should also instead only be on the main Eurovision Song Contest page.

Greatest Hits and the contest archive aren't even mentioned on the Eurovision Song Contest page at all.

(Another thing I saw reverted was the mention of the show's runtime being longer? How is this too trivial? I agree, there should be a source, but if the format has changed from the past few editions, it should be mentioned.)

Btw, Bold, revert, discuss is a perfectly valid way of working to reach consensus. Mr. Gerbear|Talk 03:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@Mr. Gerbear: if you feel it shouldn't be in the article, then you should have raised those opinions when it was discussed on the project talk page. If you don't take part in project debates, then you lose your say. You and a small handful of project members have stated several times in the past that the project needs an active voice. When people decide not to weigh in their say on a debate, and then complain of an outcome afterwards, then they lost their right in that said debate. You also shown signs of frustration during your debate over OGAE on the project talk page, and the fact it went stale. If it wasn't for myself to have mentioned it in the newsletter, and sent that nudge project-wide to get people to participate urgently, then the debate would still have been stale and you would not have got the outcome you wanted (which was met too, thanks to my efforts). OK some people may look at my efforts as if I am taking some sort of leadership role, and perhaps this project needs some sort of leadership aspect, like other projects have. Without such, then we are just operating a haphazard and chaotic ship, which is slowly sinking. If we're to operate as a collaborative team, then we need to start being actively vocal and engage in all debates held not just on article talk pages, but at Project Eurovision talk page too. And if you don't believe me, why don't you wander over there now and see the number of active (some gone stale) debates that you have not yet even adder your input into. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 10:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I tried looking up this discussion, but couldn't find it. Could you provide a link so we can see what the outcome was? Pickette (talk) 11:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Stylizing with hatnotes is acceptable for big sections merit, for which my first edit summary and then the above views, about this case stemming from 2 projects under the same history-anniversary spectrum which feats the main ESC article. This is also since - as Pickette said - I didn't see discussions on this info, only that it was expended on these article while even the Greatest Hits article was trimmed. For these I presumed a discussion only for completely removing this. Also it is preferable to put back hatnote and sections-split rather then initially revert other agreed shaping/corrections. For past tense I meant all things of the event's night, which are logically now in the past and I changed, and broadcasting which I changed to current "televised".

I agree with Mr. Gerbear about the show's running info, as I too see it precisely relevant, it literally describes the frame of 2015 ESC's "Format", with the mentioned notability for duration-changing compared to the past editions. אומנות (talk) 12:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

It started off here, spiralled into here, and culminated here.

At the time, it was uncertain when the event was going to take place, with some sources stating March, whilst the EBU stating after May. Due to that, and to prevent any premature article creation, a draft version was constantly built in one of my sandboxes, and project members were invited to edit it freely, in order to keep it updated. As dates for the event were also uncertain, a redirect for any reference to 60th anniversary shows, were done so directing to Eurovision 2015 article - again to reduce any confusion and premature creations. This method clearly worked in the intention it was set out to do, because everyone was updating the draft on a daily basis. There was no premature creations or vandalism. Once solid confirmation and dates were released, the draft article was moved from my sandbox into mainspace; and all previous redirects being redirected to the new mainspace article.

If people had concerns about all of this, then they should have raised them at the time and not now. We cannot determine what people think when they maintain a 100% silence on matters. We are not psychic, nor do we possess the proverbial crystal ball. OK consensus can change, but raising it here is not the venue. Raise them at the project talk page, were we can then determine if the paragraph should be moved elsewhere (I.E. the parent Eurovision article) or if it should remain in its current location.

As for the mention of the changes to running time, yes it should be mentioned. But as you are all well aware by now, it should also be cited with sources. There are no sources to verify apart from the header on the main Eurovision website. And use a bit of logic here, if we use that front page as a source, then come the 2016 contest, it will have changed again, and thus the source would become invalid in verifying the running time changes. Find a new source which verifies running time, and there won't be any issues. Find no sources, and we cannot include it as it becomes original research. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 12:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• @אומנות: please tell me where on the guidance at WP:HN does it say hatnotes should only be used on big sections? It doesn't. It says that {{Main}} is used to make summary style explicit, when used in a summary section for which there is also a separate article on the subject. The section in question is a summary section. Please familiarise yourself with guidances. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 12:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

And finally "why should a TV concert celebrating ZERO songs from 2015 be on the 2015 page". The answer is quite simple really. The show included Electro Velvet, UK 2015 participants. Conchita was interviewed by Norton and Mede about her role as green room host in Vienna. Oh and viewers were introduced to the 2015 contest hosts, who in turn invited viewers to "join us in Vienna in May". So yes, it does hold relevance to the 2015 article. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 12:43, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Nothing in the discussion you linked discusses the integration of this content into the 2015 page though. It was exclusively about the creation of the anniversary article. Pickette (talk) 12:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@Pickette: it was mentioned somewhere, and I am still searching through all the archives of places I can remember it being mentioned. Also would it be OK if I were {{Ping}}ed as a nudge that someone is replying to myself. I'm a tad busy with packing up things at home ready for the big move, so the pings send a notice to my email alerts and I know then to come back here and reply, rather than them getting missed. @Chris:, can you recall where the discussion took place regarding the integration of this content into the ESC 2015 article and the decision to use redirects as a precautionary measure to avoid premature article creation and vandalism? Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 13:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes those linked discussions are for the process of creating a separate article, also shifted on users talk pages. I will also make the point that people aren't always active, and there is no relevance for participating at other discussions, and people definitely can't always keep up with the discussion pace of others especially on multitude of discussions with rapid comments, such view is a boomerang resulting in reduced participation.

As these discussion is about information existing at these 2015 ESC article, I think it's best to keep it here; a note can be made from the project page. For the 2015 hosts and UK's entry appearances at the "Greatest Hits", that still falls under Mr. Gerbear's suggestion of making brief references to this show on these article, doesn't merit a section.

As for hatnote use, my explanation was that it didn't merit a section it should be smaller and as a sub-section or incorporated prose, for my explanation of placing it with another material under a new "60th anniversary" section. On the same scale, after the objection, I left the section with the hatnote regardless of its size.

The discussion of the show's duration was in regards to relevance, there should be a source in the future as well as the live broadcast will realize this, so good there is agreement about this info's relevance. אומנות (talk) 15:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Non-relevance to main debate

What you think is best bears no significance. I religiously check the project talk page upon every visit to Wikipedia to check for any new or participate in ongoing discussions. It is not that difficult for other members to do the same. It only takes a couple of seconds to check. Failing to check is just ignorance. More so when the debates are vital to the operations of the project. If people do not add their say, and then later complain about it, then they only have themselves to blame. Even the monthly newsletter highlight all ongoing debates on the project page, so people cannot say they are unaware of their existence. This page is not the correct venue, as it could ultimately impact on another article. Do you expect people to start flitting between talk pages in order to get a timeline of what has been said? No. Logic is to hold it at the project talk. And the linked discussions did not "shift on user pages" - if you check the timeline, they shifted away from user pages. First they started on my own page, I used my brain to shift it to a neutral venue (project talk); and only shifted briefly to another user's page, when I realised the articles history was also showing edits from when it use to be used as a sandbox prior to the article - so a histmerge had to be carried out. As for the hatnote, it did merit it, as WP:HN notes that if a summary section also has a standalone article, which this content does, then a {{Main}} hatnote has to be used. Read the guidance in full, and tell me I am wrong. Wes Mouse | T@lk 15:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC) What I think bears significance, as I'm sharing my view for this talk page relevance with bringing practical reasoning for the appearance of the anniversary info at these article, which is the issue here, as well as addressed your view by suggesting a note on the project talk to resolve your worry that people won't see this discussion. My explanation about people's rights to participate at discussions they desire at their own pace is valid, and now add that the core difficulty is multitude and rapid comments with sometimes sealing discussions in a matter of hours before others have the chance to see and comment, also previous RFC's handlings, and comments as you wrote above that what I think is best "bares no significance" with some other earlier "Logic!" remarks which at these chance I kindly ask you to try refraining from. Again, my explanation was in regards to uniting 2 brief paragraphs under a different title, for which case I simply said that inner links exist, I left the Greatest Hits section with its hatnote for its detailed section. The linked discussions were handled on your talk page, and in any case, there currently isn't a previous discussion found in regards to this anniversary appearance on this article, so I will wait to see how these discussion develops. אומנות (talk) 16:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC) And I would appreciate that you refrain from telling people to "refrain from voicing an opinion". If I so chose to use words such as "logic" then I shall do so, and will not be forced into utter silence by someone who has been vocally dormant for quite some time. I respect that not everyone is active - more so as I have been semi-active these last few months, after dealing with a ton of stress, 3 family deaths in the last 4 months, and being told I am about to be made homeless within the next month or so. So hold off on the dictating like you have been so infamous for over the last couple of years. And yes, I am aware of the back-stabbing slagging off you have done against me in private messages to other users. Courteous people do make me aware of such - so you're not as "innocent a party" as you are portraying yourself off to be. Believe me, I have grounds for action there, if I wanted to. But I chose to ignore it and give you benefit of the doubt. But that aside, I am not seeking that any debate be closed within a matter of hours, we all live in different time zones, and I have always respected the fact that reasonable time is required. Some parts of Wikipedia recommend 7 days, others 30 days. I, personally, would be happy for a 6-month period to allow something to conclude. And not only that, I have always reminded members of any active discussions via means of the newsletter. If people do not check, then that is not my problem. Also, if ever I have had time away from Wikipedia, have used my common logic to still check back on talk pages to see if there is anything that I have missed during any period of absence, in order to bring myself up to speed on any procedural changes that may have occurred that I am unaware of. All Wikipedians are suppose to do that, so that we know what is going on. If one chooses not to undertake such logical steps, then it is their fault if they discover later that something should have been done differently. Allow me to ask you a question. Of all the current active debates at WT:ESC, how many have you aired a point of view on? In fact, how many in the last 12 months? None. Speaks volumes does that. If you want your views heard, then be vocal and voice them across. Silence doesn't get anyone anywhere. Wes Mouse | T@lk 17:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC) Your opinions come across clear without "logic!" (not just "logic") and other exclamation mark shouts, as you yourself perceive as lack of openness and patience when others make such, so I kindly asked you to refrain, after you indeed eventually dismissed my reasoned opinion for having this discussion here. Even if your claim about me slagging you in private was true, you would have violated outing both that someone and another person who was trusted by him, which in turn trusted you. On the other hand Wikipedia's public pages evidence for your bad mouthing which you claim as private conversations. As well as for your question: A discussion from this year on 2014 ESC where you claimed consensus was reached in your favor as 2 days had passed before I posted another comment, and after I brought deep objecting views earlier; Some other talks where your proposals or others were seen rapidly by 1-2 supporting users, and after few hours you go ahead and edit before others have a 1-day chance to weigh in. On the other hand, you opened an RFC which showed consensus in favor of a proposal of mine, left it open for 3 months and eventually claimed an opposite outcome and that all project members need to participate to accept that proposal. This decreases activity, as explained in the past. And now you rent about people not voicing their opinions along with claiming here that people loose their rights to voice their opinions based on your unproven claim that this specific discussion occurred before. So now we are voicing opinions about the anniversaries, regardless if there was such discussion before, to see now what people think about this. אומנות (talk) 12:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC) Please refrain from telling me that my opinions are "not logic". That is slanderous and uncivil to my personal judgement. You don't know me, so you do not have the right to judge me in the way you are doing. To quote a Latin phrase - "ignoramus et ignorabimus". Look it up. Wes Mouse | T@lk 14:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC) You made slanderous and uncivil comments most especially on your second-last comment and more so at other places, while I respected your opinions in discussions, and now showed cases only for your seen actions on Wikipedia which include your unpleasant remarks on others logic and the various discussions ways which result in silencing, so that you understand that this discussion is now a great opportunity to see opinions, which is something you desire as I do. That's all. אומנות (talk) 15:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC) I'll restore the other comment back within this section. It has nothing to do with the main issues, and is part and start of the uncivil attacks. And your reply makes no sense whatsoever. My comments are not slanderous, and anyone can see that they have not been made in such context. I have spoken bluntly, and also explained a lot of the distress that I am enduring at present in real-life. How is the provision of such information, be construed as a slanderous attack? And raising my participation in discussion areas that have nothing to do with Project Eurovision, has no relevance here either. If you want to go down that route, then I can easily join in your onslaught and raise the matter of you attacking me in private to other users, without my knowledge or right to defend myself. Such action would not require the medium of WP:ANI, but can be done via email to the Wikimedia Arbitration Committee, which is dealt with sensitively and without any "outing". I have never attacked you in private, as it would be unfair to you if I did. If I have any issue with you or anyone else for that matter, then I speak to the individual directly, allowing them their right to defence. Now stop these dramatic episodes, return to cooperative debate. Otherwise, I will take further action against you. Wes Mouse | T@lk 16:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC) One needs to remember that we should not remind others of past misdeeds. That an uncivil environment is a poor environment which gets us nowhere. Life might seem easier sometimes if we all agreed with what everyone else said and all got along. But life just isn't like that. Different people have opposing points of view, and all the policies in the world can't help a borderline case. Sooner or later, somebody is going to disagree with you, and do it strongly. It happens. And when it does, sometimes the best action can be to forget about it and walk away – after all, as an editor on a voluntary project, most of the time you're not actually required to do anything you don't want to. With rare exceptions, it's not the End of the World. 99.99% of people working on Wikipedia won't notice and the encyclopaedia will keep on moving, because nobody cares. Yes I say things as it is; that is what's known as "calling a spade a spade". It is the best way to describe something clearly and directly. Rather than using oblique and obfuscating language, just "tell it like it is". And that is exactly how I do things, I say it as it is, rather than beat around the bush. If people do not like the fact that I get straight to the point, then the solution is simple, get over it. It isn't about who should have the last word. Such behaviour only results in arguing over arguments. We should not be accusing someone of a personal attack for the sake of accusing of a personal attack; because that in itself is also a form of personal attack. 99.99% of the time, the best remedy is to cool down, call a truce, and get discussions back on track. If we don't, then we are not seeking a resolution to anything. That is why all the unnecessary overheated remarks have been housed into this section so that they can be forgotten about, so that we has editors can get back to business and find common ground. If you are not willing to do that, then what is the point of being on Wikipedia if you are only going to continue a stampede on a battleground that nobody gives a flying toss about. Wes Mouse | T@lk 17:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC) No. The bullying stems from your paradoxical pettiness about others not voicing their opinions on other discussions as means to not voice themselves in this discussion which I opened, with your now ongoing bullying collapsing-comments attempts and your continuous poking; after pretending you want peace. Your comment which precedes my collapsed comment is yet another pure non-relevant unpleasent comment about how you check talk pages while others are showing "ignorance". I kept commenting you about issues in regards to this discussion. If you percieve my comment as irrelevant, there is no way your preceding one is either, thus now collapsed. As for your persistent threats of having private info on me, I'm not affraid of you especially as there are real proofs of your behaviour on Wikipedia. Go ahead to ARBCOM if you wish, bear in mind that it will result in me showing all of your talks, slanderous and manipulative actions, including this very discussion just as many others in the line of your endless pettiness tries of silencing/shifting/hiding comments. As you see, I don't need to trash you in private as I'm capable of telling you factualy about your actions in your face. As for your personal life stories, its getting harder and harder to have symphathy for you when it comes as excuses to your melicious manouvers. Your entire conduct is driven first and foremost by controling and claiming-credits desires which strongly blures your contributing, and Wikipedia is not the place for that. After your ARBCOM threats, I realy didn't care to keep reading your next bulleted comments. אומנות (talk) 07:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC) @אומנות: you stated in a comment below that I should "drop the stick and stop deflecting your actions". Then perhaps you should practice what you preach and also drop it too, rather than carry it on with the last word above. And how dare you be so insensitive and exclaim that I am making excuses with the bereavements in my family. That is pure evil and sickening to speak ill of the deceased. I just pray to God that you end up going through exactly what I have in these last 4 months, and then have someone say to your face that you are making up excuses. Coming out with such remarks is disgusting, and shows how low of a person you really are. Wes Mouse | T@lk 15:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC) Actually I didn't intend to keep commenting on this section, but it has to be said also for your sake, that I have not even implied speaking ill of your deceased nor implying you aren't hurting. It's great you are openly discussing your sorrows and I myself appreciate people sharing such things, when done on private conversations or even other users pages for example. Bringing such issues in such discussion is still not justified. As for wishing I will suffer like you, I already lost my grandparents and grandmothers and lost an uncle 2 months ago so I experienced the hurt of death, and my point is that I keep such things separated from when discussing things on Wikipedia. That's all. אומנות (talk) 16:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Seeing as a lot of the debate has gone off tangent and unnecessarily overheated, I think it is only right that those comments be placed in the above collapsed section. Such behaviour is unhelpful and not cooperative to seeking a resolution. All parties, including myself, need to remember that we are here to discuss a matter at hand, not prejudging editors personalities.

• Eurovision Greatest's Hits: – Should this section remain in the ESC 2015 article, or be moved to a new "Anniversaries" section within the parent article, Eurovision Song Contest?
• Running time: – Are there any sources other than the eurovision.tv front page that can be used to verify this information? If so, then those sources should be used to cite any new content. If not, then we cannot really be mentioning the running time, as we are unable to verify it (technically), as the eurovision.tv front page will change as the years go by, and thus making any relevance to citing content for 2015 difficult. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 14:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

For Greatest Hits and archiving all the contests - These EBU's projects don't show relevance to these article. "Greatest Hits" was held 2 months prior to 2015 ESC, featuring songs from the past 59 editions; precisely excluding 2015. The section is also news-worded for initial and later-changed details. Another project is described separately for archiving all contests since 1956, which begun in 2011 to be finalized before 2015 ESC. These projects with their time-frames only interface the 2015 ESC with no effect on it. There is also Greates hits article covering that show's organizing. These anniversaries-projects, also 50th "Congratulations" show, are proper to appear in general detail at the main Eurovision Song Contest which covers the contest's history. אומנות (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

This is the first anniversary show that has been dealt with in "live time", since the birth of Project Eurovision; so naturally there will be technical issues and teething problems, as it is all a new sector. Like I noted in an earlier comment; yes it probably would make more sense to move any anniversary topics into the main Eurovision article. BUt at the time the ESCGH was created, it was directed into this ESC2015 article, because it was unknown when the event would take place or if any entries from 2015 would be included. Now that we do know how the event took place, then its placement within Wikipedia and be reviewed - which is what we are now doing here. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 16:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

So I'm assuming there was no actual discussion held prior to this where it was decided that this anniversary content should be incorporated into the ESC 2015 article? I'd have to support moving the content out of this article as well and just leaving a link to the anniversary page in the See Also section. It's especially irrelevant to have a section about it in the Format area of the article considering it's completely irrelevant to the actual show to be held in May. As for running time, once there's an article that confirms and speaks factually about the extension of the show times, then that should likely be noted in the Format section. Pickette (talk) 17:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@Pickette: yes there was a discussion, but it is liking hunting for a needle in a haystack. It has been that long ago now, that I can't remember the exact talk page location is was mentioned. Please appreciate that I have been through hell and back these last few months; having my uncle pass away in January; discovering that the woman who I thought was my mother who passed away a couple of years ago, was in fact myt adopted mother (shocking revelation I know); then to actually find my real birth mother, and then she dies on me in March, and only 2 weeks ago another uncle died. Yes, it has been hectic and my mind is on the verge of exploding. That's why I pinged Chris in an earlier comment, to see if he can recall. The only recollection I have was because the dates were unknown, and there were sources at the time stating that it was likely to be held after the 2015 contest, and the 2015 winner taking part, that the logical place to detail in brief was on this article, while the draft version was still in draft mode. Obviously, now, we do know when the event took place, so yes we can re-evaluate its potential new location. But the way it has been done was not helpful. To simply remove a hatnote (which ironically, WP:HN advises on using hatnotes on summary sections of this nature), give the section a completely new header and rewrite the entire thing, was not helpful whatsoever. If there was a problem (and clearly there is) then a simple creation of a debate at WT:ESC would have been helpful and logical. All it needed was a quick note saying "now that we know more of this event, should we look into moving the content elsewhere?" But that never happened, instead we got a heated debate that was easily avoidable if some participants acted properly, rather than throwing stones in glass houses. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 17:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

You had been given very clear explanations by me and others about the validity of my initial edit on the article, which also included improvements, as well as that I opened a discussion from the get go for moving this info to the main ESC article. And if I see feat in the future, I will do such BRD process again. No one will be instructed by you were to put notes and hold discussions, especially after you had been clearly explained about your blind revert of my initial edit instead of simply putting back the earlier title and hatnote, the paradoxical claims about people not voicing their opinions on other discussions as means to silence their opinions earlier above, as well as the following paradoxical collapsing of your heated comments only to keep poking again on your above comment - all these indeed show the same reacurring unfortunate case of a person living in a fregile glassed house. If you want the heated debate to stop, then drop the stick and stop deflecting your actions.

As well as for your earlier comment: Sure, I know very well what we are doing now, as I opened this discussion with proposing to move this info to the main ESC article. As you asked, again, where it's best to place this info now, then copying my opening proposal is the progressive way from your talks about the past debates and redirects to 2015 ESC which aren't a problem now anymore. Just as important, you forgot to mention that my proposal opened this discussion with including to move the contest's archiving project to the main ESC article which I therefore also copied now again as it falls under the same scope. Good that you now understand that the Greatest hits show isn't relevant for this article. @Pickette:, I agree with you about putting a reference note to that show from this article, and now add again on my proposal to also move the contests archiving project. אומנות (talk) 07:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I have not copied any of your proposed wording. Where have you got that idea from and could you be so kind as to provide evidence to validate that such plagiarism has occurred. As for the collapsing of the heated debates, why has such action become a problem? Correct procedure is to collapse irrelevant content, so that it does not derail matters further, and aids in a peace-process; something which I would have thought everyone would prefer to witness. As for checking talk pages, well naturally I will be patrolling such areas, especially when I have all Eurovision-related articles on my watchlist. I can hardly be accused of "trolling" those areas, when I am watching them all anyway and have done so since 2011. And there is also the fact this project now has the Project Eurovision Cup, so all areas are being monitored by myself and CT Cooper (who are the judges for the contest) so that we can allocate the correct points to the participants of the contest. I would have thought that as a member of this project and recipient of the Project Newsletter that you would have been aware of the new contest? Especially when you received all the notifications issues by the special message delivery system. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 15:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I replied for your earlier comment, by explaining that this is why I copied my opening proposal under your new presentation of where to place this info - to move on from previous debates about linking the anniversary to this article, when there were no other solutions. The collapsing of the debate is not a problem anymore, now that all comments that are mostly unrelated in content are collapsed. I also didn't say you are trolling anything, but that your follow up on the project page doesn't limit other editing actions and relevant pages to hold discussions. Now we just need more opinions in regards to also moving the contest archiving to main ESC article. Me and Mr. Gerbear expressed support. Do you have a view on this? אומנות (talk) 16:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey, Wesley, I have to take issue with the following extremely problematic sentiments that you said earlier:

"If people had concerns about all of this, then they should have raised them at the time and not now. We cannot determine what people think when they maintain a 100% silence on matters. We are not psychic, nor do we possess the proverbial crystal ball. OK consensus can change, but raising it here is not the venue. Raise them at the project talk page, were we can then determine if the paragraph should be moved elsewhere (I.E. the parent Eurovision article) or if it should remain in its current location."

First off: Not everybody can check Wikipedia at all times. I've been inordinately busy, and if you're saying that I should have taken time out of my busy schedule to somehow go to a discussion that I'd have to be psychic to know was going on, that's extremely illogical. We are all volunteers here and run on our own time. Just because you can find the time to look at literally everything and know where every discussion is at what point does not mean other concerned editors can. I know you have problems in your own personal life, so you should very well understand that not everyone can be available all the time.

Secondly: Of course nobody can determine what people think when they don't say anything, but now that people are saying things, you have gone out of your way to explain that we are somehow wrong and that we should have been in that first discussion?

Third: How is here not the venue? We're talking about a change on this article. If that change spills over onto other articles, ok, but the discussion originated here due to the actions of an editor who edited this very page.

Fourth, and I quote from WP:PROJ, "WikiProjects are not rule-making organizations. WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors and may not impose their preferences on articles." You should not say that people should go to the project page to discuss changes; you cannot impose rules made in project discussions here if another discussion is taking place.

You said, earlier, in a reply to my comment that "When people decide not to weigh in their say on a debate, and then complain of an outcome afterwards, then they lost their right in that said debate." I'm pretty sure that's not how Wikipedia works. If there is another discussion, and other people bring in their input, why should their opinions not matter?

You also said: "And if you don't believe me, why don't you wander over there now and see the number of active (some gone stale) debates that you have not yet even adder your input into." This sounds unnecessarily hostile. There are tons of reasons for me to not comment on literally every debate. I have been, like I said, extremely busy. There are discussions that I feel that I don't have anything constructive to add. Right now, what that sounds like is that I should be commenting on everything, and looking for every discussion, and participating as actively as you do before my opinion can count. I don't know how the project can even keep members if you expect everyone to do that. Mr. Gerbear|Talk 22:12, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

@Mr. Gerbear: Thank you for selecting a small piece of one of my earlier conversations. If you also looked into what I followed up with, which is now located in the collapsed section, you will also see that I did appreciate and acknowledge that not everyone is active and thus not always going to be checking every talk page for activity. However, I did note that it would be commonsensical if someone does take a period of absence, to briefly check the project space to see if there have been any changes during their period of absence. This is practice that any person would do in the real world, for example if someone took time off from employment, their employer would bring the employee up to speed on any changes during their time away. If I take time away from Wikipedia, I make it a point to hop over to WT:ESC and briefly glance at the debates in view, and see if there is anything that was of importance whilst I was away. Also, everyone, including yourself, receives a copy of the Project Newsletter, which details in brief what has happened each month. So even catching up with reading those helps members have an idea of what they missed during their absence. As for the latter statement, it is not hostile whatsoever. It is a clear statement showing that if people wanted proof then they were invited to check at the project talk page. That was all. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 12:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

@אומנות:, yes I think now we know more about the anniversary event, that it probably would fit better within the parent article. Seeing as this is now the second ever anniversary event for Eurovision, that a new "Anniversaries" section would be a good idea - thus we can summarise about the 50th and 60th events; and any other events that will happen in the future, for example when Eurovision turns 100. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 12:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

So considering all four of the participants in this discussion have agreed on moving the anniversary content out of this article, can we move forward and do it? Pickette (talk) 01:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

There is an agreement, with nobody else expressing an objection since this discussion was opened, so it is reasonable to remove the info. If someone objects, it can be placed back with keeping discussing. For now I agree there isn't a reason for keeping it; although, Pickette, I'm not sure how exactly you intended on making a reference to the Greatest hits - just placing a link to its article in the "See also" section on this article? Or footnote it, from some content within this article? So I didn't touch the info here, but in any case I arranged the section for the anniversaries at the ESC article; the 50th anniversary was actually already there but under "Spin-offs" sections, so I simply moved it and added about the 60th anniversary - and put them under sub-sections titles after the shows' names. However, I still didn't move the archiving contest's project, and I still suggest to move this as well to the ESC article with renaming the sub-sections there as "50th anniversary" and "60th anniversary" regardless of leaving the show's hatnotes, so that this sub-sections' titles address different projects and not imply limit to only describe those shows. אומנות (talk) 10:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Adding a link in the 'see also' section would suffice. Usage of footnotes would be unnecessary under these circumstances. However, French Wikipedia have included the UK's 2015 entry within their anniversary article - and I had read that they did perform at the event. Would it also justify to mention this factor on the UK's 2015 article and including a 'see also' link there too? (Is anyone else experiencing issues with Wikipedia today? It has taken me 18 attempts to write and save this comment) Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 13:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The UK's 2015 entry performing at the 60th anniversary show seems notable to mention at the article focusing on the UK and its entry at the 2015 ESC, but doesn't seem to warrant a "see also"; it wasn't part of the international show broadcast, rather an act performed to the local audiance between the recorded performances. Also mentioning this specific entry's performance within the UK 2015 article already produces the prose-link to the greatest hits show. אומנות (talk) 10:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

HRT won't broadcast Eurovision Song Contest 2015

Here is a proof - http://eurosong.hr/hrt-ne-prenosi-jubilarni-eurosong-2015/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteelSingle (talk • contribs) 12:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Blogs are not reliable sources, sorry! So we cannot accept that source. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 16:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

have they reintroduced the orchestra?

it seems to me that they have though i find no information about it in the article so could someone confirm or deny this and if it is true update the article.84.213.45.196 (talk) 21:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

No they have not, what was seen was a video wall of an orchestra, but no like orchestra. -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 22:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC) the wall was pulled to the sides while the orchestra was shown and they were introduced as a radio orchestra.84.213.45.196 (talk) 23:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Which half is 14?

There needs to be a source saying which half 14 is in, as 14 is the median of 27. Spa-Franks (talk) 21:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Spa-Franks is right here. As there are 27 in the final, 14 can neither be first nor second half, but slap-bang in the middle. 1 - 13 is first half, 15 - 27 is second half. The current way by placing 14th act in the second half is like saying that a glass is both half-full and half-empty. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 18:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Should Austria remain in "unknown half" until the running order is revealed? { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 18:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

@Jjj1238: how can they be an "unknown half"? There are 27 countries in the final, so position 14 is exactly the middle point, with 13 songs before and 13 songs after the Austrian entry. So no "unknown half" about it. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 20:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

But we clearly can't put them in the first or second half. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 20:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

In that case, and going off previous history within the contest when there have been an odd number of entries in the final, then the first half tends to be a lesser portion than the second half. For example, when ESC had 25 in the final, the scoreboard shown 12 on the left, 13 on the right. So on that basis, 2015 would more than likely be 13 (left), and 14 (right). Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 20:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

From what I understand it is the decision of the broadcasters were to place the commercial break before the final evening. So it is unclear at this point.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Might as well leave things in the current status quo, as ORF will no doubt release the final running order within the next hour or so. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 21:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Good idea.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

This source has answered my own question. Adding to the article posthaste. Spa-Franks (talk) 21:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Sweden won the contest,

so hereby I place an edit request to put them as the winners.--176.104.110.11 (talk) 22:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Poland's spokeperson

Poland's spokeperson wasn't Cleo, but Aleksandra Ciupa (one of the milkmaids from last year). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fidelxxx (talk • contribs) 23:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Macedonia and Montenegros votes declared invalid

The votes from these two countries will apparently not be included. Something was wrong with the voting procedure in these two nations. according to the BBC.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Title

Why is the title in italics? Is "Eurovision Song Contest 2015" the name of the TV show or the name of the actual contest? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

2-time 21st century winner?

"Sweden won the contest with Måns Zelmerlöw's "Heroes", becoming the first country to win Eurovision twice in the 21st Century." Denmark won in both 2000 and 2013, surely they would hold this title? A more accurate claim would probably be the first country to win twice in a decade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joss616 (talk • contribs) 07:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

21st century began in 2001, not in 2000. 94.251.176.229 (talk) 16:35, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Split results

I just noticed the split results were added for semifinal 1 and whoever is doing it forgot the Dutch votes in both Jury and Televote section.

With both of these up, you end up with these results, which are exactly the same as the ones on Wikipedia, except with the Dutch votes (found on Eurovision.tv split results article): https://eurovisiontimes.wordpress.com/2015/05/24/eurovision-2015-semifinal-1-split-results/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.151.112.254 (talk) 08:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Australia gave 5 points to Estonia in the First Semifinal, not 4. Can somebody change it please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.7.89.165 (talk) 23:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Last place

I know, for wikipedia it is only relevant what is published in official sources, but I think the current running order that Austria is last and Germany second to last is wrong. The rules applying to this are given in Rules for ESC 2015. Section 1.4 gives the guidance how to proceed in case of ties. In my opinion it describes two different situations. The first part discusses the case when one country votes and by their combination of jury and televote ties occur. The second part describes the case when two or more countries are tied in the overall ranking (so after the votes of all countries). As the first rules of the second part do not apply, as Austria and Germany gained no points, the last paragraph becomes relevant: "In the very unlikely case that after applying the above procedure in a Semi-Final there is still a tie concerning the qualifying ranks and non-qualifying ranks, the tie shall be resolved by giving precedence to the country which was earlier in the running order for the Semi- Final in question. The same procedure shall be used to resolve any other ties." As Austria (number 14) sung their entry before Germany (number 17), they should be classified as number 26 and Germany as number 27. Can someone confirm this view or am I totally wrong?--Maphry (talk) 09:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I think you are 100% right. I have amended the table accordingly. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:26, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure but I believe that Germany is ranked above Austria because it received higher individual televoting/jury scores. For example, Austria earned 0 votes from televoting, but Germany earned 5. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 10:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. But is that in the rules? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

That's why I'm not sure, it's just the way I interpreted it. Anyways, Eurovision.tv and the EBU recognise Austria as 27th and Germany as 26th, and that's what matters. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 11:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

The website of Eurovision has obviously changed during the day and Austria is now placed above Germany. With this the table would be now consistent as also the other tie (Albania and Armenia) follows now the interpretation of the rules I gave above.--Maphry (talk) 22:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Everyone knows that makes no geographic sense. Austria, as host, should have gracefully assumed last place. But maybe it's all a smokescreem. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

As this is not disputed anymore, it would be great when someone could change the article. So Austria is 26th, Germany 27th within the final table. As a consequence, Austria is also not the first country since 1958 who got last as a home country (well at least not technically). So this statement has to be deleted in the introduction. And of cause all subarticles, who might included the prior ranking has to be changed as well.--Maphry (talk) 19:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

 Done (both). As per the Eurovision website. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The rules linked to above are pretty clear, and explain why Austria have been ranked higher than Germany. Rule 1.4 para 5 states "In the very unlikely case that after applying the above procedure in a Semi-Final there is still a tie concerning the qualifying ranks and non-qualifying ranks, the tie shall be resolved by giving precedence to the country which was earlier in the running order for the semifinal in question. The same procedure shall be used to resolve any other ties." Based on that and the scoreboard shown on the official website, it would appear that Austria have been ranked 26th and Germany 27th, because Austria performed 14th, and Germany 17th in the running order. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 01:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

So we all agree that the official rules, the official source and the article now all agree, yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I thought we had reached consensus here? But now we have "Host country last in case of a tie when all other tiebreakers have been completed (bar the "earlier placement gets higher position"). Reference can be found on Eurovision rules Wikipedia page." Why do we bar that rule in this case? The Eurovision rules Wikipedia page is not WP:RS, is it? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: it is quite possible and probably that the Eurovision rules Wiki article is outdated and in need of a major update to show the changes in the rules. Per WP:CIRCULAR we are not to use articles within Wikipedia as sources, purely for that factor of the article may be "out of date". Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 09:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Hopefully this will draw the editor's attention to the issue. @Airlinesguy: please see this thread before attempting to change the placings for Austria and Germany. Using the article Voting at the Eurovision Song Contest as a source is not allowed, per WP:CIRCULAR. Seeing as you have been a Wikipedian for a few years, I would have thought you'd have known this policy? Also the voting article is outdated and needs to be updated to show the new changes in rules, as published by the EBU in 2015. Austria were ranked higher than Germany, because the rules state that in the event all other tie-break rules had been applied and the result were still the same (in this case they both had nul points) then the tie shall be resolved by giving precedence to the country which was earlier in the running order. In this case, Austria performed before Germany in the final, hence why the EBU have Austria as ranked 26th and Germany as 27th. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 09:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Did not see this, I assumed that it was properly sourced as it is a high level article (with a reference attached). Will refrain from editing from now on. Airlinesguy (talk) 11:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

In all fairness @Airlinesguy: it wouldn't make a difference if an article was high level or not; WP:CIRCULAR explicitly states that a Wikipedia article or any website that mirrors a Wikipedia article must not be used as a source; and you used an article as a source in your edit summary. Saying that, the 2015 rules does state that in the event of a tie for first place, and that all of the other tie-breaking rules had been applied, that if 2 or more countries were still in a "deadlock" situation, that the country ranked earliest in the running order would be declared the winner. So in this case, as the tie is for last place, and both have no points, then the only way to determine who is ranked 26 and 27th fell down to who ranked earliest in the running order - in this case Austria performed before Germany, which explains how the EBU came to the decision of placing the hosts in 26th, and Germany in 27th. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 17:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2015

I have made the tables of the Jury-only-ranking and Televoting-only-ranking, i implemented them below.

Final split jury/televote results
Place	Televoting	Points	Jury	Points
1	Italy	366	Sweden	363
2	Russia	286	Latvia	249
3	Sweden	279	Russia	247
4	Belgium	195	Australia	224
5	Estonia	144	Belgium	187
6	Australia	132	Italy	184
7	Israel	104	Norway	163
8	Latvia	100	Israel	80
9	Albania	93	Cyprus	63
10	Serbia	86	Georgia	62
11	Armenia	77	Estonia	56
12	Romania	69	Azerbaijan	48
13	Georgia	51	Montenegro	48
14	Azerbaijan	48	Slovenia	48
15	Poland	47	Austria	40
16	Lithuania	44	Serbia	34
17	Norway	43	Lithuania	31
18	Montenegro	34	Greece	29
19	Slovenia	27	Hungary	29
20	Spain	26	Albania	26
21	Greece	24	Germany	24
22	Hungary	21	France	24
23	Cyprus	8	Romania	21
24	United Kingdom	7	Armenia	18
25	Germany	5	United Kingdom	12
26	France	4	Spain	8
27	Austria	0	Poland	2

Stu157 (talk) 09:35, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Jury & televote colours etc

Why don't we just highlight "100% Jury" and "100% Televote", but just use the default colour for the 50/50 split in the results tables? -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 18:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

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

• Makes sense to me. I'm in favour of this proposal. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 18:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

This applies to other articles, I really should have posted this at the WP:ESC talkpage, since I'm also 50/50 on the shades used for the orange and blue, which are not pale enough IMO. -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 18:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I must say I do like the second choice of paler colours. But if you feel taking this over to the project talk page in order to potentially roll it out across all articles, then I'm cool with that. Let me know then I can bob over and repeat my input over there too. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 19:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Dishonest results

It seemes, undoubtful leader of TV-voiting of contest (and OGAE also), Italy no wishes to conduct next Contest and asked some juries of some contries (i.e. Germany, Estonia, etc) to give an extremal small scores at first or one of highest scores from TV-voters at the same time. In any case, if to count the split results from TV-voiting and juries fifty-fifty not by places but by scores, Italy took 2nd place: Italy obtained (366+171)/2=268 points againts Russua (286+234)/2=260 points 46.61.152.186 (talk) 08:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories have no place on Wikipedia articles. Italy lost and that's that. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 10:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I thought they came third, only 11 points behind Russia? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Order of voting

There is a difference of opinion between myself and Winterkönig Hannover about the order in which the votes should be listed.

My position is that they should be listed in the order in which they were delivered, i.e. the ones which had technical difficulties should be placed last, whereas Winterkönig Hannover thinks that they should be listed in the original order (with technical difficulty countries listed at their original positions). – Hshook (talk) 11:11, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

They should (and have always been in the past) listed in the order they were delivered, even if there were technical difficulties, with a footnote to explain for those countries that they were suppose to have been in Nth position, but changed to Nnth position due to technical issues. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 12:11, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

At first, the order of votes should be the original version, in which they were announced and how they were broadcasted, but there should be footnote, that there were a technical problem so that the results werde announced at position 38th, 39th, 40th. Winterkönig Hannover (talk) 12:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, @Winterkönig Hannover: I have to disagree with you. The way issues like this have been handled in the past by WP:ESC is to list them in order that they gave out the entire points. So in this case, Portugal, Estonia, and Georgia - regardless of technical difficulties, become listed in 38, 39, and 40. Then a footnote explaining they should have been 5, 13, and 30 respectively. This was done a few years ago when Ireland encountered the same problem; and Project Eurovision relist them in the new announcement position, with a footnote detailing about the issue. Keep with the consistent precedence here! @Hshook: is right and we need to show the order correctly with Portugal, Estonia, and Georgia being last, as that is when they announced their full voting results. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 12:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

As there were more than one technical issue, then this information will become detailed in more depth within an incidents section at some stage. So the footnotes would not be needed at that point. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 13:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

@Hshook:@Wesley Mouse:@Winterkönig Hannover: Can we please make sure that any changes to the page that are reverted, removed etc are discussed here first. -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 16:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Of course, I started this discussion to go through WP:BRD on @Winterkönig Hannover:'s changes. My position is above. – Hshook (talk) 16:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll just say that I oppose the second table that was added, we don't need unnecessary duplication, just for something that can be said in a note. -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 16:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Where is the problem? There was an original order of voting published, and then there were some problems by announcing the votes from three countries. Winterkönig Hannover (talk) 16:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

We don't disagree on that, but I think that the list should be in the order that the votes were received, rather than the proposed order. The original order is better suited to a note underneath the list. – Hshook (talk) 16:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

@Wesley Mouse:@Winterkönig Hannover:@AxG: I am going to remove the duplicate table, taking the section back to before this discussion began, then if anyone still has concerns they can be discussed. Please do not add the second table again until discussion has taken place. – Hshook (talk) 16:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

AxG is right here. @Winterkönig Hannover: what you did was pointy and engaging in edit warring over disputed content. What Hshook did by starting the discussion here is the correct procedure of bold, revert, discuss. As I noted in an earlier comment; we had an encounter like this a few years ago, when Ireland were originally down as voting in one position, but they experienced technical difficulties (like Portugal, Estonia, and Georgia did this year), and Ireland ended up announcing them last. That is what the section is suppose to be depicting; the order in which the votes where fully announced via live broadcast. Portugal, Estonia, and Georgia gave their full votes at the end. A simple footnote like is currently in place, covers the basis that there were drawn to announce differently, but didn't do so because their satellite connection was "disconnected". Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 16:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC) @Hshook: restoration to a status quo prior to all this is the wise and correct procedure. @Winterkönig Hannover: if you continue to re-add and inevitably go beyond the 3 revert rule, then you will only have yourself to blame if you get blocked due to not following the discussion process. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 17:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Tell the truth, not everybody reads footnotes first! Winterkönig Hannover (talk) 17:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Erm, Winterkönig Hannover there is no truth so to speak. If people look at the footnote or not, is not of concern here - that is down to the individual reading the article. The fact that footnotes are suppose to be used in cases like this is the correct concern and procedure to be carried out. And @Winterkönig Hannover: you have gone beyond the 3 revert rule so don't be surprised if you get blocked from editing in due course. I see 1, 2, 3, 4 reverts, which is a blocking offence. @Hshook: bear in mind that you too are on your third revert on this matter, be careful not to revert it any further until this has been resolved. We wouldn't want 2 editors being blocked for the same matter. And I appreciate that you indented my comment in good faith, but refactoring other's comments is not allowed. I have restored it back to how I chosen to post it. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 17:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Is this an offense against me? Please tell me, what is the problem to announce that there was an official list of order of voting and the broadcasted voting order? Winterkönig Hannover (talk) 17:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

@Winterkönig Hannover: to simplify things a little. The offence you have done is edit war over content, not once, but you reverted 4 times in the space of 24 hours. That is an offence and can result in you being blocked from editing. There is a problem with the list, because you and 3 other editors have mixed opinion on how the list should look. As this is a content dispute, then you are suppose to discuss it with everyone concerned at this very talkpage venue. Reverting others because you still disagree is the wrong thing to do. Now, please, discuss the matter, work to a resolution between yourself, Hshook, and any other editors. Once you have all reached an agreement, then the article's voting order section can be changed. But until then, do not revert the content any more. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 17:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Infobox change

I have started a discussion to include a new field in the infobox, please participate here. Thanks!!!! Rayukk (talk) 11:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

"Wave-shaped spheres"

§ Graphic design says

The theme utilises wave-shaped spheres meant to symbolise diversity and the bridging of connections and encounters people experience on a constant basis.

That's self-contradictory, like "square triangles". Thnidu (talk) 21:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Maybe that should be changed to "utilises a wave of spheres"? -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 21:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Good suggestion. Done, with slight modification: "The theme depicts a wave made up of many spheres". --Thnidu (talk) 04:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Awkward English

The article needs to be re-writen in decent English.64.53.191.77 (talk) 03:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I assume you meant "re-written" with 2 T's? The article is written in British English, using the correct spelling, grammar, and punctuation, in accordance with WP:ENGVAR. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 03:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

>Complains about the "bad english" in the article,

>Complaint itself not in decent English,

OP I recommend you learn how to spell before recommending anything else! . –Davey2010^Talk 03:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

How low can you go? Maybe we need to use descent English. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Ofcourse silly me a sense of humour on this place is strictly forbidden .... I'll stick to calling everyone a (Redacted) shall I? .... –Davey2010^Talk 12:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, now that we've got Australia at Eurovision, I think you might have to. Just try not to forget the advice. As you know Wikipedia is always a place of sweetness and light. But any more jokes like that and I'll take you to ANI! Martinevans123 (talk) 13:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Be my fucking guest!. –Davey2010^Talk 14:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Great to see you've kept your sense of humour. And that all my links didn't go amiss. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Martin you little sod - Sorry I've just had a really crap day and to be honest hadn't even realized you linked to everything so thus was actually joking!, It's just been one of those days today , I apologize for biting your head off. –Davey2010^Talk 14:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

"Ah, Meestah Daveey, you too kind!" *blush* Martinevans123 (talk) 14:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Eurovision Song Contest 2016 logo.svg

@Hshook: You have reverted my twice now on File:Eurovision Song Contest 2016 logo.svg, and claiming that the flag in the heart should be off-centre, whilst yes, the Swedish flag is off-centre, the logo is copyright of the EBU and is not for one user or any Wikipedia user to change, which would go against their branding guidelines since the logo should follow their positioning of the flag, SVT themselves also follow the EBU guidelines. -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 07:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@AxG: Sure, but it does look wrong. I stand corrected, thank you for those links. Also this discussion may be better suited to the talk page of the 2016 contest rather than this one. – Hshook (talk) 13:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@Hshook: Oops, I didn't realise I had put this in 2015. -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 13:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

German speaking Countries

Why have the german speaking countries bad results? Germany 0 Points, Austria 0 Points, Switzerland 4 Points. Is there any relation? --84.139.216.94 (talk) 16:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Maybe because they all had bad songs? They were all sung in English, by the way. But perhaps you can find a WP:RS that suggests some other reason(s). Martinevans123 (talk) 16:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Although this isn't a forum for discussing Eurovision, I would say the lower-scoring countries didn't send anyone with a difference this year. People vote for songs and performers who stand out, so It's not that they speak German, it's just that they were a bit boring. – Hshook (talk) 16:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

"Time to Shine" never even got to the final, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

None of those songs were that bad, Germany was good, and so was Switzerland, so I'm surprised that more people didn't vote for them. This year we saw points far more concentrated amongst the top contestants, leaving less for the lower-scoring countries, perhaps that's why. – Hshook (talk) 16:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Overrunning

Should it be mentioned that the show overran by approximately 25 minutes (provided we find a suitable source, of course)? I mean, it lasted just short of 4 hours, which must be a record for a Eurovision final. —  Andreyyshore  T  C  00:26, 30 May 2015 (UTC) 

It's not the first time the final has overrun; although I cannot remember the last time, but I do remember Terry Wogan saying one year (2004-2007) that the contest seem to be going on forever due to all countries announcing the full 1-12 points. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 00:31, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

As for sourcing this overrun in 2015, I suppose {{Cite episode}} would suffice, as there is the parameter to add the length of the show, and we could use the official ESC channel on youtube as the link to verify the length. An option worth thinking about. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 00:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Contest feared a terror attack

Did anyone else know about this terror threat? Something of this magnitude surely deserves adding to the article? Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 00:34, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

There's no threat mentioned, so I don't think anything should be added here. – Hshook (talk) 11:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

"the country's second win in three years"

Sweden won in 2012 and 2015. Surely that makes 2 wins in 4 years, not 3 years. Vauxhall1964 (talk) 00:40, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Simple maths here really. 2015 - 2012 = 3. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 08:35, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

2012-2015 is 4 years .... 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015. Besides in the context of Eurovision 'years' refers to 'contests' surely. Vauxhall1964 (talk) 12:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

The Eurovision Song Contest 2012 was held on 26 May, so strictly speaking it's four days less than three years. But I guess "years" is meant to mean "annual contests" not exact calendar years. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC) ...so it's had two wins in four contests?

If this is going to cause confusion between the definition of "years" as in calendar or contest, then it is probably best to omit the information. It is well known on these cases that confusion only opens up to dramatic content disputes. However, to put it in a different way, a person born in 2012 would not be turning 4 this year, they'd be 3 years old, but embarking on their forth year of life. Take myself for example; I was born in 1979, this year I turn 36; as 1979 is counted as the "zero" year. The contest started in 1956, being the first contest. 2015 marked the sixtieth contest, in the fifty-ninth calendar year of it "birthday" (so to speak). 2016 would in effect be its sixtieth birthday year; but its sixty-first contest year. If that makes sense. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 13:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

The only way of wording it to avoid dispute between a person's definition of "years", would be to say "This is Sweden's second win of the twenty-first century, since 2012". Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 13:06, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Or just :"Sweden last won in 2012". I don't really see the significance of the millennium to the notability of winning. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:09, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Like Now that wording is even better. I agree that making a point of the "millennium" issue is probably a wee bit over-the-top. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 13:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

"second win since 2012" is confusing as it suggests after 2012 Sweden won twice when after 2012 they won once. The clearest option would be to say 'Sweden's second win in the last four contests' and leave 'years' out of it if we must. Vauxhall1964 (talk) 13:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

@Vauxhall1964:, if there is confusion no mater how it is going to be worded, then the best solution is to not mention it at all. We're best trying to avoid content disputes, rather than provide the wood kindling to start a heated dispute in the future. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 13:41, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Bucket of petrol, anyone? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:44, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, year = contest.-79.223.15.33 (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Really? So you don't celebrate your birthday in years then, you celebrate then in contests? Well in all of my life, I never knew that I have been getting it all wrong and I am actually 35 contests-old rather than 35 years-old. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 17:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

How is this about me all of a sudden? I count my birthdays in a different way exactly because I'm not a contest.-79.223.15.33 (talk) 18:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

To define year: a common year is 365 days, a leap year is 366 days. There is no such definition as a "Eurovision Year", as the contest still takes place at a given time within the calendar year. To try and say it is "four years" will confuse people come 2016, into thinking that Sweden last won in 2011, rather than in 2012.

That's only one definition.-79.223.15.33 (talk) 18:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Please do not alter other's comments, like you did with mine. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 09:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe this explains it: If you had lunch yesterday, and lunch today, was that your second lunch in a day?-79.223.15.33 (talk) 18:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe instead of going round and round about lunches and years and birthdays etc. this information could just be left out? yes that was just a chance to make puns, but I hope my message is received– Hshook (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, it's not a useful information anyway.-79.223.15.33 (talk) 19:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Lunch?? Sweden's won more times than I've had hot dinners. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, it is best to omit it all together if it is causing all of this confusion. And to answer the other question about lunches, if someone had two lunches within 24 hours, then yes they would have had 2 lunches in a day, as a day is 24 hours long. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 09:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Lead citation

There is a citation in the lead section regarding full split results. Per WP:CITELEAD, which was pointed out after a recent FA review of Eurovision 2012 article, the lead or infobox sections shouldn't contain citations. Any suggestions where in the main body of the article that the full split result citation can be moved to? Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 13:12, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2015

90.184.1.212 (talk) 20:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Uhm Sweden isn't the first country to win twice in 21st Century, Denmark was the first country to win twice in the 21st Century, they won in 2000 and 2013

As has been mentioned at #2-time 21st century winner?, the 21st century began on 1 January 2001. The year 2000 was the last year of the 20th century. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 20:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC)