Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2015/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Australia debut, first appearance, and/or guest (inconsistency)

In the last edit of article (4 June 2015, 16:45), user Brandmeister explained his contribution saying that Australia was guest, not EBU member, and because of that he changed Forty countries participated in the contest, with Australia making its first appearance into Forty countries participated in the contest, with Australia making a guest appearance. However, this is not consistent with infobox data which says debuting countries include Australia, what directly implicates first appearance... --Obsuser (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Surely one can't refute that it was the first appearance by Australia? Nor can one claim that Australia is part of the EBU. What seems to be in dispute is whether Australia might ever make another appearance. And of course, no one-can yet know for sure. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, Australia should not be classified as debuting country but as guest one. This is because even if it makes another appearance, it will not become part of the EBU (and contest, generally). If it even does so, the Eurovision will not be Eurovision any more, and the competition will lose its meaning. Australia is not debuting contestant; it was just a guest introduced for no good reason. --Obsuser (talk) 18:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the word debut suggests more there will be another appearance? Have any European countries only yet made their debut in the final? Australia was also different in that it did not compete in a semi final. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The "first appearance" wording is confusing, as it may imply that Australia became a regular Eurovision contestant. I propose removing Australia from the infobox, mention in the lead and further clarifications in the article's body would suffice IMO. Brandmeister^talk 18:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree with that proposal. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I've added "as a guest" to Australia in the infobox. Alternatively, it could be something like "none (Australia as a guest)", etc, or with an explanatory note. Brandmeister^talk 19:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think anyone could argue that Australia didn't make its debut appearance in 2015. Sure, it may not return, but just because it may only have one participation doesn't mean it shouldn't go in the infobox (do we also exclude Morocco?). I also would not support an explanatory note, as the whole situation is explained further down the page. – Hshook (talk) 03:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

From what I see, Australia could have returned in case of win, which didn't happen. So no return in 2016 and likely in subsequent years, unless new invitation appears. Brandmeister^talk 07:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, the infobox does show in the debut line that Australia is a "guest", thus adding explanation they are a "guest" and not a regular participant. Secondly, the EBU did say that if Australia won in 2015, that they would be allowed to participate again in 2016. Thirdly, it has been reported that the EBU are looking into allowing Australia to become a "regular" participant, despite the geographical location. Fourthly, despite the "Euro" in Eurovision, have we forgotten that Morocco (Africa) took part, Israel (Asia) takes part, Lebanon (Asia) nearly took part. This has been an unorthodox and surprise twist to the Eurovision, and the infobox was never designed to take into account of there ever being a "guest" nation. So we either modify the template so that it has a "guest nation" field - especially now that the EBU have said they would consider future guest nations; or we leave Australia in the "debut" with the (guest) notation, but then on the 2016 article in the withdrawn field show as "Australia (2015 guest)" to cover our asses. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 23:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

And what @Obsuser: states that Australia will not become "part of the EBU" is easily discredited. They are a member of the EBU, an associate member, which is still membership in some form or another. To stipulate that the nation was introduced for no good reason, may be considered as a pointy matter of personal opinion - something which WP:POINTY and WP:NPOV discourages us from achieving. There is always a reason for everything in the world, and the fact the EBU and ORF invited Australia is their reason which everyone else loved, but one is clearly objecting to because it takes away the "Euro" in Eurovision. We all live under the same skies, live on the same planet... and it was Eurovision-kitsch niceness to see Australia in the competition after they have followed with passion for over 30 years. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 00:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Opening Act (Final)

When the woman played the violin in the beginning, there was a picture of a man on the back of the stage (just before the screen was removed and the ORF-Radio-orchestra was revealed). Who is that man? David1776 (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@David1776: That was Udo Jürgens, Austria's last artist to win the contest in 1966 who died last December. -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 20:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Sortable table

Table about candidate cities/venues should not be sortable because its part Failed bids gets sorted too, what we don't need... Can someone exclude Failed bids from being sorted, or I will change the code from sortable wikitable to simple wikitable... It is also case with other Eurovision Song Contest related pages. --Obsuser (talk) 15:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed Don't know when and who made the table sortable, but I have now fixed the table code. These tables have never been sortable before on previous articles, and was definitely never sortable on this one. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 19:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@Obsuser: You could have been WP:BOLD and fixed these yourself, you know! Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 19:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Opening act

In the part where opening act is mentioned (in the article's infobox), is it correctly written Semi-final 1 and Final? And can anybody resolve my previous question, please? --Obsuser (talk) 19:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@Obsuser: Not sure what you mean as the question is rather ambiguous. But I will answer it in the two ways that I have interpreted it. If you mean should it read "semi-final", then yes. British English hyphenates the words 'semi' and 'final' when making reference to semi-final. However if you mean should the inofbox separately list the opening acts, then that too would be yes. This is a practice done on previous annual articles. We depict the opening act for each of the shows. Wasn't there an opening act for the second semi-final? If so, then we have not mentioned that, nor the interval act for the semi-final 2. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 19:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@Wesley Mouse: Actually, I was thinking about whether it is correct or not Final itself (bolded in my prev. comment), and should it be written there Semi-final 2 or something, but I've checked out and it's OK. :) Obsuser (talk) 20:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2015

In the infobox, please change the director's name from Kathrin Zechner to Kurt Pongratz (as according to IMDB[1] and the official Eurovision credits [2]). Mthowells200130 (talk) 20:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

 Not done. IMDb is not a reliable source, per WP:RS/IMDB, as the content is user-submitted and often subject to incorrect speculation and rumours. Wes Mouse ✒ 21:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2015/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 12:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

On it. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments from nominator

Thanks. Looking forward to this. Although there were two other Eurovision articles on GA nomination that are also in the outstanding backlog (over 5 months old). Wes Mouse ✒ 13:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• @Zwerg Nase: I'm assuming everything is OK and that the review is still in progress? Wes Mouse ✒ 00:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@Wesley Mouse: Sure, I was just pretty busy over the weekend. I'll try to review as many articles today and tomorrow as possible. Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Zwerg Nase for the swift reply. I appreciate and understand how busy real-life schedules can be, as I myself, am in a busy period trying to move house. So feel free to take as much time as you require. Wes Mouse ✒ 09:49, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Review

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

This is a very thorough article on the 2015 ESC, but still a number of things need to be sorted out. I have added a number of maintanance tags that need to be taken care of. The rest is listed here:

• Lead: A tense voting process does not sound very NPOV to me, you should try and find a different wording here.
• Location: In general, the first paragraph should be moved to the end of the section, since there it does not resolve the bidding process to the fact that Vienna won.
• Bidding city table: I do not really see what sources the notes come from...
• Inclusive traffic lights: You need to introduce the fact that the Song Contest is also just called "Eurovision" for short or give the full name.
• Graphic design: You need to decide wether to give the motto in italics or not, both versions are present here.
• Presenters: The fact they all speak French needs a source.
• Presenters: Maybe you can give a short overview over who those persons are?
• ESC needs to be introduced as a abbreviation as well.
• I would recommend to move the result tables out of the "Participants" section and into a new "Results" section. The scoreboard can then be a sub-section of that.
• Result tables: The places and points don't have sources.
• Same goes for the jury results in the semi-finals.
• Marcel Bezençon Awards: How was decided who gets these awards?
• Official album: Track listing, running time, label and genre all need a source.
• There seems to be a problem with ref #4 to Volksblatt, the connection times out. Maybe that is just because of server problems on their end, but you should have a look at that.
• Images: There are several good photos on Commons for the event, you should use at least two of them in the article. One of the winner definitely!

That's about it. Good job so far! Seven days to take care of the issues at hand. Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@Zwerg Nase: A couple of points you raised above cannot be addressed, per suggestions from the past GA reviews for the 2012, 2013, and 2014 articles which are also of GA status. For example, you say the fact that the Song Contest is also just called "Eurovision" for short or give the full name and ESC needs to be introduced as a abbreviation as well. All worded styles are WP:COMMONNAME. Also you say to move the result tables out of the "Participants" section and into a new "Results" section. Again we were advised not to do this on the last 3 years of contest articles, and a RfC was held to house the results and participation details all under the same section as it currently shows. The citations for the notes of the bidding city table are at the top of the table itself (8, 9, 10, 13). As for the the places and points not having sources, they are there as citation #45. The 12 points tables fall under WP:CALC Citations for the split results are within the tables themselves (50–59). Marcel Bezençon Awards: How was decided who gets these awards? a bit self-explanatory really, and is cited with ref #102. {{Track listing}} does not advise on citing the running time in the listing themselves, which is why citation #172 in the prose above it is there as a precaution for verifying the running time of the album - this is again something that was advised and passed at the previous 4 GA reviews for 2012, 2013, 2014 and JESC 2014. Ref #4 to Volksblatt worked OK for me and didn't timeout. As for the other issues I shall address them as soon as possible. Wes Mouse ✒ 06:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• And seven days to address these issues is pushing it, don't you think? Especially when I've been made to wait 11 days for the review to begin, and I did state at the top that I am currently in the process of moving house this week (Friday 25 September to be exact) so there are a lot to sort out in real life which is going to cause this to delay slightly. I'd appreciate a little extra time if possible. Wes Mouse ✒ 06:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Seven days is simply the standard period. If you need more time, feel free to do so! Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@Wesley Mouse: I saw some work was done since we last wrote here. I was unsure if that is all that is going to be done? A few replies to the points you raised:

• I still fail to find the points written in the "Notes" section of the bidding table in the four sources you mention. Also, those inline citations should go directly behind the information.
• Marcel Bezençon Awards: If the information is in the source, you can write it in the article. It is Wikipedia's policy that readers should not be forced to click further to find information.
• As for the album, Template:Infobox album states that "It may be helpful to include a source in a comment".
• The Volksblatt source still fails to load for me. I don't know what's wrong there...

I'll be on a wikibreak due to being out of the country for the next couple of days and check back next Monday. Cheers, Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

No edits made by the nominator since my last comments. Other edits have been made that are not sourced. I am therefore forced to fail this review now. Feel free to nominate again when the issues are adressed. Cheers, Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@Zwerg Nase: That is very harsh and unfair. I had informed you a while back that I was in the process of moving house, and that I would have no internet access for a while. I insist that you reconsider your failing on the basis that you were very aware that I had no internet and thus impossible to even know you had left me notes let alone act upon them. Wes Mouse ✒ 09:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear Wesley Mouse, all you told me was that you'd be moving on 9/25, so I did not know that you would be without internet for 20 days after that. As I said, feel free to nominate the article again, another review shouldn't take long, the article is almost there. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Common sense, Zwerg Nase should have made it perfectly clear that if someone is moving home that their internet services would also be disconnected from the former address and would take a while to be reconnected at the new address. I am inclined to go down the second opinion route, as another editor would most likely agree that additional time should have been allocated due to the circumstances. Wes Mouse ✒ 12:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)