Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision/Archive 12

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision
Latest comment: 10 years ago by AxG in topic ESC National Year infobox
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

Other countries section

Latest comment: 10 years ago39 comments6 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
A compromise to include a written prose that provides information on eligibility whilst avoiding listing every country with {{flagicon}}s has gained support, and is now being used
Initial debate

Danish Expert keeps adding a list of other countries without sources and not only that but going against the RfC decision which was agreed upon by the Project. I have explained until I am blue in the face as to why the information should not be added, but alas I get ignored as usual. Wes Mᴥuse 18:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

@Wes: I have to remind you about WP:AGF. We also just started to discuss this matter a few minuttes ago, so your claim that you have "explained until I am blue in the face" is untrue. I was not aware that a previous Project dicision was taken recently about the scope of the chapter "Other countries". I will now check if it indeed say what you claim. But either way, if it indeed does, I will however challenge that we now change it. I think it makes much more sence to let the "Other countries" chapter list all those other eligible countries not showing up for one reason or another. This is what I did in my most recent edit, where I also added a reference to document that all active EBU members are potential participants. The reason why I insist the list should include all potential participants who decided not to show up, is in order to ensure we comply with wikipedia's principal of always providing complete information. I also think its relevant to readers, that this list is complete. Other editors than me, can subsequently dig into or search for additional references explaining why the varoius countries did not show up. This is not something we need to find and add in advance. It is a fact we have 19 eligible countries who decided for one reason or another not to show up. This is both relevant and notable information to include in the chapter we have about "Other countries". Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 18:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
So my edit summaries are not classified as explaining huh? The decision does state what I said, but that is your choice if you think I am a liar, I have no reason to lie when I provided you with not only the link to the discussion, but also snippets of context from that aforementioned discussion. Listing every single country is just unnecessary. Why add them when they only get removed come the GA review anyway. Plus you are listing countries such as Algeria and Egypt who are already mentioned in the main Eurovision Song Contest article. The only countries that need to be included in the 'other countries' section are those who say something that is relevant to the annual article in question. Anything more is just over-padding. Wes Mᴥuse 18:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I always welcome civil debates, like the one we have now. Just wanted to emphasize you had no right to complain about my response. In regards of your linked RfC decision, I can see it is two years old, and that you indeed together with three other editors at that point of time, felt it was inappropriate to list those "Other eligible countries" not showing up for the yearly event - unless they had published some news/info about their intention to participate in this particular years event. My argument however goes, that the GA rating also ask for content completeness, and I strongly feel the list of "other countries" is incomplete if we do not list all those other potential eligible participators deciding not to show up. If there is no story this particular year mentioning why they did not, we can just leave the name of the country (as I did in my edit), and curious readers can click on the link to read about the previous history of the country's participation or intention to participate. In that way, we do not clut up the yearly articles with the same sort of info each year. What we currently discuss is, if its OK or not to have 7 additional country names mentioned by the list, which is really not a huge enlargement if you ask me. If we do it, as I just suggested, we at the same time ensure we have "completeness of content". Let me remind you, that the list of eligible particioners is not static from year to year. This list of eligible particioners (=active EBU members) has changed each year going backwards in history, which is why it is relevant that we also reflect this at the yearly editions of the Eurovision Song Contest articles. In my point of view, my latest edit only improved the article, without any content related drawbacks at all. So I now propose we start to do it this way instead. Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I strongly oppose making this kind of change. What may be incomplete to one person, could be complete to another. A bit like the old phrase "is a glass half-empty or half-full". It all boils down to how you perceive it. Listing every eligible country even if they have not shown an interest for a particular year is just overzealous and undue content, not to mention repetitive. If a reader wants to know more about other countries that have not taken part every year, then there is the link at the bottom of the article that directs to a 'featured article' List of countries in the Eurovision Song Contest, and that contains all the necessary information about other eligible countries. That is sufficient in my eyes. Listing all the countries like you suggest, would only add to confusion of a reader. They'd be under the impression that Algeria or Egypt were considering to enter a contest - and that would then mean we are publishing factually incorrect and potentially misleading information. A line has to be drawn somewhere on what kind of information is included in that section. Previously we use to have sections entitled "possible withdrawal, debut, returns, etc". Such headers made the article sound speculative, and that was why a more appropriate section 'other countries' was created. I'm pretty sure that other project members would be in agreement with me here, that your suggestion is clearly padding and undue content. Wes Mᴥuse 20:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

We don't list countries like America, saying they don't qualify, so I would agree with Wes that anything else is unneeded. - 97rob (talk) 20:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
You accidently missed my point. America is not an eligible particioner (=active EBU member), and would therefor never be included in my proposed expanded complete list. My only proposal is, that the article should feature a complete list of all eligible particioners (=active EBU members) who for one reason or another decided not to show up. The concern about misinformation stressed by Wes above, can easily be adressed just be renaming the chapter title from "Other countries" to "Other eligible countries". I maintain it is interesting to the majority of readers to know the list of "other eligible countries" who decided each year not to show up. When I myself recently digged into this matter, it was of huge encyclopedic value for me to learn that 19 out of 56 eligible countries decided for one reason or another not to participate (and who they were). Funny enough, I could however at the same time fully support if some of you had suggested we should delete all info about Kosovo and Liechtenstein, because they never became eligible countries (=active EBU members) ahead of the event. In my point of view, this disqualify the mentioning of those two countries in the list, but I can accept to keep them if some of you feel strong about it. Danish Expert (talk) 20:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
As you say you like completion. This article for example is regarding Eurovision 2014. The countries currently listed in the 'other countries' section all stated for one reason or another about their plans for 2014. And thus makes the 2014 article complete. Countries like Algeria, Egypt, who did not even mention anything about 2014 makes their inclusion overzealous. The core policy is for everything to be verified with citations. As there are no news reports for the other eligible countries, then we'd be publishing unsourced material which then becomes contested and ultimately removed - and then you're back at square one with the list that is currently in use. If a reader wants to know more about other countries who are eligible but have not yet participated, then there is the article List of countries in the Eurovision Song Contest, to which a read can visit for information on those eligible countries. No need to include them on annual articles, unless there are news reports regarding them for a particular year. Wes Mᴥuse 20:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I acknowledge both approaches can be considered to be complete from each side of our editorial perspectives. What it really boils down to, is however if we now consider it best - or most rellevant - to let the chapter "Other countries" display a:

1) List of countries with public stated participational declines for this years event.
2) List of countries declining the invitation for this years event.

I definately still prefer the second approach - which only is a small enlargement of the current approach 1. We know as a fact that 56 countries were invited for the 2014 Eurovision, and that 19 of those for one reason or another decided to decline the invitation. For me as a reader, it is interesting to learn who all the absenties were, and I would normally expect being able to read this piece of info directly at each yearly article of the event. The added reference at my introduction line feature a map with a clear identification of all those countries receiving an invitation for the event (=all active EBU members), so if we stick with approach 2, we definately have everything appropriately sourced to add the 7 additional country names who silently (without making a public statement about it) decided to decline their Eurovision invitation. What it boils down to, is really an editorial choise of either letting the scope of the chapter "Other countries" follow approach 1 or approach 2. Clearly you prefer the first one, while my preferal is the second, and we have both presented our arguments. The debate is open, and I hope many other editors will chime in and leave argued comments if they prefer the current approach 1 or my counter-proposed approach 2. Danish Expert (talk) 07:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm sticking to my guns and strongly opposing the change. As you have already pointed out, your method is how "you expect things to be done", which is extremely POV pushing. From what I have been informed, this debate gets thrashed out every year, with the same outcome resulting from it - and that being to only include countries that have explicitly stated for one reason or another about their participation for a particular year, and the fact it can be verified with sources. OK the EBU invite everyone, but there are no published sources to show this invitation nor are there sources to enable us to verify that countries such as Algeria have declined. Therefore we'd be publishing original research and/or publishing our own point of view, which goes against one of the 5 core policies. Besides, I was informed that there was a overwhelming consensus against the inclusion of listing every eligible country onto every annual article, that was established well before I joined both Wikipedia and WikiProject Eurovision back in August 2011. So this suggestion is just running without gas and never going to get a full agreement from everyone. Wes Mᴥuse 12:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
With all due respect, my proposal and support for approach 2 can not be labeled as WP:OR or WP:POV. Reason why its not POV, you can already find in my previous reply - in short I listed some logical arguments for why it should be part of the yearly event article (the most important being that it is factual relevant to know the list of invited countries for the event, and the fact that this list of countries being invited is not static across all years - but in fact different from year to year). Another point to keep in mind, is that EBU only started to invite all active EBU members in 2004 when they introduced the semifinale format, which mean our changed approach would only affect all yearly event articles from 2004 onwards. Reason why my second approach proposal is not WP:OR, is that we can easily find a refence listing the 56 country names having received the 2014 Eurovision invitation (in addition to the map reference I already provided you with), and then no further source is really needed when we compare this invitational list with the "list of participating contenders", in order to figure out the obvious conclusion for our question: Which of the countries ultimately decided to decline their invitation for the 2014 Eurovision?. This is supported by the WP:RS policy, stating that no sources are needed for obvious conclusions that no readers can be imagined to dispute. Finally your last argument that "we shall not ever shift approach due to the simple fact that a group of editors reached consensus about the current standard for a chapter scope in 2012", is also invalid. At Wikipedia we never reach consensus based on previously stated opinions or reached consensuses, but upon the strength/quality of currently posted arguments for the case. So let's focus on this. Given that we have no wikipedia policy breach for my proposed second approach, the question boils down to whether or not we want the scope of the "other countries" chapter limited only to display a:
1) List of countries with public stated participational declines for this years event.
Or the scope of the "other countries" chapter extended to display a:
2) List of countries declining the invitation for this years event.
I hope we can limit our debate now to be focused about, which of the above two approaches we think best suit the scope of the article. Because for both approaches, no wikipedia policies are really breached. Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 14:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Danish Expert that his approach is not more or less POV than only adding those countries about which we happen to have a first hand source; only adding those that commented without showing the bigger picture just because we have no reason for the declination is also a bit focussing on news reports and not very encyclopaedic. It is allowed to use primary sources for things which are factual (number of employees of a company etc), and if Eurovision says they sent invitations to all, it makes sense to list them all, as concluding from the fact "were invited" (ref'd for 2014) und "have participated" (ref'd a lot), which countries have chosen not to participate is the sort of service we may be expected to do for our readers, without getting into synthesis territory. We could of course look at a way to carefully state what we are describing by saying i) EBU membership is a requirement and ii) of the EBU members, the following countries did not participate. In that way the reader has to do the math and may conclude that they were allowed, but decided not to participate. Would that be a good idea? L.tak (talk) 14:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
And wandering into synthesis territory is exactly what we'd be doing, purely because there are no sources, not even primary ones, that provide citation that Eurovision say they sent invitations to every EBU member broadcaster. So without that then Danish Expert's approach would be original research. Like I said, the suggest approach gets declined year after year, and one only needs to check through every annual archive to find the reasons for the decline. So if the outcome year after year is a big fat no, then I highly doubt that consensus is going to be changed overwhelmingly, and not even by force. Wes Mᴥuse 10:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I will look into the fact is we have sources about eligibility; because I and the impression we had, so I'll come back to that. I must say that by stating in very post that others will back you is not a very helpful argument, but a strawman's argument. You are free to mention it, but doing it every time does not give the arguments more merit. Let's focus on the present discussion and not on year after year conclusions, but see if we can get to a consensus here that would be agreeable for all 3/4 of us.... L.tak (talk) 19:37, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I said I would come back with a new look on the facts.. Danish suggested "For a country to be eligible for potential participation in the Eurovision Song Contest, it needs to be an active member of the EBU.[1] As of May 2014, the list of potential participants comprised 56 countries, of which the following 19 decided not to participate: " I agree the last sentence is maybe minimal original research, as only 46 countries in total may participate... However, it is clear from his source, all EBU countries are eligible; and I still think we should not only mention those countries for which we have the excuse of non participation mentioned. It is very clear they didn't participate, and it is very clear that they are EBU members... I propose to rephrase to ""For a country to be eligible for potential participation in the Eurovision Song Contest, it needs to be an active member of the EBU.[2] The following EBU countries did not participate:[followed by an alphabetical list], xxx of which (list the countries with refs) cited financial reasons. Other reasons were: (list the rest) "" Any ideas? L.tak (talk) 19:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Apologies, I wasn't stating that other's would back me up. I was merely pointing out that I was informed by an editor that the consensus wouldn't change and that there had been discussions year after year with the same results every time. Previously, the annual articles always listed "possible return - possible debut - possible withdrawal" And the fact the articles used the words "possible" made it sound very WP:CRYSTAL. Thus it was decided to change the "possible" approach to the current "Other countries" and thus we were able to mention all countries who said they were withdrawing, retuning, etc. But only those countries that had a source. The main Eurovision Song Contest as well as the List of countries in the Eurovision Song Contest articles goes into more detail about eligibility and the number of countries - which from what I gather was the more preferred choice. I suppose one compromising method could be to only list countries for each specific year (like we have at present) with a hatnote linking to to countries article for those who may wish to read more about eligibility. That way we're covering every aspect. We already mention if a country withdraws, returns, or makes a debut at a contest. To also mention that Algeria, Egypt etc were invited but chose to decline that very invitation is just making us look repetitive and slightly original research. However, if the rest of the project members "vote!" in favour of this proposed change, then I'm sure I could be swayed into the majority. But this kind of debate that would impact every article, would ideally need to be held on the project talk page and not on here. Wes Mᴥuse 13:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I cannot see any point just repeatedly listing year-on-year every country that is eligible to participate but didn't. If we have a reliable source which mentions Eurovision Song Contest YYYY and the country concerned, then it's fine to point that out in the article. Otherwise, we're going to end up with lots of repetitive lists with places such as Vatican City listed year after year with no new information. Each article after all is supposed to be a summary, not an exhaustive collection of all information of remote relevance to the contest. List of countries in the Eurovision Song Contest already has a list of persistent non-participants, which can be expanded with more countries and information if needed.
Wesley Mouse has already identified that this has been discussed before and the current practice is based on past consensus. I would add that there have also been users which have tried to push things the other way and tried to exclude any mention of a country unless they're participating, and that school of thought may yet way in on this discussion. On the general issue of consensus, Consensus can change, but I don't see a new consensus yet, and really for a change that will affect lots of articles, at least a note on this discussion should be left at WT:ESC and possibly some other pages. An RfC would be a nice idea, but in the past people have started one after a lively debate, but nobody has participated. CT Cooper · talk 14:42, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
@Wes: Your previous claim is untrue, that no source exist for my posted fact that all active EBU members are invited each year. I have already posted you the source in my initial post. Now I will do it again, with a direct cite of the line you apparently missed to read: Every year, the invitation to participate in the contest is sent out to all active Members. While some of them choose not to take part, most of them do. If that was your main objection, it has now been removed. In regards of L.tak's compromise proposal, that we could remove the WP:Math part of it (leaving the math to calculate how many invitations were send and how many declined), then I am willing to accept leaving this out, as a compromise and to meet your concern for a possible breach of the WP:OR policy. As I mentioned earlier in our debate, the consequence of the change for our 2014 article would only be that we now expand the list of mentioned "other countries" to also include the 7 "other invited countries who declined the invitation" (but did not make a public statement about it). Moreover the rule that EBU invite all active EBU members was only introduced in 2004 - and thus our approach also to reflect this by the yearly event articles of course only should start in 2004 and going forward. I also earlier also posted the argument which nobody has rebutted, that the reason why it is important for each years article of the event to feature a complete list, is that the name of invited countries change each year - in accordance of the change made to the list of active EBU members. In example, Azerbaijan and Montengro were not invited in 2004. This is exactly my key argument, why we should have this info listed at each yearly edition of the Eurovision article, in order to reflect these yearly changes. So I do not support your compromise proposal, just to add a hatnote for the main Eurovision Song Contest article and the List of countries in the Eurovision Song Contest. If editors in here insist, that we move the debate to the ESC project talkpage, then I can accept this to pave the way for the change of the approach. At the moment, I however feel we get much more responces here at this talkpage, than we would probably get at WT:ESC.
In your previous reply you also mentioned the historic reason why the "other countries" approach was selected in 2012. While I agree with you and fully support, that it was smart to prefer this current standard compared to the previous one dealing with "possible return - possible debut - possible withdrawal", this does not change my continued support that we expand the list of "other countries" to include all those who "received an invitation and declined", rather than only list those who "received an invitation - made public statements about an intend to participate - but by the end of the day published a public statement explaining they ultimately decided to decline the invitation". I think it is very confusing why the list should be narrowed down to this special situation, and following an encyclopedic logical way of thinking, it makes much more sence simply to list all other countries "receiving an invitation but declined". As stated earlier, such changed approach would not conflict with any wikipedia policies. For those countries declining the invitation without giving a public statement each year, we simply just show the name of these countries without the additional referenced info about why the country declined (which we currently have for those countries publishing their official reasons for the decline). Danish Expert (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
So are you just going to ignore what CT Cooper had to say? No dealing with this issue purely at this talk page location is not going to help matter. The change you are proposing will inadvertently need to be implemented on other articles too. And seeing as these are articles under the main scope of WikiProject Eurovision then the project's talk page is the logical location to hold such discussions. But from the way I currently see it based on comments above, 3 editors have shown great opposition towards your proposal. And when this has even been brought up in the past, nobody liked the idea. OK people are allowed to change their mind, but as this gets discussed endlessly every year; then I can't see any outcome progressing from this latest round of talks. Wes Mᴥuse 17:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
And in response to your remark "such changed approach would not conflict with any wikipedia policies". In fact there are that quite a lot of core policies that your approach would conflict. Have you forgotten What Wikipedia is not? Your approach would violate the spirit of WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTDIARY, WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. And WP:OR, WP:SYNT and WP:UNDUE have also been noted. How many policies did you say it complied with? By the looks, a lot less than how many it conflicts with. Wes Mᴥuse 18:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
No I will certainly not ignore CT Cooper, who also said the response at WP:ESC was not as high as here at this talkpage. My idea only was, that we should keep our current debate open here (because it started here), for at least for one more day, before moving it to WP:ESC. I will leave it for you and CT Cooper to decide if we already today shall open up a parallel/summary debate at WP:ESC. For the moment, it seems like we are at least two editors L.tak and myself included, who after reading all your arguments continue to support changing the approach, so I am not alone to support this change, and most importantly also have posted some very valid arguments, why it make sence to change the approach into a "list of other countries who were invited but declined". Moreover your continued concern that my proposal would conflict with all those policies you mentioned, is not fair, and to be honest I am rather sure you will find that out if you post a RfC to check if the majority support/decline your complain about policy breaches. As I said, no policies are breached by my proposed changed approach. I consider this to be a straw argument you keep pulling out of your hat. Until otherwise prooven, none of those policies you listed are being breached. If you want to convince me and others about a breach, you need to post valid specific argument about why such policies are breached. Until now, I have not heard any valid arguments supporting your view, that multiple wikipedia policies would be breached by the implementation of my changed approach.
On a sidenote, I forgot to mention, that I still support removal of Kosovo and Liechtenstein from the list of "other countries" - despite their publicly stated intension to participate. Reason for this, is that they as non EBU members never were invited, and if they are not even inside this club of potential invited countries, it is not notable/rellevant enough just to list them because of having expressed "intention" both to become active members and participate. Personally I also intend to fly to the moon - I just need to find a sponsor to pay for it - which mean it is not really notable to mention in any wikipedia article - because it is more dream than reality. In regards of Kosovo, it is also evident they never have any chance to participate before being recognized as a sovereign country by all European countries. Their active membership of EBU and participation in the Eurovision, will not be possible until that point of time. So why should we continue each year to list this info at the "other countries" section. They were never invited. Just like other non fully sovereign countries like the Basque country or Transniestra never will be invited. The final argument why "intention" is a bad criteria to list "other countries", is that Australia each year intend to participate in the Eurovision, but according to the rules they can never become an acitve EBU-member, due to the geographical position being outside the EBA. So a long with my proposed changed of the "other countries" list, I also support a complete removal of the info about Kosovo and Liechtenstein. Danish Expert (talk) 18:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) What is it with the underhanded hostility approach in every response? Sheesh, it is taken me all my time to read what you write, and then by the time I get to the end of it I have forgotten what the hell was being said. You state that it is not fair that I pointed out the conflicts? One could also say it is not fair that you are forcing a change that has been rejected many times in the past. And in answer to your question, I think an RfC would acknowledge that your approach would violate the spirit of what Wikipedia is not, and thus my point of conflict being validated. And there is nothing wrong in moving this entire thread, warts and all, to the project talk page. Everything that has been said would just be there instead of here. And I oppose your request to remove Kosovo and Liechtenstein. They were agreed to be included because they had shown interest to join Eurovision and the EBU. Wes Mᴥuse 18:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Your claim about policy breaches is unfair, for as long as you do not support it by specific arguments about which specific line of that policy is causing the conflict and why. In regards of removing Kosovo and Liechtenstein from the list, they should be removed based on my argumentation above. If you want it to be otherwise, let me here your specific arugmentation why. It is not good enough simply to state "They were agreed to be included because they had shown interest to join Eurovision and the EBU". Because they can not join Eurovision before they first join EBU, which make it irellevant to report at the Eurovision Song Contest 2014 article, although I agree with you it could be rellevant to report this info at either the main [[Eurovision Song Contest article or at the European Broadcasting Union article. Danish Expert (talk) 18:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I support the removal of Kosovo and Liechtenstein. I've argued the same in the past that countries that are not members of the EBU have no actual prospect in joining the contest. Any information regarding their intentions can be moved to Unsuccessful attempts to participate. Pickette (talk) 19:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with the blanket removal of non-EBU members. They might have no chance of joining, but it's not for Wikipedia to make that call. If there is source coverage for a particular year on those countries wanting to participate, then they can and should be discussed. It doesn't make sense to cover them in the main Eurovision Song Contest article but not in the year articles, when almost all of the information about them can refer to a specific year. Again, with List of countries in the Eurovision Song Contest, anything there which refers to specific year should be in the applicable year article. I keep reading references to the EBU sending out invitations to participate. Is there actually any evidence in reliable sources that such invitations exist and are sent out to a verifiable list of countries? My overall position hasn't changed, and it is the default position taken with article content as per WP:V and WP:NOR – if a reliable source covers it for that year, we can mention it in the applicable year article; if there is no coverage for that year, we shouldn't mention in the applicable year article. I believe that rule to all countries regardless of status. CT Cooper · talk 20:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
@CT Cooper: I understand your argumentation about why we should continue to mention Kosovo and Liechtenstein. But would still remove them, because my concern is, that we are close to be in conflict with WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTNEWS. My main focus is to enforce an encyclopedic logical approach as a guiding tool for the content. To me it is not enough to include them, based only on the fact that a news source exist expressing their intend to participate in an event they never were invited to. In order to be mentioned in the yearly edition of the article, I think those countries should somehow be related to the event. This mean, that only countries participating or being invited to the event (as active EBU members) should be listed. Along the same line, I would also never list Kazakhstan as a potential Eurovision Song Contest 2008 participant - just because a Kazakh politician stated his desire for the country to participate in the Eurovision as soon as possible. As long as Kazakhstan is not a member of the European Counci (which is the second invitation criteria if you are not an active EBU member), they will not be invited, and thus it does not make sence to include their intended participation each year one of their politicians make public statements about their intension to participate. For the last time, here is again a sourced citation from the Eurovision website prooving that all active EBU members received an invitation to participate in the Eurovision Song Contest 2014: Every year, the invitation to participate in the contest is sent out to all active Members. While some of them choose not to take part, most of them do. From the same linked source you can see the map of all 56 active EBU members as of April 2014, and the list of invited countries can be constructed on basis of this alone (because no editors are WP:LIKELY to dispute the country names being extracted from a standard European map]). Danish Expert (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Kosovo have participated as a nation in the Eurovision Young Dancers 2011. As of 2013 Kosovo's nation broadcaster also have observer status within the EBU. The fact we have mentioned them in the last couple of years is simple. They have expressed a desire to join the EBU in order to participate in an up-coming contest, only to face a barrier preventing them. Sources were produced to verify that fact for the year(s) in question, and thus those facts presented in an encyclopaedic manner. By omitting Kosovo, you are not portraying a full encyclopaedic picture. The same argument goes for Liechtenstein, they tried to participate twice, and even selected entrants for those years, but were denied entry due to the fact they did not have a TV station. Now that they do, they have expressed wishes to join the EBU and ultimately Eurovision. Sources were produced, and thus we provided the encyclopaedic value regarding them to the respective yearly article for Eurovision. Both those nations have not mentioned anything about 2015, but if they did then they would warrant an inclusion - regardless of their EBU membership status. The section itself was only renamed to 'other countries' because A) we wanted to move away from the WP:CRYSTAL approach of using the terms "possible", and B) no other suitable name was thought up in order to cover countries that had expressed and/or made reference to Eurovision for a particular year (whether it be a desire to début, withdraw, or return). To make reference to the fact that an invite was sent out to every EBU member, but some of them declined, would make more sense and encyclopaedic logic to make reference to that fact in the main prose text of the 'Participating countries' section, but no sense to include it in the 'other countries' section. I would support any proposal to rename the section 'other countries' in order for it to fit the purpose it was originally designed for, and that being to address countries who have said they would return, withdraw, début, or expressed an interest to join the EBU in order to participate in Eurovision. But my stance on Danish Expert's proposal is clear, and that being I strongly oppose their implemented change. Wes Mᴥuse 03:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't recognize any conflict with WP:CRYSTAL. Any content about potential participation has to be verified, and WP:CRYSTAL only disallows "unverifiable speculation". It further elaborates on this, stating "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." Therefore content on the potential participation of any country is permissible, if properly referenced. I don't see any relevance to WP:NOTNEWS at all; that'll have to be elaborated.

Thank you providing the source for the invitations; I missed it in the earlier very long discussion, and I don't think asking for it again was asking for the Earth. My first thoughts are that yes it's a reliable source, but that making massive editorial decisions based on one sentence on one page on the EBU site could be a little dodgy. As Wes alludes to, such a source would only be usable, at best, for recent contests and the more general articles. The process could have been completely different a long time ago and I think it is reasonable to infer that it's actually a lot more complicated behind the scenes. Regardless, presuming that is the "truth", I do not see that as grounds to include every EBU member in every ESC by year article, and even less as a reason to remove all references to non-EBU members. I would tolerate note in every ESC by year article saying that invites had been sent out to all EBU members, but anything more than that is going to result in pointless repetition of no interest to a general audience. CT Cooper · talk 04:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

@CT Cooper: To me the following four pieces of info is important to have reflected in the yearly edition of the article:
1) Each year all active EBU members are invited to participate in the annual Eurovision event,
2) conditional they pay the participation fee and that the total number of participants does not exceed the maxium ceiling of 46 countries.
3) In 2014 a total of 56 active EBU member countries were invited, of which 36 accepted the invitation and participated in the event.
4) The following list of 20 other countries comprise those active EBU members who were invited, but did not show up.
I acknowledge number 4 can only be produced when doing a little bit of synthesis work. It is however limited to the simple observation, that all those countries who are standing on the "list of active EBU members" but did not particate in the semifinals - obviously for one reason or another declined their invitation. As this synthesis obervation is so simple that it is not WP:LIKELY to be challenged by any other editor as a fact, I am confident this particular small piece of synthesis work can be allowed. In regards of the stated concern by Wes, that we do not have permanent links for each years list of active EBU members, this can be solved going forward by archiving a copy of the current edition of the EBU member weblink. Or alternatively the historic list of EBU members can also be extracted from this permanent historic member list source. My desire to list the complete list of invited countries is because "all active EBU members as per January in the event year" actually has qualified to participate if they want (only at the cost of a participation fee). For the same reason, I think it is ackward and wrong to list any of the "countries who did not qualify for active EBU membership". Because would any of you support that we should also list unqualified Denmark, as one of the countries having intended to participate in the 2014 World Cup? Those countries who did not qualify for the event, should not be mentioned directly at the event article, no mater if its a song contest or football championship. As Kosovo and Liechtenstein had not qualified as Active EBU members as of January 2014 (which require compliance with TV-coverage, geographical location and other rules), it is not encyclopedic relevant to include them in our "other countries" list. Yes, the provided news sources can be used to verify they indeed had intention to participate one year ahead of the event, but by the end of the day they did not qualify as eligible participants - and I feel the sources about potential qualification for participation falls into the category of WP:CRYSTAL speculation. Danish Expert (talk) 10:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Well you're 100% wrong in your view that the "synthesis observation is so simple that it is not WP:LIKELY to be challenged by any other editor". It has been challenged in the past by a lot of Project Members, and is being challenged by 3 editors in this current debate. For us to list all the 56 EBU members like you so wish, we'd need to...
1) Provide a citation to the invitation that the EBU sent to those 56 members for each particular year.
2) Provide a citation from the members who declined the invitation, and be able to add a written prose giving details as to why they declined the invitation for each particular year.
We are unable to verify point 1 because that information is a private document emailed by the EBU. We cannot verify point 2 because those replies are also private. Only the select few get released by the EBU and published on various Eurovision-related websites. It is those few that we ultimately publish under the 'other countries' section.
The second core principle of Wikipedia is to write from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia strive for articles that document and explain the major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence in an impartial tone. Wikipedia avoids advocacy and characterises information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is on living persons. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong.
Danish Expert's suggestion of listing every EBU member does not document a major point of view, although it does document their personal opinion. It is also undue weight with respect to prominence of an impartial tone. Purely because we are unable to give an impartial tone on the reasons why a country has declined, when we do not have a source to verify the facts.
However, the current way it is being done, is documenting the major points of view, giving due weight with respect to prominence in an impartial tone. And most importantly, we are able to provide verifiable accuracy on the countries that do get listed in the 'other countries' section, as we are able to provide reliable, authoritative sources giving detail of a country's decision not to participate in a particular year's contest. Wes Mᴥuse 13:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
You are mixing it all up, and did not respond to several of my arguments. Kosovo and Liechtenstein did not decide not to participate, but instead did not qualify as active EBU members, and thus it make no encyclopedic sence to mention them as "other potential countries for the event". Moreover you also ignore, that my initial post which included all the active qualified EBU member countries (adding 7 extra countries), did not comment why they declined the invitation, but just added the country name into the list without providing for an explanation for the decline. This approach was fitted into the current approach, which provides a full explanation for the decline whenever such a source exist to tell that story. The fact that the 7 extra countries declined the invitation is sourced by the fact, that Eurovision invite all active EBU members for each years event, and only doing the simple synthesis that we list all those Active EBU member countries not showing up for the event in the list (either just by country name when no explanation exist - or by country name plus an explanation whenever we have a source stating an official explanation). Why do I continue to advocate we should include this complete list? Because the list of active EBU members changed during the course of years: Armenia joined in 2005, Georgia joined in 2005, Montenegro joined in 2006, Serbia joined in 2006, and Azerbaijan joined in 2007. At the same time Kosovo and Liechtenstein never joined the club of active EBU members, and thus never qualified for receiving an invitation to the event. All these facts would be something readers could learn if we adopt my proposal, that we in the "other countries" section list all those countries who were qualified/invited but decided for one reason or another not to show up. It is an encyclopedic relevant information for the scope of all yearly event articles, for readers to learn the name of "other countries" being invited for the event but declining the invitation. It is not encyclopedic relevant to know who were not qualified/invited but had dreamed one year ahead to qualify for an invitation (Kosovo+Liechtenstein). Danish Expert (talk) 17:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Now you're talking utter nonsense. I am not mixing anything up, nor did I not respond to several of your arguments. In fact you'll find I covered every single part of your arguments. The way you want to change everything is by listing the other 7 countries that declined by using flagicons for them, like you did in these examples 1, 2, 3 that do not document any point of view nor give any due weight with respect to prominence of impartial tone. Why is that!? Because the list of 7 countries do not provide an explanation as to their reason for decline the EBU's invitation. And using an FAQ that shows the EBU send invites every year, and not explaining why some decline is not acceptable. Even if the FAQ source makes reference to the fact that an invite is issued every year, it does does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources - Wikipedia is not a statsbook. Those inclusion of those 7 countries to be listed requires verifiable evidence. As there are NO sources to verify why those 7 countries declined the invitation, then we cannot include them, for the fact they'd be violating every Wikipedia policy known to man, including the ones I listed just now. Mentioning Kosovo and Liechtenstein does make encyclopaedic sense for the simple fact that those two nations stated well before the final participation list was published in January, that they had intentions to join the EBU in time to debut at the Eurovision Song Contest. As they had not been able to do so and/or changed their mind for whatever reasons, does qualify them to be mentioned in the article - again because there are sources that verify those facts. Like you say that "all these facts would be something readers could learn if we adopt my proposal, that we in the "other countries" section list all those countries who were qualified/invited but decided for one reason or another not to show up". What is a reader going to learn about a country that declined, if we cannot provide a written account of their reasons. They'd be learning nothing!!!! Now I think it's drop this argument that is clearly going nowhere. Wes Mᴥuse 00:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Compromise

One compromise that would be acceptable and would be within every policy known, would be to do the following with the 'Other countries' section.

  1. Introduce the "For further information" hatnote linking to List of countries in the Eurovision Song Contest.
  2. Write the following prose: "For a country to be eligible for potential participation in the Eurovision Song Contest, it needs to be an active member of the European Broadcasting Union (EBU)[1]. The EBU issued an invitation of participation to the Contest to all 56 active members[1]. Thirty-seven countries confirmed their participation.[2] Lebanon, Tunisia, and five other EBU members, however, did not publish their reasons for declining, whilst the following list of countries declined stating their reasons as shown below."
  3. Then divide the list of flag icons into...
  • Active EBU Members - listing (with flagicons) those who we have sources that verify their reasons to decline.
  • Non-active EBU Members - thus we are able to list Kosovo and Liechtenstein, should they express an interest prior to the publication of the official participation list.

Doing the above covers both suggestions - as in only depicting flagicons for countries that have a source verifying their decline, omitting flagicons for any that do not have sources (those get mentioned in the prose). That way sticking to the main facts of verifiability, and hopefully everyone is happy. Wes Mᴥuse 02:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Given all the arguments for and against, I accept your compromise proposal. Despite not being what I initially strived for, it will add the same amount of clarity and completeness to the "other countries" section without flirting with the grey areas of some policies, which is why I now support the compromise proposal. Danish Expert (talk) 07:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
As the person who thought of the compromise idea, I obviously 'support it. We'll need to see if the rest of the project have any support or objections though first, before we can start to roll it out. @Danish Expert, I would like to clarify something with you though, if I may? Does the prose and the links make sense? I did want to use the phrase "Seven other eligible countries", but Lebanon and Tunisia have their own sections within the list of countries article, whilst the remaining 5 do not. Wording it the way I did was the next best option I could think of. It's just a case of avoiding using flagicons for countries that we are unable to include a sentence or two as to why they declined the invite. Wes Mᴥuse 09:01, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm happy to accept this compromise. CT Cooper · talk 11:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Europe Sings

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Should we create an article for Europe Sings? Fort esc (talk) 09:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

And what is this "Europe Sings" when it's at home? Wes Mᴥuse 00:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
A new music event which is a co-production by the Eurovision network and Austrian host public broadcaster, ORF. [1] [2] [3] Fort esc (talk) 14:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
It is an EBU run event and it does have national selections leading into it, however I don't know whether there is a 2015 edition or not.(Moldova96 (talk) 13:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC))
I'm inclined to say if the event fulfils WP:GNG, then I see no reason why we shouldn't make an article. If the event becomes an annual event, then we can look into absorbing it into our project scope. Wes Mᴥuse 17:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Order of the columns in the tables

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

The current standard order of the columns is as follows:

country - language - artist - song - translation

I suggest it be changed to a more intuitive one:

country - artist - song - language - translation

A country is represented first and foremost by the artist and the song, so it is natural that these two pieces of information should be given right after the country name. The language a song is performed in is a characteristic of the song itself, and should therefore be stated after the song title. The tables are effectively saying that each country is represented by an artist who performs a song in a certain language whose title translates as so-and-so, and I think the proposed column order is the best way for them to be saying this. --Theurgist (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

That makes perfect sense in all fairness. I have no objections. However, something like this will require a consensus from the rest of the project members. Would you like me to inform everyone in the next edition of the newsletter? Wes Mᴥuse 00:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
@Wesley Mouse: Yes, would you? --Theurgist (talk) 15:33, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Oppose: I think it should stay the same way, just as I believe it's more appealing that way. Also, having the translation after the song title makes much more sense to me. Jjj1238 (talk) 15:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't think appealing holds much weight to be fair. It is what is commonsensical that should be taken into account. Theurgist analysis does make perfect logic. If looking at things in order, then country → artist → song → language → translation, makes sense. It doesn't sound grammatically correct if we said...
Montenegro, performed in Montenegrin, sent Sergej Ćetković, who sang "Moj svijet", with the song translating as "My world".
Whereas the following does make more grammatical sense.
Montenegro, sent Sergej Ćetković, who sang "Moj svijet", the song was performed in Montenegrin, with the translation meaning "My world". Wes Mᴥuse 21:58, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

ESC 1998

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
  Resolved
 – Articles have been added to the request page. Wes Mᴥuse 17:37, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Can someone create these voices, related to 1998 edition?

Yoav Ginai - Switzerland in the Eurovision Song Contest 1998 - Israel in the Eurovision Song Contest 1998 - Greece in the Eurovision Song Contest 1998 - Malta in the Eurovision Song Contest 1998 - Portugal in the Eurovision Song Contest 1998 - Tüzmen - Pernilla Månsson

Gce (talk) 00:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

You might want to list these in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Eurovision/Newsletters#Article requests section. Wes Mᴥuse 00:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  Done --Gce (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I've made a start on an article for Pernilla Månsson at User:AxG/Sandbox/5. -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 20:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Consensus on the use of flags or EuroFlags

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
  Resolved
 – Although few have commented, the sway is in favour to use correct flags, and not the EuroHeart versions. Wes Mᴥuse 17:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Dembowow (talk · contribs) has made changes to 'Country in the Eurovision Song Contest' pages, replacing the standard flag, with that of the Eurovision heart flags (e.g. File:EuroReino Unido.svg). Now currently I've reverted these changes and directed the user to discuss the large changes here. My position on this as well as what we already use, is to use the standard flags, the EuroHearts are purely decorative, and are not official. -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 14:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you, the hearts are very decorative. I know a few of the other language Wikis use them, and to be honest they look hideous. I know I use them on the newsletter etc, but that is because... well it's a newsletter not an article. Lol. Wes Mᴥuse 00:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
In italian language edition are used and I agree with their use also here (and I don't laugh when I see them), but it's not a problem for me if the community don't want. --Gce (talk) 11:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

A-class nomination for Eurovision Song Contest 2012

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In accordance with the review nomination process, I hereby notify Project Eurovision that the article Eurovision Song Contest 2012 has been nominated for an A-class review and reviewing requests to 3 independent reviewers have been issued and awaiting acceptance. Wes Mᴥuse 17:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject Eurovision At Wikimania 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to: Project leaflets — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adikhajuria (talk • contribs) 16:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Colour coding on articles

Latest comment: 10 years ago30 comments5 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
See individual comments. Wes Mᴥuse 18:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm reopening a debate that last took place almost a year ago regarding the use of colour-coding on articles such as United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest. Back then the consensus was to only use colour-codes for 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and last places on such articles. A new method has been rolled out, and I would like to invite project members to discuss whether or not they like the new system - this is purely to discover if consensus has changed or not. Wes Mᴥuse 23:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Contestants section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
As this discussion has now gone stale, I am therefore going to officially close it down. The consensus, albeit small, is in favour of using colour-codes for the top-3 and last places only (as shown in Example 1). Wes Mᴥuse 18:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Kapitan110295 has voluntarily undertaken an extensive exercise to revamp the 'contestants' tables on articles such as United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest. Please view the 2 examples below and decide which you prefer.

Which version is preferred?

  • Example 1 - which only colour-codes the top-3 and last places.
  • Example 2 - which colour-codes everything.

I'm in favour of example 1. Wes Mᴥuse 23:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I like example 2 as I prefer the column of the semi-finals to have different colors too. I think that it's better for the "Big 5" or the other stuff of the semi-finals to "stand out" from the "no semi-finals". But on the other hand, some countries will have too many colors for the rest columns and that would be a problem. Dimitris  talk 00:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
In favor of example 1. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 00:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't particularly mind if the "Member of Big 4/5" column is in green or grey, but I must take issue with the 1993 row stating "No Semi-Finals", because it is simply incorrect. I know that saying "Participated Previous Year" is perhaps not the most succinct way of stating how a country qualified for the final, but it is nevertheless true that there was a semifinal that year between countries that wished to enter the contest but had not participated in 1992. To state that there wasn't in the UK article is at least misleading in my opinion. Kapitan110295 (talk) 01:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
The qualifier in 1993 wasn't a "semi-final" as such. To say that all the other counties had "participated previous year" is like saying Eurovision had pre-qualifier round that all nations participated in; and that would be a factual error. Following the disintegration of Yugoslavia, the EBU realised that they couldn't invite all of those nations, along with the ones from 1992. So they created the Kvalifikacija za Millstreet competition to determine which of the former-eastern bloc nations would be invited to compete at Eurovision 1993 (a bit like a multi-national pre-selection show). So to say to the general reader that the likes of UK had "participated previous year" is very obvious to them, as they can work that out just by looking at the row directly above it. Highlighting it could be making them feel illiterate. We're suppose to assume the reader's have a bit of intellect. Although I am open to using the term "Did not compete at Kvalifikacija za Millstreet" as a compromise. Wes Mᴥuse 01:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree with "Did not compete" - that's a far better term to use than the one I came up with. Kapitan110295 (talk) 01:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I prefer Example 1 Dfizzles (talk) 18:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

12 points section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
After some consultation with manual of style experts, it seems these tables of 12 point history are inappropriate in terms of Wikipedia policies. They are deemed as a trivial list of 12-point voting statistics, which goes against WP:NOTSTATSBOOK and WP:TRIVIA. Therefore they are to be removed. Wes Mᴥuse 03:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Karlwhen introduced a 12-points breakdown for each country's competition history showing given/received 12 points for both semis and finals, and rolled out these major changes en-mass, despite being told 10 months ago that consensus from the project would need to be sought first to see whether these statistical tables are required or not, as they could go against WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. These tables also use a colour-coding system. And the table key data comes across as confusing. Do we...

A: - Remove these stats completely? B: - Remove just the colour coding? C: - Improve the table key wording, and reduce the number of colour codes used?

If you are in favour of these stats, then do you... A: - Collapsible them? B: - Uncollapsible them?

Personally I feel they should be removed per WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. However if a consensus verdict favour of them, then I'd opt for without colour and collapsed tables. Wes Mᴥuse 23:43, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I never liked that table to be honest, it just doesn't look good in an article. But if it's decided that they will stay, I prefer them to be collapsed as it looks way better to have the table key and some keys below the table. Also, some countries such as Sweden that received a lot 12 points in the final, it makes the table just longer. I'm also not so keen with the coloring, as it's not really necessary. Dimitris  talk 00:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
As I said, I myself think they're fine the way they are and see no problem with them, though I would be happy to have them collapsed. I think the colours provide an easy way for the reader to determine whether the countries were alone in giving a large amount of points to particular country, or whether they did the same thing as the rest of Europe, but I could understand why people wouldn't like them. However, I think removing them completely would be going too far; it's not exactly intrusive or difficult to navigate in my opinion, and it can provide an easy way to gain insight into voting trends, which is probably the most analysed and hotly debated part of the contest.
I agree that adding 10 and 8 points would be a violation of WP:NOTSTATSBOOK, but I'd hardly call listing the 12 points "excessive" or "confusing"; it provides context for high marks while, as I've said, illustrating how voting trends have developed over the course of the contest's history which, again, considering how well-known and discussed the trends are makes the information very relevant. Kapitan110295 (talk) 02:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Here is a much better way to deal with the 12 points history. See how I've improved Sweden in Junior Eurovision. The table has a prose which is important when using tables, so that the reader knows what the table is about. Also the table follows uniformity of the way we handle 12 point tables on articles such as Eurovision 2014. The information reads much easier this way, and is not going over-the-top with {{flagicon}} templates, which per WP:ICONDECORATION is what we are to avoid. Wes Mᴥuse 19:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Going off the modification I've used on the Junior pages, this is how it would look on the main Eurovision ones, using the UK as an example.
12 points example for United Kingdom

Below is a summary of the maximum 12 points each country awarded to and given by United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest since 1975:

Table key
  The United Kingdom gave 12 points to a winning song / The United Kingdom won the contest.
  The United Kingdom gave 12 points to a runner-up song / The United Kingdom was runner-up in the contest.
  The United Kingdom gave 12 points to a third place song / The United Kingdom came third in the contest.
  The United Kingdom gave 12 points to a song that qualified to the Grand Finals.
  The United Kingdom gave 12 points to a song that did not qualify to the Grand Finals.

1 The United Kingdom was ineligible to vote at the 1993 pre-qualifying round, as voting was restricted to countries taking part in the pre-qualifying round.
2 The voting for the 1996 pre-qualifying round is unknown to date.

As you can see in the example, the table flows much easier, it isn't as bombarding to the eye with colours. It isn't going overboard with flagicons, thus keeping within the manual of style guidance at WP:ICONDECORATION. There is a prose to briefly inform what the table is about. And it is collapsible so readers have the option to view the table, and we're not just forcing them to read it. Is this a much better improvement? Wes Mᴥuse 22:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I'm much more colour-tolerant than the average person, but I definitely prefer at least the flags being present. As I said, one of the major advantages of the table is show trends in voting and the flags would make it easier to show if countries are repeatedly mentioned in the table or not. Besides having no colour there does make it look like it came straight from an accounting manual. Kapitan110295 (talk) 22:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, though we are dealing with manual of style policies here which are part of the core Wikipedia pillars. WP:ICONDECORATION explicitly state that Icons should not be added only because they look good... and that icons should serve a purpose other than solely decoration.. The use of icons in these table are only serving a decorative purpose, and thus are prohibited from use. People are still able to see trends just be looking at the name of the country. The flag is just there for colourful decoration. Also even if we did use flagicons, people still look at the country name, they don't pay attention to the flag itself, so these icons are serving no practical purpose. Another manual of style guidance (WP:WORDPRECEDENT) states that Words as the primary means of communication should be given greater precedence over flags and flags should not change the expected style or layout of infoboxes or lists to the detriment of words. We do not use flags on the 12 point sections of annual Eurovision pages, thus we should be following suit across the board on other related articles. You don't find items colour-coded on accounting manuals or bank statements. Besides the manual of style policy is over-riding our "decorative" preference, and we have no other option really but to follow that guidance. Wes Mᴥuse 23:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
The table looks better, in my opinion, but I would suggest a pale red background for countries that didn't qualify to the final (Ireland in 2005 and Cyprus in 2008 in the above cases). I am thinking that maybe my preference for flags is because I am a bit of an amateur vexillologist, and I know pretty much all flags of the world off by heart, and I find it easier to read a table with flags rather than just the names of countries. I'd like to see what other people think, but the table without the flags is still good enough for me.
I was also thinking that perhaps there should be an unintrusive way of making it easier to distinguish between years when the country received no 12 points and when they received at least one, though I'm not sure as of yet what would be a good way of doing that. Kapitan110295 (talk) 02:45, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I've added pale colours for the semi-final section. As for the flag issue, I've been talking with a few admins (who are also experts on manual of style and flagicons) and it seems that there is a strict rule of thumb with flags. They can be used when they are representing a country (like the Olympics and international sporting events) but not just to show their nationality (like auto racing or UFC fighting). So when we use them on annual Eurovision pages to show who is singing what, then that is fine. But for anything else, we're suppose to avoid them. Which is basically what WP:ICONDECORATION stipulated. Using colour codes is fine though (apparently). So highlighting with colour is fine, but flags not fine. Wes Mᴥuse 03:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh well, with what I have just found out, this 12 point discussion is pointless anyway. If we list 12 points only and not bother about points 10-1, it becomes a statistical list - thus violating WP:NOTSTATSBOOK and WP:TRIVIA. If we we're to provide voting history for all points it still violates WP:NOTSTATSBOOK and WP:TRIVIA. So it appears they all need to be removed. Ah well, at least we know now. Wes Mᴥuse 03:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

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

I'm just as disheartened as others may be over the deletion of the 12-point tables from country articles. But I suppose the policy is there for a reason. If we're to show a voting trend for 12's, then we should be doing the same for the other points. And when that happens, we're producing an "excessive and confusing" list of statistics, which is what WP:NOTSTATSBOOK tells Wikipedian's to refrain from doing. So seeing as we cannot list the trends of all the voting points, then it leaves us with no other option but to remove the 12's entirely. It is a shame, because Karlwhen will have put so much man-hours into creating them. However, I've now removed them all. Wes Mᴥuse 05:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments

All opinions are welcome. Wes Mᴥuse 21:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

  • For the contestants summary I definitely think only 1st-3rd finishes and last place finishes should be colored. The way that it's been updated isn't very pleasing to the eye in my opinion and also just feels like too much. I'm definitely against that. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 21:22, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I see I've been called out here which is rather striking to me as there seems to have been a misapprehension. For starters, I wasn't actually the person who introduced the "12 points" section to articles; the "Given" section was initially placed there by someone else (I don't know who, if that's you then don't hesitate to say so, you did a great job imho) and I merely extended it to also include the "Received" section as I thought that both pieces of information would be of equal value. Also, the only changes I actually made colour-coding wise was to change red to pink in the semi-finals section because of the chromostereopsis issue that was raised to me by WesleyMouse.
I wasn't aware that there had already been a debate about colour-coding as I haven't been here for very long, so I apologise for my naivety, but as I said the colours you see in the table were not my idea. Personally, I think it looks fine the way it is and I see nothing particularly wrong with it. Colouring for last place may be a bit contentious but merely reading the placing itself leaves ambiguity. For instance, someone could be reading the Luxembourg article, and, upon reading that they managed 12th place in 1970, could walk away thinking the country didn't do overly badly without knowing that only 12 countries took part that year. I think the colours that are least needed are the green in the "12 points semi-finals" section, as the pink alone would indicate if a country failed to qualify and perhaps would add consistency with the "Contestants" table, but as I said I don't think the tables are too colourful at all.
Oh, and before I forget, I have no preference of having it in a collapsible table or not at this point. Kapitan110295 (talk) 22:49, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Apologies for the misunderstanding here, I wasn't calling you out. On the contrary, and as you know via my own talk page, I am impressed with the work you've done on these articles. And as I've pointed out above a discussion had taken place a year ago. It is known that consensus can change, and as I know that you are new to Wikipedia, I felt it was only fair to start a fresh debate on the topic of colour coding. With the changes you've made, people's opinions might have changed - and the only way we'd know of this is by a debate of this nature. It is purely to discover if people prefer the new way or would rather stick to the previous consensus. Again, apologies for any confusion. Wes Mᴥuse 22:55, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
  • My bad, I assumed you had introduced the 12 points sections. We can still discuss those sections, but bearing in mind now that you were not the editor who introduced them. Wes Mᴥuse 23:03, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
No worries, Wes. As I said, Karlwhen introduced the table to the UK page; we should perhaps hear what he said. And thanks, Wes, I do try to help :). Kapitan110295 (talk) 23:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closing summary

In regards to colour-coding on contestant tables, the consensus, albeit small, is in favour of using colour-codes for the top-3 and last places only (as shown in Example 1). In regards to the 12-point voting trends it was established that these tables of 12 point history are inappropriate in terms of Wikipedia policies. They are deemed as a trivial list of 12-point voting statistics, which goes against WP:NOTSTATSBOOK and WP:TRIVIA. Therefore they have been removed and must not be reimplemented whatsoever. Wes Mᴥuse 18:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Activity

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I will, most likely, not be active, until after Euro-2015. I prefer to write after the show. Jonas Vinther (talk) 22:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a huge biography of all Eurovision artists at Esckaz.com, a website dedicated to Eurovision. Jonas Vinther (talk) 17:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

ESC National Year infobox

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hey, What is the reason of previous years of their debuts doesn't look in the bottom and some's does in the national year pages. e.g.: Azerbaijan in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008 and Poland in the Eurovision Song Contest 1994. I hope you can explain it. I really want to improve this error in the Turkish Wikipedia. Thank you. --Akinranbu (talk) 18:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Akinranbu#ESC National Year infobox. -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 21:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ countries? "Which countries can take part in Eurovision?". Eurovision. Retrieved 13 May 2014. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)
  2. ^ countries? "Which countries can take part in Eurovision?". Eurovision. Retrieved 13 May 2014. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Eurovision/Archive_12&oldid=630307433"