Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2012/Archive 6

Split results announced
Here --  [[ axg  ◉  talk   ]] 12:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I thought we wasn't including those into the article any more? Because A) they are just in a table without a prose explaining their meaning; and B) they never get referenced with sources and make it look like original research.  Don't forget this very article is under GA review, so we need to be thinking a lot more wise when adding new material to the article.   Wesley  ☀  Mouse  13:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This is very interesting information and this page is probably the first page where people come to look for it. I certainly would be very disappointed if it gets removed and I can't get all the info from one page anymore.78.28.66.2 (talk) 14:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Eh!? You can't "get all the info from one page anymore" if it were to be deleted from here?  We obtained the information from two sources; Eurovision.tv and ESCToday.com; in order to add it on here also.  So if the tables were deleted, then the information wouldn't exactly be lost forever, as the respective sites also have the information available in the public domain for viewing.   Wesley  ☀  Mouse  14:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Those tables are totally unneeded here. The article has loads of table's, it can become so confusing to reader. Plus, I don't see nothing interesting with having those. As a reviewer of the article I commend their strong removal. —  Tomica   (talk)   14:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the positioning of these tables are in the wrong place anyway. I can see that they are semi-notable, as they show how the combined jury-televote results was achieved, by showing the individual results.  However, to have these placed under the results table is just incorrect.  If anything, they would need to be situated with the respective scoreboard sections, to show how the jury decision and televote decision, was reached/combined to create the overall vote for each of the participating countries.   Wesley  ☀  Mouse  16:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is always the first place I come to search for info, it has of flashy graphics or other nonsense, it loads fast and contains links to other interesting information. Having info on Wikipedia is 100x better than having it on another website. 78.28.66.2 (talk) 16:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I like the enthusiasm that you prefer to come to Wikipedia first for news and such. But I must stress, that Wikipedia is only an encyclopaedia, in that we only contain notable information that is found from reliable sources.  If something isn't notable enough for inclusion, then it would get removed, and there is nothing we as editors can do about that.  We merely follow policies and guidelines on how articles should be written, and what content should be included.   Wesley  ☀  Mouse  16:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I can scarcely believe that you would have the split results removed. Of all the things in the articles, you want a cruical piece to how the winner is selected gone. Unbelievable. - Jetro (talk) 19:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This time I have to agree that the split result tables should stay. They are a vital part of how the winner is selected.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually BabbaQ, they don't show how the winner is selected; not in the way the scoreboard does. The split results only show how the results would have been if only jury/public had voted.  Those results don't tell you who gave 12, 10, 8 points etc.  So it leaves things open to interpretation, speculation, and unable to verify the actual points breakdown for the split results.   Wesley  ☀  Mouse  20:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * They are trivial information and actually not so important to see how the winner was elected. The main table (jury + televoting) is vital and should stay. —  Tomica   (talk)   19:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, OK, my comments are being taken out of context here (as usual). If you read my comments carefully you will noticed that I haven;t said they must be removed, nor have I said the must stay either.  All I have said is how I see things from both sides of the debate, which is being realistic and pragmatic.  Yes, I understand why the tables would be vital; but I also see how they wouldn't be necessary too.   Wesley  ☀  Mouse  20:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * In years to come Wikipedia is (arguably) the only place to see them (as eurovision.tv is nightmarish to access older files) and they're very interesting for Eurovision fans. They should stay, but the paragraph for the page(s) should be rewritten. Spa-Franks (talk) 15:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Apparently from what I've been told, while ding some background work into these. It seems the split jury/televote tables in their current format are classified as "lacking weight".  They fall under WP:CRYSTAL, WP:UNDUE, and WP:NOTSTATSBOOK; purely because the tables don't show a breakdown of how each country received their total number of points from jury etc; it just shows a total and that's it.  Unlike the overall results that are on the scoreboards, which do have a breakdown of results and how each country achieved its total score.  So unless anyone knows where we can find a points breakdown for individual jury and individual televotes; then I cannot see how the tables would stand any inclusion under current Wikipedia policies that have been pointed out to me.  But like I have always said, I personally am undecided either way; but after being advised of the policies, then I can see why they would be deemed overkill.   Wesley  ☀  Mouse  15:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't have a strong position either way on the issue at this point, but out of the policies citied really only WP:NOTSTATSBOOK holds water. I don't think WP:CRYSTAL is applicable at all as that prohibits unverifiable speculation, since the content is about a past event and is verifiable, it doesn't seem relevant. WP:UNDUE is part of WP:NPOV and about ensuring that articles give an appropriate amount of weight to all viewpoints given by reliable sources, but what viewpoint is being given undue weight here? While its appropriate to ensure articles don't over focus on a particular topic area e.g. scores, at the expense of other issues, that is not generally a neutrality/viewpoint issue, so I don't think WP:UNDUE is relevant here either. WP:NOTSTATSBOOK clearly is relevant, although it is rather vague, and some interpretation is necessary to apply it to this issue. That said, the main relevant point is the recommendation of excluding excess statistics and summarizing data - could that be interpreted to mean that split results are excessive? The requirement for articles to "contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader" may also be an issue here as well. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 18:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't make head nor tail of WP:UNDUE or WP:CRYSTAL for these tables either, the only one I did understand is WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. As we all know, the winner of the contest is determined based on the total number of points they receive from the other nations. Those points can vary between 1-8, 10 or 12 points; and those are based on a 50-50 split of jury/televotes. That overall tally can be clarified by the fact we have sourced scoreboards showing who got which points, and what the final total of those points were at the end of the contest. However, the tables showing individual jury result and individual televote result, don't show how those final totals were achieved. The only way we would know, is if someone did pure guess work and produced a breakdown of who got which of the 1-8, 10 or 12 points from the respective juries/televotes. And to do that would fall under WP:OR. That's how I can see these tables being unnecessary additions. On the flip side of the coin, I can also see why these tables would be added. Throughout the article we talk about the overall points awarded are based on a 50:50 (jury/televote) split. These tables would show that split, but only show the total score, and not a breakdown. A breakdown would add more weight to those table of results, a summary total (as they are currently produced) does not. Wesley ☀  Mouse  18:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * But that's easily feasible for 2009, isn't it? That year the EBU published a full breakdown. Spa-Franks (talk) 17:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Following on from this discussion, I've played around with an idea in my sandbox, to see how the article would look if we placed split result tables into collapsible tables only, similar to how the London 2012 article has placed the 'sponsors' details into hidden boxes. Let me know what you think, as this could be a good compromise all round.   Wesley  ☀  Mouse  23:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * That way I think they're not traceable enough. Also, I don't see how WP:NOTSTATSBOOK would take effect here. Split results are not lists of statistics, and hardly long and sprawling, rather than officially published facts how the viewers and national broadcaster juries, a.k.a. the two constituencies making up the combined 50:50 results, have voted. Readers visiting Wikipedia not specifically for this certain reason are likely to oversee collapsible tables. I agree with Jetro's proposal on WikiProject Eurovision but also find the current solution for the 2009, 2010 and 2011 articles comprehensible, albeit I recommend a (short) text explaining their meaning. -- Vinceno V (talk) 10:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it has already been established that Jetro's proposal wouldn't work, and would be highly confusing to the general audience. What you may be forgetting is that it is not just Eurovision fans who read these articles, but people who don't even have a clue about Eurovision too.  We should be presenting information in a way that everyone can understand and not just ESC fans who would have a comprehensive idea of what the tables mean.  Jetro's idea made the tables look overcrowded and too complexed.  The current version was the best compromise and benefits every angle possible - and by that I mean, it keeps the tables hidden and in-line with the suggestion by the GA reviewer; whiles also giving the general viewer the option to view the tables if they desire.   Wesley  ☀  Mouse  10:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I do not require Jetro's layout but thought that in a possibly modified way (e.g. smaller numerals) it could be a decent solution as well. What I definitely not agree on is to hide the tables so that quick or unexperienced readers will not notice them. Split results are quite essential information not only (but also) in the context of how the combined results are composed and certainly more interesting than e.g. the names of national spokepersons or commentators. These tables were already shortened to the extreme so it's as straightfoward as you can get imho. --Vinceno V (talk) 14:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Picture for 5 past winners
I feel that in the picture for the 5 past winners you can't see the faces properly(only winner of 2007 is possible to make out) and 2010 winner Lena is out of shot.So I feel we should make a new one and if that is not possible at least a collage. BellaFan262 —Preceding undated comment added 07:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The picture is fine, you're hardly going to get a decent shot of them looking at the same place, plus they are performing. The current is the best

--  [[ axg  ◉  talk   ]] 13:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I like the second one and third one but STILL feel there should be one of everyone.If you can't find I will be more than happy to make a collage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BellaFan262 (talk • contribs)


 * Any new images uploaded of of this sort should be free content and be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. If a new upload combines other images, then full attribution of every image used must be provided on the file page. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 12:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

we should do something about the picture anyway because I remember saying to myself "Ok Is that Nikki?And if so is she with Ell or Dima Bilann.And is that fiddler Alexander Ryback? OK WHERE IS LENA I'M GONNA PASS OUT!!!!!OMG THIS PIC IS REALLY BAD!!!" We should change it,or as I stated before I will be more than happy to make a collage if we can't find a good one.But I will search for one now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BellaFan262 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Noooo! You can't just make a collage using a collection of other images that may not be free to use. Copyright violation is a serious crime.  The photograph owner could easily sue if they knew about it, and then we'd be in more deeper shit than its worth.  Sure, you may be the person who made the collage, but that doesn't mean you own the images used within the collage itself.  Just slow down, there's no rush.   Wesley  ☀  Mouse  15:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The licence under which the above images were uploaded says that adaptation is allowed, so a "collage" attributed to Vugarİbadov wouldn't consist a violation. Cheers. – Kosm  1  fent  16:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Erm, Kosmo. The user never said they would make a collage using the above images.  S/he said they'd make a collage using new images that they are searching for.  So a violation would be possible if the images they find/use are not free content.  Cheers!  Wesley  ☀  Mouse  16:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I never said DIFFERENT images I said "I'll go search for some now" meaning "If there is a better picture with all 5 winners I will try and get it here." I never specified the images I WOULD be using so if it is Ok,I will make a collage using the 3 above images.User:BeElaFaN262 —Preceding undated comment added 08:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Please try and avoid capitalizing words, as it is considered to be shouting and makes a comment look hostile. But that aside, it would have been better to have explained exactly what you meant when you said "I'll go search for some now", as that did imply that you would be searching for new images, which would be a great concern on copyvio relations - something which I'm sure you'd appreciate would cause huge concerns for anyone who is passionate about the Wiki-project on a whole.   Wesley  ☀  Mouse  09:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course.Very sorry for any confusion.If you don't mind I'll make a collage of the above three images,post it above and see what you think.--BellaFan262 (talk) 10:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Why not have this image? Spa-Franks (talk) 16:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Isn't that the same image as the middle one shown above?  Wesley  ☀  Mouse  18:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Didn't see that, oops. But anyway, the one I've got is ever so slightly darker and and a little bit wider, which makes Marija slightly more visible (apart from Nigar being in the way). Spa-Franks (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok Why don't we Leave the current image and add the image of Lena.Dose that solve our problem?--BellaFan262 (talk) 08:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

No response so I'm guessing you all agree on my last.--Bella##Fan##262 (talk) 09:21, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Lys Assia
I've just removed a short sentence that an editor added in regards to Lys Assia being a guest of honour at the contest. The addition was inserted under the 'returning artists' sub-section of the 'participating countries' section. Firstly Lys Assia never participated in the 2012 contest and therefore wouldn't warrant an inclusion in the 'participating countries' section, and as she never performed on stage she wouldn't even warrant an inclusion as a 'returning artist'. It is a known fact that Lys Assia always attends every contest as a "guest of honour" for being the first ever winner (or as the EBU have dubbed her, The Mother of Eurovision). I don't have any objections to the sentence being included, but it needs to be added to a section that would be more relevant to its meaning. And currently, there isn't one single section that I can find suitable for it. Any suggestion or should we just omit the fact Lys Assia attended all together? It could be a case of details of that would be more beneficial to Lys Assia and the Eurovision Song Contest main article. Wesley ☀  Mouse  13:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe,What we could do is,In the "Returned Artists" section we can put a new part called Lys Assia and mention that there.Maybe it is also worth mentioning she attends every other contest.BellaFan262 (talk) 12:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)--BellaFan262 (talk) 12:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, but then we'd basically be repeating ourselves year after year saying the same old spiel that Lys Assia attended "again" as a guest of honour - and I don't think any one of us are parrots. Why repeat ourselves on every annual article, when it would be just as simple to say something once on her own article and the main Eurovision article.  By adding her under the "returning artists" section every year we would be portraying that Lys returned as a performer, when she never performed.  Wesley  ☀  Mouse  12:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

If you read what I said Maybe,What we could do is,In the "Returned Artists" section we can put a new part called Lys Assia and mention that there.Maybe it is also worth mentioning she attends every other contest BellaFan262 (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)--BellaFan262 (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Excuse me!? Could you please explain why you literally bit my head off there with that reply?  I find that tone of context to be rather rude and obnoxious.  Please try and refrain from telling someone "if you read", as it can be portrayed as telling someone they are illiterate.  I don't take too kindly to accusations about my literacy skills.  It may have escaped your comprehension that some users may have dyslexia, so to throw down such harsh comments about "reading" is a little tactless.  And the wording of my reply was in no way being negative towards your suggestion, I was merely stating an opinion to which I am (and anyone else is) entitled to do as an editor on here.   Wesley  ☀  Mouse  17:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mean any harm or offence.But to be quite fair YOU always bite MY HEAD OFF

(EG.Excuse me!? Could you please explain why you literally bit my head off there with that reply?  I find that tone of context to be rather rude and obnoxious.  Please try and refrain from telling someone "if you read", as it can be portrayed as telling someone they are illiterate.  I don't take too kindly to accusations about my literacy skills.  It may have escaped your comprehension that some users may have dyslexia, so to throw down such harsh comments about "reading" is a little tactless.  And the wording of my reply was in no way being negative towards your suggestion, I was merely stating an opinion to which I am (and anyone else is) entitled to do as an editor on here.

Please try and avoid capitalizing words, as it is considered to be shouting and makes a comment look hostile. But that aside, it would have been better to have explained exactly what you meant when you said "I'll go search for some now", as that did imply that you would be searching for new images, which would be a great concern on copyvio relations - something which I'm sure you'd appreciate would cause huge concerns for anyone who is passionate about the Wiki-project on a whole.

Noooo! You can't just make a collage using a collection of other images that may not be free to use. Copyright violation is a serious crime. The photograph owner could easily sue if they knew about it, and then we'd be in more deeper shit than its worth. Sure, you may be the person who made the collage, but that doesn't mean you own the images used within the collage itself. Just slow down, there's no rush)

SO if I were YOU I would NOT accuse ANYBODY of biting your head off weasel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.55.63 (talk • contribs) 17:22 13 August 2012 (UTC +1)


 * Am I seeing things or has a random IP just called me a weasel for no reason? WTF!?  Now that's a personal attack and a half!  And why are you quoting text of mine from a different discussion that isn't even related to this?  Please don't!   Wesley   Mouse  16:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * BellaFan262, that is clearly you - log-in please. Logging out to violate the No personal attacks policy, even if accidental, is not a good idea as it could be seen to evading scrutiny. Also, if you have a grievance to settle with another editor, please use thier user talk page - this talk page is to discuss improvements to the article, and nothing else. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 18:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I did not mean edit it without logging in.My computer broke and I was using my brothers and I didn't log in on that so i didn't mean to do it with out logging in.--BellaFan262 (talk) 08:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Albania's Voting in Semi-Final 1 in Scoreboard
I have been thinking recently that we never did visually represent that the votes from Semi-Final 1 from Albania consisted solely of the Jury vote due to the bus accident. The accident and subsequent deferred broadcast of Semi-Final 1 was mentioned in the Results section right before the sortable chart. Should we slightly change the Semi-Final 1 Scoreboard to one of a similar style to the scoreboards from Eurovision Song Contest 2009? Or will the previous mention that only the jury vote was used suffice? To be honest, if we do decide to color-code Albania's votes, I don't think we need as many colors as used in the 2009 article. Dfizzles (talk) 06:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I can't remember what was decided to be honest. I think the written note was suffice.  Perhaps a footnote to point out these kind of things, even on other annual pages would be better than a colour code.  What about someone with colour blindness, would changing a colour be a help or hindrance to them?   Wesley ♦Mouse 12:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Good points Wesley! Dfizzles (talk) 15:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be a returning artists section
that should be corrected. according to the article of the serbian performer, that person participated in 2004.84.208.77.64 (talk) 13:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * In answer to the section heading, yes there is a returning artists section. It is just now done in a different written prose format rather than the old table format.  See Eurovision Song Contest 2012.    Wes     Mᴥuse   13:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to promote to A-Class
I hereby nominate this article for an A-class review and have issued reviewing requests (per instructions) to 3 independent reviewers, including 2 who previously did GA reviews on ABU TV Song Festival 2012 and Eurovision Song Contest 2013. If the reviewers kindly accept to undertake this review, then the criteria can be found here and also at WP:ASSESS. Wes    Mᴥuse   17:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I already found issues; would making the required changes invalidate my eligibility to review it? ViperSnake151   Talk  17:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure to be honest. I assume the way the assessment process is carried out, is the same as a GA/FA review.  Whereas the reviewer points out the changes requires and/or is allowed to make discreet alterations.  The assessment advice only states that several people do the review.  And I guess the majority decision is what finalises the pass rate!?    Wes     Mᴥuse   18:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * @, if you wish to use the same reviewing method for GA reviews, then feel free to do so - whatever makes it easier for you is fine by me.   Wes     Mᴥuse   18:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * any updates on the review?  Wes   Mouse  01:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)