Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2024

Request for comments: controversies in lede
Should this article's lede mention controversies that arose surrounding the song contest? If yes, please explain to what extent, i.e. should it mention that there were controversies in general or should any specific controversies be detailed?

Please note that as a prominent controversy is related to the Israel-Hamas war, it is subject to WP:ARBECR. Accordingly, accounts with fewer than 500 edits and 30 days' tenure may not participate. Any comment violating ARBECR may be removed by any editor, and edit warring will not be tolerated. Please keep the discussion respectful: comment on the matter in question, not on other editors. Thank you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The only controversies in the lede should be ones which happened during the contest broadcast such a in 2019 with the Madonna interval act or those affecting who participated. This includes Russia being excluded, Romania not returning and The Netherlands being disqualified.
 * Inclusion of anything else moves the focus from the contest to events outside and this article needs to remain focused on the contest and broadcast of the contest.
 * There are sub pages for each entrant country where information pertaining to events related to those countries can be added if encyclopaedic.
 * The lede of this article must focus on the contest itself and not the actions using the contest as a vehicle, protests and support regarding Israel being a big example of the contest being used as a vehicle to push a political narrative. Those are not what the focus of this article is. Having that information takes a side that this article and Wikipedia as a whole is to happy to be used as a vehicle in the same way. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 14:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Summoned by a bot: The current situation -- one sentence about controversy regarding Israel's participation -- seems reasonable. Protests about Israel's participation were widely covered in the press leading up to the contest, there were several instances of other participants referencing the conflict, and quite a bit of discussion following the contest was about how the broadcasters had dealt with the protest. The article's paragraph on the controversy about Israel's participation is well referenced with reliable sources. Referring to this with one sentence in the lead seems proportionate and appropriate. Mgp28 (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Mgp28. PicturePerfect666's proclaimations about what "must" or "must not" happen aren't grounded in any policy or guidelines. Our readers expect our articles to accurately summarize the available source material that pertains to the subject, and this year's Eurovision has some political baggage that other editions did not. It's not WP's job to dicate that the real world is not allowed to draw the connections it is drawing; it is our job to report them correctly with due weight.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼
 * It is grounded in precedent from other articles and in the following Summary style, to try and make a good quality article. It needs to be broad but still focused on the article's subject. Is going into detail about one entrant in relation to things which occurred outside the contest itself really doing that? PicturePerfect666 (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as "precedent from other articles". Wikipedia is not a legal system built on precedent, and tiny micro-consensuses at one article cannot dictate how other articles are written (cf. WP:CONLEVEL policy). All our actual policies, procedures, and principles apply to all content evenly, and cannot be overridden by personal or WP:FACTION subjective preferences, including what you think is "good quality". Our policies sourcing, neutrality, and OR, and our guidelines on content, determine what is good quality encyclopedic output, and you don't get to change that willy-nilly on a topic-by-topic basis to suit personal whims. Look, we really do get that you personally hate the idea of this article reflecting anything to do with political concerns and controversies that have been raised in the public sphere. But that is just too bad. The source material tells us that this has in fact happened and it has become publicly bound up with the vent in public discourse and perception. There is nothing we can do about that. This is not a project to "re-scoping" public consciousness about events and their perception; it is a project for reflecting the public consciousness accurately. PS: The policy you are looking for is, again, WP:DUEWEIGHT. It is not undue weight to mention this socio-political controversy in the lead and have a concise section about it, since it is overwhelmingly prevalent in RS coverage of the event. It would be undue to WP:COATRACK this article with a great deal of depth on this matter than really belongs in some other article, such as on the particular artist in question.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I also agree with Mgp28, it should be mentioned in a sentence or two in the lead to try and sum up what's covered in the body. The controversy had a major effect on the contest and the culture/celebrations around it both in the arena and outside. AlexandraAVX (talk) 13:06, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Include Per all the discussions preceding this one. Yoyo360 (talk) 13:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I also believe that the controversy has a place in the lede. 2024 ESC has undoubtedly been exceptionally controversial like no other year has ever been, and this is reflected in RS. Considering the amount of controversy that was sparked during the whole ESC season, the current version of the lede (one sentence about the conroversy) seems appropriate, and perhaps even the (bare) minimum; to me at least. Piccco (talk) 15:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe that the lede should have a mention of the controversies in this year's edition. Currently, the only specific controversies that seem to be worth mention in the lede would be the controversy over Israel's participation and the controversy over the Netherland's disqualification from the final.  --Super Goku V (talk) 05:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Request for comments: votes received and how by Israel
Should the "Controversies and incidents" section contain a section on Israel votes and media reports in connection to this which relate to more individuals than expected or individuals which would not usually have voted. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 16:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Please note that as a prominent controversy is related to the Israel-Hamas war, it is subject to WP:ARBECR. Accordingly, accounts with fewer than 500 edits and 30 days' tenure may not participate. Any comment violating ARBECR may be removed by any editor, and edit warring will not be tolerated. Please keep the discussion respectful: comment on the matter in question, not on other editors. Thank you. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 17:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Include per the already above section Yoyo360 (talk) 16:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Include as it definitely impacted the results. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 18:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you prove that with reliable neutral verifiable sources? If not it can't be implied through wikivoice. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 18:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Didn't mean to prove it or to have that exact wording in the article, but when there are neutral verifiable sources that many non-Eurovision fans voted, and the fact that every vote counts, it is extremely likely that that was the case. Again, not necessarily saying that should be in the article though Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * How do you or the publications for that matter know they are "non-Eurovision fans"? Additionally wikivoice cannot go on speculation re: "it is extremely likely that that was the case". It feels like journalistic license is being employed and potentially so crystal ball activities. It also feels like original though from the publications to come to the conclusions that they have. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The sources are reliable and citing officials from the israeli government. All confirm without a doubt that a campaign for votes happened. This is not subjective. This is factual. The matter at hand here is to decide whether to mention this campaign in the article and a former discussion has already been made. Yoyo360 (talk) 19:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no way to know "All confirm without a doubt that a campaign for votes happened. This is not subjective. This is factual" That all falls under WP:Original Research as it has drawn a conclusion from them which is not necessarily one supported widely. It draws the reader to conclude the votes for Israel are some how tainted or that rules were broken. Which a non-neutral POV.
 * Nowhere is it stated any actual rules were broken, or that mass voting by bots happened or similar. It just seems people in other countries got messages about the Israel entry and decided to exercise a vote this year. It doesn't feel like anything more here, the claims additionally feel extremely tabloid. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 19:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Once again, the matter at hand is whether or not israel had a voting campaign. And the answer is undoubtedly yes, the several sources provided in the former section confirm it, citing a government official. The impact on the voting is not the topic of our discussion. Yoyo360 (talk) 19:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The issue I have is a misuse of wikivoice and the non neutral implications of the section. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 22:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Once again, as long as we use the sources provided in the former section, the inclusion won't cause a problem as we will just be relaying a fact: Israel campaigned for votes. It is factual. The fact that you see non neutral implications behind this type of sentence is problematic because there is not. And if you think that there's an indirect implication that israel got their points from this campaign, read the sources and ponder one minute... because isn't that what our sources exactly imply already? Including the israeli source ynet. Yoyo360 (talk) 05:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If all of the RS support there being a campaign to mobilise votes for Israel for political reasons then I don't see how it's an issue to state it in Wikivoice. AlexandraAVX (talk) 13:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Here is an explanation from a reliable source that it was just turnout, ability to vote multiple times without restrictions, and lots of other options.] Not some nefarious political campaign at the heart of why Israel polled well. Only having Israel is the big bad wolf style article belies the more benign and boring reasons set out in the article above. Also remember how in 2016 Eurovision changed to its current format of voting because it was all neighbours voting for each other. This is a storm in a teacup to claim that people voting en mass and multiple times is new. it also belies that mundane reasons exist as well as the nice sexy claims of the big bad Israel trying to rig the contest.
 * PicturePerfect666 (talk) 14:04, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That RS doesn't say there was no campaign, it explains how low support in numbers for a contestant can still result in a unusually good result for them. If anything the source explains how the voting system and the nature of public votes could enable a campaign.Second, we have to take into consideration 'motivated reasoning'. "We see this in politics when it comes to turnout in elections and turnout in referendums", explains Cunningham. "When we see turnout in referendums become very low we notice that the results become quite skewed. If turnout in a referendum gets lower than 35% the people who are more motivated, more interested, tend to influence the outcome a little bit more". AlexandraAVX (talk) 14:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No source is going to say “there was no campaign” that is like asking for proof of a negative. What it shows is not all RS are singing the same hymn on Israel and there are plenty of other valid reasons for the televote results beyond the claims of what are essentially Israel rigged it. I think there is a potential blinding to stuff outside of the Israel contentiousness when boring and benign reasons also exist. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 14:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If it is to be included the boring and benign reasons need the same weight on the section as the juicy and sensational claims. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 14:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thing is, once again, these are not claims. They're facts. Several sources, including some coming directly from Israel, cite an Israeli government official and diplomat who stated the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs campaigned. Some go as far as detailing they shot videos in at least ten languages demanding people to vote and the whole thing getting 14+ million views. Facts. Not claims. Yoyo360 (talk) 14:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Claims of “these are facts” are unhelpful as you don’t know that, no one here does. All anyone knows is what is reported so a better statement is “as reported in [sources]” not “these are facts” the latter implies infallibility of the sources. Additionally alternate reasons in an RS has been presented. Wikivoice cannot only give one side, as it currently seems to claim Israel votes were nefarious as opposed to the boring and benign reasons which are also a possibility for the televote results. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 14:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No one can know 100% and there are no infallible sources, but we still write statements of fact in Wikivoice. We don't keep repeating "According to Charles Darwin, humans evolved from apes" any time we talk about evolution, even if plenty of people pushing WP:FRINGE theories think it will be disproven any day now.If there's RS reporting that there was a government-sanctioned campaign that didn't actually exist then there would be plenty of reason for other RS to report on how that isn't true or it was uncertain/unclear. If there was a significant disagreement on whether there was or wasn't a government-sanctioned campaign then we should be more careful about using wikivoice. In the absence of any reliable or significant claim that a campaign didn't exist I don't see why we can't state it in wikivoice. AlexandraAVX (talk) 18:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I do not think that the Irish source from a professor is a fringe theory. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 19:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thing is we are talking about a campaign for votes. Which according to numerous sources, definitely happened. Which is worth inclusion. We are not talking about how israel got their results, which would very much indeed necessitate all possibilities to be accounted for. We are talking specifically about whether or not to mention the campaign. Which, once again, did happen according to several sources. No matter its influence, the existence of this campaign has been established. So your Irish Independent reference is irrelevant in this specific context. Yoyo360 (talk) 16:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Include per others and the already-had discussions { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 20:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Include, obviously. We've already been over this. This is not a proper RfC.  See WP:RFC, in particular WP:RFCBEFORE.  RfCs are for getting broader community input to help resolve matters for which no consensus can be determined after extensive "local" discussion.  But there is no failure to come to a consensus here. "One editor doesn't like the result" is not a consensus failure, and RfCs are not for "asking the other parent" in hopes of getting an answer one might like better. (Aside: RfCs are also for seeking broad community input, from the start, on a proposal that has site-wide implications, like changing a policy or introducing a new guideline. But that is of course not applicable to a minor discussion like this.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * include, as I have mentioned in older discussion. A confirmed vote campaign with government involvement taking place in a song contest with huge and international cultural impact is an incidence of major importance, and something uncommon for the ESC. Inclusion can be warranted, in my opinion. Piccco (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Do not include since his is not new nor unheard of. Participating countries frequently advertise their contest entries, and the reason why it's done more heavily this year has far more to do with the voting window opening early than anything else. Either way, it's not provable without a reasonable doubt, and has no precedent, so should not be included. LivLovisa (talk) 05:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Include. The issue is not that participating countries advertise their contest entries. That's a no-brainer. The issue is that a government is involved with and admitted that there is a campaign by Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs to vote for them. “The truth is that there was obviously an organized, dedicated effort by Israel supporters to give their votes to Golan… and it clearly drew votes from many who don’t otherwise tune into the Eurovision each year.”


 * As provided under the "ESC Title and Values" section of the contest rules, specifically under the "Non-Political Event" subsection, "[all] Participating Broadcasters shall be responsible...to make sure that the ESC shall in no case be politicized and/or instrumentalized and/or otherwise brought into disrepute in any way." As what @Yoyo360 have already mentioned, we are specifically talking about whether or not to mention the campaign, which have already been established (sources here, here, and here). "No matter its influence, the existence of this campaign has been established." F1xesc (talk) 07:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I think that the amount of promotion for this entry was, indeed, something new and unheard of. At some point, you couldn't watch a Youtube video without an ad popping up. Piccco (talk) 11:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Include per the previous discussion. Also, as SMcCandlish mentioned, I'm still confused about the need to open a RfC when consensus was already pretty clear. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 23:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Include: The exact wording to be added hasn't been fully discussed, but it is clear that there is support for including in the earlier discussion. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Include: As others have mentioned there is support for including this Fener8819 (talk) 12:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 May 2024
Annika Lundin should be added as commentator/audio descriptor on SVT24 in the Broadcasts section. LivLovisa (talk) 05:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Can you clarify where it appears on that page? I didn't see it, but I am certain I am missing it.  Additionally, the page implies that it will only be available until November 7th.  Is there another source available in case we need it as a backup?  --Super Goku V (talk) 05:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It only appears in the broadcast, not in any writing as far as I am aware. LivLovisa (talk) 06:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Svensk mediedatabas has the program archived, but it's only available for research (though that includes 'writers and journalists' and university students so it could be possible for some wiki contributors to access). AlexandraAVX (talk) 07:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * (To both) I guess with both of these facts, it is fine to include.  A source can be difficult to verify, but as long as it can be, then it is usable.  --Super Goku V (talk) 09:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ --AlexandraAVX (talk) 11:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * ❌ This has now been removed as it was added incorrectly (as a sign language interpreter rather than audio description). The reference you provided also does not list Annika Lundin anywhere within it, so we cannot add this to the table. Additionally audio description is generally outside of the realms of inclusion for these tables, as it's not commentary per se. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 13:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Is it never stated in the broadcast? If it's outside the usually included area then it shouldn't be included either way but as far as I know there's no rule against using video as a source. AlexandraAVX (talk) 14:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The database source doesn't name Lundin? Then I guess I misunderstood what the connection was to inclusion.  --Super Goku V (talk) 06:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The database is a permanent archive of the broadcast, if the broadcast unambiguously states that Lundin did the audio description then from my understanding it can be used. AlexandraAVX (talk) 07:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Video/audio contest would be suitable as a reference, however I've listened to the first couple of minutes of the broadcast, which is normally where you would expect that any introductions would be made, and the descriptor does not mention their name. Unless it is included elsewhere in the broadcast then unfortunately we can't use this reference as requested, and a different reference would be required. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Since this is disputed, I'm setting this to answered=yes for now to get it out of the queue. Will need a proper consensus to implement this edit, I think. – Novem Linguae (talk) 20:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk page archive "minthreadsleft" parameter
Sorry for the meta-discussion here, but recently someone has been repeatedly changing this talk page's "minthreadsleft" parameter of the archive bot to 0, which would effectively mean this talk page would be wiped every couple of weeks and moved to the archives.

In my view, this is irregular and shouldn't happen, as the content of this talk page is useful for others to weigh in on and reference, and 14 days isn't a very long time. The bot's default value for this parameter is 5, and in recent years on the Eurovision pages the value has always been 4 (Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2023, Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2022, Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2021, Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2020, Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2019) - not 0.

If you have an opinion on this, please could you weigh in so we can reach a consensus and have a settled value.

I'm about to change this value to the default value of 5 - It would be helpful if everyone refrain from changing this value until a consensus has been reached about it. BugGhost 🪲👻 16:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * You have’t proposed anything other than not what I am proposing which is weird. Please propose something.
 * How many threads do you want left and why? How long do you want before a thread is archived and why?
 * These seem pretty obvious things to ask an OP to provide, and weird not to have been in the opening of the discussion.
 * This discussion feels like it’s only about what you don’t want (changes from me) and not what you do want. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 20:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I very clearly proposed that your changes setting the parameter to 0 should be reverted, and the rest of the settings should remain unchanged. BugGhost 🪲👻 22:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That is not a proposal for something just a statement against something. What do you actually want? What do you want the minimum thread number set to? and how many day do you want the archiving days set to? PicturePerfect666 (talk) 01:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What do you actually want? → I very clearly proposed that your changes setting the parameter to 0 should be reverted, and the rest of the settings should remain unchanged. This is getting tedious. You pretending that I am not suggesting something concrete makes no sense. And why is this comment the first reply? Why did you move it back up here out of chronological order, above Novem's, after SGV fixed the ordering? See WP:TPO.
 * I recommend you taking a breather from this and consider whether interacting here is helpful for the article, or whether it is just you refusing to drop the stick. BugGhost 🪲👻 08:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It’s a direct response to your claims. You are increasingly coming across as just anti anything suggested or done by me on this page. ‘Reverted’ to what? You haven’t proposed anything. It’s just ‘oppose what I do’. Other users have but getting a proposal from
 * you is like the search for hens teeth. You are very much the one who should evaluate what they are doing, why they started this discussion and why they are making wild claims about my motives further on in this thread. If anyone needs to drop the stick it’s you and the stick you are holding is ‘oppose Picture at all costs’. Seriously you are getting to the point of obsessed regarding my activities on this page. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 15:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Pinging @PicturePerfect666 and @Super Goku V as they recently have made changes to the bot's config and may have opinions on this. BugGhost 🪲👻 16:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd say it's very uncommon to use minthreadsleft=0, and it hides the recent talk page history which I see as a disadvantage. I definitely recommend keeping it at 5. – Novem Linguae (talk) 20:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I cannot see keeping any obviously finished discussions around is of any benefit to anyone. Also why not 15 or 500 threads to be kept then ‘nothing is hidden’ why 5? That’s an arbitrary figure to satisfy what?
 * Talk pages are not walls of evidence, shame, or glory. If a discussion has ended it should be archived not left stale like a piece of bread forgotten about.
 * Not archiving discussions that have finished is ridiculous and only goes to make things look old and forgotten about. Inferences that archiving is nefarious is madness and is made with
 * claims of ‘archiving being hiding’ as the OP has done which is patently complete and utter nonsense and shows no understanding what archiving is and like some kind of paranoia being projected. What an incredibly odd thing to get knickers in a twist over.
 * Archiving is not hiding.
 * What good does keeping stale old discussions hanging around?
 * Characterising archiving as hiding goes against the foundations of Wikipedia.
 * I have no problem with extending the length of time to 28 days for example. Stale, old, and clearly ended discussions should not hang around like stale bread; all forgotten and sad. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 22:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that 5 is an arbitrary number - but we have to find a compromise between 0 and infinity, so any number could be argued as arbitrary. I personally would say 15 or 20 would be a better choice as I feel like 4/5 doesn't show enough recent history, and archives are harder to navigate (because they hide conversation topics from view). For example, this discussion is a repeat of  this one. A longer archive period would have removed duplication, because the older topic would not have been hidden. However, any value is better than 0.
 * I do not understand the steps you made to come to the conclusion that "characterising archiving as hiding goes against the foundations of Wikipedia", so I won't comment on that. I would say that I do not have "my knickers in a twist", nor am I "projecting paranoia", nor that what I am saying is "patently complete and utter nonsense and shows no understanding what archiving is" - I would appreciate it if you refrained from making these kinds of comments. We're just discussing a parameter on an archive bot.
 * I opened this section up because you made very clear in your edits and on my user talk page that you have strong opinions on this, even though your opinions are against the norms for archiving. I personally would have preferred not to have this discussion at all, as I assume most editors would see the benefit of having content remain on talk pages. This topic was opened because you changed the value to 0 on three separate occasions without ever discussing it on the talk page, and so I am trying to reach a consensus by including the rest of the editors here in a civilised straightforward way. BugGhost 🪲👻 01:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Everything I have said is an honest comment on the content you are laying out. It is absurd to leave discussions forever on a page going cold and stale after clearly being concluded. Additionally, the examples of discussions are simply a time frame issue, not an archiving issue. What is the time frame you are happy with? I have proposed 30 days and asked multiple times, but I have not got a response. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 02:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * From my POV, arguing this much because discussions are not archive is absolutely futile. Who gives a damn? Archive all the threads and the talk page looks empty and inactive, leave 5 threads on it and at least you can see the talk page has been active at some point. And even that is not really an argument. Just because it "looks empty" or "inactive" or whatever, the number is just arbitrary. But setting it to 0 is not a good idea to me. Yoyo360 (talk) 08:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)


 * What number would you suggest to leave on a talk page and why? Also what time frame would you suggest? PicturePerfect666 (talk) 15:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't have strong opinions either way, but it if a conversation has gone stale, it should probably be archived. An 'empty' talk page does not offend me if there is nothing fresh to discuss. Now that the contest has passed and activity has died down, it might make sense to adjust the age to archive from 14 days to maybe 30 or 60 days. With less watched pages, it can take some time for folks to find discussions and they may not in fact be stale yet. Grk1011 (talk) 12:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think 60 days for a thread to finish is reasonable.
 * yeah I think archive after 60 days regardless of number of threads left. Any longer and I don’t think a discussion is going to be that long. If the replies are once every 60 days then is it really being engaged with?
 * What do you think? PicturePerfect666 (talk) 20:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Works for me. Grk1011 (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think there's 3 of us in this discussion that do not want minthreadsleft=0 as you are proposing here. – Novem Linguae (talk) 20:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not seeing any cohesive proposals other than what I have proposed.
 * I am also not seeing any reasons given against what I have proposed.
 * Please propose something, going not what you have proposed only, is not helpful. Constructive participation is essential not just going ‘don’t want that’. If that’s not wanted what is wanted? PicturePerfect666 (talk) 20:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I was going to leave this alone when it got changed back, but since I both got pinged and this has turned into a discussion, I will participate. Just going to quote Archive here regarding the main purpose for it:
 * Picture, five wasn't intended to be an arbitrary figure, just a rough number where there isn't too few or too many discussions. (Yoyo said it best that leaving a few threads makes it clearer that the talk page has been used.)  Cluttered talk pages are not that helpful, like it was for a good chunk of last month when we had over two dozen discussions open at once.  While not a serious proposal, even fifteen threads as mentioned would be too much clutter.  Personally, I have a strong dislike for what I consider to be the chalkboard method of cleaning the talk page of all discussions, but some people prefer it so it is what it is.  If it ends up at zero, then fine.
 * Bug, I do get that 14 days is short, but the talk page has just recently shrunken down from being over 100k in size, which is why I only doubled the archiving date from what it was before. With seven days, we still had a number of stale discussions that took time to auto-archive.
 * I don't mind 30 or 60 days if we want to jump to that now as it does seem that things have started to settle. If we do that, then we should consider setting minthreadsleft to 0-3, though again I would prefer at least one thread left.  --Super Goku V (talk) 04:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am happy to go for one discussion left and 30 days archive time. Later that can be increased to 60 days when things really slow down. It can then be lowered to zero threads if there is minimal to no discussion taking place down the line. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 05:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I think we should immediately go back to the last stable version until this discussion is concluded. Here's a revision from a month ago that appears to be a stable version. Click "Edit Source" to see the archive settings. Reverting to the status quo ante / last stable version is the normal practice, per WP:SQA and WP:BRD. It is up to whoever is proposing the "new" thing (minthreadsleft=0 in this case) to demonstrate that there is enough support for it, and so far there are enough objections that I am not seeing that support. – Novem Linguae (talk) 05:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Good grief ‘the last stable version’?
 * The revision from a month ago belies the activity on the page and is in no way ‘the last stable version’
 * No such ‘last stable version’ can exist due to the nature of this talk page with the article subject taking place and naturally either side of that being much quieter.
 * Also there is no ‘new’ here; changing archiving based on activity is standard practice.
 * This all feels completely bonkers that this is even a serious issue.
 * The final line takes the biscuit of “enough objections that I am not seeing that support” and sums up this as just no! no! no! PicturePerfect666 did it so I’m just going to object.
 * Actual proposals from me twice have been suggested and one user has no issues with the current 0/60 proposal. I have also made another proposal based on SuperGokuV’s input of 1/30.
 * Please actually suggest something other than going round and round repeatedly playing games of must oppose everything from PicturePerffect666 which is exactly how the ‘no to zero’ comments are starting to be tiresomely obvious as their underlying intent. Yeah it will be denied but none of the ‘no to zero’ users have (at time of writing) made any serious proposals in this discussion on how many threads to leave and how many days before archiving. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 05:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Seeing as you discuss "underlying intent", lets examine your actions here: The reason why the last stable version happened so long ago is because a few weeks ago you changed the value to zero because you wanted to remove a discussion topic from the talk page by abusing the archive settings - the edit summary literally says "Changed archiving period as this needs to move on.", after you repeatedly attempted to remove a talk section. You knowingly changed the value in order to obscure talk page discussions that you did not like, and now you are doing it again by trying to obscure your RFC's that are at the top of the page (the ones that indicate your opinions are overwhelmingly disagreed with). It is painfully obvious what you are doing to anyone who's been active on this page for more than a week, and pretending that you're doing it for any other reason is ridiculous. This is embarrassing and time wasting. You have never once cared about the archive settings at any other point other than times where reducing minthreadsleft would mean something you disagreed with would be removed from the talk page. That is not the purpose of the archive bot and you should be well aware of that. BugGhost 🪲👻 09:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If the RfC's get archive before they get properly closed, then I can restore them from the archive, but why would they be archived? Template:Donotarchiveuntil is properly set for both as far as I see.  --Super Goku V (talk) 10:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification on this - my point is not that the change to the archiver settings will remove the RFC's before they are officially closed, it's that I believe PP666's motivation to change the archiver settings is so that the fewest amount of people will see them in order to save face - the proposed changes aren't to aid the article or the discussion around it. BugGhost 🪲👻 10:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have read diatribes in my life but by goodness this is worse than sewage the amount of crap in it. all the comments on my motivation show you are simply out to ‘stop me’ grow up will you. I suggest you withdraw each and every word you make claiming you know my motivations and that you somehow know I’m here in bad faith. You have no idea how archiving works. Why would an active discussion get archived for fuck sake. Seriously the above proves it’s just stop me not build anything constructive. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 15:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Picture, I just got done checking the history. The settings that Novem linked to were like that at the end of last year and at the end of every month up until the event.  In fact, that was the settings that were initially set up last May.  --Super Goku V (talk) 10:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)


 * There is no way of easily knowing that from the link the provided through a phone. Thank you for the clarification. As you pointed out earlier though there were an unwieldy number of discussion threads last month, making the navigation of the page difficult. Which is what archiving is for. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 15:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Y'all, this really isn't something to argue over. In fact it is so insignificant that it's annoying. It has absolutely nothing to do with 'building an encyclopedia'. As pointed out, the default value is 5. Just do it and move on. Let's also just agree on 30 days as "stale". Grk1011 (talk) 12:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 100% agree on all points. BugGhost 🪲👻 13:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I really have to concur with Grk1011 here. It's low key ridiculous that there's been this much discussion over how to archive this talk page! Yes archiving is a useful tool to keep the talk page from remaining on topic, but it's really not that important to determine how the talk page is archived, how many threads are left, how often it is archived, for people to get this hung up over it and for this discussion to drag on for so long! 5 threads remaining and 30 days to begin archiving seems perfectly fine to me. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * minthreadsleft=5 and algo=old(30d) is also fine by me. Good compromise. – Novem Linguae (talk) 19:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This discussion is moot the parameters are deprecated. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 20:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * minthreadsleft is deprecated in Template:Archives, not User:MiszaBot/config. The difference is important. See here for a more detailed explanation. – Novem Linguae (talk) 20:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is officially now Wikipedias most banal discussion. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 01:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I love you I love you, actual proposals.
 * I’ve suggested 0/60 - which works for and I’ve suggested 1/30 moving later to 0/60.
 * I can’t see the point of discussions which are stale and concluded being left on a talk page. I see no logic for 5. I have made other suggestions. I don’t see why 5 threads should be the default or why any threads at all should be left on a talk page when clearly concluded. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Is minthreadsleft deprecated?

 * The idea behind leaving a minimum number of threads on the page is so that editors don't start new discussions on issues that were already recently discussed, but review the discussions that already occurred instead. I believe 5 used to be the default, but actually a recent change to the template deprecated the minthreadsleft parameter, and the parameters for archiving age. Supposedly it only produces text in the box now, while the archiving bot determines the minimum threads and archiving age automatically, regardless of the settings. So actually it doesn't matter what we set them to. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you sure? I don't see anything about minthreadsleft being deprecated over at User:MiszaBot/config. If I am missing it, feel free to quote it or link to a diff. – Novem Linguae (talk) 19:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, I think I see what you mean. minthreadsleft default is 5. That's different than deprecation but I see what you mean. Anyway, even if the default is 5, this recent edit also removed the algo parameter, which lowers it to its default of 24 hours, which is very fast. So I disagree with that edit. – Novem Linguae (talk) 19:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not sure at all, but also I'm looking at the docs for Archives. MiszaBot is deprecated: it hasn't run in thirteen years and its maintainer left the project in 2015. The successor process uses the same code for backwards compatibility, or it did, maybe that also changed, and/or maybe the bot has been offline long enough that nobody is thinking to update its docs page any more. I was looking in the docs for Archives for the defaults for the parameters, and it says in the table there that minthreadsleft is deprecated (along with several others), but doesn't explain further. I went to the talk page for the template and there are a series of discussions there from about March of this year about automating several of the parameters, but I don't know if code actually changed, and wouldn't really know what I was looking at anyway. I tested omitting the parameters on my own talk page and it does render the table as the discussions suggest it would be, but I didn't leave it up long enough to actually test the archiving. it looks like you made the changes to the documentation, maybe you can advise? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that info. Even though MiszaBot is no longer running, the config template User:MiszaBot/config is used by all the contemporary archive bots, including and . You can read up more on that at Help:Archiving a talk page. I definitely do not think that template is deprecated.
 * I think the minthreadsleft parameter is deprecated for Template:Archives, which is just the archive box that links to the archive pages. That box now auto-detects the minthreadsleft parameter. Ironically, it probably auto detects the minthreadsleft parameter by reading the minthreadsleft parameter in User:MiszaBot/config, where it is not deprecated.
 * So I think the important distinction here is that there are two templates: one template that tells the archive bots how fast to archive (User:MiszaBot/config), and one template that puts archive links on a page (Template:Archives). And minthreadsleft is not deprecated in the former, and is deprecated in the latter. Hopefully that makes sense. – Novem Linguae (talk) 20:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I was writing this up, but got interrupted and Novem Linguae got there first, so this is just a quick message agreeing with them. It's perhaps also worth pointing out that
 * the Miszabot config, including, is still in active use by Lowercase sigmabot III for automated page archiving;  and
 * formerly, the user of Archives had to use up to four parameters (including param minthreadsleft) to generate the bot notice appearing below the list of archives which specifies archive frequency and so on, but the template was enhanced recently to generate the bot notice automatically from the archiving bot config on the page, rendering the four archive bot notice params, including minthreadsleft, obsolete.
 * So to answer the title question:   is deprecated in template Archives, and not deprecated in the Miszabot/config (and in some other places outside the scope of this discussion). By coding the Miszabot/config with values you prefer, it will cause the page to be archived according to the values you gave. If, in addition, you code  on the page, it will generate a list of archives in a box, with a bot notice appearing automatically showing the config values you coded, unless you suppress the notice with yes. Hope this helps clarify things. Mathglot (talk) 23:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You mentioned ClueBot III, but that ignores - instead, it uses . AFAIK only one bot recognises, and that is lowercase sigmabot III. It took over some of MiszaBot's tasks several years ago, but was deliberately coded to read  in order to avoid the need to amend thousands of talk pages. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 10:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah you're right. For some reason I thought both bots used the same config template, but it looks like each has its own. Thank you for the info. – Novem Linguae (talk) 10:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

numbers in parameters
Above, four of us have agreed to minthreadsleft=5 and algo=old(30d). That looks like a consensus to me, so I have implemented it. If I am not reverted, we should be all set. I recommend against manually archiving this, ironically for the same reasons that we are also opposed to minthreadsleft=0, which is transparency and ease of access to recent talk page discussions. Thank you to everyone who participated in the discussion. – Novem Linguae (talk) 05:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * This is not a representative statement.
 * This is not counting !votes as this is not a democracy
 * there have been a number of proposals some have not been commented on some have been agreed with
 * The claimed version you have is not as far as I can see a proposal more just an opppose everything and go to some default.
 * I'm not going to fall for the phoney ‘well I counted this many agreeing with me’ rubbish.
 * If you think that version you seem to have fallen in love with (of some bizarre default, which doesn’t exist by the way), is so great why is it that what the numbers should be set to. Nothing of substance on that has been provided. Whereas a number of others have said with substance (not just me before you go down that path) on other proposals.
 * I have begged for actual proposals and none of ‘cannot be zero’ brigade which i include you in have made a positive contribution proposal here. It is all not this or this, nothing about what you actually want and why.
 * Please provide an actual proposal and why, not just ‘not zero’. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 18:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * your behaviour here is becoming disruptive; your ongoing battleground behaviour and thinly-veiled personal attacks will no longer be tolerated. If you would like to participate in working towards agreement on what the archiving parameters should be, feel free to participate but you must follow the civility policy and cease the insults. If you continue to make unilateral changes and stomp your foot and demand that things be your way and call everyone names who disagrees with you, you will be asked to leave. Please do not change the archiving parameters again. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Make that five who agree. At this point, consensus is more than clear, WP:SATISFY applies, and there is no further need to respond ad infinitum to one who sees it differently. Time for all of us to let this thread go; I see nothing to be gained by prolonging it. Mathglot (talk) 19:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Restarting archive discussions
The previous discussion is a dumpster fire so let’s clean break start again.

I propose setting the numbers to 1 thread left with a 30 day time frame, living further down the line to 0 threads left with a 60 day time frame.

The reasons for this are as the page quietened the discussions will take longer but will be fewer so will conclude later, they will though conclude.

When a discussion is concluded that should not be left on the page forever getting old and stale while lunch forgotten about and sad. That is just bad. Additionally o see no reason for discussions which concluded to remain as it gives an impression of not finished when even after years they are still there looking unfinished.

Let’s not oeretend that keeping old staleness missions on a talk page is helpful to anyone. Any arguments of but duplicate discussions could happen are applicable under any scenario unless archiving never took place so that is a ridiculous position. Additionally archiving his a tool for cleaning up when things finish. If a discussion has comments less frequently than 30 or 69 days is that really an active discussion?

TL:DR I propose 1 thread left with 30 days archiving moving to zero left with 60 days archiving because old discussions shouldn’t hang around on a talk page forever and a day. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Now I'm going to be slightly vulgar but for god's sake there is already a discussion on that topic right above this one with some positions clearly taken and argued and approved so will you just stop at some point? Yoyo360 (talk) 18:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That is exactly what this clean break is trying to avoid. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 18:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Seems like you just don't like the consensus above, so hoping to ignore it and try and get people to agree to your preferred version. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * 5 threads/30 days, since you insist on concrete proposals. You seem to not be considering any arguments made by anyone who doesn't exactly agree with you, but I wrote above that some recent threads left out of archive shows editors who come to a page later what things have been discussed recently, so that they don't start new discussions on those same issues. It also limits the load on the archiving bots, which use some server resources every time a page is archived. Furthermore, there's not really any reason to archive old discussions in the first place: ideally we would have one page documenting all discussion that ever occurs on a topic, except that certain topics like this one will get too long. The vast majority of Wikipedia talk pages don't archive at all. 5/30 is a reasonable default (and was the default until very recent changes that I'm still wrapping my head around); leaving just one thread visible seems pointless, and 0 is ridiculous. I also agree that this is likely bound for WP:LAME. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this I was unaware of the server load arguments. That seems valid. Also as the default has changed why not go to the new default?
 * Also never archiving would be extremely challenging to wade through but I see your point regarding searchability.
 * I am happy to move to the new defaults on the archive as these have now been explained in a way which makes sense re server load in particular which I think I three threads left at 30 days. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 19:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest keeping 5 threads for now and maybe reduce it some time later. There's not the flurry of activity that immediately followed the contest but it's still a very recent and popular event and a fairly active page. I'd agree with "going with the new default" except I don't know what it is, or even if there is a default now. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support 5 threads/30 days. Agree fully that "leaving just one thread visible seems pointless, and 0 is ridiculous". Also fully agree with @Yoyo360's sentiment "for god's sake there is already a discussion on that topic right above this one with some positions clearly taken and argued and approved so will you just stop at some point?". BugGhost 🪲👻 19:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have filed WP:ANI. – Novem Linguae (talk) 19:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support 5/30. Very typical for talk pages that are currently getting a lot of use. At some point we can go to the more typical 5/90 used at talk pages that aren't currently becoming difficult to navigate because of so much discussion. Valereee (talk) 20:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support 5 threads/30 days. Consensus was already clear from the previous discussion above, and reopening it so quickly in order to have a "clean break" is highly controversial and is not in any way helpful. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 20:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support 5/30 as it was the clear consensus above. Also Oppose any more arbitrary "restarts" to the discussion. Save the mulligans for Sunday morning golf. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support 5/30 per existing consensus. Grk1011 (talk) 01:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support 5/30 which has clear consensus, and didn't need these new section to regather the same consensus... Joseph2302 (talk) 09:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support 5/30. – Novem Linguae (talk) 09:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support 5/30 per Valereee. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support 5/30: Per both discussions. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

@PicturePerfect666, are you ready to accept this and let it be closed? It's just a time-waster at this point. Valereee (talk) 12:57, 13 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Ok, PP666 is apparently taking a break. I don't think we need to waste anyone's time requesting formal closure, but anyone who wants to, including someone who !voted, can probably SNOW close this if they prefer. Valereee (talk) 12:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)