Talk:Miss Universe 2019/Archive 1

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2019
190.77.198.219 (talk) 05:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Begoon 07:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Allowing to add section "Background"
Hello, Are we allowed to add the section "Background" to the article on talks about where the pageant will be held and the format? Triila73 (talk) 05:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Upcoming Pageants
Netherlands: beginning of June Canada: July El Salvador: July Costa Rica: July Mache2007 (talk) 16:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Upcoming Pageants Netherlands: June Australia: June Namibia: July 6TH Canada: July Costa Rica: July El Salvador: July Mache2007 (talk) 16:30, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Source: facebook pages Mache2007 (talk) 16:30, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

To add at upcoming pageants Mache2007 (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Can you share us the link? Thank you. Triila73 (talk) 07:02, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2019
Saarawat (talk) 13:35, 16 June 2019 (UTC) I need to edit files
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. NiciVampireHeart 13:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

5 July 2019
We will be discussing the recent edits and changes by Jjj1238. We will also be discussing if we will keep the "Notes" section OR change the notes section to a different way like what Jjj1238 did.

We can also make a debate if we will change the "notes" section to a different way. I have sent a message to the eyekeepers of the article. Triila73 (talk) 09:36, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The Notes section just comes across as very unencyclopedic to me, and it opens up waves of vandalism and disruptive editing. Putting this in paragraph form just seems like the obvious solution to me. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 16:04, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I would also propose either eliminating or altering the Crossovers section as well. If we're choosing to keep it, these non-notable pageants (Miss Chinese Cosmos Southeast Asia, etc.) have got to go. But also so many of them are unsourced. WP:Beauty Pageants already has such a big problem with vandalism and unsourced editing, and these lists ("Notes" and "Crossovers") are inviting more of it to happen. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 16:11, 5 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I am very grateful for what you have contributed. I agree with you User:Jjj1238 about altering the Crossovers section as well. Minor beauty contests for small communities should be eliminated. And about the "note", I found that the notes should be simple. As a note you should not make it complicated. If you put this in paragraph form, the users will be easier to edit and add information, and may cause vandalism or disruptive editing. They can change the passage easily, delete something and it can hardly be discovered. I am so sorry beacause I am not good at English. User:Nguyenquochieu2107, (talk) 13:11 6 July 2019 (PST)
 * I disagree. Putting this into paragraph form is deterring potential vandals. Lists should not be on Wikipedia unless they are necessary; they do not look right and do not appear encyclopedic. It is especially easy for vandals to simply add something to a list without anyone realizing it shouldn't be there. Putting this in paragraph form not only makes the article look more professional and eloquent, but vandals are less likely to sift through a paragraph to add unsourced information than they are to simply add it to a list floating around. { [ ( jjj <b style="color: #000000;">1238 ) ] }</b> 14:47, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Miss France Universe 2019
She still hasn't been added. She's a native from Tahiti. AaronJAdkins (talk) 02:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Vaimalama Chaves has confirmed she will not be competing in Miss Universe 2019. <b style="color: #AB2B2B;">{ [ ( jjj</b> <b style="color: #000000;">1238 ) ] }</b> 02:41, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2019
Can i edit this page because i need to remove some fake sources. 175.176.81.144 (talk) 12:50, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. <b style="font-family:verdana;color:#2b601f">aboideau</b><sup style="color:#474647">talk 13:10, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm with JJJ
WP:COMMONNAME is about the common name they mostly use or they use in common. Miss Korea is always from South Korea unless the delegate from North Korea join the pageant, the sash would be changed. Still, we should use South Korea in this case. Miss US Virgin Islands, of course many locals use U.S.V.I. but the name "United States Virgin Islands" is also common. Whether MUO use which name on the sash, but we still use the name we call the country/territory in common. Right? Orcakorn25 (talk) 02:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly, WP:COMMONNAME exists to establish that we should refer to things (such as countries) by their common names (aka the names by which their articles are called: South Korea, United States, etc.) unless in a proper noun. The pageant may be Miss Queen Korea or Miss USA, but the country the delegate is representing is South Korea and the United States, respectively. <b style="color: #AB2B2B;">{ [ ( jjj</b> <b style="color: #000000;">1238 ) ] }</b> 02:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources
All content on Wikipedia must be reliably sourced, otherwise it's just speculation, opinion, unverifiable claims, or even untruth. Reliable sources include media with fact checking. They do not include self published sources such as social media or blogs. beautypageants.indiatimes.com sub-site is an unusual case: advertorials run under the brand of a usually reliable source, and should not be used (see WP:RSN). ☆ Bri (talk) 12:48, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Host & Date
Miss Universe confirmed date and venue: December 8, United States. Confirmed by Miss Universe Iceland Org. Host city to be announced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.179.100.224 (talk) 22:27, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

About Miss Bahamas
I've heard the news that the Bahamas got the terrible disaster, the hurricane, and will not send the delegate to the pageant due to financial problem. It's just a rumor so I will post the topic here if the Bahamas send the delegate or not. Anyone can update the news here. Thank you. Orcakorn25 (talk) 11:43, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

According to the Miss Universe website, Bahamas is listed as a contestant in this edition, which means Sturrup will continue to compete. Triila73 (talk) 06:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Miss Iran 2019 is participating
She will join the competition but Miss Universe Organization still don't give a liscence to Iran due to conflict of two countries.We will wait until November if she will be not confimed by the MUO,then we will remove her from this page🙂. Kenneth Saclote (talk) 03:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That is not how Wikipedia works. She will be added if she's proven to be a competitor, not the other way around. <b style="color: #AB2B2B;">{ [ ( jjj</b> <b style="color: #000000;">1238 ) ] }</b> 04:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2019
Russia (TBD) Uruguay (TBD) Sri Lanka (TBD) Angola (TBD) Guatemala (TBD) Jose manuel niño zarate (talk) 15:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Since they're all still (TBD) it would be too soon to add them to the article with details still unconfirmed. These details also require a reliable source for verification — <b style="font-family:Ariel; color:red">IVORK</b> <b style="font-family:Ariel; color:Green; font-size:x-small">Discuss</b> 05:54, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Guatemala is withdrawing this year,it is already confirmed by their national director! Kenneth Saclote (talk) 03:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

And what about Russia or Sri Lanka? Rahu22 (talk) 16:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request
Correct the link to the DAB page Cuanza to Cuanza, Angola. Narky Blert (talk) 08:05, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 24 October 2019: Miss Bangladesh
Change Contestants to add info on Miss Bangladesh, been blank for a while now. Milesq (talk) 10:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:22, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 24 October 2019
Add the name of the new Miss Bangladesh, "Shirin Akter Shela" Hectoryambo (talk) 17:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Not yet on site. - ChrisWar666 (talk) 21:38, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 25 October 2019
Konaahmed (talk) 03:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 *  Bangladesh |||Shirin Akter Shela ||23 |||Thakurgaon
 * Not yet on site. - ChrisWar666 (talk) 21:38, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

UPDATES: New contestants selected
Miss Bangladesh: Shirin Akter Shela. Sources: https://www.thedailystar.net/arts-entertainment/news/shirin-akter-shela-wins-miss-universe-bangladesh-1818253 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirin_Akter_Shila

Miss Ukraine: Anastasia Subbota (26). Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5SwpaHYOOU

Miss Uruguay: Fiona Tenuta (23). Source: https://gossipvzla.com/osmel-viene-con-todo-fiona-tenuta-es-la-nueva-miss-uruguay-2019-fotos/

Lordccs (talk) 14:09, 26 October 2019 (UTC)Lordccs

Update the page
who is the idiot who manages this page ... has not updated for a long time and does not let others do it ... better to turn in the page and that other people can update since the idiot who manages it was not able

Yes that idiot person who protected this page must be banned for editing!!! Kenneth Saclote (talk) 00:19, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

REMOVE PROTECTION FOR MISS UNIVERSE 2019!!
There's been already 4 confirmed additional contestant for Miss Universe 2019!!!Remove Protection right now!!!!! Kenneth Saclote (talk) 00:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Kenneth, the protection is due to be removed tomorrow, so hopefully the additional contestants will be added then. Rahu22 (talk) 19:45, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Getting outdated....
Four new countries have been elected their contestants to this year's edition. (Bangladesh, Ukraine, Uruguay, and Honduras). The last edit here was before Miss Bangladesh was crowned, which is technically almost a week ago. Don't you think it's time to lift the protection in order to update the current number of contestants?

Milesq (talk) 07:07, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If someone can make an edit request with an acceptable source, I'm sure it will be done. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:04, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Who the fuck is the idiot who protected this page??? Kenneth Saclote (talk) 11:19, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Kenneth Saclote (talk) 11:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Izno (talk) 14:11, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Tomorrow, Oct. 30, the protection is due to be removed, so I hope the additional contestants will be added then, with reliable sources. Rahu22 (talk) 19:52, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 29 October 2019
In §Upcoming national pageants, there are two rows sourced to Instagram. Please remove them. This is supported by WP:SPS which states "social media postings are largely not acceptable as sources". ☆ Bri (talk) 21:55, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Full-protection-unlocked.svg Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 06:59, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Awaiting Confirmation of Withdrawing Countries
The Miss Universe Organization has advised Wikipedia editors to wait until ALL delegate photos and announcements are posted on the official website, in order to avoid confusion regarding which countries are participating or withdrawing, as well as the date and location of the telecast. In a phone call I made to them this morning, the receptionist tentatively confirmed a total of 91 contestants, not 92. Again, we should be patient until everything is confirmed on their website. Possible withdrawing countries are: Ghana, Guatemala, Hungary, Lebanon, Russia, Sri Lanka & Switzerland (and one more). Rahu22 (talk) 18:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "Has advised Wikipedia editors" where? -- Bri.public (talk) 20:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The receptionist I spoke to at MUO advised me to wait, though he did say 91 delegates. I'm just passing the information on. Rahu22 (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * ...um, well. Sounds like a load of original research to me. Delegates will be added when reliable sources confirm they should be. Not because you supposedly spoke with a MUO receptionist. Why would a receptionist know anything about this anyways? <b style="color: #AB2B2B;">{ [ ( jjj</b> <b style="color: #000000;">1238 ) ] }</b> 21:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)


 * You can call them yourself tomorrow if you don't believe me (212)373-4999. Unlike you, I'm not afraid to go straight to the ONLY REAL RELIABLE SOURCE. And since when do YOU control this page anyway? Rahu22 (talk) 21:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "I'm not afraid to go straight to the ONLY REAL RELIABLE SOURCE" that is original research. You cannot go straight to the source and personally ask them questions and then report back what you were told. These sources need to be published and then reported. Please do not edit on Wikipedia if you do not understand the rules. <b style="color: #AB2B2B;">{ [ ( jjj</b> <b style="color: #000000;">1238 ) ] }</b> 00:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I intend on following the rules, which is precisely why I'm waiting for the final delegate count to be PUBLISHED ON THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE, as well as the location. I strive for accuracy just like you do. We share the same goals for this page. I've provided the list of missing countries to help in this regard. Thanks! Rahu22 (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry but he's right. Generally additions of content require a Reliable Source. You can read about it at WP:SOURCES. --NikkeKatski &#91;Elite&#93; (talk) 18:43, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Also the source should be An Independent Source meaning using the official website as a source would most likely be inappropriate. --NikkeKatski &#91;Elite&#93; (talk) 18:47, 31 October 2019 (UTC)


 * First of all, jjj1238 is not a HE, it's a SHE. Secondly, there are NO independent sources for Miss Universe. I'm done arguing with you people. I'll let you handle it, since all you want to do is control the page yourselves and cause edit wars. Good luck verifying those "independent sources." Rahu22 (talk) 19:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC)


 * When in doubt, male pronouns. But my apologies to jjj1238. Either way if a topic or fact doesn't have enough reliable sources we can't report on it because that technically means it isn't WP:NOTABLE. However its quite obvious Miss Universe is very notable. Perhaps we should not worry too much on fine details and keeping things up to date as soon as possible. Given time there likely will be more coverage (given it is notable) on finer things as more information gets confirmed to the public. --NikkeKatski &#91;Elite&#93; (talk) 21:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2019
According to the Instagram page of Miss Universe, they released the news about Miss Universe 2019. In the description of location, it says that the organization has not said anything about the location but as of today, 31st october, 2019, they have made an official statment regarding where it would be held and also the date, time and viewing channels. Splendiferoussparkles (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 22:32, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It's reported by Associated Press, in The New York Times Bri.public (talk) 22:39, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Identified unreliable sources
Editors are reminded to use reliable independent sources in all articles, including this one. Facebook and other social media are not generally accepted. Same goes for advertorials and native advertising.

beautypageants.indiatimes.com
The Times Group, parent of India Times, has an financial interest in beauty pageants: see Femina Miss India. Further, their site beautypageants.indiatimes.com has a disclaimer that it is not news but native advertising and lists a commercial pageant entity as a contact and presumably the content editor. There is consensus at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to treat it as a blog, i.e. WP:SPS and not of general use for citations.

☆ Bri (talk) 21:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Other blogs

 * pageantcircle.com – no valid contact information on their website other than a gmail address; their Facebook page states "PAGEANTCircle.com is a fansite/blog"
 * awardgoesto.com –, clearly one individual's blog
 * heatherhook.com – "one of South Africa's top social media engagers", clearly one individual's blog

☆ Bri (talk) 22:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)


 * On that note, where are the sources for the new additions of Guatemala, Hungary, Sri Lanka & Switzerland? Who posted this information? If it is indeed up to 96 delegates, the count also needs to be changed in the paragraph above the list. Rahu22 (talk) 23:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It's all there in the article history. Unfortunately, many pageant articles have a history of unsourced changes. I'm trying to change that bit by bit. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:14, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Recent change
From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 21:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC)


 * This official video posted today confirms all the delegates who will be participating: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Svd8mlY-OSE The MUO website will be updated accordingly with all the photos sometime this week. Rahu22 (talk) 21:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Might have to wait for the website to be updated. From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page)  21:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Looks like our edits have been reverted, per usual. Guess we both have to wait, unfortunately. Rahu22 (talk) 23:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)


 * It appears that multiple users are reverting each others' edits relating to which countries have withdrawn and how many entrants should be cited in the userbox. Discussion for this should occur here. Let's hope this doesn't turn into an edit war. From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page)  01:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Withdrawing countries
I still don't understand why some still add content to the withdrawing countries even if there are no references that can verify it. Can we wait until further confirmation is published? Milesq (talk) 05:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)


 * There's a YouTube video that the contributors are basing this off of, which isn't an RS. Wait until we can get some more reliable source. From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page)  18:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

The MUO released a video of this edition's contestants with some missing and then all of a sudden, some editors immediately concluded the withdrawals of other countries, plus a load of original research designated as proof.

Austria is the last returning country
This video shows all 93 delegates, including Austria. Can someone add her to the list with a reliable source? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbJRrIdQP5g Rahu22 (talk) 04:05, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think Austria will return this year. The MUO just released a video of their contestants as of November 4 and it has all candidates as per listed in this article.

Here's the link as reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Svd8mlY-OSE Milesq (talk) 20:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I figured that was the case. We've all been wondering if 92 was all there were going to be. It's about time MUO confirmed everything! Thanks! Rahu22 (talk) 20:36, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry But Kyrgyzstan,India and Greece was not in the official Delegates of this video so i will remove them from this page. Kenneth Saclote (talk) 07:10, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry But Kyrgyzstan,India and Greece was not in the official Delegates of this video so i will remove them from this page. Kenneth Saclote (talk) 07:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

India,Greece and Kyrgyzstan case
This 3 countries have been crowned from their,different organizations,But Miss Universe already released a video of official delegate for this year.This 3 countries was not concluded on the Video.We will Add them back if their names are already on the Miss Universe Website. Kenneth Saclote (talk) 07:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The page looks PERFECT now. Let's hope it stays that way! Nice job. Rahu22 (talk) 17:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Spoke too soon. Your Notes were just deleted by Jjj1238. There's now a debate occurring on this Talk page (below) about the lack of discussion or consensus about this, if you want to participate. Rahu22 (talk) 18:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Miss Universe 2019 Notes Removal
Hi, Jjj1238. In your edit here, you described it as "notes section was removed through consensus", which consensus is this? Was this discussed here, on the Miss Universe 2019 talk page? If not, please direct me to the said discussion and eventual establishment of consensus. I seem to be unable to locate such discussion and consensus, and the page it's on. Thanks.

Looping in Bri and AnUnnamedUser.

Migsmigss (talk) 18:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Looping in Kenneth Saclote

I totally agree. There was NEVER consensus or discussion on this Talk page. This should not be allowed to happen. Those notes were accurate and should not have been removed. Reverting of edits on a whim is not appropriate. In fact, it is vandalism. Rahu22 (talk) 18:14, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I opened this discussion because there was a considerable amount of information deleted from the page, and when I checked the edit logs, Jjj1238 described it as "notes section was removed through consensus". This is to clarify said deletion, and to look for the consensus/resolution arrived at, that Jjj1238 used as reason for the deletion.

I hope this matter gets clarified as soon as possible. I have not yet reverted the edit/deletion done by Jjj1238, as I want to hear from them their reason/clarification first.

Again, looping in Bri and AnUnnamedUser.

Thanks.
 * This was discussed in July. The only person that was against it neglected to participate in the discussion, so the change went ahead. The notes section gave way to massive amounts of disruptive editing and the addition of unsourced content, and this has barely been seen at all when the information included in the notes section is now written in paragraph form in the "Background" section. <b style="color: #AB2B2B;">{ [ ( jjj</b> <b style="color: #000000;">1238 ) ] }</b> 19:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Jjj1238.

1. The discussion you meant is this, July discussin, right?

Jjj1238: "The only person that was against it neglected to participate in the discussion, so the change went ahead." — This is the consensus you are referring to? I appears, to me, that the discussion was not resolved. So I am unclear which consensus you are referring to. Please clarify.

I am looping in Triila73 and Nguyenquochieu2107 who were in said discussion.

2. I have reviewed the Notes section you have deleted, and saw that there were information there added after July 2019, and that they came with RS (reliable sources). Couldn't you delete the information that didn't come with sources instead, and not the entirety of the Notes section, including those that were duly sourced/referenced?

3. Jjj1238: "the information included in the notes section is now written in paragraph form in the 'Background' section" — The bulk of information you have deleted in the Notes section included details on the debuts of Bangladesh and Equatorial Guinea, as well as the withdrawal from the competition of Ghana, Guatemala, Hungary, Lebanon, Russia, Sri Lanka, and Switzerland, all of which were provided with acceptable sources, sources which were published after July 2019, and information that are not in the current content of the "Background" section of the article. So again, why delete these parts of the content, when

3.a. they are sourced, and 3.b. they are not part of the content in the "Background" section? Please clarify.

Hope to hear from you on each points.

Thanks.

Migsmigss (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) I was bold, a discussion was created to talk about these changes, and the only person who objected decided not to press any further. That is reason to keep edits. 2) The issue is not the information of this notes section, it is the way it is written in list form. There is no need for that when paragraph form can also be used to express the same information. The list format invited vandals and disruptive editors, as anyone who was active here on Wikipedia in the pageant community can remember. 3) The debuts should've been included in the section and were included but were removed when these editors went ahead and made a notes section without consulting anyone about it. We cannot confirm the withdrawals yet (besides Ghana's which was also removed like the debuts were), so a source that says nothing about withdrawals from these countries, it simply does not included them, is not actually a source confirming a withdrawal. This "source" provided also does not include Greece, India, or Kyrgyzstan, but they were not removed. As of right now, the MUO website can only confirm countries that are participating, not withdrawals, as there's always the possibility they will be added within a day or so. There is still a month until the competition, and the only reason people are assuming these countries are withdrawing are because of a YouTube video which is not a reliable source. <b style="color: #AB2B2B;">{ [ ( jjj</b> <b style="color: #000000;">1238 ) ] }</b> 22:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Granted, that official MUO Youtube video is missing a few countries, but that doesn't mean they're not participating. The Organization appears to be in just as much disarray as our page has been lately. Let's just wait and see what happens once all the photos are posted on their website. What I DO know is that the time for any additional national pageants to be held has passed. Keep the delegate count at 92 for now. Nobody else is coming on to debate this issue and I don't blame them. It's getting ridiculous! Rahu22 (talk) 23:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That is what I'm saying. There is no deadline on Wikipedia. The information is not clear right now, so there is no issue in waiting to publish information until it is cleared up. <b style="color: #AB2B2B;">{ [ ( jjj</b> <b style="color: #000000;">1238 ) ] }</b> 00:04, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Patience is the mother of good articles :P --NikkeKatski &#91;Elite&#93; (talk) 14:23, 7 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I see the page was protected again, I assume most of us are extended-confirmed though. --NikkeKatski &#91;Elite&#93; (talk) 21:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Romania Returning
Here is Miss Romania's official profile on the MUO website: https://www.missuniverse.com/contestant/1000766 That now makes Romania the 93rd contestant this year. Milesq (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Why this page is protected until April 2020?
Who tf protected this page that will expire on April 2020? Kenneth Saclote (talk) 05:17, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Someone who knew what they were doing likely. --NikkeKatski &#91;Elite&#93; (talk) 13:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Said "Someone" actually protected the page because a lot of sockpuppets come in and make changes. I do understand how you feel because someone who isnt extended confirmed has to essentially wait till next year and then some more. If you contribute to wikipedia a lot though you'll likely be extended confirmed before then. --NikkeKatski &#91;Elite&#93; (talk) 13:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Kenneth Saclote. The page's edit logs can answer your question. I think the protection level is appropriate, so only conscientious, professional, and truthful edits are accommodated.

Migsmigss (talk) 15:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Hungary is withdrawing!
Please add hungary in withdraws as eniko confirms in her insta that hungfary won't participating this year! Kenneth Saclote (talk) 05:58, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Instagram is not exactly a good source that warrants the addition/removal of content. --NikkeKatski &#91;Elite&#93; (talk) 23:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Philippines
This is a discussion of whether Philippines in the lead paragraph should be linked. WP:OL dictates that universally understood terms such as names of countries should not be linked unless it is particularly important to the context of the article; that is, it is strongly linked to the topic of the article.

The argument for: "Philippines" helps us understand where the participant in the beauty pageant comes from; therefore, it is important to the topic of Miss Universe 2019.

The argument against: "Philippines" isn't important to understanding the topic of Miss Universe 2019. From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 17:16, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't believe this is that major of an issue, but I am generally against the linking of country articles in most cases, including this one. What country an outgoing titleholder is from is not necessarily that relevant, and if one was interested in learning about the Philippines, the country is linked when discussing this year's Filipino entrant in the "Contestants" section, and on the Miss Universe 2018 article when Gray was simply a contestant herself. <b style="color: #AB2B2B;">{ [ ( jjj</b> <b style="color: #000000;">1238 ) ] }</b> 18:11, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , care to share your opinions? From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page)  18:30, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, AnUnnamedUser. Thanks for the tag.

Again, I have already stated my position on this through Edit History description/logs. But to reiterate my opinion, I agree with the general guidelines on overlinking, but I don't agree with its application in this article and context (and consequently, its possible application on all beauty pageant articles by year, if the guideline is to be observed as a hard and fast rule). Here's why:

1. If the link expands the article by making available an avenue for it to lead to another article or articles, why choose to limit it? If it is helpful in the overall development of an article, then it must be accommodated. If it helps the content, then it is preferred, as it adheres to the principles of Wikipedia (that, ultimately, aspires for the growth and development of an article, as well as, and eventually, the growth and development of most if not all of its linked articles), instead of going for an editorial decision advertently limiting the article by choosing to not provide a link.

2. If we follow, strictly, the overlinking guidelines, then we must apply it on all Miss Universe articles per year, and then, consequently, on all beauty pageant articles per year. As I've observed and looked into, most of these articles have links to the countries of the outgoing titleholder. If we agree to proceed with not linking the country, then we must make sure all pageant articles of the same nature/format (yearly pageant articles) must be edited to adhere to such editorial decision on overlinking.

Thanks.

Migsmigss (talk) 18:48, 2 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your contributions. It seems that your argument focuses on the consequences of the action beyond this Wikipedia article, not the content confined within this Wikipedia article.


 * Point 1 says that the link will help integrate it in the encyclopedia. However, this is an argument for all links. There is an old community consensus that we should not link everything. I don't remember the link, but I did once read a report on a Wikipedia study that said that a majority of links are never clicked over an extended period of time. That said, many irrelevant links don't help at all; instead, they compete with actually relevant links for reader attention. If an article isn't overlinked, there is still no reason to link whatever.


 * Point 2, in essence, says that we shouldn't change this because it's inconvenient to change other articles. I think that sports articles link the countries in tables, but they actually go to something like Football in France, not just France. This problem should be corrected in all beauty pageant articles to be like the example given, and we shouldn't be lazy and forget about this problem because it's huge. From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page)  19:01, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, AnUnnamedUser.

1. Please provide the link. And please clarify why it should not be subject to change when new opportunities to expand articles, as well as new articles themselves, arise.

2. Your second point is noted, but "in essence, says that we shouldn't change this because it's inconvenient to change other articles." — This is your opinion, not mine. Please do not assume to interpret my second point of discussion and encapsulate it to support your opinion. I clearly have not stated such, and, to reiterate, do not subscribe to what you've just said. Also, your "This problem should be corrected in all beauty pageant articles to be like the example given, and we shouldn't be lazy and forget about this problem because it's huge." — Again, this is your opinion. I respect it but do not subscribe to it. We, editors, are here because we want, simply, to edit — to improve articles. Why would we then be here if we're, to use your words "lazy"? I certainly think most editors who are active on Wikipedia are not lazy. So again, I do not subscribe to your opinion, although I respect it.

3. Going back to the matter at hand. I would be willing to proceed with whatever the consensus on this will be, as long as this is discussed thoroughly with an open mind, with propriety, and once a clear resolution is arrived at.

Thanks.

Migsmigss (talk) 19:20, 2 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Change is not an end in itself. There is a difference between good change and bad change. Blindly pursuing change will result in bad change. Since Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, we should not include all information. Wikipedia's mission states that it represents the sum of human knowledge, not all human knowledge.


 * There are two provisions from MOS:LINK that make an exception for tables, where country links are made:

Consider including links where readers might want to use them; for example, in article leads, at the openings of new sections, in the cells of tables, and in image captions. Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead.


 * This is the part of the discussion that led to the overlinking policy: Wikipedia talk:Only make links that are relevant to the context/Archive of support and opposition. You can find more discussion in the archives of the talk page of MOS:LINK. The result that the community wanted to avoid can be found here: Overlinking Editors.


 * I may have misunderstood your second point as an argument for linking. I think you're saying that it was an instruction to editors after a certain consensus was reached.

From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 19:50, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy response, AnUnnamedUser.

1. Yes, I have already read said guideline. Again, please clarify why it should not be subject to change when new opportunities to expand articles, as well as new articles themselves, arise. Again, I see Wikipedia policies as guidelines, not hard and fast rules. Wikipedia itself is founded, in essence, in the knowledge that contents are ever-evolving, and that this reality comes with the innate requirement that all articles and processes can and may adapt to these changes.

2. Yes, thank you, and yes, you did misunderstand what I said. Thank you for the clarification. If we proceed with not linking the country of the current titleholder(s), could we count on you to actively participate in editing all yearly Miss Universe and all other beauty pageant articles? Thank you in advance. That is, if we proceed.

3. What I previously said stands. I will adhere to the consensus of this discussion, once a clear resolution is arrived at.

Thanks.

Migsmigss (talk) 20:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)


 * OK. I will help in unlinking pages. We might create a subpage of WikiProject Beauty Pageants in order to list pages that we have fixed. If this happens, fix articles that have high importance first. I am not opposed to change as a whole. I am opposed to three types of change: all change, indiscriminate change, and bad change. When there is opportunity for good change WP:BEBOLD and do it. When a policy prevents you from actually good change, WP:Ignore all rules and change anyway. From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page)  20:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the attentive response, AnUnnamedUser.

1. Your point is taken. You are allowed your opinion. Thanks for sharing them.

2. "If this happens, fix articles that have high importance first." — Please clarify. Is this a method by which you want to proceed with, yourself? Thank you in advance.

3. Again, my adherence once a clear resolution is arrived at, still stands.

Have a good day.

Migsmigss (talk) 20:28, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

From what I've read here, I believe changing most country links to the respective national pageant titles rather than the countries themselves is a very good idea. But then that brings up the concern that many of these national titles' articles are poorly organized and written. I have attempted to clean up these articles, but have only gotten to Miss Universe Albania and Miss Angola. Doing the two of them took quite some time (and I still don't believe they're exactly perfect), and there are 90+ more to go. This, coupled with the fact that I do have a life outside of Wikipedia makes it a very big task to complete. There also seem to be some editors who do not fully comprehend Wikipedia editing who have further made these national titles' articles unorganized and unacceptable, which is something that will have to be dealt with. <b style="color: #AB2B2B;">{ [ ( jjj</b> <b style="color: #000000;">1238 ) ] }</b> 20:29, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

A plausible idea, Jjj1238. And yes, I like it. Although of course, since this is a community, a consensus with other editors must be arrived at. But in my opinion, this is a good idea.

"There also seem to be some editors who do not fully comprehend Wikipedia editing who have further made these national titles' articles unorganized and unacceptable, which is something that will have to be dealt with" — I agree. But I hope they learn along the way. What I found to be most true, well in my experience, is that it is always better to assist them, help them learn the ways, provide constructive feedback, rather than simply disallowing them to contribute because of their experiential errors. Of course, as Wikipedians, I trust and hope we already understand this need to foster positivity in this community.

But going back to your idea. I like it.

Migsmigss (talk) 20:38, 2 November 2019 (UTC)


 * WikiProject Beauty Pageant actually rates pages from top importance to bottom importance; my idea is that if we make a concerted effort to fix the links, we should start at the top-importance articles. I only foresee fixing the links; if an article is generally poorly written, I'll just tag it for a copy edit or rewrite. From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page)  21:13, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Excuse my rude entrance but,

1. I agree with looking to prioritize changes in high importance articles, maybe because it'll be easier to reach a consensus when it is needed.

2. I like the constructive feedback loop going on here.

3. Finally, I really like these 3 step replies.

Sincerely, NikkeKatski &#91;Elite&#93; (talk) 21:26, 2 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The discussion appears to have died down. Since no consensus was reached in it, the status quo will be kept with Philippines being linked until further discussion begins. Edit warring rules about changing content that is being decided in a current discussion no longer apply due to the distance of prior discussion. From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page)  00:10, 4 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I changed "Philippines" because the discussion appears to have ended and there was no consensus reached. From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page)  19:02, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

AnUnnamedUser. Yes, as what I've seen reflected on Edit history. I am for preserving the status quo, as what you have said, and to quote you, verbatim: "... the status quo will be kept with Philippines being linked until further discussion begins." Your latest edit was not status quo, and no new discussion has commenced. Thus my revert.

I will support this specific edit if a consensus to edit all yearly Miss Universe and beauty pageant articles is arrived at, and said consensus on editorial procedure would also reflect the same change across the board, and moving forward, on all articles/pages of the same or similar nature and/or content. Otherwise, I am for the status quo.

That's why the revert.

Thanks.

Migsmigss (talk) 19:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, I've been able to find "no consensus", since this back-and-forth has gone on for some time with digressions and without one side being convinced. The only way I see a consensus being formed is if more editors join this discussion. The problem is that this linking discussion is too trivial to warrant high discussion.


 * In the future, you may want to indent your messages below someone else's. Just use : to indent your messages. You can read WP:INDENT and WP:THREAD for more information. From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page)  19:41, 10 November 2019 (UTC)


 * AnUnnamedUser —Yes, agree that this is too trivial. That's why the revert, and my support on the status quo. Unless this editorial procedure, which you have described "trivial," is reflected across the board on already existing articles of the same/similar content/nature, and moving forward.

Thanks.

Migsmigss (talk) 19:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to present new arguments for why Philippines shouldn't be linked.


 * 1) Overlinking/underlinking: The fact that an article is overlinked does not fully justify removing one of its links. Nor does the fact that an article is underlinked fully justify adding a link. The appropriateness of links depends on a case-by-case basis. Just because the article's not overlinked (yet) doesn't justify adding a link.
 * 2) Tables: The table precedent doesn't apply to prose: see MOS:DL, which states Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead. [bold added].
 * 3) Context: We can all agree that country names are likely to be understood by the reader. They should only be linked if they are particularly relevant to their context. Ask yourself the following questions:
 * Is "Philippines" particularly relevant to Catriona Gray's identity? (Converse: Is the country particularly relevant to a random participant's identity?)
 * Is it relevant to her accomplishments in Miss Universe 2019? (Converse: Is the country particularly relevant to a random participant's accomplishments?)
 * When she won the last pageant, would we say "the Philippines won" as much as we would say "Gray won"? (Converse: Would we also say "[Country X] lost" for "[Participant X] lost"?) UnnamedUser (open talk page) 00:22, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, UnnamedUser:

1. "The appropriateness of links depends on a case-by-case basis." — Agree. That is why I support the status quo, or having the link as is, as I have already stated in my previous discussions, and which I will further in response to your new thoughts. "The fact that an article is overlinked does not fully justify removing one of its links. Nor does the fact that an article is underlinked fully justify adding a link.... Just because the article's not overlinked (yet) doesn't justify adding a link."

— This line of reasoning could also be applied to the contrary, or the reverse of a specific actuality. Meaning, it answers itself, and the answer is, your first thought: "... appropriateness of links depends on a case-by-case basis" Thus, it can be used to lend support to the status quo, too. Thus, it resolves itself.

2. Agree. Thus, I support the status quo, as again, the link in question is in the lead itself, a first introduction to a page where the link directs to. Also, the status quo is supported by the MOS:DL: "a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead" as well as echoing a Wikipedia principle: Where an article can be elevated and expanded, we choose said route, instead of limiting it.

3. "They should only be linked if they are particularly relevant to their context." — Yes, it is relevant to the context. The candidates are even known by their country names, and are identified and recognized by their countries, throughout the competition — and even beyond it — when they are talked about in the context of the Miss Universe pageant.


 * Yes. To argue against is to disregard the fact that 1) they are always identified with their countries all throughout the competition, and that 2) they are representatives of their countries much as they are representatives of their own person. In the announcement of winners, does the host say, "The new Miss Universe is [name of candidate]" or "The new Miss Universe is [name of country]"? — It is the latter — the country name — and rightly so.


 * Is "Philippines" particularly relevant to Catriona Gray's identity? ... Is the country particularly relevant to a random participant's identity? —Yes, to argue against is to be tone-deaf and insensitive to the fact that she represents a country and a people, as all of the candidates represent their respective countries and people(s), in the context of their participation in a beauty pageant competition, and in the context after their representation, wherein they are still being talked about in relation to the competition. So, yes.


 * When she won the last pageant, would we say "the Philippines won" as much as we would say "Gray won"? — Yes, name of country is mentioned as equally, if not more frequently, than name of the winning candidate. Again, all throughout the competition, they are identified and called their country names, and even in the announcement of winner, it's the country name that is announced/called. To say the country or its name is irrelevant is to disregard these aforementioned facts, and to be equally tone-deaf to another fact: that a candidate in any beauty pageant is a representative of her country and people, just as much as she is representing herself.

Thanks.

Migsmigss (talk) 01:08, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , but do you think that Philippines itself is particularly relevant to the topic of Miss Universe 2019? Also noticed that other country names that aren't relevant are linked. People know what Ghana is, for example; the information in the article is not particularly relevant to understand Ghana's relation to Miss Universe 2019. UnnamedUser (open talk page) 01:43, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, UnnamedUser. I think I have already answered your question in my discussion above. Not just on the Philippines, but on any country in the premise being talked about in this particular context. Thanks.

Migsmigss (talk) 01:45, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Here to throw in my ten cents that I do believe phillipines can and should be linked per MOS:DL. Theres not much going against it in MOS especially since it is in the lead. --NikkeKatski &#91;Elite&#93; (talk) 13:07, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


 * This isn't going anywhere, so there are several options to resolve this discussions:
 * RfC: make this a request for comment (downside: no one wants to be bothered with expressing support or oppose to a link)
 * Seek outside help: request others to join (downside: WP:CANVASS)
 * Quit: end discussion (downside: obvious) UnnamedUser (open talk page) 20:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, UnnamedUser.

"This isn't going anywhere...." —It has, actually. The discussion and points above are testament to that. There are several points supporting the status quo, and all of these have been discussed. Your points have been discussed, too, and all addressed by counter-points supporting the status quo. So I do not think it "isn't going anywhere."

It has, and the discussion above is a resolution in itself. Thanks.

Migsmigss (talk) 04:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Greece is withdrawing too and Also Ukraine
ERIKA KOLANI already confirmed that she will not join miss universe and makes 91 countries only this year,Ukraine might withdraw too because she can't get a visa through USA because of the tension happening in USA and Ukraine now. Kenneth Saclote (talk) 08:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Can you at least provide a reputable non-social media source in order to verify this claim?Milesq (talk) 11:48, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Lol Erika just confirmed by herself that she will not go to Miss Universe and Miss Universe Ukraine also because she can't get a visa to United States because of the tension that happening between two countries right now Kenneth Saclote (talk) 21:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Again, a reliable source is needed to support the information. Also, the Miss Universe Contestants site was updated yesterday and Greece wasn't there, but Ukraine is there, I also counted the number of contestants in the site and I counted 86, so it's still incomplete, Let's wait the number of contestants to go 91+ in order to remove Greece from the article. Triila73 (talk) 23:56, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * fr the official site isn't reliable? what a shocker. What a coincidence that we have rules in place that only allow the addition of content referenced by a third party. (We don't talk about second party here) --NikkeKatski &#91;Elite&#93; (talk) 13:11, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I think what he meant was the list of contestants in the official website isn't reliable for accounting the withdrawals YET but only the confirmed participants. That's why he said to wait.Milesq (talk) 02:05, 17 November 2019 (UTC)


 * ^ my lawyer ^ --NikkeKatski &#91;Elite&#93; (talk) 23:52, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

picture of the venue
i suggest that you place in a picture of the venue into the page. there should be a photo of tyler perry studios in the wikimedia commons, they are both titled that same, one of them titled png and the other is jpg. you're going to want the png. Wylie2024 (talk) 04:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Countries still in question
On the official MUO website, photos still have to be added for Japan, Kyrgyzstan & Zambia. I've e-mailed the president Paula Shugart to ask about whether Greece & Ukraine will be competing, despite rumors about their visa issues. If I receive a response (which I have in the past), I will keep you informed. At this point, it's doubtful Guatemala, Hungary, Lebanon, Sri Lanka or Switzerland will be returning this year and may have to be added to the list of withdrawing countries. Thanks. Rahu22 (talk) 19:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

This just in:

Greece is probably not participating. Ukraine was turned down for a visa but we wrote another letter and she got approved yesterday. Paula M. Shugart | President | Miss Universe Organization

1370 AVE. OF THE AMERICAS, 20th FL. | NEW YORK, NY 10019 | WWW.MISSUNIVERSE.COM

| P   * IMG CELL   Rahu22 (talk) 20:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

As you can see, I went through the proper channels, though some may consider this personal research. We could still wait to edit the page or we can do it now. Any thoughts? Rahu22 (talk) 20:37, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Its not just some, that is pretty much the definition of WP:OR (Original Research) and not any information we can actually use. Im sorry but we just cant go that route. We have to write articles the right way, Which just so happens to require independent, reliable, verifiable sources. We can't add information and then wait for a source to come out. Refs come first, along with the added content. --NikkeKatski &#91;Elite&#93; (talk) 00:04, 20 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, that's unfortunate, because when all is said and done, you will see that everything I have researched is accurate. I just hope your future edits will reflect this. Rahu22 (talk) 00:09, 20 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I trust in the process, but i do not doubt your accuracy. --NikkeKatski &#91;Elite&#93; (talk) 22:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Please, let us not engage in an edit war.
Any additional information involving the inclusion or omission of confirmed delegates (including withdrawals) should be discussed here first! Please also make sure you have independent and reliable sources for any of these. Thanks in advance. --NikkeKatski &#91;Elite&#93; (talk) 17:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Jjj1238 just took out Guatemala & Hungary as withdrawn delegates, despite them having reliable third party sources. She should have addressed it here before doing so, with a legitimate reason. She's been notorious for doing this in the past. Also, under Selection of Participants it still says 93. Thanks for fixing the other wrong counts though, Nikke. Rahu22 (talk) 17:16, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I was confused what you meant because I thought i changed all of them, and i did. You must not've seen me make the change because it does say 92 in that section. And a quick search through the entire page shows no more mentions of 93. --NikkeKatski &#91;Elite&#93; (talk) 17:32, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of past prejudices we should work on moving forward. Maybe you want to discuss your reasoning for wanting them removed from the withdrawn list? I want a real discussion amongst editors even those who aren't able to bypass the current protection. --NikkeKatski &#91;Elite&#93; (talk) 17:29, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * ? I did not take them out. You did. <b style="color: #AB2B2B;">{ [ ( jjj</b> <b style="color: #000000;">1238 ) ] }</b> 17:31, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Ok, so yes, NOW everything is correct at 92, but I still don't understand the reasoning behind the removal of Guatemala & Hungary as withdrawing. There weren't any Instagram sources. Rahu22 (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This was the source used for Hungary. <b style="color: #AB2B2B;">{ [ ( jjj</b> <b style="color: #000000;">1238 ) ] }</b> 17:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

That was Miss Hungary from LAST year. You've got the wrong source. Rahu22 (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * ?? I know who she is. This was the source used to confirm a Hungarian withdrawal in the article. I pulled it directly from the edit history. It's an Instagram post and that is not a reliable source. <b style="color: #AB2B2B;">{ [ ( jjj</b> <b style="color: #000000;">1238 ) ] }</b> 17:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Oh okay yeah my bad then. I reverted to a previous edit to ensure that the delegate list was correct. And I agree an instagram post ins't reliable. --NikkeKatski &#91;Elite&#93; (talk) 18:06, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * In truth I am still a little bit confused and am unable to completely wrap my head around what just happened but regardless I can see why you'd rather not have them in the list of withdrawn. I won't make any further edits involving guatemala and hungary for a bit. --NikkeKatski &#91;Elite&#93; (talk) 18:14, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Huh? You didn't do anything wrong here. You removed an unreliable source and a source that didn't actually confirm what it was being used to confirm. My comments are to Rahu22. <b style="color: #AB2B2B;">{ [ ( jjj</b> <b style="color: #000000;">1238 ) ] }</b> 18:20, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I know its just I did it on accident by reverting to another edit, which kind of means that inbetween that edit and my revert someone added those two sources, which at the time confused me even more because rahu came to me thinking you made those changes. --NikkeKatski &#91;Elite&#93; (talk) 18:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I apologize for any misunderstanding. So yes, it does appear that those were unreliable sources. At first glance, everything looked legitimate. What confused me the most was why DeBoni2007 put Greece back in. We'll have to keep a closer eye on everything, which can sometimes prove challenging. There must be some way of confirming the withdrawals of Guatemala, Hungary, Sri Lanka & Switzerland. This year, it seems reliable third-party sources have just dried up. Rahu22 (talk) 19:31, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * As we've addressed before there is no deadline. Once Miss Universe comes around and those countries are not there it's safe to say they're not competing, so we should get this all situated permanently within a week or two. I think Romania's sudden selection without any warning is proof that we should not jump the gun without explicit sources. <b style="color: #AB2B2B;">{ [ ( jjj</b> <b style="color: #000000;">1238 ) ] }</b> 20:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Very true. We'll just have to let the chips fall where they may. And what's really odd is the arrival date for all of the delegates is on THANKSGIVING. Good luck with THAT, right? I also let MUO know they have Egypt's photo listed TWICE on their website. Talk about a disorganized mess! Rahu22 (talk) 20:41, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Officially, 90 candidates
According to the MUO site, MUO social media sites and MUO sponsors that a number of 90 candidates have been confirmed to compete. The date of the event is near so I suggest finalizing the number of candidates now? Triila73 (talk) 12:49, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

The count should now be 92, not 93 (or 90), since Greece HAS been confirmed as not participating. As for Kyrgyzstan & Zambia, we are still not certain if they will be competing. Rahu22 (talk) 15:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Like rahu has stated wikipedia has WP:NODEADLINE. We can be patient. --NikkeKatski &#91;Elite&#93; (talk) 15:43, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Zambia and Kyrgyzstan officially stated that they will not compete for this year. Kenneth Saclote (talk) 21:10, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Do you have any reliable third party sources (not Instagram or social media) to verify this? Rahu22 (talk) 21:24, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

i think it’s enough knowing that Zambia and Kyrgyztan will not participate this year since MUO posted in all thei social medias all their contestants, probably both those countries couldn’t get their visa at time Lilhomosapien (talk) 11:23, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Miss Universe Sri Lanka and Miss Universe Guatemala
Hello! I think Sri Lanka and Guatemala will withdraw? Supralucky45 (talk) 05:55, 24 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, we know, Hungary, Kyrgyzstan, Swizerland & Zambia too. We are waiting until the pageant airs to edit the page further. Thanks! Rahu22 (talk) 11:19, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Preliminary & Costume Competitions Date & Time Announced

 * On Friday, Dec. 6th at 8 pm Eastern, these competitions will likely show 90 delegates, which means we will have to put Guatemala, Hungary, Kyrgyzstan, Sri Lanka, Switzerland & Zambia into the Withdrawing Countries list...FINALLY! Rahu22 (talk) 18:29, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Finally! unless they manage to screw it up and get zero media coverage --NikkeKatski &#91;Elite&#93; (talk) 20:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 December 2019
Insert Miss Universe 2019 map of competing nations and territories.

I respectfuly request permission to edit the Miss Universe 2019 page, in order to add the map of the competing nations and territories. I am the author of these maps that I have been uploading annualy to the Miss Universe pages, I already uploaded this years' version to WikiMedia, but it won't allow me to insert it on the page due to its Extended-confirmed protected restriction.

The link on the map's Wikimedia page is here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Miss_Universe_2019_map.png Mf. von Karma (talk) 04:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ cheers ☆ Bri (talk) 04:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Philippines confirmed as National Costume Winner
2601:243:1302:3690:8D24:F8F1:2A08:EB71 (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC) Miss Malaysia won the award for Best National Costume.
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 20:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

MUO announced this morning that Philippines won Best National Costume, NOT Malaysia. ref: EOnline Rahu22 (talk) 20:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 December 2019
The real winner of Best National Costume is Malaysia's representative, Shweta Sekhon. Willchester (talk) 07:31, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Thjarkur (talk) 13:28, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 December 2019
2601:243:1302:3690:1529:3023:116:43BD (talk) 17:08, 10 December 2019 (UTC) I made a mistake when I said that Malaysia won the Best National Costume.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 December 2019
2601:243:1302:3690:1529:3023:116:43BD (talk) 17:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC) There was no voting. The top 20 were chosen based on the three regions: Americas Europe Africa & Asia Pacific plus 5 wild card spots.
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 17:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)