Talk:Ukraine in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2021

Unnecessary grouping in the table
I don't get why "Save This World" should be grouped? Especially since there are several rows in between them, it seems pretty arbitrary to me to group those songs only because they happen to be next to one another. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 15:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Had not noticed the discussion. It just seems to me cleaner with as few repetitions as possible. 〜 イヴァンスクルージ九十八 ［IvanScrooge98］ （ 会話 ） 21:45, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It just seems really arbitrary to me. I haven't been able to find any guidance about grouping cells in tables, but I would only do it if they logically belong together. For example there is a lot of grouping in the list of Eurovision Song Contest host cities because they were deliberately put together like that, not because they happen to be next to one another. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Yep, it definitely depends case by case. Though as I said, the fewer the repetitions, the cleaner it looks to me, as long as a table is simple like this one. 〜 イヴァンスクルージ九十八 ［IvanScrooge98］ （ 会話 ） 22:53, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Sources in artist and song information section
I still don't understand what is wrong with those sources? Or why you're removing the entire section? Yes, one is from Instagram but that's a primary source from the subject. Of course it isn't the greatest source in the world, but it does not have to be FA-quality to be kept, and also it is allowed per WP:ABOUTSELF. If social media isn't allowed we might as well delete Template:Cite instagram. One of the other sources is also a primary source and a third is a Ukrainian news website. If they are incorrectly formatted then fix it. Don't just throw the baby out with some slightly dirty water. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 21:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It is not biography article, so having a section on an individual is not ideal. The article should be closed, meaning it should only a single domain. You never mix and match. If the lady is notable, create a seperate article on her, but if she never won or is not notable, and I assume is non-notable then the best you can do is mention her in passing, saying The Ukraine candidate... or whatever and thats it. The references that support her are PR are not secondary. They're simply isn't sufficient numbers there to support that section. The references with icons, smily faces and so on were completly non-standard per the WP:MOS. They're completely outside what is acceptable for a reference. I could have slimmed the section down and looked for references, and if it was cultural article,for example a museum. I would have done it, but I had 120 articles to review, so I'm not waiting about.    scope_creep Talk  21:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I only just noticed that you're a patroller; I thought you just did it out of the blue. I agree that the artist and song info sections aren't great, but they are the status quo in these articles; it's like this in every article in Category:Countries in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest by year. If they should be removed then I think that would require broader consensus at WikiProject Eurovision. About the reference with emojis: the documentation for Template:Cite instagram says that the title parameter should contain the content of the post, and that post does contain emojis. I'm not sure what part of the MOS you're referring to. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 21:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If it par for the course, then it probably needs to change. Don't put that emojis reference back in.   scope_creep Talk  21:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If the emojis in the reference are really that big of a problem then I guess I can see if it can be formatted differently or something? But I still don't understand why the way a reference is written matters for how well something is sourced? As long as the source exists and is reliable, right? &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 21:57, 10 November 2021 (UTC)