User talk:Wesley Wolf/Archive 12

=April 2014=

Hi
Will Bengt Grafström be added to the list of Eurovision related articles up for deletion?.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

OGAE Second Chance 1996
There's a scoreboard here: http://www.sechuk.com/newpage1996.htm that shows the votes of the OGAE second chance contest 1996. I don't know how to do the scoreboard but I thought it would be useful to show the link to you anyway. Happy editing :) Xinxaa (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

=May 2014=

Ulla Essendrop
I have created an article about Ulla Essendrop. She has hosted the meet and greet at Eurovision 2014 amongst other things. I can not find any info about it, but take a look. And add info if you find any. ESC is just days away! Exciting! Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

WP Eurovision in the Signpost
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Eurovision for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 21:51, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks, but it was nothing really. I only corrected an error caused by myself.  I forgot to add '}}' to close the table.    Wes     Mᴥuse   22:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Eurovision
Hi! Amazing Eurovision semi on Tuesday, I like the stage but the camera crew does these annoying "arena view shots" way to often so you can not even see the artists. Anyway I hope for a decent result for Sanna! :)--BabbaQ (talk) 16:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm a little bit upset about Tuesday's Eurovision. 3 weeks ago I was asked by a close friend to predict the 10 countries that I felt would qualify from Tuesday's show.  It was only the 10 that did qualify.  If I had placed a bet on that at the bookmakers, I would have won £500 (approx 5500 Swedish Krona).  There's been a debate on ESCToday's Facebook page over Sweden and Armenia.  Most people have said that both countries now have an unfair disadvantage as they are performing in the first-half of the grand final, and in the last 9 years all the winners have performed between draw 17 to 25 (with the majority drawn 17).  OGAE have Sweden as the favourite, as do the bookmakers.  However, OGAE have only predicted 4 of the last 7 winners (predicting incorrectly in 2008, 2010, and 2011).  Meanwhile the polls at ESCNation in the last 7 years have predicted 5 out of the last 7 winners (they predicted 2008 and 2011 wrong) and they have the UK as their favourite this year.  Personally it would be nice if Molly won, because the last time Eurovision was held in the UK, I was not old enough to attend the event.  So if they win on Saturday, it would mean I'd get the chance to attend a Eurovision in my home country.  And with my prior volunteering experiences, I may even consider offering my services to help behind the scenes.    Wes     Mᴥuse   17:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * P.S. Keep an eye out on the Signpost soon. I was interviewed for a WikiProject Report which will appear in the next edition.    Wes     Mᴥuse   17:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I am of the opinion that the starting order is of less importance for the actual winning song. If you have the winning song it really should not matter if you sing at number 3 or 23. For example I think Loreen and Emmelie both had won even if they had performed as number 3 in the respective finals. But I agree with you that it would be nice if the UK won. If for nothing else but for you to be able to enjoy the ESC at location :) I think Austria stands a good chance of actually winning, Conchita is amazing really. I just hope songs like the one from Armenia, Romania, Greece and especially Russia does not win. A win for Russia would be quite disgusting right now in my opinion. It will be an exciting final!--BabbaQ (talk) 21:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I think we could be in for one of the closest finals since ESC 1998 when the winner came down to the awarding of the final 12 points.   Wes     Mᴥuse   21:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * One thing is certain. Armenia I think will not be the winner. Armenia was a favorite all the way up to Tuesday semifinal and now I think he might place in the Top10 but not in the Top3.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I was actually stunned when Aram MP3 said in his semifinal press conference that he wasn't happy at the producers selecting him to sing first and hoped it didn't happen again. Hard luck he is in the first half again.  I think DR should make him sing first again just to teach the guy a lesson in non-complaining.    Wes     Mᴥuse   21:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Aram really ticked me off when he made his ridiculous comment about Conchita. Totally unnecessary and plain stupid. He does not deserve to win Eurovision and I hope he does not! :) I see now that many of the favorites actually has been drawn in the first half of the final. Which is good as then the first half will get a lot of attention and viewers will be watching even early on. I think for the Eurovision itself it would be great if the contest left Scandinavia/nordic countries for a while as we have hosted the event quite a few times in recent years. But of course personally I would not mind Sanna as a winner. But I doubt it with this amount of great songs in the final! Almost anyone can potentially win!--BabbaQ (talk) 22:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Now it is getting interesting. The favourites Armenia, Sweden and now Austria and Romania are in the first-half of the final. Hungary and UK in the second-half. With this now, either the attention will be focused more to the first half like you said. Or possibly the UK's 6th win, or Hungary's first. Wes    Mᴥuse   22:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry to but in, but I'm pissed Israel didn't qualify. --  axg //  ✉  ]] ''' 22:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I am not surprised she did not qualify. She was very "scream-ish" in my opinion, but I agree Israel should on a song basis alone made it to the final. Yes Wesley, I think the final will be really interesting. And Molly definitely has the potential to win! The disadvantage for the Big 5 that makes it even more interesting is that your song is only performed one time. So either the Big5 will be at an advantage performing in the second half of the final or it will still fail to get votes because of the one time performance thing :). Uuuhh I smell a close victory for some country closely follwoed by 3-5 countries. In which order I do not know. :)--BabbaQ (talk) 22:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * But I say it again, if Russia wins I will be disgusted. --BabbaQ (talk) 22:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You know the Netherlands could be a dark house, they've shot up in many countries iTunes charts. --  axg //  ✉  ]] ''' 22:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Both Israel and Ireland were robbed. But thankfully Georgia didn't sneak in this time, like they generally do when they send a crap song.  Netherlands could be the dark horse, and I wouldn't be surprised if San Marino sneak up into the top 10 somewhere.  Wouldn't it be ironic if San Marino won?  It'd be like Europe trying to say "OK we get the message, here have the win just don't send Valentina again"    Wes     Mᴥuse   22:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Hey have you noticed, it is majority Western-European countries in the final... not been like that for a very long time.   Wes     Mᴥuse   22:46, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Apparently it's the first time since 2002 that the Netherlands, Austria and Switzerland were in the same final together. Also 26th and last place for Molly, fabulous! --  axg //  ✉  ]] ''' 23:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Interesting that of the draw positions of previous winners (17 to 23) that some good songs are drawn into those positions. UK to close the show... does anyone get a hint of ESC 1997 happening all over again? And looking at the reactions to the draw, a lot of people are in outrage that Sweden have been placed 13th in the draw (in-between Germany and France). Some people are saying that has been rigged for Sweden to win as the producers will have bets on them winning. Whatever goes through a person's mind to even think up that conspiracy and then "voice" it out on the Eurovision.tv page. Go #TeamMolly. Wes    Mᴥuse   00:04, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Lucky draw for Sweden especially and also the UK. However if I get to be a little nationalistic I think Sweden almost has the perfect starting number tomorrow. Stuck in between "non contending" songs from Germany and France. However also a little close to Conchita, but atleast Sweden will perform after her! :) But I hope viewers will stay and still be interested by the last song then the UK will stand a great chance to win! I think Ukraine and especiall Azerbaijans ballad will suffer by drawing second. But it is Azerbaijan so she will still place in the Top5. I think Hungary is dangerous as well, and Netherlands.--BabbaQ (talk) 05:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be too surprised if Malta were the dark horse and did the Junior/Senior double. Their song is very appropriate at the moment.  Especially with the centenary of the start of first world war.  Plus other combats in the world.  That song will definitely get the votes from people in the Armed Forces and people who know someone serving in active duty abroad.  And they are in draw position 22 - remember Lena won in that position.    Wes     Mᴥuse   15:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't now what to read out of the starting order for the spokespersons tonight. Often it will reflect the outcome. But this year there is no clear sign I think. Do you have any idea?--BabbaQ (talk) 09:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking at that running order, two countries jumps right out at me. Austria, and the UK.  Like you say the order sometimes reflects the outcome.  Switzerland and Slovenia towards the latter end of the voting would suggest Austria.  However looking at the polls from ESCNation.com, the 15 countries towards the end all voted for the UK.  I don't really take the OGAE poll as a true insight into what the outcome may be, purely because the people who vote in that are exclusive members who pay a fee to join the club.  The poll at ESCNation was open to everyone, no membership fee was warranted, all people had to do to cast a vote in their poll was register a profile like you would on Facebook or Twitter.    Wes     Mᴥuse   10:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It was a great final. Sad for the UK and a favourite of mine Germany. But overall a great Top3 and Sweden deserved the third place. Sanna was awesome. Some countries that usually place high like Azerbaijan and Greece placed really low this year and I am surprised because Azerbaijan usually place high no matter what.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:21, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact that half of the Top 10 came from the first half of the final tells you something about the quality of the songs there as well.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Conchita
I find it sad that people can not be non-biased when it comes to the Conchita Wurst article. it is quite obvious that plenty of users here have let say.. strange opinions about her. :). I guess her win at ESC was needed.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It is sad indeed, and quite upsetting too. Thank God that Ms. Wurst does not frequent Wikipedia and view what horrid people are saying about her.  It's like I said in comment to User:Darkwind, there are a lot of narrow-minded people in the world who are so full of hatred and unawareness; and only they can conquer their bitter demons.  Hey, did you see my interview in the Signpost by the way?    Wes     Mᴥuse   15:48, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

New template 'alert' for issuing DS notices
Hello Wesley. Since the WP:ARBMAC page is on my watchlist I happened to see you issuing a new warning to an IP. Please consider using the new notification templates because they trigger the edit filter. This makes it easier to check later that the person has been notified. Here is how to do ARBMAC notices:. See alert for more info. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 00:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah, so they've changed the way to issue notices!? I don't tend to issue them out often, so wasn;t aware there had been a change in procedure.  Thanks for alerting me to this.  Regards,   Wes     Mᴥuse   00:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thx for reply. Can you say where you found the warning template you did use? It looks like the uw-sanctions message but that template is already redirected to Template:Ds/alert. EdJohnston (talk) 00:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's one that I issued a good 18 months ago (the last time I issued a ARBMAC warning. I had to search through my contribs to find who I last issued one to, so that I could use the template again.  There isn't anything on the ARBMAC page that provides information on what template to issue, which isn;t helpful in fairness.    Wes     Mᴥuse   00:50, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, that's fine, you might have copied the substed template. I was just trying to see if there was more maintenance needed on the templates themselves. The first sentence under WP:ARBMAC has some advice people can use for issuing notices, though it would be easy to miss. I just [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_arbitration%2FMacedonia&diff=608151916&oldid=608139817 fixed the advice] to use the new style. The complete language on DS is at WP:AC/DS. Note that the template is now supposed to be issued no more than once a year, and a notice expires after that length of time. If you use subst:alert then you can check their edit filter log to see when they were last notified. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh so the warning method has changed considerably then? How come nothing was issued out to notify people of this?  Although like I said, it is rare that I issue any NCMAC warnings, but as I am dealing with Eurovision-related articles, they do tend to crop up few and far between.  Anyhow, I've added the Ds/alert link to my useful warning tools thingamajig.    Wes     Mᴥuse   01:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a new set of rules for discretionary sanctions that was just adopted on May 3. See [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Motion_adopting_new_Discretionary_sanctions_procedure part 1] and [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Motion_adopting_new_Appeals_and_modifications_procedure part 2]. It feels like the review has dragged on endlessly but it is now over. I hope that people who need to use DS will be able to understand the new process without too many problems. See also [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-05-07/News_and_notes this week's Signpost]. EdJohnston (talk) 02:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello - Eurovision editing
Hiya, Wesley. Great to have you back at Wikipedia. I've been doing a lot of editing over the country pages in the last few weeks, and would appreciate your opinion on what I've done.

Firstly, I've revised the "contestants" to make them appear, in my opinion at least, much neater than they were beforehand. "Neater" equates to "easier and nicer to read" equates to "better" in my book, but one of the problems I encountered was when dealing with prolonged absences, I decided that represent the length of the absence visually across a number of rows - as can be seen in the Italy article. However, someone (I don't know who) decided to change this in the Malta with one row representing an absence, and the "Year" column showing the timespan ("1976-1990"). I understanding the reasoning, as it obviously lengthens the page, but I felt like the way it is done in the Italy page makes the situations easier to understand. Which do you prefer?

Secondly, since someone decided to add the "12 points" given by each country to the country articles (or, in the case of Hungary, the 10 and 8 points as well), I thought I might as well add the 12 points received as well. Once again, these facts also lengthen the page (especially in the case of pages such as Sweden), but it's extra information and that's Wikipedia is here for. Do you think they make a good addition, or should we just stick the "given"? And, also, do you think showing the 10 and 8 points is also necessary?

I'm going to continue to find ways to improve the country articles and "country by year" articles; I work best with templates so if you know what I should be aiming for, and what the best structure should be, please let me know. I've been making graphs in Excel of the performance of each country through the years, with averages, and think that having a short audio grab of the song that represented the country in each respective year would a good addition (the grab of "Irelande Douze Pointe", for instance, could be in the Ireland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008 article), though I have no idea how to make .ogg files myself, but as I said, please let me know your thoughts since I hate working without others' opinions.

Good Eurovision this year, by the way, especially with a pick-up in performance for Western Europe. Go Austria and the Netherlands. Kapitan110295 (talk) 02:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I wasn't planning to bring this up, since I don't normally follow Eurovision News as it comes, but do you believe this article to be at least partially true, or should we completely ignore it? Living in Australia, time zones mess me up, so I don't know whether the timespan indicated in the article has passed yet. http://oikotimes.com/2014/05/11/teaser-four-countries-furiously-withdraw/


 * Hey Kapitan,
 * Thank you for the good wishes, it is nice to be back. I felt a hiatus away from Wikipedia was long overdue, and now I feel better for taking the break.


 * Indeed I had seen the changes you've made, and I must say they look great, especially the 12 points tables. The only thing I'd do to improve them better is to place them in a drop-box (see what I did to United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest).  The only reason being is because as the contest expands, then those tables are going to become an eyesore - so placing them in a drop-box gives the reader the option to view them if they wish.


 * As for the Oiktimes sources, you might want to check Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2015, as it has been pointed out that Oikotimes are to be treated with caution. Other websites have hired people to write news stories for their websites.  However Oiktimes is different.  They have editors, but they also allow members that have a registered account, to publish stuff too - and it is that stuff that could potentially be false news.  It was decided a long time ago, by Project Eurovision to only use Oikotimes as a source, on the basis that their source also stated where they got their information from.  A bit like a source within a source (if that makes sense).    Wes     Mᴥuse   11:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I've had a look at the other issues you raised too. In regards to the absence visually across a number of rows, I'm swaying more to how it looks on the Malta article, rather than the Italy one.  It would reduce the size of the table, which is the primary objective.  In regards to Hungary and the tables showing 8 and 10 points.  I've removed those, as it goes against WP:NOTSTATSBOOK.  Having the 12 points is fine, but to breakdown all the other points too is pure overkill.  I assume what has happened is, you made the 12 point list, and someone else has come along and assumed you hadn't completed the task and so added the others too.  This is the one thing we have to be careful with when adding new ideas to articles, as it can cause other's to get carried away and add more and more statistical junk.  This is why I tend to say a line has to be drawn somewhere on how much we write about.  Overall though, I am very impressed with the work you've done while I took a break away from Wikipedia.  Congrats!    Wes     Mᴥuse   22:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh and the other thing that really needs to be changed is the colour choice for Non-qualified. There was a discussion approximately 10 months ago, regarding the use of dark reds whilst the wikilink text is always in blue.  Anything that is red on blue or blue on red is known as chromostereopsis, which has been known to cause migraines and in some rare circumstances epileptic seizures.  As a safety precaution it was agreed to avoid this and use a paler colouring.  Spain for example has Andorra highlighted using a dark red, with blue text.  It is this that needs to be avoid if possible.    Wes     Mᴥuse   01:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. Much appreciated: I've changed some of the red in the edits I've made to pink to sort out that issues, but I wasn't entirely sure about what to do with some of the other red and blue clashes (especially since they weren't my edits). I've also changed the other countries so it's not spread out as more, yet still denotes long absences.


 * I've been thinking about how to improve the "Country in Eurovision" articles (I'm specifically looking at the Poland in the Eurovision Song Contest article, since that is a country that has made it's mark on the contest yet still hasn't been in for a massive amount of time), and while I would still appreciate a template of an ideal "County in Eurovision" article, I was thinking it may be an idea to have sections, alongside the History, Contestants, Voting History etc (all of which I hope to expand) that address the certain genres of music or performances that are favoured by certain countries (for instance, Serbia tends to do well with Balkan-style ballads, while Ireland also achieved success in the 1990s with ballads, one of which had strong Celtic influences). I'd also like to add sections to report on the popularity of the contest in certain countries, and for this I'd obviously need websites that denote television ratings and the like, so if you have any way I could find statistics of these that would be great. Also, if you know any websites or articles or anything where the favourites to win the contest for each year are (Germany in 1985, UK in 1968, Ireland and UK in 1997, Azerbaijan, Germany and Israel in 2010, Armenia and Sweden in 2014 etc.) that would also be great.


 * Sorry for all these questions, but I really like others' opinions, and I'm a bit of information wolf (I just made that term up, but you know what I mean). I just hope to contribute well. Thanks again. Kapitan110295 (talk) 07:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * P.S. Before I forget, I have another thing to ask. Since Eurovision is a music contest, it seems amiss to not include short snippets of the songs within the "Country in Eurovision" and "Country in Eurovision Year" articles (as I've said above), and since I have been collecting some of this stuff I hope to do that, but since Eurovision is also a visual show, I want to ask if it's a breach of copywright to include 10 or 15-second video snippets of the performances (as .webm files, similar to that in the "Maybe" and "Hunter of Stars" articles) in the pages. I have also collected the shows themselves, so I should be able to sort that out, but if it is a breach of copyright to include even ten seconds, then I will settle for pictures.


 * Again, thanks so much.

Eurovision 2014
There was a discussion on the article's talk page with a clear objection to place the Royal Family under "Format", and no further objecting comment from you or others to place it under "Location". I have restored it under "Location", as to the edit that another editor did a few days ago. Please discuss on the talk page or request for more comments. If there is no agreement on a proper chapter then it should be placed back at the lead or removed from the article for the time being, and not under "Format" nor "Location". אומנות (talk) 22:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It cannot be placed purely in the lead, per WP:LEAD which states the lead is to summarise the article. We cannot ideally mention invited guests in a section covering location.  Location is about places, about the host city, the bidding phase, not people.  The opening paragraph on format seems more appropriate as these guests were part of the format of the show (albeit in a small part).  I suppose the more logical part here would be to create the "National host broadcaster" sub-section within the format area.  Then we'd be able to mention the fact that the host broadcaster invited these people.  That makes more perfect and commonsensical logic.    Wes     Mᴥuse   22:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I do recall the discussion you speak of, and there were no clear objections whatsoever, apart from the objection of your own. And there were certainly no agreement from the participating editors on having this information housed in the location section - only yourself said it should go there.  The discussion is still on-going with no clear consensus or agreement on where to place this information.  So you've just taken liberty to place it where you like, without allowing a discussion to complete its course.    Wes     Mᴥuse   22:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It should be clear by now that the fact you return to the discussion doesn't give you the option to force your views and create chapters as you wish on the article to illustrate your points. I disagree with what you refer to as your common sense, as well as in many other cases were your actions (that you deemed as common sense) aren't seen as such to others. I also wrote on the article's talk page few days ago that I understood we had an agreement for covering this specific organisation stuff, and you didn't reply. Before that you even focused on the general discussion about "Organisation"-titles, without mentioning any objection to this thing. You blatantly ignored the discussion so far, trying to snick your views and now bullying them into the article, and on the same breath accusing me of ignoring discussions and consenseus while you know very well it was another editor who placed this edit under "Location". This is while you force your view and even creating chapters without consencus as well as falsely saying that I placed it under "Location". Don't |use game the system with an attempt to deflect your actions. I clearly wrote (and the article's edit-history shows) that another editor made this edit a few days ago. The info is placed back with additions alongside your "Format" for the Australian singer, as the former situation was before that editor's edit, since you insist on reverting that editor. Open an RFC. אומנות (talk) 01:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If anyone is gaming the system, it is you. You say you understood we had an agreement.  You understood incorrectly, because it is clear in black and white that I never said I agreed with moving it under the location section.  We were still debating on the other possibilities.  YOU just made the choice to put it there anyway without allowing a debate to conclude.  That is pure disruptive and uncooperative when it comes to consensus building.  And stop the name calling.  I took a hiatus away from Wikipedia because of your behaviour and bossiness in the first place.  And your actions are edit warring, but if you want to be blocked for such, then carry on.  It's no skin off my nose.  And you go open an RfC, or are you incapable of doing such action?     Wes     Mᴥuse   01:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Yesterday you told someone (on an edit summery) that you took a "hiatus" because of "idiots" like him. I guess it is expected that now when you are arguing with me, it is my turn to get blamed for your "hiatus". Though of course you forget the fact that I took a break like 2 months before you took your short break a month ago, after some extremely nasty arguments with others. The bottom line - I don't mind being blocked at this stage. I feel blocked anyway whenever I'm even trying to make a view on discussions and you come with your poking and twisting mine and others comments and then claim we are not making sense. And if I will get blocked for this reverts of your edits from tonight, then its expected you will be blocked as well for ignoring the discussion and blatantly manipulately gaming the system in such a way as you did this night, and amasingly you constantly keep doing this since the day I known you from here... I don't have as many editors and admins who know and care about me as you have on the English Wikipedia, and I don't know the procedures to turn to admins about your behaviour so I won't even bother for now. I can only hope someone will put a stop to this for the benefit of editors on Eurovision articles. Your behaviour is simply unaccaptable and I'm done talking to you about this. אומנות (talk) 02:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

What the hell? I think you'll find that I have not ignored the discussion and blatantly manipulating gaming the system. I first raised the issue about the Royal Family being mentioned in the lead section. I then gave suggestions on where to include it. BabbaQ said the suggestions sounded fine. However I was busy with other areas, and had not got round to making the alterations that had been agreed upon. Then you suggested creating an "organisation" section. To which I questioned how it would work. Questioning does not mean I agreed to your suggestion. I was just seeking clarity on how your proposal would work. You wrongly assumed that I has agreed to your proposal, when you and anyone else will see that the words "I agree to your proposal" were never even mentioned by me or any other editor. Therefore the discussion had still not concluded. Yet you assumed it had just because I had not replied to your comments. Did it not escape your thought that I may have not seen your comments? The talk page had been very active with other threads in the last 3 days, so it is natural that it would have been missed. I only noticed your comments earlier, which is when I then left a response.

And if anyone is having a behavioural issue here, it is you. I have done all I can to explain in plain English. How you choose to read (or misread) is your choice. But anyone will see that I have spoken to you plainly and clearly. Now do you want the debate to be concluded or not? If so, then start to read what people are saying more carefully. Don't jump to conclusions. And don't assume someone agrees with you, when they haven't shown any signs of agreement whatsoever. Wes    Mᴥuse   02:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - Issue 39
This newsletter was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of 23:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

OGAE Second Chance Contest 2014
Hi, since the participants of the OGAE Second Chance Contest 2014 were recently revealed, I added them to the page. However, I don't know how to make the map that displays the countries and all that so I was wondering if you wouldn't mind doing that? Or maybe just telling me how to do it so I could make it myself? Thanks. Jjj1238 (talk) 01:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I have a map created, but Upload Wizard appears to be having technical issues trying to upload the image ready for use. I'll keep trying and add the map to the article as soon as Wizard is working again.    Wes     Mᴥuse   01:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Zoli Ádok
Hello Wesley Mouse! :) I need your help, please can you upload a photo for this article? I really don't know how to do it, so this why im asking you :) Waiting for you answer, and thanks in advance :) --Tgrfyhyhg (talk) 15:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What photo are you trying to upload? There are a few things to take into account before uploading images to Wikipedia.  The image use policy should provide guidance one the types of files that are allowed.    Wes     Mᴥuse   15:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

If eurovision.tv allows to upload photos from its site then i want a photo from the ESC rehearsals. --Tgrfyhyhg (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately we cannot use photos from Eurovision.tv as they are copyright protected. Using their photos would be in violation of WP:COPYVIO.   Wes     Mᴥuse   16:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Hm well :S Can you find a photo of him on Google which is allowed? Please, i would be so thankful if you do it =)) --Tgrfyhyhg (talk) 16:20, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree
With you removing rumours/gossip from the ESC 2015 article. I think the article should only have sourced, and factual and accurate information. I can help by being on the look-out for more additions of rumours at the article.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:46, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * But it would be nice if the Monaco rumour was true :) I want Monaco and Andorra back at ESC. I really eant as many countries as possible back!--BabbaQ (talk) 15:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * We will naturally get the odd rumour slipping through the net to keep us on our toes. But, with some vigilance we can remove rumours swiftly.  Pity there isn't a WP:CRYSTAL warning template to issue to people who add rumours.    Wes     Mᴥuse   15:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Opinion
Hi, i would like to have your opinion about a discussion which i started here, thank.Kingroyos (talk) 23:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Babel-Vorlagen
Hallo Wesley Mouse,

ich sah in Deinem Profil, dass Du Deutsch sprichst - ich bin aus Hamburg - ich würde gerne von Deinen Babel-Vorlagen zwei in das dt. Wikipedia importieren lassen - einmal:

- das man ein Eurovision Song Contest Fan ist - das man Flaggen und Wappen interessant findet

LG C.A.F. -Citius Altius Fortius (talk) 14:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Hallo Citius Altuis Fortius,

Ich spreche ein bisschen Deutsch. Sie sind herzlich eingeladen, alle Babel-Vorlagen von meinem Profil importieren. Wes    Mᴥuse   15:00, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much, Wesley Mouse! I saw that you were GamesMaker volunteer during London 2012 - I had been in London for the Olympics - from the opening ceremony until the closing ceremony - it was just fantastic!!!!! Had a very fab time in London! - Citius Altius Fortius (talk) 17:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome. London 2012 was such a surreal experience and one that I am glad to have been a part of.  I still keep in touch with other GamesMaker volunteers, and also operate a group page for them on Facebook.  I had planned to volunteer at Glasgow 2014 but due to the financial costs I ended up withdrawing my application back in March.    Wes     Mᴥuse   17:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Project Eurovision
Hello !

Thanks for your invitation ! Ben76210 (talk) 22:23, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

=June 2014=

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - Issue 40
This newsletter was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of 09:51, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision - consensus discussion
There is a discussion regarding colour coding on articles taking place on the project talk page that requires input from as many project members as possible. Thank you, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:16, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Colour-coding discussion
Hiya, WesleyMouse. I just thought to let you know that you seemed to have made an erroneous judgement. I wasn't actually the person who originally started the "12 points" table, and the colours weren't my idea, I simply extended them. I hadn't realised you'd made this mistake in our discussion above (which I've added to by the way), so I'm sorry for the confusion.

I must say I like your organisation in calling for a discussion, however - this never happened on WikiProject Tennis. Kapitan110295 (talk) 22:53, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I've left you a reply on the project talk page. Upon reading your comments, I realised that some confusion may have arisen.  I wasn't "calling you out", just trying to seek fresh opinion on a previous debate that is a year old.  Consensus can change, and with that people may sway in favour of your suggestions.  Some may oppose.  But the only way we'd know is by reopening discussions.  That was the only reason that I rebooted the debate.  Sorry for any confusion.    Wes     Mᴥuse   22:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I was only worried that some people may think that I took the credit for something someone else did, Wes, or may come to me asking me why the hell I was editing against consensus or whatever, I wasn't angry or anything, so don't worry about it Wes. I took it upon myself to find who originally added the table, and I've discovered that (for the UK page anyway) it was Karlwhen. Kapitan110295 (talk) 23:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As I've said, I'm not angry or annoyed, I was just surprised. I appreciate the discussion as well and am happy to get a consensus :).


 * I appreciate your worry of what people may think, I shall rectify the wording so that people are aware that it is mere to see if consensus has changed in regards to colour coding and the limitation to what gets coloured. I suppose with hindsight it is best to see what people prefer, that way we can avoid other's coming along and deleting/altering hours and hours of your hard work. And thank you for pointing out who did the mass-rollout of the 12 points section.  Now that you've reminded me of the editor who initiated those sections, I'll need to check the project archives, as I'm sure the editor who asked to implement those was told not to do so without gaining overwhelming consensus from the rest of the project.    Wes     Mᴥuse   23:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * There we go, I've reworded my opening debate speech. Now it shows who did what, and hopefully remove misjudgement from others.  Also I have discovered that Karlwhen was indeed told not to roll out those tables.  So we do have a bit of a problem in regards to them, as now we need to make sure people wan them there.  If not, then all that work will be heading for a rapid AutoWikiBrowser delete.    Wes     Mᴥuse   23:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It is annoying when things became more complex than they should be, but it's good that you've taken charge on this matter. I just want at least one of the Country articles to get to at least Good Article status, so naturally I'm thinking of ways of making them easier to read and more comprehensive, so it has to be a consensus as you say. Kapitan110295 (talk) 01:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * We do have a country article currently with GA-status - Lebanon in the Eurovision Song Contest. Also there are a few country by year articles with GA-status, such as Ireland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008.  OK, that's a more precise account of Ireland in 2008, but still it is a country in Eurovision article nevertheless.  Perhaps having a look at other GA Class articles might provide some inspiration on what to be aiming for or stylisation?    Wes     Mᴥuse   01:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Here's perfect example of what to be aiming for. Melodifestivalen, which one could say is similar to Sweden in the Eurovision Song Contest.  The Melodifestivalen article is at featured status.  That is the prime target to be aiming for.    Wes     Mᴥuse   01:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

What we need to remember is that all the articles we are dealing with are Eurovision-related, which come primarily under ProjectEurovision's supervision (so to speak). ProjectEurovision has been around for 10 years, and as you can imagine, the majority of the articles have been worked upon over a lot of man-hours. The project itself tries to keep all the specific types of article stylised similar to each other. For example [Country] in the Eurovision Song Contest - tend to have the same layout style. RfC's are held every so often for people to discuss any improvements that may be required. And any that gain consensus get an en-mass rollout.

I've only been a member of the project for 2 years, and already there has been 3 RfC's on article stylisation. What tends to annoy some folk is when a change is just added and rolled-out en-mass, without open debate from the rest of the project. And that is when there's been feuds and edit warring over silly little things that could easily have been avoided if a discussion was started in the first place. Take what Karlwhen did for example, he rolled out all those 12 point tables, despite there being a consensus against including them. Even though his behaviour isn't disruptive, some tend to perceive as such behaviour - and that's when heated tensions kick-off within the project.

This is why I took the liberty to open up a debate about colour-coding, because there had been numerous debates regarding the matter, even before I joined Wikipedia and the project. The outcome every time was to only highlight 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and last place for contestants sections. I agree, that your expanding on that does provide some useful knowledge to anyone who is learning about Eurovision for the first time. And thus, I felt a fresh debate was needed so that project members can listen to your reasons to expand these colours. If the outcome remains the same as it has done in previous year's - then at least we have an idea of what people think. If consensus changes, again we have an idea and know how to handle those sections in future. It will be interesting to see what people think to the proposed (and already rolled out) changes. Wes    Mᴥuse   01:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand all this, Wes, and I agree it would be interesting to be what unfolds. I didn't know that there had already been a consensus on the matter or that Karlwhen had made a change despite a response to the negative. I'm sorry if my "revamping" of the contestants sections was too hasty but I just thought I was tidying them up
 * And I actually knew that Lebanon was a GA, and I have seen that page, but I wouldn't call that country a typical Eurovision participant or use its article as a template for, say, Germany. I also knew that there were several "Country in Year" articles that were GA, but they aren't reliable templates to "Country" articles either, and neither is Melodifestivalen considering that a country is far more than a selection event. I'm sorry if I'm giving you the impression of hurrying into everything or over-eagerness or whatever, and I'm also sorry if I appear disingenuous, it's not my intention, it's not how I feel and I'm well aware of the protocols. I've said before how impressed I am with this WikiProject, it's fantastic. I just like coming up ideas on how to expand the articles which are very well-compiled already. Kapitan110295 (talk) 03:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Be assured that I won't make any major changes without consulting ;). Kapitan110295 (talk) 03:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No need to apologise over this matter. Nobody is at fault.  I agree that revamping things should be allowed, seeing as one of the core policies is ignore all rules, as in if we as editors think of something that is going to be of greater improvement, that we should be bold and implement those improvements.  Because the contest itself involves so many countries, then those country articles are in a way, grouped together in genre types (even though they have separate articles) - if that makes sense!?  And that is why you'll find that some members of Project Eurovision see such changes as being a "major impact" - and they start to brusquely seek discussions on the project talk page.  I know I was bold not so long ago when I totally revamped the entire project space.  Previously it use to be a pale chilling blue.  All of the project's areas looked dull and uninviting.  So I took it upon myself to revamp every single area of WP:Eurovision.  Really I should have sought a consensus before doing it, but I though "what the hell" and did it anyway.  And strangely the revamp was welcomed anyway.  In terms with your changes, plus the one from Karlwhen - there seems to be mixed opinions.  So it will be interesting to see which way the outcome will go.  But again, no need to feel as if you're at blame.  You've done nothing wrong.  It's just I felt reopening a debate was a wise move, before someone came along and reverted all your hard work with the possible reason of "don't like it" or whatever reasons they tend to come up with.    Wes     Mᴥuse   17:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed I know that editing on Wikipedia is an interesting experience. It shall be interesting to see what Project Eurovision looks like in even two years time. And your revamp of the main pages are fantastic. Kapitan110295 (talk) 03:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision/Assessment
Hi, Wes. Thank you again for your improvements to the assessment page. However, I think you're a little confused in regards to A-class. A-class is a grade between GA and FA as per WP:ASSESS and WP:ACLASS, so it wouldn't make sense to give an article A-class status then have it promoted to GA as described and illustrated on that page, as that would actually be a demotion. There was a proposal several years ago to move A-class under GA-class, but it wasn't successful. As it stands at the moment, A-class is only regularly used by a small number of projects to indicate featured articles in waiting, and a case could be made for us not bothering with it for WikiProject Eurovision. However, I decided to mention it anyway when creating that page, and I'm still happy for it to stay in. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 17:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah right. It was just when I looked and thought about it more, it didn't make much sense going from C, B, GA, A, FA.  When I looked it it more, I thought the A would logically come before GA - simply because the letters G and then F follow A.  But now you've mentioned it better, yes it does make more sense.  I'm still unsure about WP:EURO's A-class board.  I know I mentioned that I was going to test waters with it, but it hasn't been used.  Either that or people are not educated on what A-Class actually means.  Over the next couple of months, I am going to use the newsletter to promote A-class and see how it goes.  If no interest by September, then I will be contacting you to delete the A-class pages belonging to the project; if that's OK with you of course?    Wes     Mᴥuse   17:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Update - I've modified the A-class review section for WP:ESC. Basically taking away the "formal project reviewing" system, and opting for the less formal "basic method" which is a simpler method offered at WP:ACLASS.  I've changed the instructions at WP:ESC/ACR, so that they now inform of this basic method, and how to go about requesting an assessment.  Now that I've done that, it means that the following sub-pages are now obsolete and can be deleted.
 * WikiProject Eurovision/Assessment/A-class FAQ
 * WikiProject Eurovision/Assessment/A-class review instructions
 * WikiProject Eurovision/Assessment/Closing an A-class review
 * The information that was on those pages are now copied over to the rewritten WP:ESC/ACR page. Thanks in advance.    Wes     Mᴥuse   13:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * We're a small WikiProject, so I think keeping it simple is a good idea. The current assessment system is based on years of evolution and isn't always very logical – originally the good articles process was intended to be for articles of the same quality as featured articles, but which were considered too short for that status. However, eventually any completed article could get FA status and the GA process evolved to being a lower standard than the FA equivalent, and during that time, A-class ended-up being wedged in-between, despite GA-class not being required for an article to get A-class status. I do personally believe that A-class should be below GA, as the classes requiring a formal review process should be the top ones, and there is still a big gap between B-class and GA-class – C-class was created several years ago to fill the gap between Start-class and B-class. Regardless, I would be happy to see us use A-class in its current form too, and it'll be interesting to see how it goes over the next few months. I've deleted the obsolete pages for you.


 * My only other point is that while WP:ASSESS isn't entirely clear on the issue, as far as I'm aware, an article which is defined as a list (i.e. starts with List of... or similar) always has List-class status until it hits FL-class. Stub-class is only for prose articles which contain a few sentences or articles in a mess which look like a list but shouldn't be (regardless of length).


 * I also think the use of Future-class should be clarified a bit more, and possibly debated at WT:ESC. I added it to WP Eurovision on the basis that it could be used for any article which is changing rapidly as new information is added in the run-up to or during an associated event (Current-class also exists but I didn't bother with it as contests are over with a week). I have previously used on song and biography articles associated with a particular contest too, then given them all standard assessment grades once the contest is over. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 19:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I have pondering to myself whether to see if Eurovision 2012 would be a good candidate for the project's first A-class article. Since it became GA, the article has grown a little more.  And upon quick glance of the criteria of A-class, I cannot see anything on the article that would fail all 5 criterion.  But I'm terrified of nominating it, just in case I make a prat out of myself.  Thanks for deleting those obsolete pages, btw.


 * As for the future class, I have noticed that members tend to forget to "upgrade" them (so to speak) once the event has concluded and not longer classified as being "future". So perhaps a bit of an introduction/expansion to what it means might be the way forward.  I'll inbox you on Facebook shortly about a little project-related issue that I'd rather discuss in private with you, if I may!?    Wes     Mᴥuse   20:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Well thinking about, the people that run the FA candidates process do it a a military operation and there have been issues in the past with them not accepting ESCToday etc. as a reliable source even though it clearly is for anyone familiar with Eurovision. That hasn't happened recently and the people at FAC have changed, but in case it does, A-class could be a useful way to allow some articles to stand out from the GA crowd without going all the way to FA status.


 * Only a small number of editors, both you and myself included, pay attention to article assessment ratings – so yeah, I'm not surprised they're sometimes neglected. I'll just have to try and remember to do them after a big contest is finished.


 * See you on Facebook. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 01:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Your reverts based on WP:Redlink
Hi. It would be nice if you would point out exactly which part of WP:Redlink you feel means that that particular redlink should not be added. Could you do that, please? Just referring to that policy really doesn't say much at all. Manxruler (talk) 16:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Well referring to the policy does help really. One only needs to click on the link to find the explanation.  Project Eurovision avoid redlinks to prevent prematurely created articles that could face deletion nominations for failing to meet WP:GNG.  We only Wikilink if there is an article in existence.  As there is no article for Ragnhild Sælthun Fjørtoft, then linking is best avoided.  Once an article has been created for Ragnhild Sælthun Fjørtoft, then feel free to relink them again.    Wes     Mᴥuse   16:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * As WP:REDLINK states, "editors are encouraged to consider Write the article first, or to use WikiProjects or user spaces to keep track of unwritten articles.". There is also Cleanup red links that shows redlinks are not in Wikipedia guidance.  If you intend to write an article for the person you linked, feel free to do so.  Alternatively you may request a new article to be written at WikiProject Eurovision/Newsletters.    Wes     Mᴥuse   16:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Well. Cleanup red links certainly doesn't mean that redlinks in general are not in Wikipedia guidance, that explicitly deals with the inappropriate use of redlinks. Manxruler (talk) 16:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * And my addition of those redlinks were not inappropriate, at all. Manxruler (talk) 16:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Do you intend to create an article for Ragnhild Sælthun Fjørtoft? As I said, WP:REDLINK states, "editors are encouraged to consider Write the article first, or to use WikiProjects or user spaces to keep track of unwritten articles."  Also, ProjectEurovision only redlink if an article is intended to be created within a matter of days.  If not, then redlinks are avoided.  There is currently a clean-up operation to remove redlinks from Eurovision-related articles.
 * And what may not be seen as inappropriate to one person, may be seen as inappropriate to another.   Wes     Mᴥuse   16:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * As an offer of goodwill, I have added Ragnhild Sælthun Fjørtoft as an new article request at ProjectEurovision, to see if anyone would consider making a BLP. If they do, then you can re-link them at a later date (or I will revert my action if an article is created).    Wes     Mᴥuse   16:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I might be planning on creating said article, or I might not be, but that's not the point. That article should, at some point, be created. While we're quoting WP:Red link here, are you saying that "you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on that subject."? Cause if you are not certain about that, then removing said redlink is against policy. Because: "Red links for subjects that should have articles but do not, are not only acceptable, but needed in the articles. They serve as a clear indication of which articles are in need of creation, and encourage it." That's policy. Manxruler (talk) 16:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * And as I said, ProjectEurovision avoid redlinks, for the fact that when something is redlinked, an article gets created and 9 times out of ten gets deleted. Not sure why articles under the scope of WP:ESC are targeted in this way.  But it would be courteous to respect the decision of the project in avoiding redlinks.  If you don't like it, fine.  No skin off my nose.    Wes     Mᴥuse   16:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * It's of course a difficult situation if WP:ESC is plagued by additions of redlinks on non-notable people. I can sympathize with that. If that then leads the project to do things that are counter to established policy, then I can live with that. I'll just not add links to that project's articles any more. That 's fine doesn't bother me. Manxruler (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I think you're getting policy and guidelines confused. WP:REDLINK isn't a policy, it even states that on the page. It is a guidance. Guidances are are optional rules. Policies are mandatory rules. WP:ESC has opted to follow the "avoid redlinks, and create an article for it first" side of the WP:REDLINK guidance. But thank you for appreciating the way that WP:ESC has chosen to handle redlinks. Most noble of you. Wes    Mᴥuse   17:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Re: Assessment review
Hey. In short, for an A-class review to work for a project, there'd have to be a core group of people who would be able and willing to perform said reviews. You would know better than I if the WikiProject has that. I've never been a fan of the A-class addition since most articles don't have that far to go between GA and FA unless the article is particularly long or detailed (which the Eurovision 2012 article is). That being said, I could try to take a look, but my time for editing is far smaller than it used to be so I couldn't make any guarantees. Wizardman 03:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply. WikiProject Eurovision has had the A-class rating for quite some time (from what I gather) but no actual core group of people to have a formal project reviewing team.  When I checked the A-class guidance, it stated that if a project had no core team, that the basic method was the alternative.  Eurovision 2012 article is currently at GA, but I think it still has some way to go to reach FA standards.  Although more work has been done to the article since its GA promotion, hence why I was thinking of going down the A-class route - and hopefully it would help promote awareness of that particular classification rating to the rest of the project.  I appreciate that your editing is far smaller and that you couldn't make any guarantees to carry out the review.  I'm appreciative that you have taken the time to acknowledge this request, thank you.    Wes     Mᴥuse   03:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Eurovision info
Hiya, Wes. I just want to know if you have any knowledge of where I can find some data on the contest, since I've been sadly unable to find this through Google.

I was hoping to find a history of "predicted winners", so to speak, or a list of the pre-contest betting odds for each contest. The closest I've found is this page, which lists the betting odds for 2003, and has links above to other contests but the data there is limited, and I'm uncertain of its reliability.

Similarly, I was wondering if you know where I could get some viewing figures for the contests, past and present. I've been doing some draft-expansion of the Poland article in particular, for instance, and while I think I may have found some data for 2014 here, information of this nature for the past contests has been very difficult to find (so I can't find any data that may indicate that the contest is popular in the country).

Thanks very much, Wes, I hope you're well ;). Kapitan110295 (talk) 02:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Looking at some manual of style guidance, I don't think we are allowed to include information on predicted winners and most certainly no betting odds whatsoever. Articles covering the current 2014 FIFA World Cup do not include betting.  Purely because the betting odds vary around the world.  So I presume that such information is classified as being an excessive listings of statistics.


 * In respect to the viewing figures, I had brought this topic up recently at Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2014. From what I can gather they are used on similar articles in the past, such as The X Factor (UK series 10).  And they are in accordance with WP:TVRECEPTION.  However the issue that could be a problem on Eurovision by Year articles is how much information would be relevant, not violating WP:UNDUE or becoming an endless list of stats; and how we'd present such information.  Things we'd need to take into consideration are:


 * Individual viewing figures from each international broadcaster who broadcast the shows.
 * Viewing figures for each of the semi-finals and final.
 * Overall viewing figure for the EBU.


 * As there is a lot that you're suggesting that would bear an impact on several articles, that I would recommend opening up a discussion on the project talk page for a much wider scope from project members.   Wes     Mᴥuse   13:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should've made myself clearer. I wasn't thinking of including these facts on the pages themselves, as least not as lists anyway. I was wanting them partly for curiosity and also because this good sort of data to store, as it is worthwhile to note, for example, when a song such as "1 Life" underachieves, or if viewing figures have steadily fallen for a certain country (France, for example) over a certain amount of time.


 * Apologies, I've definitely given the wrong impression. I'm not obsessed with lists of statistics ;). Kapitan110295 (talk) 22:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah I see what you mean now. I'm not sure if we can state whether a song underachieved or not, because it boils down to perspective.  For example, to say that "1 Life" underachieved, could be seen to others as the song was just poor in the first place.  A bit like saying is a glass half-empty or half-full.  Both perspectives would be correct, it just boils down to how the pessimist sees it.  Also to state that a song underachieved could be seen as a peacock phrase, which are to be avoided according to WP:PEACOCK, and per NPOV examples to say a song underachieved could be just a matter of opinion, and not a factual piece.
 * Viewing figures need to be discussed further, as they have not been used before. Hence why I raised the matter the other week, but only one editor responded.  It may be worthwhile though waiting a week or so, as I am aware that a manual of style guide is being compiled specifically for WikiProject Eurovision.  Once that has been completed, then we'd have a better idea on what we should be doing.  There is a lot more to Wikipedia then people realise, and that is why such style guide is being written so that people have more awareness of what they should be aiming for.    Wes     Mᴥuse   12:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should get lessons in making clear my points; the word "underachieved" was not the best way of explaining it but it is notable when a song receives a large amount of attention and coverage prior to the contest, and is predicted to possibly win (as "1 Life" and "Milim" did), and yet does not; maybe "did not meet expectations" would be a better way of putting it. This works in all sorts of ways: "Euphoria" can be regarded as song that did meet expectations, while "Everybody" massively overshot its expectations and "Calm After the Storm", considered a light favourite beforehand due its un-Eurovision-ish nature, shot up in the odds just before the final. The pre-contest predictions and media coverage are nearly impossible to ignore, so they should be mentioned in the article, and I was just asking if you know where I could find these statistics because they might come in handy one day.
 * And I understand about the viewing figures - again I just wanted to know where I could find them as they may come in handy. I know these sorts of stats can be misleading at times, but they are certainly the sort of things that should be noted in the article; I know I at least find the viewing figures for Azerbaijan interesting considering the contest starts at midnight over there, and France considering their streak of poor results. Kapitan110295 (talk) 23:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi
How are you these days?. I see you do a lot of good work for the ESC 2015 article. Keeping away the non-notable rumours :) Today an article that I created Kakan Hermansson is featured at DYK :) Unfortunately it is up for deletion but what can I do about it :). Do you watch the World Cup? I hope for good results for England from now on :). Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Hey, Babba. I'm doing good, thanks for asking.  Indeed I'm keeping a close eye on both JESC 2014 and ESC 2015 articles.  Quite handy that I have pending changes user rights, so that I can handle both articles that are current pending changes protected.  In fact I've been given a few other user rights, keeping track on which one does what is fun and keeps me out of mischief.  I have been watching the World Cup, but despite that I'm from England, I am supporting Greece instead.  I must be the only English person that doesn't own an England football shirt, but owns 8 Greek football shirts.  As for the article that is up for deletion, I'm not quite sure what to advise.  I'll take a look and see what can be done though.  You know that there is a new DYK section on ProjectEurovision newsletter?    Wes     Mᴥuse   12:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Junior Eurovision
Hi I was just wondering is there any more news on Ireland entering Junior Eurovision?I really want Ireland to enter.Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.45.136.45 (talk) 12:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm just making sure if you got my message about if you know anymore news about Ireland entering Junior Eurovision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.45.136.45 (talk) 12:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm only an editor for Wikipedia, which is an encyclopaedia, not a Eurovision news website. Sorry.    Wes     Mᴥuse   13:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC)