Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision/Archive 13

Navigational boxes reform (again)
has suggested that the host city and venue data be completely removed from navigational boxes, such as Eurovision Song Contest, which fall under the scope of this project. The original debate (which can be found in the collapsed box below) has been moved from the template's talk page to this project talk page for a wider scope from members.


 * Moved from Template talk:Eurovision Song Contest for more wider discussion from Project Members.  Wes  Mouse  13:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Remove cities and venues

I propose we remove the host cities and venues as they are of minor importance to this template and makes it bloated and hard to use. The purpose of navigation templates is to aid navigation and while this template is useful to navigate between different contests, it is highly unlikely that it will be used to navigate between cities. The inclusion of the host cities and venues also means the template is harder to use as the links that are actually useful have to be hidden behind collapsed boxes. Väsk (talk) 14:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * You may wish to read an old RfC regarding these templates, in which covered the reform of these templates. The likelihood of your proposal being carried out is very unlikely to happen as the information on host city and venues are just as important to the rest of the information, purely because without the venue and host city then the contests themselves would not take place.   Wes   Mouse  14:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * A can of worms, apparently. I skimmed through most of that discussion, but I can't see this proposal going against its possible conclusions (if there were any). More importantly, this proposal would be in line with the spirit of WP:NAV. Again, a navbox should aid navigation, but the outcome is diminished if cram to much peripheral information into it. Sure, the host cities are of some importance to the ESC, but the ESC is usually of more fleeting importance to the individual cities, which is the important thing there. The likelihood that people will use the ESC navbox to navigate between host cities is quite small. Väsk (talk) 15:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * What is of minor importance to one person, may be of high importance to another. We are to be seen as accommodating everyone, regardless of our own opinion on whether specific content is of minor importance in our own eyes.  To make such a claim as the likelihood that people will use the ESC navbox to navigate between host cities as being quite small, is an opinion that one cannot make based on their own matter of opinion.  We are to assume that people do use the navbox to navigate between host cities - not the complete opposite.   Wes   Mouse  15:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Another thing worth remembering is that WikiProject Eurovision prefers to keep all their templates in uniformity (another words all using the same layout style). So this discussion would be better off taking place at WT:ESC for a more wider audience from members of the project for which these templates belong to.  If the removal of host city/venue were to be agreed upon, then we'd need to discuss the matter of similar templates...
 * Template:ABU Song Festivals
 * Template:Intervision Song Contest
 * Template:OGAE Second Chance
 * Template:OGAE Video Contest
 * Template:Eurovision Young Dancers
 * Template:Eurovision Young Musicians
 * Template:Junior Eurovision Song Contest
 * Template:Türkvizyon Song Contest
 * All of the above use the same layout style as part of the uniformity approach that Project Eurovision follows.  Wes  Mouse  15:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Whether or not the cities are of importance to the ESC doesn't matter. The host broadcasters are of more importance to the ESC than the cities, yet they are not included and this template isn't transcluded onto numerous pages about European broadcasters. What matters for navboxes is usability, and the inclusion of the cities etc is arguably a net minus in this case as it requires the actually useful links (the contests and the countries) to be hidden behind collapsed tables. When I first saw this template I didn't immediately understand how to find links to the individual contests, the extra step of clicking once more to reveal these links isn't very intuitive.
 * I hadn't seen all the templates you list above, but I'd argue they support my case. Very few (if any) are transcluded in city articles and I don't think anyone would argue that Template:Eurovision Young Musicians should be transcluded into articles about various major European cities. They thus fail as navboxes, as they only work if the template is transcluded into most or all articles in the navbox.
 * Of course there needs to be some uniformity, but the ESC project isn't an island. If you look at templates about similar events, such as the Olympics and the World Cup, their main templates do not list various host cities. (There is however a special template for Olympic host cities, which may be an acceptable compromise.) Väsk (talk) 19:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * If you were a member of Project Eurovision then you'd have known about all the previous debates about these templates. Like I said previously, I find it highly unlikely that your proposal would become implemented based on what had been discussed at all the previous debates.  So this argument is basically running without legs.  If you wish to discuss the matter further, then feel free to open a new debate via the project talk page, for a more broader consensus.   Wes   Mouse  21:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * And your argument that "very few (if any) are transcluded in city articles" is also false. You'll find that this navbox is included in every host city article.  Which is also in accordance with point 2 of WP:NAVBOX which states that "the subject of the template should be mentioned in every article."  As the subject is Eurovision and their host cities, and the fact they are mentioned in every article follows the correct procedure of the English Wikipedia editing guidelines.   Wes   Mouse  21:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * If you read my comment again, you'll find I referred to the templates for the various ancillary Eurovision contests you listed above which are not transcluded in many city articles, meaning the lists of host cities ought to be removed from those navboxes. No-one would seriously suggest that those navboxes should be transcluded into every article about a metropolis that has at one time hosted one of these events. Again, navboxes are for navigation, they are not meant to substitute or duplicate lists.
 * As for city articles that transclude the main ESC template, several do not mention the ESC at all. For good reasons, however big the contest may be, hosting it is of small lasting impact to cities with hundreds (in some cases thousands) of years of history behind them. As for those mentions I could find, many of them seemed a bit perfunctory.
 * Questions about different articles or templates belong on their respective talk pages. There is no previous debate about this question on this talk page and the discussion you've linked to doesn't mention it either. So I simply cannot see the consensus you claim is there. Also, you don't need to be a member of a WikiProject to suggest changes of articles that may be within the project scope and my suggestion doesn't extend beyond this template. Väsk (talk) 13:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Again I strongly urge that you move this entire debate over to Project Eurovision talk page, if you wish for it to receive a more broader input from other project members, seeing as this is a template created by ProjectEurovision for Eurovision-related articles. As you pointed out, you don't need to be a member of a WikiProject to suggest changes of articles. But this isn't an article, it's a template.  Wes  Mouse  13:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

As this debate over navigational boxes gets thrashed out periodically, then some members may wish to check the talk archives to see what has been said in past debates. Thank you.  Wes  Mouse  13:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm very glad that this discussion has come up. For a while now, I've been looking at the Eurovision Song Contest template and been thinking about how it could be edited to improve it. My thoughts haven't really centred on the complete removal of host cities and venues, so I'm not interested in looking at old discussions about that issue. Nevertheless, I'm pretty sure that the template needs a revamp.
 * I think that there are currently two big issues with the template. The first of these is that the host cities and venues are grouped by decade. I don't like this, and I really think that it needs changing. Let's say that I am looking at the template, and I see a venue that I want to know more about. The first problem is that it's kind of difficult to figure out which contest it hosted. I must count along through all the venues in a row until I find the one that I'm interested in (remembering to start at zero, and not one), and then add the decade to whatever number I counted to, just to learn what the year was. Also, if I don't know the venue's location, then I've got to reveal the host cities above, and do more counting to try and match up the city with the venue. For a template, which is supposed to be something that is easy to navigate, this is all rather inconvenient.
 * The second big issue that I have found with this template is that there seems to be an unnecessary number of different groups. Why have one group for the host cities, and a completely separate one for the venues? Surely they are similar enough links to be in the same group? They could be listed as "B&W Hallerne, Copenhagen", for example.
 * That would not solve the first issue though. So why not have "2014: B&W Hallerne, Copenhagen", or something to that effect? Maybe that would result in there being too many links in one place, but I think that I'd prefer something along those lines (maybe the year could appear after the host city, though, as that is what is done on the Eurovision Song Contest logos). This would solve the first problem perfectly, while also getting rid of two of what I see as the overly used groupings.
 * What I have suggested could possibly be seen as a fair compromise for those who want to remove the host cities and venues. I think part of the problem with that is coming to an understanding of how important they are. To someone without any knowledge of the Eurovision Song Contest, I would have thought that they would be expecting that the venue is all that is noteworthy (particularly as that then provides an article to say which city it is in). However, as I alluded to earlier, the logo of the Eurovision Song Contest contains the host city. I would say that that is significant.
 * This problem may be exacerbated by the fact that there is the 'List of host cities of the Eurovision Song Contest' article. I think that most people that are not interested in the Eurovision Song Contest would have expected a list of venues, rather than a list of cities. Maybe that article can be renamed so that it focuses upon the venues? Or possibly just renamed so that it includes "venues" in the title, as well as the cities? Red  v  Blue  18:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Requests of creation
Can someone create these articles, please? Gce (talk) 12:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 1958: Nederlandse Seintoestellen Fabriek
 * 1959: Marcel Cravenne
 * 1960: Thore Ehrling - Kai Mortensen - Henri Segers - Cédric Dumont - Cinico Angelini - Luxembourg in the Eurovision Song Contest 1960 - Norway in the Eurovision Song Contest 1960 - Austria in the Eurovision Song Contest 1960 - Monaco in the Eurovision Song Contest 1960- Switzerland in the Eurovision Song Contest 1960
 * 1961: Marcel Cravenne - Tessa Beaumont - Max Bozzoni - Rafael Ferrer (conductor) - Kai Mortensen - Leo Chauliac - Gianfranco Intra - Monaco in the Eurovision Song Contest 1961 - Austria in the Eurovision Song Contest 1961 - Switzerland in the Eurovision Song Contest 1961 - Norway in the Eurovision Song Contest 1961


 * I had initially removed this thread, seeing as the correct place to request new articles is at WikiProject Eurovision/Newsletters. However, I have decided to revert my decision, and leave it up to the user to remove it.  Please note though,, that when you add an article title to be created that you also need to add a brief description in order to help people know what they are dealing with.  Without brief description, then people are none the wiser, and the articles may never be created.   Wes   Mouse  12:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Expert attention
This is a notice about Category:Eurovision articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 06:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Underage Performers
Thanks for removing the Speedy deletes yesterday, after placing the one on the Betty page I noticed these were all Junior Eurovision performers. Because of the BLP issues they appear on the Cleanup Listing for WikiProject Musicians. The serious issue of having a page for an underage performer with BLP issues had me implement the WP:SPEEDY. It does appear however that none of these articles have any significant 3rd party sources attributed to them, only the EBU bio's. I would question the need to have individual pages for each performer under WP:NOTREPOSITORY. And while the contest is notable, the performers have yet to achieve any notability under WP:MUSIC. I would strongly suggest merging these, but will leave them considering you are the admin mostly dealing with them. Karst (talk) 08:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * , the merging of these articles is something that generally does happen after the contest - depending of course on specific factors. The fact that these performers have won a national preselection in order to represent their country at Junior Eurovision (JESC) makes them notable in their respective countries.  The articles then get generated for those who have a keen interest in JESC.  Once the contest is over and the top-3 performers are known, then the remainder tend to get merged into their respective [Country] in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest article.  Another issue however that I found is in the past, WikiProject Euovision are not as eager in making articles for these younger performers, unless of course they already hold substantial notability.  But for bizarre reasons these last 2 contests, a small group of users are haphazardly creating new articles for both artist and song, and not taking into account the WP:GNG and of course the WP:NOTREPOSITORY guidance you pointed out above.  This may be a matter worth raising again at WT:ESC for broader input.   Wes   Mouse  12:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, have put WT:ESC on my watch list and will help when required. Peace. Karst (talk) 12:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * , I've copy/paste this entire thread onto this project talk page, then people have a better idea and not need to visit my talk page to see the initial discussion.  Wes   Mouse  22:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

60th anniversary show
A discussion started over on my talk page recently in regards to the announcement of the 60th Anniversary Show for Eurovision, along with the selection of the host venue, location, and presenters. However, the dates of the show, along with what the show's title will be are unknown. So to prevent speculative guessing of article titles, and potential page move wars over personal preferences, I've made a start drafting an article here which members are welcome to help contribute towards. This way we are able to keep adding sources somewhere, as well as keep on building the article, until we know what the show will be call, so that we can then move the draft into main article space under its official show name (which should be known in the next coming weeks or months).  Wes Mouse &#124;  chat  00:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

ESC 2014
The Eurovision Song Contest 2014 article has just passed the GA-review. I want to take out some time to say excellent job all project members who worked on the article. Keep rollin' :) Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 22:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added it to the Newsdesk, so that it will get a mention in the next edition of Project News.  Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 01:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Twitter as sources
There has been a recent discussion at Talk:Junior Eurovision Song Contest in regards to the use of Twitter posts as sources. In accordance with WP:Twitter they are allowed, but with caution. The tweets need to be outright confirmation, and any ambiguity with the wording would mean the tweet posts should not be treated as 100% confirmation. For example, a fan had posts several questions on the official Junior Eurovision Twitter page, regarding country participation. JESC's replies were that they "hoped" or a country were "likely" to be taking part. Such statements are exception claims. When dealing with exceptional claims of this nature, we need exceptional sources for additional verification - such as a sourced statement from the national broadcasters that collaborates their participation intentions. If there are none, then the information would be more suitably placed in the "other countries" section, with a brief comment to show that it is a tweet on the official (J)ESC page in response to a fan's question, but an official announcement from the broadcaster has yet to be publicised. That way we are covering our backs, and not breaking the spirit of WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOR, or WP:SELFPUB (in the event it is one of our tweets that is answered). On the other hand, if the tweet is from the official broadcaster, then they should be fine to use as confirmation.

Any objections to us following this guidance?  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 11:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that caution should be exercised. On the one hand, there is no doubt that the Twitter source discussed is the official account of the contest organizers. But their language is indeed ambiguous, as I guess they use it more for publicity, building up hype, etc., than for accurate reporting. I don't think the claims are "exceptional" as this word is used in WP policy more to describe "fringe" statements that go against common knowledge of a subject, but they definitely (second point in WP:SELFPUB) "involve claims about third parties" (the broadcasters). So better be careful and wait for a statement from the broadcasters. On a side note, I don't think it matters that the tweets come as answers to questions asked by twitter users who are also active on Wikipedia: as long as the statement is coming from an official source and is publicly available (i.e. not a private email that a wikipedia user claims to have received), there is no problem AFAIK. Susuman77 (talk) 11:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * , they are exceptional to some degree. Point 2 of WP:EXCEPTIONAL which mentions "challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources".  Tweets of this nature are easily challenged.  As it is the official JESC Twitter account, makes it primary.  And responding to a fans question, is close to self-publishing of sorts.  That point also has an in-line citation, which touches on the point of "promotional material"; and as you pointed out, these tweets could just be for publicity and hype building (promotional hype, for choice of phrase).  Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 13:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Mass nomination of contest templates
There are a lot of contest templates being nominated for deletion at Templates for discussion/Log/2014 December 6, all with ridiculous reasons behind each of them. The following have been nominated under the respective reasons: These nominations require serious attention from project members.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 20:22, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Template:Infobox Cân i Gymru National Year - an apparent fork of Template:Infobox ESC National Year.
 * 2) Template:Infobox Sanremo Music Festival - redundant to Infobox music festival and Infobox recurring event.  I like to know how that can be so, when they are clearly different.
 * 3) Template:Infobox ABU Radio - a fork of Infobox Eurovision. Clearly not a fork, as the Eurovision deals with annual, ABU Radio is biennial.


 * Note: - the above is in no way a means of canvassing, and is merely to make project members aware of a series of TfD noms that require participation. Members are fully aware that they are capable of making their own decision on whether a template should be kept, deleted, or merged.  Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 21:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:CANVASS, a guideline which your post breaches considerably. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Does it heck breach it considerably. Notifying this project of TfD's is reasonable, as not everyone has the alerts page on their watchlist - which has been noted on a thread above.  Also the deletion log for 6 December strangely enough is just all your nominations.  Someone pissed you off to cause you to go on a deletion nomination spree?  Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 21:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * In a way it kinda is though since you loaded your post with reasons against the deletions rather than just pointing out that they were nominated and let people from this project arrive to their own decision. I don't know much about merging of templates but a lot of these templates do seem similar and perhaps it would be better for them to be merged. Pickette (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That was not the manner I was trying to express the issue though, . I added the reasons so people could see in brief of the nom rationales.  But the debate of reorganising this project is still taking place above, which includes looking into how we are categorising things, and of course templates would be raised too.  This project is going to encounter a lot of RfC's over the next couple of months to address these issues, so that we are better structured, and can mass-delete obsolete templates/categories etc.  Saves on heated deletion debates then, as we would have resolved such issues via a RfC.  Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 21:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I've struck through the POV-ish comments, as I was only questioning, not trying to force an opinion.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 21:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree that it would be better to discuss mergers here and work something out rather than having piecemeal TfDs, which currently seem to be causing more trouble than their worth. It is perfectly appropriate to notify a WikiProject on some possible changes to templates; it was unfortunate that the notifications weren't neutral, and I recently complained about an editor doing something similar elsewhere. However, I know Wesley well enough to know what he's overall aim here – which is to get a resolution that all involved parties will be happy with. Going through people's archives to dig-up things to use against them is very unhelpful, particuarly as the full context of old discussions won't be apparent at face value. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 14:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Maps showing the points allocated to the winning song
Hey I created some maps that show which country gave how many points to the winning song (examples to the right). I inserted them only to the German articles, but you are welcome to use them for other languages. You can find the maps here. --Avis28 (talk) 13:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how we would be able to incorporate these into the article. Would they be for the country article (such as Ireland in the Eurovision Song Contest 1996), or the yearly Eurovision pages (like Eurovision Song Contest 2002)?  I'm just concerned that people may get confused with them, as the yearly articles have maps all over the place, and too many would easily confuse a person.  They would look good in country pages, rather than annual contest pages.  Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 13:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the maps are a nice idea, and they're very well-made. But indeed, it could potentially be a bit much on the annual contest pages? On the other hand, if they're included on the country pages, it would be weird if it isn't the same for all entries. Not just the ones that won the contest. All country pages should preferrably have the same format and include the same information (in this case, these maps). But that would probably be too much work. Zouki08 (talk) 15:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I recall someone attempted to use similar maps on annual pages before, and a huge discussion took place and resulted in their removal as pure overkill of maps. I've been searching for the last couple of hours to find the discussion, but as there are that many talk pages, both active and archived, that its like hunting for a needle in a haystack.   Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 15:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I initially thought they could be a good idea for the country pages (such as Ireland in the Eurovision Song Contest 1996), but it would look weird if they were only found on the winning entries and not every country taking part, and I think the format of each page should be the same ultimately. It would be a good idea to consult the previous discussion in regards to the annual pages, and discuss if there's any way to incorporate them into the annual pages in a way that makes it less confusing. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 18:16, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I suppose the most sensible way to incorporate them into the annual pages would be to do it in a similar way that the split jury/televote result is featured on the annual pages of recent editions. I.e. first hidden, and only appearing by clicking "Show". Zouki08 (talk) 12:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

One could also argue and say why have these maps just for the winning country and not all the others too.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 15:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed. That would make the most sense. And that's why this thing seems like too much work, most likely. Unless someone wants to make maps for over 1,400 entries. Zouki08 (talk) 23:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Scoreboard's files with J in the end of name
Why in all images of Scoreboard's vertical texts uses word 'J' at the and of filename? Do you disagree if I rename (request to rename) all this images to "File:ESC.svg" without J? I want to help other wikis (Czech, Hungarian, Polish and other) to translate this text in many languages (only SVG) and if, for example, Czech use in scoreboard ESCMaltaJ.svg and ESCBelgie.svg that can very annoying for fast reading of the table. I hope that you understand me. ← Alex Great talkrus? 19:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing the 'J' is connected with Junior Eurovision. If nobody has objections to renaming them, then I have file mover rights and can do the changes, saving the need to request them to be changed.   Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 13:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not a Junior Eurovision. See all countries (Lebanon, Iceland and other non-Junior participated countries + Rest of the World). You're filemover in the Commons? I merged all texts into Commons (local files remain to the discretion of administrators - delete or do not). If this action is'nt problem, Wes, can you rename all files in Commons with redirect (just in case)? ← Alex Great talkrus? 14:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I will happily rename them, as long as nobody has any objections. I wouldn't want to move them at present just in case there is a valid reason for the 'J' to be used. The last thing we want is to cause heated problems by moving files without a clear consensus.  Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 14:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Damn and blast. File mover rights are for Wiki only, not commons. (sulks) . I have made a request for the contestants image, using the #6 rationale, which seems logical to me.  I doubt these file moves would be contested by anyone, so if you want to do the same for all the others,, then feel free to do so.   Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 14:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I will be apply renaming request on the same criteria that did you have with renaming of «Contestants». With the consensus, I think that most of the files already called without the letter J (Meanwhile, I helped to the Czechs and the Dutch), still remains a redirect. ← Alex Great talkrus? 18:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, I already requested all "imaJes". I need to consult with you. What if I will request ESCSerbia.svg and ESCSerbia-.svg to another harmonize name: "ESCSerbiaMontenegro.svg" and "ESCSerbia.svg" respectively? And I have another question: What Eurovision project will be do with same images (that I merged into Commons) in English Wikipedia? Is it will be deleted anybody? ← Alex Great talkrus? 18:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Harmonizing the names like that would work, yes, and they do seem logical too. Once the files have been renamed, a bot will come along and change all the articles respectively; and by the looks of it, a bot has done just that.   Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 07:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I am completely a-ok with these changes! I think it can help me build the score tables faster, Dfizzles (talk)

Voting tables in the Country by Year pages
Hey guys! I've contributed to two articles on Austria and Netherlands in the Eurovision Song Contest 2014 in the hopes of getting them to GA status. The Country by Year articles have voting tables detailing how each country voted, which countries voted for them and breakdown of the split results. For the two articles I've worked on I've made them into collapsible tables, and I just wanted to see what the consensus for this would be on rolling it out for the other articles, especially since they're been reverted once or twice back to the original version. I think this way is better since the tables can be quite large and bulky and this streamlines the article in my opinion, but I'd like to hear everyone's views on it too. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 00:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * this has been briefly touched upon at (above).  There are no objections from my part if this method were to be rolled out with immediate effect.  Although it has been suggested to see what comes of the GA's and if the reviewer thinks they make a greater improvement.   Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 01:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it's a tricky dilemma. One one side there's the need to streamline articles and not include too many tables, but at the same time there's a risk of the article becoming too confusing for the regular user, when using too many collapsible things. I've had the impression that it's quite common among wikipedia users to not understand them, ending up simply missing the information. Clicking "Show" might seem obvious to us experienced users, but probably not to everyone. So my opinion is to use collapsible tables when it's a) quite necessary because they're too big, and b) information that isn't of major interest. In this case, looking at the Netherlands in the Eurovision Song Contest 2014, my opinion would be to have the "Points awarded to the Netherlands" and "Points awarded by the Netherlands" tables non-collapsible. They're not very large, and they're quite straightforward information. Whereas the "Split voting results" tables are way larger and perhaps more of a "hardcore" piece of information. So they would make more sense to display as collapsible tables. Zouki08 (talk) 10:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good compromise to me; I'd never thought to think if all the collapsible tables would be confusing. I'll wait until we see what comes up in the GA review before I change anything though, and then we can make a proper plan on what to roll out. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 13:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The whole issue of the "show" button being confusing is something that is easily resolved. There is nothing wrong in adding a brief line above each table stating what the boxed information is, and to click "show" to view it.   Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 14:19, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Zouki08 about keeping the points tables in full view since people are likely to be seeking that type of information in the article. Those large split voting tables can be collapsed however. It would sort of be like on the annual pages where the voting scoresheets are visible in full view but the split results are collapsed. Anyway that's just my opinion, but I think it would be good to wait for the GA review and then we can make all sorts of changes to better all articles of this type. Pickette (talk) 14:59, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

ESC 1973 logo
Hello guyz. I need a question. Which image is realy correct for Contest of 1973? In English Wikipedia have this image, Russian have this image, and source for most images Eurovision logos in Wikipedia have this image. I don't know, where is true? ← Alex Great talkrus? 11:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The official ESC site has this so I would say that this is the correct logo. Pickette (talk) 13:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I found some images that differs with other logos. My analysis:
 * 1956­-1972 logos no differs in all websites
 * 1973 logo (see above)
 * 1974­-2004 logos no differs in all websites
 * 2005 logo (Official, Diggiloo, Wiki): Both differ with Official
 * 2006 logo (Official, Diggiloo, Wiki): ALL differs
 * 2007 logo (Official, Diggiloo, Wiki): ALL differs
 * 2008 logo (Official, Diggiloo, Wiki): ALL differs / Official News differs with all
 * 2009 logo (Official, Diggiloo, Wiki): At this only Diggiloo logo correctly displayed russian flag colors (blue instead lightblue)
 * 2010 logo (Official, Diggiloo, Wiki): Both differ with Official
 * 2011 logo (Official, Diggiloo, Wiki): ALL differs / Official News differs with all
 * 2012 logo (Official, Diggiloo, Wiki): Both differs with Diggiloo, and Official differ with Wiki only in color and background
 * 2013 logo (Official, Diggiloo, Wiki): ALL differs ← Alex Great talkrus?
 * 2013 logo (Official, Diggiloo haven't page, Wiki): Official differs with Wiki only in surrounded Diamond's background
 * 2015 logo (no data, no differs between Wiki and Official website at this moment)
 * This is my alalysis, what you say? ← Alex Great talkrus? 14:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The official logo for 1973 is this one.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 13:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. What about another logos above? ← Alex Great talkrus? 14:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Many contests have been uploaded to YouTube, including 1973, of which diggiloo.net has the right logo. --  axg //  ✉  ]] ''' 19:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I would say the others are fine, most of them just include the sub-logo from each year's theme that the broadcaster developed. I'm only unsure about 2006 since it has completely different designs paired together with the standard ESC logo. Pickette (talk) 15:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Diggiloo are clearly modifying the logos in order so that they fit within a "design space" that they use as their header. Wikipedia seem to use a basic version without all the fancy background work - such as the 2014 diamond, 2013 butterfly, and 2012 fiery looking star.  If you removed such background from the official, then both Wiki and official are similar.  There is probably a valid reason why this is done on here.  Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 01:49, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Haphazard methods
Now I know some will probably moan at what I'm about to say, but I think would agree, and will most likely have a few words himself to say in regards to this. But, some members lately seem to be lacking the obvious principle of organisation when it comes to the project as a whole. This haphazard approach is starting to cause a bit of chaos and confusion across the project spectrum, and I feel it needs to be addressed once and for all. There's been biographical articles rapidly created that just have one line, and that's in lead format and nothing more to expand on it. Articles like this become quick candidates for speedy deletion criteria with most falling foul of general notability guidelines - and in turn some of those deletion debates turn into a bloodshed battlefield with the odd diva tantrums thrown in for good measure, and all because we feel deflated it was an article you spent time in making, and all the hard work had been for nothing. All that can be easily avoided if we steered clear of our haphazardly ways, and started to pull together as a team. Do a bit of research, check to see if notability is warranted and that a standalone article is likely to be safe from the grasps of the deletionists.

Also new styles seem to be getting rolled out without checking prior Project Consensus to see if there may be reasons these ideas have not been used. Take that little extra time to just come along to this project page, put forward our proposals and new ideas, discussed them as a team, then we would not be wasting our time creating something only to end up it being deleted. We should have discussed the idea, discovered if it is worthwhile, then used our time to create and roll out the new ideas. The project prides itself on consistency, on high quality, on uniformity. And at the moment, none of that is blending together. Take for example the RfC back in 2012, in which people took time to discuss how Eurovision by Year articles should look. All of the ideas that were put forward, we utilised, we pulled them together to produce a prototype article, which in turn resulted in not just 1, not 2, but FIVE annual article that fall under our project gaining GA status; with the first one now been upgrade even higher to A-Class; and is on the verge of becoming the first ever annual contest article to be granted feature article status. That is a massive achievement for this project, and all down to the fact that this project's members engaged in team work discussion to achieve this goal. This project has always been seen as a piss-take from around the community; with negative statements like "Project Eurovision think they can just do what they like and disregard policies and guidelines", or "what makes Project Eurovision so special from any other project". Well, we need to change that negative outlook around, and show people that we are a serious project; that we do take policies and guidelines seriously; that we are here to produce high quality articles.

So let's turn this around, let's start rebuilding this project to the highest of respect it has ever seen. Look around at other projects, such as Project Military History and Project Olympics - they thrive on high standards, they thrive on working and pulling together as a team - why can't we shine like they do? So is it time we got our acts together or what? Well that shining starts here! Share your views, discuss what could be done to turn things around, but keep it civil, and comment on the issue, not the on the users. Thank you!  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 04:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree fully with Wesley! I feel like I contribute and would also like for other users to help out more.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I also agree with you and I will try my best to make this project better. --Redpower94 (talk) 12:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree Wesley. I'm not a member of Project Military History, but know for a fact they have a much higher standard. I will do what I can to help the project and set a good example. However, as I stated before, I will most likely not be as active in terms of creating new content until after the annual contest of this year. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 13:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Not to sound like a broken record here or anything, but I also fully agree with you Wesley! I might not have as active to the project recently, but I will definitely try to do more to help out and make this project better. In regards to consensus, I think that some more guidance on how we format Country by Year articles would be a great step forward. I realise this may be harder to do compared to the Eurovision by Year pages, since different countries take differing approaches to their selections, but having a discussion on what should and shouldn't be included can hardly be a bad thing! Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 13:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, , , and - for once I am speechless at the positive responses so far.  At first I felt as though this needed to be addresses, and then after sleeping on it, felt like I had just stuck my head deep into a hornet's nest, and braced myself for an onslaught of hornet stings.  But WOW, I had not realised just how many people actually agreed on this point of view.  Its like something I read on Wikipedia, that I have found to be so inspiring, yet helpful in regards to the way I see myself contributing.  Feel free to read WP:TIND, in which it mentions the key factors here that we all seem to fall foul of the traps around Wikipedia.  For example, there is no rush to create articles; we can afford to take our time to consider matters before creating a potentially "deleted" article.  Some people have the idea that its all about being the first name on the edit history as "creator" of the article.  But Wikipedia is not a competition, so what if someone gets there first - they may have only created a stub, but our initial research into the subject matter may expand that stub into a good article - and that research will be a major significant towards the article, than the person who "got their name down as creator first".  A lot of us could do with reading WP:TIND and soak up the words.  Believe me, they are powerful and give that "Eureka!" feeling that one finally gets the understanding of what Wikipedia is really about.   Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 15:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Ditto what has been said above. Spa-Franks (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Why was this message marked as "urgent"? Unless someone's life was unexpectedly in the balance, I seriously doubt that anything about the project could be considered "urgent". Please remove me from further updates. Fryede (talk) 01:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that it was marked as "urgent" so that it drew everyone's attention to something that is of greater importance. And it is proven by the fact that members who have commented above also agree that everyone which has been said is of immense importance for the project as a whole. People have wandered into edit disputes over how articles should be written etc, disputes that result in members being blocked, and they are avoidable if people just stopped, took a bit of care and responsibility, and started to communicate with each other as a team - there is no I in team. All these issues need to be addressed urgently, such as discussing categorization - which lately has gone all over the place; there's article layout; and so many other issues that when an RfC is created on this very talk page that nobody even gives a toss to participate, and then you get some folk who just moan because something is being done to a way that they dislike. Things only change if people like you and anyone else, just engages in debates so that everyone has a clear perspective of what the project is about and what needs to be done, and how it should be done. That's why we can pull together and avoid having people blocked through sheer idleness. If you seriously doubt that a project could not be considered urgent, then why be a part of a project? But if you wish to stop receiving messages then I'm sure you are capable of taking your name off the mailing list. But looking at the responses above, the "urgency" is clearly appreciated by some.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 06:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Could you point to some examples where there have recently been issues? Which articles need attention specifically, perhaps we could work on some of the cases. I fail to see this sudden urgency, the points you make seem to be very general and could be applied to most of Wikipedia. Still, I'd be interested in getting certain things corrected and articles improved.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 09:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * For starters, there are all the active alerts that hardly anyone from the project seem to take part in any more, and then wonder why articles/categories/templates etc get deleted all of a sudden. There are former alerts that have now closed which could have done with membership participation.  Then there are the newsletters that get sent out, if people read them they would see all the things that need work doing - and there are tons!
 * There has also been numerous RfC's (all of which are now archived 1, 2, 3, and 4) that could have had much greater input from members.
 * Other discussions have taken place more recently, were only a couple of members take part, and nobody else gives a toss., CT Cooper and Mr. Gerbear have been waiting for the last 3 months to see what other members thing of a proposal.   has a list of articles that may need creating.  came under question, with a lot of JESC bios under threat of deletion.  , Zouki08 is waiting to see if their proposal is fine, and if it is safe to roll out the change.  , another editor proposing about maps.  Its as if people have just lost interest in the project, or just can't be bothered about team work.
 * f the message you received about this just said "debate taking place" or along those lines, would you have come along here to see and take part? The fact I labelled it as "urgent" was so that it got everyone's attention, so that people of this project could finally pull their fingers out their ass and start to work together as a team, discuss things about the project, how things should be operated.  And it has clearly worked, because more people have participated in this very discussion, then they have done in any other discussion on this project page.  Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 09:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * To be fair, importance and urgency are different things, but I do naturally relate to the frustration of only a very small group of project members taking part in discussions. I would say though that if editors have nothing to say or nothing to object to, that's fine, it only gets problematic when people complain about the outcome of a discussion soon after it's finished, having being invited to take part and not having done so. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 20:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do agree with what a lot of Wesley is saying and it echoes what I said in the most recent newsletter. However, I think we should take a moment to look on the positives – I've been a member of this WikiProject now for well over five years and I've seen a huge change. This project has gone from being one which practically all Eurovision article editors ignore, to one in which is very active and large proportion do and a lot of teamwork takes place. This change has had strong repercussions for the quality of Eurovision articles, where the norm used to be policy violating disasters, compared to now where the average article is at least of reasonable quality. This project will always have its critics, particularly from the "Wikipedia should be like Encyclopaedia Britannica" minded editors, simply because of our topic area, but we are certainly taken more seriously than we used to be. There is still plenty which can be done better, and there are a lot of discussions that still need to take place. I myself am thinking about moving on to other Wikipedia activities which need my attention more. I'll still be around, but I'll let others take over the day-to-day management, and one could argue that's already happened! CT Cooper · &#32;talk 20:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with everyone's comments. Over 6 years ago (I can't believe so much time has passed), I dedicated a lot of time to this project. I restructured the project's homepage, developed templates, categorized, rated, brought articles through GA reviews, resurrected the newsletter; I put a lot of effort into reviving what I saw as a somewhat scattered and unmaintained WikiProject. I'm very happy to see that even though it has been 3 years since I've pretty much done anything for Eurovision on Wikipedia, that the same dedicated editors are still here alongside new editors getting things done. Great job everyone! Grk1011 (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Main issues
These are just a few things that crop up at various discussion pages, and it is concerning if this project's ethics are being pulled up and judged. Also people shouldn't have to be told what work needs improving, I'm pretty sure we are capable enough to look for things to do. For example: And then the newsletter which I add a selection of articles in the maintenance tasks section, they need huge amounts of work doing to them. Anything else that needs addressing, then add it to this list.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 11:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Categorisation: this has cropped up a few times, and in the last few CfD's it has been pointed out that our categorisation is (to repeat the quote used) "somewhat disorganised".  Do we need to review this?  Should we start from scratch, beginning at the top and making our way down?
 * 2) Article structure: at a recent featured article review, a lot of things were pointed out that this project is suppose to be doing, but we never have done.  Such as citations in the lead, apparently they are not suppose to be there.  Citations go in the main article body, the lead is just to summarise the article.  If an article were to become a feature article candidate, the reviewers would all say the same "remove the citations from the lead".  Should we be making sure that our contribution style is following GA/FA criteria, so that these articles can get promoted quickly and easily?
 * 3) Content: Some content lately has been added without any citations and we all now citations are vital so that we are able to verify that what we write is not original research - let's fix that issue and source stuff.  Another article in had word-for-word copy of everything written from the Eurovision.tv article about a JESC artist.  That is just outrageous copyright violation, and something we should be strictly avoiding.  Use your own words, don't plagiarise words from the journalists.
 * 4) Article alerts which tells us if any debates need our attention.
 * 5) Assessment stats which shows us all the articles B class and below that require expansion to bring them to GA/FA standard.
 * 6) Quality articles shows which articles are at GA/FA standard, but also ones that have been demoted - those demoted ones need work to bring them back up to standard.

Composer and lyricist information
Hi guys! I have a suggestion. Since the participating songwriters of each participating country is quite vital information, the names ought to be included on wikipedia in a nice and neat way that makes the information easy to find for the readers. As they are technically participants, and are featured in the on-screen credits in the Eurovision Song Contest graphics, it's information that is highly relevant. Yet, articles are often lacking when it comes to this. It would probably be too inconvenient and difficult to present the names of all composers and lyricists on the main article of each Eurovision year. There are simply too many names, and it would mess up the look of the entry tables. However, my suggestion is to instead make sure to include that information in the separate article for each national entry. (e.g. in "Finland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2015" and so on). Right now the names of the songwriters representing the country are sometimes mentioned in the main text of the articles, and sometimes not. I would suggest to include the names in the article's info box of the entry/participation, and/or at least in the article's main text. What do you think about that idea? Zouki08 (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Against: Composers are listed in the articles but putting them in the infobox would clutter it up (some songs can have a bunch of composers) and also they're not exactly vital enough to have to include in the infobox which focuses on the main points of each country's participation (artist, song, national selection, etc.) 02:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Composers within the main Eurovision by year articles would be too zealous and as noted, would make them look cluttered. However the composer and lyricists are mentioned in the respective articles such as "[Country] in the Eurovision Song Contest [Year]" - with some just being mentioned in the respective song article itself. I don't see why such data couldn't be added to the infobox - after all is is a "box of information" is it not?  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 08:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly. As you say, it's what an info box is for. And I don't think it would look too cluttered. Especially not if grouping them all under "Songwriters" or so, rather than doing composers and lyricists separately (which in many cases would mean repeating the same names twice). Zouki08 (talk) 11:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * hang on a second. We are still discussing the inclusion of such content only within articles such as Finland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2014, and not in articles such as Eurovision Song Contest 2014?  The latter would make the article cluttered and may cause confusion to the general reader.  If someone wanted to know who wrote the song, then they can easily click on the link for the respective country's page and/or the song article.  Adding a full list of composers and lyricists within the main Eurovision article would be overzealous.  Also as was discussed here, a consensus was reached for articles such as Eurovision Song Contest 2015, which resulted in a structured article layout, that project members are using.   Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 12:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. Sorry if what I wrote above was confusing. Only in pages such as Finland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2014, not in Eurovision Song Contest 2014. (In theory it would be nice to be able to have such info on those pages too, of course. But with the current format there just isn't room for it anywhere, so it would require too much of a re-design. Which wouldn't be a good idea). So I don't propose any change to the main Eurovision article. What I mean is simply to include "Selected songwriter(s)" in the info box, underneath "Selected singer" and "Selected song". And there add both the composers and lyricists of that entry, rather than having a separate field for "composer" and "lyricist". Zouki08 (talk) 12:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah I see. Yes, on country articles within the infobox - that is a good idea.   this could be something worth looking into and discussing at a RfC for [Country] in the Eurovision Song Contest [by year].  Unless if the project community at large does not object to such an improvement to the infobox, then I'd be more than happy to looking into updating the template.   Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 13:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, let's wait a bit more and see if there's more feedback regarding this. Zouki08 (talk) 15:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there any way we can see an example of what an infobox would look like with this extra field? In particular, I'd like to see an example with an entry that has many writers credited in order to see what it looks like. Other than that, composers are always at the very least mentioned in the table of entries for the national finals or in the actual text for internal selections. An alternative to the infobox could be something that Jjj1238 has done in Macedonia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2015 article where writers of the selected entry are also emphasized in the lead of the article. Pickette (talk) 16:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there is a physical way to show an example without having to edit/save the actual template. And to create a "prototype" just for viewing purpose, and then it not be used, would mean more work for whoever has to delete it all. Although I could try and use my sandbox(s) and see if I can get round it that way. Alternatively we could add a new field, and also make sure we use the Collapsible list within that field, so if there are multiple names, that we're giving the option to view them by collapsing the list into view (if that makes sense).  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 16:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * and Er folks! I've just gone to copy the syntax from the template and have discovered that the template has already got a writers field and has done for some time.  We add   under the "song" parameter - I've used Macedonia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2015 as an example of how the field is suppose to be used.  Why isn't this documented on the template document itself?   Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 16:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Correction, it hasn't been done for some time.  updated the template by adding a new field on |16 November, without gaining a clear consensus that it needed to be updated first.  Easy mistake to make, but we do need to make sure we seek consensus, especially when it comes to templates that are used across so many articles.   Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 16:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh! Sorry. I indeed did change it a couple of days ago, before I posted this suggestion, to test how/if it would in thge infoboxes on the national pages (and it indeed worked just fine, just like what you did for the Macedonia 2015 page just now). I thought I had undone the revision since then, but seems I didn't. I apologize, I realise now I should have waited for a concensus. I've been editing articles on wikipedia for quite some time, but not on this level for long, and am still learning how it all works. :-) Zouki08 (talk) 17:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it. In a way it helped to provide an example (as pointed out with Macedonia 2015).  I think if we used the writers field and also the Collapsible list within that field, then it could just work, and would note that the composer/lyricists are of the selected entry for that country.   Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 17:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure about the Collapsible list. Maybe just for cases where the number of writers are too many to fit into the info box in a nice and neat way? Because I suspect that if people need to click an extra time to see it, they usually won't. To me, it looks quite fine without the collapsible list. Check out Estonia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2014 for an example. Zouki08 (talk) 17:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The use of Collapsible list is optional and would only be used if there is a long list of names that would just make the infbox look hideously untidy. It is just a useful template to help "neaten" things up.  Of course if there is only one, maybe two maximum names then the collapsed list would not be required.  It would just be down to common-sense when to implement its usage.  Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 18:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. Agree completely. Zouki08 (talk) 18:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think if there are more than 2-3 names the collapsible list should be used. Also I prefer when each name is on its own line instead of the names being added as a continuous list separated with commas. Before anything is agreed to however, changes to all articles that use this infobox should be considered. There are many articles so it's a lot of work. Pickette (talk) 02:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the non-use of comma separation,. Vertical list, seeing as the template name "collapsible list" is a bit of a give-away (although I can think of one user right now who would just ignore that and do things their way just to get the rest of the project to "clean-up" after them... long story, but it is giving me a headache how many times they have to be told about WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:CITE; and still violate them and not even be blocked by now). Anyhow, yes it would also be hard work as there are well over 1000 ESC articles that would need the modification, not to mention the JESC ones too. But I'm sure if a small group of us worked together on this, we'd get them updated in no time.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 02:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. Vertical list would look much better than comma separation. How is that best done, when the names are not part of a collapsible list? I tried it, but it ended up showing only the top name. And yes, this is a lot of work. But indeed, it shouldn't take too much time especially if we are a group of people doing it.Zouki08 (talk) 09:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You'd do it like this,.

 Composer/Lyricists

Person 1

Person 2

Person 3

and so on
 * Hope this helps.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 13:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks . However, what I meant was; how is it done for names listed when they're *not* listed as a collapsible list? So that e.g. two names will still be vertically listed and not separated by commas. Although maybe you and only meant that it should be done for the collapsible lists, and not otherwise? Zouki08 (talk) 14:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You could either use unbulleted list or line break .  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 14:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Great. Thanks for all the help! I'm ready to start editing as soon as this change has been proper agreed upon. Zouki08 (talk) 23:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Sine there's been no more objections to this... Shall we begin inplementing this in the existing and upcoming articles now? Zouki08 (talk) 13:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 7 days is generally too soon to decide that all will be ok. I'd give it another week or two, especially now that I've gotten everyone's attention in the  thread.  After all there is no rush.   Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 15:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey guys! Now Wes has caught my attention, I thought I'd give my views too. I pretty much agree with everything that you've come up with on this, and the example on Macedonia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2015 looks great! I suppose if collapsible lists were to be used it's therefore feasible that you could have separate lists for composers and lyricists, depending if there's consensus on this of course. But overall I think it's a great idea. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 17:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Doing separate ones for composers and lyricists would indeed make sense, as that's how it's credited on-screen in Eurovision. But then the question is, would it be separate ones for all articles, including songs where the composers and lyricists are the same people? It would mean repeating the same name twice, which would just mean there's more need to use collapsible lists where it would otherwise end up being too much text in the info box. And I think we should avoid using collapsible lists for this as much as possible, and only use it where it's necessary. Zouki08 (talk) 11:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

How about putting (C) and (L) next to the names to show composer and lyricist.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 16:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That could be a nice, if it looks good. Maybe we should try it out. And (CL) for those who are credited for both music and lyrics?Zouki08 (talk) 00:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * In those cases we would simply put (C/L).  Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 11:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Some people might not know what these letters mean though. How will you explain what (C/L), (C) and (L) mean in that box? Maybe the field "Selected songwriters" should be split into "Selected Composer(s)" and "Selected Lyricist(s)" and any list of names that exceeds more than two for each category can be collapsed. Or for songs that have the same names for both lyricists and composers can use the field "Selected songwriters" while others that differ can use the other two (if that makes sense). Pickette (talk) 18:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Abbr --  axg //  ✉  ]] ''' 19:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Pickette, I agree, it would possibly be confusing. Personally I agree that splitting it into "Selected Composer(s)" and "Selected Lyricist(s)" would be fine. (And a joint one for entries where it's the same people credited on both, or when the split isn't known, as you just suggested). I would also prefer this because it would mean that less articles would need collapsible lists. (Since in many cases there would be less names in each field, when they're split up). As long as people don't think the info box becomes too crowded then? With separate fields for composers and lyricists, and by allowing up to two names for each without the use of collapsible lists, then there could be four visible names in total. (Which, in my opinion, is not a bad thing). Although then one might as well also allow up two four visible names even in cases where it'll be a joint field for composers and lyricists. It would only take up the same amount of space. Zouki08 (talk) 17:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * , I'd wait a bit if I were you. The template itself has been nominated for deletion.  The fact it will affect hundreds of articles, seems to be irrelevant.  But who am I to argue, when I get accused of all sorts for defending such templates.  To be honest, the discouraging attitude and willingness to cast such disgusting allegations from some users is causing me to think about leaving Wikipedia.   Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 00:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think this template is nominated for deletion though. Other templates were nominated to be merged into this template unless I missed something. Pickette (talk) 01:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Merge or deletion, it would still be wise to put on-hold any mass rollout of the changes. We don't know what will be merged where. There is even talk of merging them all into a "infobox music" or something obscure. And I have suggested at the very bottom thread of looking into the possibility of all-in-one universal infboxes that would house the necessary parameters for each contest type. Currently if were were to use a Eurovision infobox on an ABU contest - the input of a year would cause problems as the syntax only recognised Eurovision in that template, so would direct an ABU link to a ESC page.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 01:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It would, however, be convenient to come to a conclusion of how, and in what format, to include songwriters in the infoboxes, before any possible merge. If the merge happens before that, we'd have to discuss there and then how to incorporate songwriters into the possible new universal infobox. Whereas if we've already incorporated it to the current one, all that needs to be done is to move the corresponding parameters into the new one. So I think it could be useful to come to a conclusion now (we're basically down to figuring out whether it should be one field for all songwriters, or separated ones for composers and lyricists, right?), both for the sake of being able to use it for the upcoming contest, and for the sake of having it ready in case there's any major infobox merges in the future. Zouki08 (talk) 10:36, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Any more thoughts on this matter? Is anyone actually opposed to starting to implement these additions in spite of the risk that some infoboxes might get merged at some point in the future? I feel that if we're gonna do this, it would make sense to do it quite soon, as the Eurovision 2015 season is already in full swing. Zouki08 (talk) 22:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't have any issues with this moving forward. I'd just like to know how the changes will be carried out: will collapsible lists be used for only 2 or 3 names and will we indicate composers and lyricist with abbreviations or will those sections be split? Pickette (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * How's about seeing how Infobox single handles such information, and see if we can incorporate something similar?  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 18:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I tested out songwriter names to the Russian and Icelandic articles from 2014. I think a long list of names is actually not too problematic (as in Russia's case), but now there is another issue in regards to Iceland which is very long names being split onto different lines. Infobox single can accomodate more information on a single line but this Eurovision infobox has labels that take up half the space. What are ways to indicate a single authors name when it is split onto two lines. Some of these foreign names can look like two different names when split apart. The flatlist that Infobox single uses might work better than unbulletedlist perhaps. Or maybe the Eurovision infobox can be made wider if that's possible? Pickette (talk) 20:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * My suggestion would be to go for one of the following options. Option 1: Split up composers and lyricists where they're separate people (i.e. for example two people having written the music, and two other people having written the lyrics) and display them under "Selected composer(s)" and "Selected lyricist(s)". Collapsible lists are used if there's more than two names in each field, which means a maximum of four names in total may be displayed non-collapsed in the infobox. If the composers and lyricists are the same (or mainly the same) we should avoid repeating the same names twice in the infobox. Si then they are all instead displayed together under "Selected songwriter(s)". Then too, we can allow up to four names being shown without collapsing them, and use collapsible lists for everything over four names. This option means we have the possibility to display songwriters either separately as composers/lyricists when applicable, or to display them all in one field. However, it may make things overly complicated? So that would lead us to option 2: We simply always display all songwriters under "Selected songwriter(s)", regardless of whether all writers were involved in both music and lyrics, or if some did only lyrics and some only wrote the music. No abbreviations ought to be necessary. After all, if we need to specify that someone wrote only the lyrics or only the music, that can be done in the text of the article. And once again, I would suggest allowing up to four names to be displayed, and collapsing everything above that. (I think four is also a sensible number as it's quite common that there are up to four songwriters behind an entry, but quite uncommon than there are five or more). Zouki08 (talk) 21:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Or, as Pickette just demonstrated, we could simply not do collapsible lists at all, regardless of which of the above options (or any other) we go for. The Russian article infobox looks very neat even though there are five names, I think. The problem with long names indeed seems to make the infobox look a bit confusing, so I agree that it would be good if that can be solved somehow. Zouki08 (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah I agree that even five names listed looks perfectly fine. I took the liberty of widening the infobox so it can accomodate more information and avoid names from awkwardly wrapping. I made it as wide as Infobox Eurovision national final. If we encounter names that do wrap, I guess we can use abbreviations for that particular name. Of course the widening can be undone if someone is against. Pickette (talk) 03:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That seems to work just fine. The widening doesn't really seem like it has any negative effects. And yes, abbreviations might be an option if there are even longer names. So if we agree to showcase all the names without using collapsible lists (with the exceptions if there are extreme cases with 7 names or so, perhaps), the main question remaining is if we use just sone fiel for all songwriters, or split it up into lyricists and composers when applicable? Personally I think having just one field for all names looks better, and would be less confusing as it means all infoboxes have the same format. Zouki08 (talk) 12:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the one field would be enough and it's better for infoboxes to all be consistent in that respect. By the way, I think most Eurovision songs have at most 2-3 authors on average. The only one I found that seemed to have a long list of authors behind it was the 2011 UK entry which had seven people listed as writers. I could be wrong though, I just did a quick check on that. But yeah, if no one else has any issues, I don't see why we can't start adding names. Pickette (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. And for the older years, most entries had just one or two songwriters. So we probably won't come across a lot of more entries with seven writers. And I'm glad we agree on having just the one field. So, maybe give it a day or two and see if there's any other issues being brought to attention, and then we ought to be able to start making the changes. Zouki08 (talk) 00:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)