Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision/Archive 14

WikiProject Eurovision Membership Update
As of January 2015, there are 73 active members that have edited within the last 4 months for this project, 18 inactive members with no edits within the last 4 months and 20 members who have quit the project due to being inactive for more than one year. The next membership check will occur in April 2015. Pickette (talk) 23:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * As I've said on my talk page, a simpler system of reviewing one's membership of the project might be beneficial so to ensure the list actually is maintained longterm and so people can focus on other things. However, if those doing the work are happy with the current set-up, then that's fine with me. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 17:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't mind using a different system. Your suggestion of an annual check for inactive users would mean less work and it would accomplish my original intent which was to highlight users who haven't edited at Wikipedia in general for over 1 year. I just didn't know they could be completely removed which is why I shifted them to the inactive list. Pickette (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I actually think what has suggested via his talk page is a much easier method.  Doing an annual check, see who hasn't made any edits in the last 12 months, and remove them entirely as a member. Thus it removes the inactive list entirely; which is only showing people who are "absent from editing duties" even if they still receive a copy of the newsletter just in case they return within 12 months and appreciate a quick recap of what they have missed. It also reduces the workload, allows us to concentrate on improving articles, and removes the unnecessary lists of members who are busy working or in a dormant state.  Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 19:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, cool. If everyone is happy with a simpler system then I'll be happy to implement it. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 19:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * That sounds perfectly fine to me. Thank you. Pickette (talk) 20:34, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Excellent. I'll hold off a few days just to give other people the chance to comment. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 20:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

So in theory we are saying, members can have up to a 12-month respite/sabbatical period from the project; after which if no contributions are made they will be deemed as no longer wishing to be a member? I'm wondering though, seeing as people join on a rolling period, then perhaps checking on the 1st of every month, and any that have not edited in 12 months be removed; rather than checking yearly, in which some people may have ended up 18-months inactivity (as we would in retrospect be checking every 12 months).  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 21:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I wanted to keep checks down to once a year, and certainly no more than once every six months, in order to keep the work down. Perhaps checking twice yearly, and stretching it to no edits for 18 months for removal would be a good compromise. It's not perfect, but it keeps it reasonably simple. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 21:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * OK. So if we said annually, then do it around first week of January. If we said 6-monthly, then first week of January and July. Move all names into the active list.  Then anyone who has been inactive for 12 months gets moved into the active list, so that I can use the mass messenger bot (which I have permission to use) and send out a mass message to those listed to inform them that due to their inactivity they have been removed from active listing and are welcome to re-join the project at their convenience, and then clear that list to show the mass message has been issued. Does that sound reasonable?  Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 22:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * That sounds reasonable to me. So we're going for six monthly? CT Cooper · &#32;talk 13:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 6 or 12 months, either way is fine. which would you prefer and are you OK with the proposal above, of using the inactive list as a "spamlist" to mass message members that are about to be removed from the list?  Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 07:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That sounds fine to me. A check every 12 months should be enough I would say. Pickette (talk) 17:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * and OK, so annually it shall be. Every January I am assuming? Are those currently listed on the inactive list been inactive less than 12 months? If so, they will need to be moved back to the active list, based on the proposal above. Pickette, can you remember which ones were over 12 months? If so, they can be listed back on the inactive list - I will knock up a template, similar to the project invitation, except this will be worded to inform members who are to be removed and given them the option to rejoin at their convenience. Any suggestion on its wording?  Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 21:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * All names that were on the inactive list before your edit have been inactive for less than 12 months. I think you've already fixed things based on the edits I see there. So once the message is sent to these inactive users, the inactive list will be blank, right? Pickette (talk) 06:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed the list will be blanked once the mass message has been sent. Still trying to concoct a nicely worded message to issue out. Something that shows gratitude for their time as a member, that we are sorry to see they've become inactive, that they will be sadly missed, and that they are welcome to rejoin at any given time. Got everything there that I want to say, just don't know in what way to say it. Any ideas? I've knocked up a rough draft of what the notification template would look like. User:Wesley Mouse/sandbox/3. Does it look OK?  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 07:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That looks good to me! Pickette (talk) 07:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that has cheered me up somewhat. Was not an easy task trying to get the right words to use. I'll move it to template space under the name EurovisionInactive.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 08:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Celebration time. The mass message has issued the notice to the inactive spamlist successfully.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 08:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well done. Thanks for the effort by all involved. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 17:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

On Notability of OGAE Contests
Hello! Has the notability of OGAE Contests--such as the OGAE Second Chance Contest, OGAE Video Contest, and the OGAE Song Contest (results in a table on the OGAE page--been established? Each of the contests (and the main OGAE page, for that matter) are filled with Primary Sources with no secondary, neutral sources establishing notability, violating the WP:WHYN guideline.  Mr. Gerbear | Talk 01:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * As far as I'm aware, there has never been any discussion on the issue – the current pages are just the result of the slow expansion of OGAE related pages by various editors. On notability, yes at face value the pages do clearly fail WP:N. Though I'll be very surprised if the OGAE Second Chance Contest isn't notable at all, and a Google search does seem to indicate some third-party sources, the year-by-year articles though may be more debatable. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 17:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the yearly articles are definitely overkill, imo. That stuff should go into OGAE archives, not Wikipedia. Can you provide some examples of third-party Second Chance Contest sources though? I don't think Eurovision fansites would count as establishing notability though...  Mr. Gerbear | Talk 00:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Cooper did say a Google search indicates some third-party sources, so I would assume if one were to do a Google search, that one would find those sources without having to ask someone else to retrieve them for others to view. It's not that difficult to do the research for oneself.  However to the discussion at hand, I seem to recall OGAE contests being mentioned briefly in a plethora of other threads (most of which are now in the archives).  I, myself, have worked on expanding some of the articles but with slow caution.  Yes, I found a lot of sources through Google searching; and still considering whether to merge them all into one main article or not.  Notability is a grey area in all fairness.  For something to be notable these days means it needs to be well-known and have received coverage on the internet by sources.  The issue is what may be well-known to one person, may not be as well-known to another - without internet coverage or the curiosity to search for such information via the means of the internet.  As Cooper has already established that some third-party sources can be ascertained if one were to do a Google search, highlights the fact that there are some coverage of these contests, thus some notability is out there, merely for the fact that some people know of the existence of these contests.  An encyclopaedia is there to provide knowledge of information to those who may not have known of such information. I kow that notability is a major factor here, but it is becoming more commonly known that the average Joe Blogs tends to look to Wikipedia as a fountain of information, rather than searching on Google or other search engines.  I have encountered many people who when asked the question about a random topic, come to Wikipedia first to find information, before thinking about searching on Google.  Perhaps this Wikipedia is evolving in a way it never expected to evolve into?   Wes   Mouse  17:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, while insightful, this isn't a discussion on what Wikipedia is (and I do disagree on some of your points); this is a discussion on whether the OGAE contests should be covered in such detail. I asked for links because my own Google-ing didn't find any third-party sources. They are all either the official OGAE pages or Eurovision sites. This alone does not establish notability as non-neutral sources (and by non-neutral I mean something not dedicated to Eurovision). I would really agree that they should all just be merged into one article. Each individual year needs to have notability established, which would be difficult. For example, the OGAE Second Chance contest from 2004 is never discussed outside the fan world, but Eurovision 1958 is.  Mr. Gerbear | Talk 01:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I disagree with that interpretation of WP:N. Content from the OGAE wouldn't count towards notability and articles shouldn't be built based on such sources, in the same way that content from the EBU wouldn't count towards notability in Eurovision articles. A Eurovision site can be used to establish notability as long as it is independent of the contest/issue in question and it's reliable. ESCToday for example meets both those criteria, and I see no reason why the use of such sources would't allow a WP:NPOV compliant article to be built. I believe we also consider ESCDaily and Eurovoix to be reliable too. The contest has also featured in other tertiary sources such as the Encyclopedia of Icelandic Music. Offline sources can be hard to get hard of but their use is allowed on Wikipedia and demonstrating that they cover a topic can count towards notability. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 14:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The thing is that Eurovision fansites and news sites do not have a neutral point of view. They cover Eurovision, and therefore all the minutia that surround it. They are not third party sources as their coverage implies a bias towards Eurovision-related media. Also, the Encyclopedia of Icelandic Music is sourced from Wikipedia, according to the first page, which means it cannot help determine notability. However, there are independent, third-party sources that mention the Second Chance Contest (which in itself doesn't establish notability). I did already concede that the Second Chance Contest is most likely fine. It's all those individual years that may not be what Wikipedia is for.  Mr. Gerbear | Talk 05:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't know any source that don't have a bias of some sort, whether that be coverage bias, viewpoint bias, or something else – though if I'm mistaken, please name some. Or to put it another way, a reductio ad absurdum response to this argument is that nothing is ever notable because there is no such thing as a neutral source when one defines bias that broadly.


 * While it is true that one of the justifications for the notability guidelines is ensuring that it is possible to write a neutral article on a subject by having a sufficient range of third-party sources to draw from, rather than just relying on sources directly connected to the subject which are likely to be of only one viewpoint; it is not the case that third-party sources have to be "neutral" to count towards notability. Per WP:YESPOV, the sources themselves can be as biased as they like; it is only Wikipedia itself that has to be neutral by giving appropriate weightings to viewpoints based on their coverage in reliable sources – the community has judged that this cannot be done properly if there are no third-party sources to work with from the start. The definition of a third-party source is one that it is independent from the subject matter, with Wikipedia also requiring that such sources be reliable. Note that independence and neutrality are different things, as are reliability and neutrality. For example, a privately owned newspaper could publish a negative (i.e. biased) article about a politician, but still have such an article be factually accurate (i.e. reliable); yet it would still be considered an independent third-party source for an article on said politician. It's worth noting that neutrality and bias are not mentioned at all in the general notability guideline itself, because "neutral" sources are not required to establish notability, only independent and reliable ones are.


 * It appears we do agree that the main OGAE Second Chance Contest article is notable, and while I'm pleased this is the case, I'm rather confused on how this came about. So far no satisfactory non-Eurovision sources on the Second Chance Contest have been presented. So how did you reach the conclusion that the Second Chance Contest is notable at all based on your interpretation of WP:N? CT Cooper · &#32;talk 18:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Whoa late reply, sorry. But, anyway, I said the Second Chance Contest page is fine mostly because you said you did find some sources that talked about it. I haven't been able to find any, myself.


 * As for my rationale behind not using Eurovision news sites to establish notability, yeah, I meant independence and not neutrality. Sorry for the confusion. Eurovision news sites are, by definition, not independent from the topic of Eurovision. I'm looking through WP:EVENT right now and OGAE contests by year do not check out.  Mr. Gerbear | Talk 23:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not following the logic that Eurovision news sites are not independent from the topic of Eurovision and I don't understand how one could interpret the WP:GNG in that way. Does that mean biological journals can't be used in biological articles because they are by definition not independent from the topic of biology? I don't think so. I'm not really seeing the relevance of WP:EVENT. While Eurovision contests are technically events, this subject specific notability guideline (SNG) was written to deal with the problem with people creating articles on local events which receive a very short-term burst of localized news coverage, but lack any long-term significance, such as a traffic accident in a village. WP:NOTNEWS covers this but it is vague, hence the need for an additional guideline. Eurovision related contests were not what the drafters had in mind. In any case, SNGs only supplement the GNG by providing an alternative path to notability – an article is required to pass one or the other, not both. In other words, once the GNG is satisfied, the SNGs become irrelevant. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 20:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Consider that Eurovision fansites would of course report on every bit of Eurovision minutia, whether it would be notable on Wikipedia or not. Where Eurovision goes, they follow; ergo, not independent. See the Indiscriminate Sources portion of the Independent Sources Essay. This is essentially what my viewpoint is. This isn't policy, I know, but it is a viewpoint other editors do share. It's not that you can't USE them in articles as sources. You just can't use them to establish notability.


 * Also, It's not a hard science like biology; notability is incomparable (especially as there are separate guidelines for those topics).


 * Also, OGAE's yearly contests, individually, don't have long-term significance. It would be difficult to prove otherwise. We're not talking about Eurovision events at all here, but a fan club's event, hosted on the internet. There's no real show hosted in a host city, the artists are, most often, not personally involved, and it's only these fan club members who vote. It's pretty much a fan-run contest, occurring entirely within this group of fans, except it has an OGAE stamp on it. I admit, I am extremely interested in the results myself, as a fan of Eurovision, but I personally have serious doubt when it comes to whether these individual contests are notable for Wikipedia.  Mr. Gerbear | Talk 03:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The WP:GNG is universal and applies to everything, and while there are subtle differences to how notability is applied to different topic areas, comparisons can certainly be made. As I've stated above, SNGs establish an alternative path to notability in addition to the GNG. Note that I used the term "Eurovision contests" broadly as being any event related to the Eurovision topic area, and I stand by my position that WP:EVENT isn't really relevant here, as it was not written for these sorts of articles.


 * Per my earlier explanations, policies and guidelines are clear that independence means separation from the topic itself; it has nothing to do with what the sources specialize in. For Eurovision contests, this means sources which are independent of broadcasters, the EBU, and in this case, the OGAE. For a topic in biology, that would mean sources independent of the person conducting the experiment or similar. Even if one is to accept Independent sources, it is actually saying that such sources are independent, they're just indiscriminate. So it looks like we've jumped from Eurovision sources not being usable for notability because they're not neutral, to them not being usable because they're not independent, to now them not being usable because they're indiscriminate. I don't accept this new position any more than the previous ones. For starters, different Eurovision sources cover things differently, so treating them all as the same is inappropriate. It's also clear that they don't cover every fan-made contest on the internet; they choose to cover OGAE especially. Furthermore, they're coverage also goes beyond simply announcing the dates, the results etc. and gives critical and extensive coverage which is exactly what's needed to satisfy the GNG.


 * If Eurovision sources are not accepted as counting towards notability, as it stands, all OGAE Second Chance Contest articles will probably be deleted as being non-notable. It will also make a large number of other articles which fall under this project vulnerable as well. Fortunately, I'm confident that if taken to AfD, the extensive coverage of a variety of Eurovision sources will be accepted as making the OGAE Second Chance Contest article notable for inclusion. Whether there is extensive enough coverage for each year, I'm much more doubtful, simply because coverage is thin, even including Eurovision sources. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 15:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you really want to establish that these Eurovision fan and news sites are independent of OGAE, it will be difficult. ESCToday, for one, collaborates with OGAE International. (And a good chunk of writers from every other site out there are members of an OGAE Club.) The main problem here, and what I've been saying all along, is that the current articles rely exclusively on OGAE's official sites, and these articles haven't established notability yet because of these.

What other articles are you concerned about regarding the establishment of notability? All the contests are notable, as well as all the artists who are chosen to participate in each year, as well as the song they perform, not because they're in news articles, but because of the sheer international scale of this contest.

(WP:INDY says "Some sources, while apparently independent, are indiscriminate." Which implies that they may not be independent or reliable. But this is a moot point; we can argue forever about the interpretation of policy.)  Mr. Gerbear | Talk 17:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It's been known by this project for years that ESCToday has links with the EBU (and others), though that knowledge has not resulted in any consensus that they're not a third-party source or lack editorial independence. Having a writer who is an OGAE member is a trivial matter – writers are often members of a large number of organizations and still operate independently. Ultimately, I'm not very interested in what WP:INDY says or doesn't say as it is an essay, and it is policies and guidelines which dictate what is and isn't included in the encyclopedia, but as I've already explained above, I don't regard it as relevant in this case because Eurovision sources are not "indiscriminate" in their coverage of OGAE contests.


 * "Sheer international scale" does not make something notable, nor does being "local" make something non-notable. There have been many attempts to include geographic scope into notability considerations but there has never been community consensus for it, with the exemption of WP:EVENT, which does apply it to topics with very short bursts of localized news coverage. Regardless, the OGAE and it's activities are as international as Eurovision itself, but that doesn't make it notable. Reliable and third-party source coverage of its activities is what makes it notable.


 * As for other Eurovision articles, the main contest articles could get enough non-Eurovision source coverage to establish notability, but others such as the "C in the Eurovision Song Contest YYYY" articles, might struggle in places if Eurovision sources were arbitrary excluded from counting towards notability. Certainly any current de facto presumptions that that all entries in every year deserve their own article would have to end. I'm not very concerned at this point though, as I believe policies, guidelines and community consensus are on the side of reliable third-party Eurovision sources counting towards notability. However, I'm happy to ask for a third opinion if necessary. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 18:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, at this point, I think a third opinion could help clear things up. I cannot foresee much agreement if it's just the two of us going back and forth.  Mr. Gerbear | Talk 03:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You may wish to hold off on the third opinion, as I have added a section in the latest edition of the newsletter (scheduled to be mailed out in a day or two). Hopefully that will get some additional members to take part.  And if that fails, then I suppose a 3O would be next.   Wes   Mouse  06:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say this discussion has been unproductive, but I'm not seeing agreement forming either, so some further input would be welcome. There are some additional points I could make on a few issues, but I'll leave that for now. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 14:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, definitely not unproductive at all. If anything I've learned a lot about Wikipedia policy on notability and sourcing, and the other side of the argument from mine. It's extremely productive, but agreement has been difficult to reach.  Mr. Gerbear | Talk 07:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Yo! :) Any updates on this? I'd rather not have this productive discussion go to waste. :(  Mr. Gerbear | Talk 01:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on the finer points of notability. However, there seems to be a consensus that the current collection of OGAE articles needs to be trimmed down significantly. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 15:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Hey, I thought I'd give contribute my views on this, since you seem to be in need for more opinions. I think the Second Chance Contest is definitely notable, as you had previously agreed upon, and I think all of the OGAE contests do have some notability, but may not be notable enough to require their own pages. I would suggest merging the Video Contest winners onto the main OGAE page, since as an OGAE contest it is notable but not to the degree that the Second Chance contest is. In terms of the yearly Second Chance pages, I would agree that they could be trimmed back, and I think that a discussion on which contests would be deemed notable would be beneficial.


 * On whether reliable third-party Eurovision sources count towards notability, I would have to say that they do. Not every fan contest is covered by these sites, but far from it, as I believe OGAE contests are the only ones they cover, therefore I think by that they're undoubtedly notable. Eurovision websites cover Eurovision news, but I believe they don't cover every single facet of the fan side of things, for example the results of fan contests at OGAE galas in different countries. On whether every single annual Second Chance page is notable needs to be discussed, and they could be trimmed back if the necessary notability isn't found. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 17:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Upon what has mentioned above and some of the suggestions, has got me thinking of what could potentially be an all-round compromise; and hopefully should keep some of the notability of OGAE and its associated contests.
 * Merge all or the main parts of the OGAE Video Contest into the main OGAE article within the Video Contest section.
 * Merge the annual articles of OGAE Second Chance Contest into the main article OGAE Second Chance Contest, breaking it into sections for the respective decades, writing a reasonable prose to provide a brief account of each contest held throughout those decades, along with a table of winners for the decades. Thus we can delete/merge the annual pages into the main article.
 * I am willing to do a mock up in my sandbox so that people will have an idea of what I mean and how it would potentially look. Does this sound like a good, reasonable, and fair idea to make?  Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 20:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * OK here we have it User:Wesley Mouse/sandbox/1, its in draft stages but I hope it provides a rough idea of a merged article for the Second Chance Contests. I've split the contest into decades, which will provide a summary-style prose about the contests for each of the decades, along with a table to show the winners (with 1980 giving an example of a decade). Do you think this would work, and then we could redirect the annual contest articles into their respective decade sections.  Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 23:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a great compromise, yes. I agree with this 100 percent.  Mr. Gerbear | Talk 01:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good compromise to me. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 15:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Cool. Right then, I'll get cracking with this and have the re-write done asap.  and  What do we do with the annual pages thereafter? Nominate for deletion or should I redirect them to the parent article? And we're going to have to think about future contests. Random people tend to create the articles, and they may not be aware that this will no longer be the method. Do we request page creation protection for the next... say 5 years... by which time people may come to the conclusion that we are no longer having annual pages for the second chance contests.  Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 22:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I've stumbled upon an interesting dilemma. The Second Chance Contests started in 1987, and we've been noting the débutantes since then. However, OGAE have done retrospective contests from 1986 to the very first contest.  So in theory a country who has made their "début" in 1987, will have in fact made their "début" years earlier in one of the retrospective contests.  Should we omit the mention of debuts?  Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 22:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest just make them redirects. As for page creation, we can cross that bridge when we get there. If they get created, simple, it can be deleted.
 * As for the retrospectives... yeah that's a problem when it comes to debuts. I suggest just ignoring the retrospective contests when noting debuts.  Mr. Gerbear | Talk 02:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

, I'm starting to make progress with this re-write. Talk about a nightmare of a task. Everything is still in my sandbox (linked above) if you wish to have a preview of the work-in-progress. Once it is complete, I will move it all over to article space, and then start on the redirects (which I will direct to the respective decades within the revised article).  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 02:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

And here we have it, OGAE Second Chance Contest, one vast improved article, with its annual versions now merged and redirected into the parent article. I've noticed the OGAE Video Contests also have annual articles. Do you think we should do the same as with Second Chance, and merge contents into the parent OGAE Video Contest, rather than the previous idea I came up with of merging everything into OGAE?  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 05:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!


Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Türkvizyon Song Contest
It seems to be better if on Türkvizyon Song Contest pages names parts of Russia, Ukraine and Moldova etc will be not only with a flag of this part, and with flag of the whole country, like it was on the TV broadcast in 2014. People often don't know part of what country it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.165.225.180 (talk) 00:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * They only need to click on the name of the participating country to be able to discover which part of Russia, Moldova, etc they belong to. We cannot overkill on flag icons per WP:ICONDECORATION. Sticking to what was agreed and using the primary flag (for example Tatarstan) is sufficient enough. Deviating away from that may be seen as disruptive behaviour - as does edit warring which you have been undergoing on both the 2013 and 2014 articles and can result in blocking sanctions.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 01:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:ESC National Year
I've been drafting at User:AxG/Sandbox/16, to update and clean-up some code of ESC National Year just to match it to Infobox Song Contest. An example of the draft in action can be found User:AxG/Sandbox/17. I was after some comments about the draft and to see whether it could replace the current code. --  axg //  ✉  ]] ''' 20:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Can the box be made as wide as it is now, please? Otherwise I think it looks great, good job! Pickette (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. --  axg //  ✉  ]] ''' 01:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Since I've had no other comments for 8-days, I've gone ahead and updated the template. This new codings gets rid of the  perimeter so if you see a page that looks odd please change this to just. --  axg //  ✉  ]] ''' 22:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, AxG. I have been on a Wikipedia sabbatical for a couple of weeks. Family problems which have taken a bigger "real-life" priority. New temple looks good though. Any updates on the merging of other templates which were mentioned in the section above?  Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 16:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Cân i Gymru year articles now work with the new template, with the  code --  axg  //  ✉  ]] ''' 17:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Issues with a source
I just wanted to point out that the Eurovision site esckaz.com has copied text verbatim from many of the Country in the ESC 2015 pages for their country profiles. I know this is considered a trusted source for use here so I thought I would point it out. Pickette (talk) 02:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * that's a good find. I'm not 100% sure if them doing that goes against copyrights. Pretty sure Wikipedia is copyright protected too. May need to seek some advice on this from a copyright expert that I know on Wiki. Would you like me to ask, or perhaps I could inform you of their username and you may wish to ask directly?  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 02:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It would seem ESCKaz are allowed, according to WP:REUSE. How bizarre that our work should be technically "stolen" and our wording not attributed.  Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 02:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh no I don't mind the copying. I was just pointing it out because I've used their pages as sources in the past so I thought I'd point it out in case there are issues in that respect going forward. Pickette (talk) 03:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Rather disappointing that ESCKaz has gone down this road. As a free content project, Wikipedia content can be re-used, but only when i) attribution is provided and ii) said content is distributed under the same license, as governed by the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License which is a copyleft ("some rights reserved") license. Since ESCKaz is giving no attribution and is marking their content as fully copyrighted ("all rights reserved"), rather than sharing alike, both the attribution and sharealike provisions of the license are being violated. Perhaps a polity worded e-mail to the site will do the trick, as it is a common misconception that Wikipedia content is public domain and can be copied without consequence. However, if push came to shove, copyleft licenses are legally binding and enforceable. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 12:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have sent them a message that includes the points you've made in your posting above. Let's see what happens. Pickette (talk) 00:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * An update on this situation: ESCKaz claims that there is no copyright issues because Wikipedia doesn't report original facts. The person that responded to my message has said that they are willing to change any text that resembles what has been written on Wikipedia and they have already done so with an example I provided them with from the 2015 Danish article. They don't seem to have an issue with just outright copying and pasting word for word text that was written on Wikipedia so I think perhaps this source should be banned from any further use on this project because someone could write something factually inaccurate on one of these articles and ESCKaz may just copy and paste it on their website. Pickette (talk) 22:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Whoever wrote that response is highly ignorant in copyright law. For the record, copyright protects original works, not "facts". This person seems to be confusing copyright violations with plagiarism, which is something they're also doing anyway!? Perhaps things need to be turned up a notch, such as telling them that either remove the content or their website host is going to be issued with a take-down notice. It's convenient that they're hosted in Germany, as that's one country where Creative Commons licenses have been found to be legally enforceable. In the meantime, I agree that they shouldn't be used a source anymore due to the risk of circular referencing. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 02:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I sent this information to ESCKaz and they are adamant that they haven't violated any copyright. They also seem to invite formal legal action to be taken. Pickette (talk) 07:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow, they really want to play hardball don't they? I suspect their bluffing as they know how few people actually follow-up on threats to take legal action, particularly when it comes to removing copyright violating content from the internet, which takes a lot of time and effort. I'll do a bit more research and see what I can do. I think it's at least worth submitting a complaint to the host. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 16:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should forward the emails to you and you can get a better idea of what was said? Pickette (talk) 02:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. Feel free to forward them to ctc_wikimedia@fastmail.com. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 13:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * and Would you like me to move ESCKaz to the banned list on our sources guidance page?  Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 14:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes I think that would be a prudent move at this point. In reference to WikiProject Eurovision/Sources, I have considered blacklisting ESCKaz, though this only permissible if there is a history of it being spammed into Wikipedia articles and all other options are exhausted. Linking to copyright violations is not allowed, as this can be considered contributory copyright infringement, but this is apparently not grounds for blacklisting. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 14:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've renamed the banned table, seeing as we now have a unique situation of 1 blacklisted and 1 banned by the project only. Hopefully that will remove confusion and allegations of ESCKax being blacklisted when they are not exactly that, just that they have been banned by the project.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 15:13, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What do we do with their sources that have been used prior to this revelation? For example, they have been used on Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2015 to cite the confirmation of Belarus. Do we remove that citation and the content relating to it, due to the fact we don't know if the information has been "copied" from elsewhere?  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 15:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Wesley, that makes the situation much clearer now. I think gently phasing out ESCKaz references in good time, on a case-by-case basis, is the best way forward. I would have thought in almost all cases, ESCKaz references will be replaceable with other sources, but if necessary, dependent content should be removed as well. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 16:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll add something about this to the next newsletter too, so everyone is aware. Be interesting to see what ESCKaz said in their emails too. Has anyone read their legal notice? All copyrights of material belongs solely to them. So their "plagiarised content" that was from us, now belongs to them? Er, I don't think so some how. Do you think we need to raise this issue higher on the Wikipedia chain of command? Especially when they are now inviting us to take legal action?  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 17:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, their legal notice appears to suggest they have put a lot of thought into the subject, which makes this apparent ignorance on their part rather surprising. Though, I would point out that given that the server of the website appears to be physically hosted in Germany, the website is primarily under the jurisdiction of Germany, not Kazakhstan. As for third-party help, there appears to be plenty of places to go if you want to deal with a copyright violations in Wikipedia content, but very little for dealing with violations of Wikipedia content. I think we'll all agree that going to WP:ANI etc. is a waste of time. If we a reach a dead end, then the Wikimedia Foundation might be able to help – their Legal and Community Advocacy Department has plenty of experience in this area. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 18:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the e-mails, Pickette. Would you be happy if I sent a copy of the e-mails to Wesley as well? I've given them a read and my general conclusion is that he knows he has been caught and is trying to throw us off by responding with lawyering which is really well dressed-up nonsense. I don't think any more can be achieved by communicating with him, so the next step is to go to his website hosts directly. I'll see what I can do. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 17:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure you can share them. And I agree with the conclusion you drew from them. He just doesn't want to admit that he came to Wikipedia and copied the text. Pickette (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

This draws back to something I mentioned a while ago now, in regards to the perspective of Wikipedia by the general public. We, as Wikipedians, know it is a free online encyclopaedia; with written content based on reliable sources which in turn verify what we have written. However, the general public appears to be viewing Wikipedia as a website in its own right and not just an encyclopaedia - and perhaps with some average John Doe's (I do like that CSI term) viewing us as a primary source of published news. It would explain how all this with ESCKaz may have occurred, especially if they are seeing us as a news source rather than an encyclopaedic source of "other published news sources". Is there anything that we may be able to do to turn that viewpoint around?  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 19:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid my e-mail to the address I have for you has bounced on two attempts. Have you changed your e-mail address? Please feel free to e-mail me your new one or share it via Facebook.


 * I agree that is how many in the general public view us, though I don't think that's the case with this individual. He seems to be using our status as non-original source of news (i.e. a tertiary source) as a stick to beat us with and justify copying our content without providing attribution. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 22:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh I must have forgotten to update my emailing address on here. Will look into that now. I'll ping you on Facebook with my email address.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 22:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for forwarding those emails, and to  for allowing this to happen. I have had a very good read at all the correspondences and seem to pick up on a potential confusion on Andy Mikheev's part.  Pickette has explained to Andy that we have to write in our own words what a source has published to avoid the copyright policy. But Andy is viewing this explanation as meaning what we write is brand new facts, which would go against no original research.  Mikheev's comments come across as if we are writing brand new facts "in our own words", rather than writing already published fact, but "in our own words".  For example:
 * A source published "ABC are the first three letters in the alphabet". If we were to write the same, then we'd have breached copyrights, yet if we wrote "A is followed by B and then C in the alphabet" we would have written in our own words what a source as published.  Yet if we wrote "ABC are the first three letters in the alphabet" first and no other source has, then that would be original research in "our own words".
 * Mikheev's misunderstanding of the contextual definition of "own words" is what has caused all the confusions within the email correspondences. Perhaps if we simplified that "own words" has two meanings, then he will understand that yes we write in our own words what source(s) have published, but do not write content in our own words that would be original and unsourced. And hopefully he will then understand that what they have copied from us is indeed a violation of copyrights. Pickette, if you wish to put it across to Andy Mikheev in this way, then feel free to copy any of my comments and send them to him.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 23:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * To put it simple. There are two meanings to "own words" and it feels Andy Mikheev is getting confused by the two.
 * Own words – original and never before published content.
 * Own words – of already published content to avoid copyright violations.
 * Andy is under the impression we are doing the first, and challenging the copyright ownership complaint based on that perspective. What he needs to understand is we have to do the second because of copyrights. He is then copying those said "own words" which becomes plagiarism; and it is that what we are challenging, not copyrights.  Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 23:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think he was confused because he started bringing up compilation copyright. I provided him two text comparison examples between his site and Wikipedia that were nearly identical so if he didn't get it then, I don't think continuing to email him will achieve any progress in my opinion. By the way, I think someone else should take over the emailing in the future because I don't think he considers me as a credible person to be carrying out this kind of dialogue on behalf of Wikipedia. Pickette (talk) 23:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I had indeed picked up on the "compilation copyright" context and took that into account with the "own words" and "no original research" remarks he also made. That's what got me to the potential misunderstanding that "own words" can have two meanings, and he seemed to come across as thinking we are claiming "own words" as in "original published source"; rather than "own words" due to our copyvio rules. Technically our "own words" based on published facts would be compilation copyright, because we are compiling the facts of multiple sources and writing them in our own words. Whereas he has directly copied what we have written - so in effect he also is violating "compilation copyrights" too.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 23:49, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * To be honest I don't know what to think. I think Wesley has made a legitimate interpretation, but my cynical side wonders if we're being toyed with here. I'm happy to take over making e-mails to him and I might as well point out what Wesley has said and see how it goes. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 15:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm in favour of that action, Chris, if you wish to take over the email situation. Plus it might be better as Andy Mikheev will be in direct contact with an admin (seeing as that was one of the things he moaned about). Feel free to carbon copy me in them if you wish. It may be possible that we are being toyed with, and having caution on that is wise and logical. However, also take into account that he may also be getting confused with the "own words" meaning. If he continues to say we are violating compilation copyright, then point out to him that by ESCKaz copying our content that they would in effect also be copying that said "compilation copyright" text too.  Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 11:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Just a note that I haven't forgotten about this. I plan to draft a politely worded letter on the issues we have discussed and to send it to ESC Kaz while CCing you both in. I'm going to try to cut to the point and keep it simple. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 16:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking over. Hopefully things get resolved. Pickette (talk) 00:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've finally finished the e-mail and sent it, and I've copied you both in. I think giving it a short cooling off period was a good idea anyway. As you will see, I've decided to go in gently and have avoided making any strong demands. I've also (re-)explained a few things with the theme of showing things from our point of view while trying to stay on point. It'll be interesting to see what reply I get. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 18:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've received a reply, which I've forwarded to you both. Unfortunately, while the message is quite detailed, it amounts to little more than repetition. He keeps referencing complimation copyright, and though I'm not a copyright expert, I still know enough to seriously question his analysis. Wikipedia articles are original works in their own right and are protected by copyright. It is nonsense to suggest that one may copy an article word-for-word, make a few alterations here and there, and then not have to worry about copyright violations – any similarity is a potential violation. I think we have three options as it stands:


 * Just let it go and keep ESC Kaz on the banned sources list.
 * Continue to argue with ESC Kaz about the issue via e-mail.
 * Contact the Wikimedia Foundation's Legal and Community Advocacy Department for assistance.


 * Option one is the easiest, though it has some obvious downsides. I'm not in favour of option two as it seems very unlikely that he will ever acknowledge any violation of copyright law on his site (whether true or otherwise), no matter how well we try and explain our position. Option three is a real possibility, as the WMF are used to dealing with this sort of thing and would probably be able to clarify the legal situation for us. We would need to present fresh and clear evidence to them though. Any thoughts? CT Cooper · &#32;talk 20:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I've had a read of the emails, and Andy's reply seem to be petty and slightly aggressive in tone. For example has refused to present to us her proper legal contacts that would help to proceed to more official consideration of her claims. The wording sounds like they want to challenge Pickette and take the matter to court. Can they even do that?  Anyhow, the options above, I like the first; the second would be like chasing our own tails and getting no where; the third would be a good option - and if Andy is serious about legal action, then I'm sure the WMF would throw in their weight and soccer-punch him to Kingdom Come. What fresh evidence would be required in the event we were to go down the WMF route?  Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 16:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree. I guess he could sue for libel but I suspect that's a non-starter, particularly given that the e-mails he takes exception to have been mostly kept private. I'm open to both options one and three at this point. For option three, we'll need to present clear and current violations on the ESC Kaz site so the WMF can see that we're raising a legitimate complaint. I'm going to give as chance to weigh in before taking any action though. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 18:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your effort CT Cooper. I think option one is the best way to go for now. Hopefully confronting ESCKaz with this matter will deter them from doing this in the future. I haven't seen any evidence of them copying text since notifying them about the issue so we can perhaps revisit this next year if the problem continues. Pickette (talk) 19:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I think just keeping them banned but having an eye on them is a sensible way forward. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 19:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox ABU country merged into Template:Infobox Eurovision country
As part of the restructuring above, Template:Infobox ABU country has been merged into Template:Infobox Eurovision country. --  <span style="color:#000;font-family:SwissMad, Arial;">axg //  ✉  ]] ''' 21:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Rosa López
Hi, I'm using wikipedia in Spanish.

The article of the singer Rosa López in Spanish is "good article" and would be nice to be transferred to the English wikipedia. Just be needed to translate because this completely in refenrecias, pictures etc ...

Now that will participate in the Eurovision Song Contest's Greatest Hits would be nice that is in order to give information to people they get the article to know the singer once they see the concert.

I can not help you since no English.

Greetings from Spain.--El hobbit Guisen (talk) 18:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Please respond to the reply left for you at Talk:Rosa López. Thank you.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 18:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, but I can not, so I ask for help so that others can do.--El hobbit Guisen (talk) 19:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * That's fine, but it should be done in a sandbox or a similar venue. Importing a machine translation straight into a Wikipedia article without review is never appropriate, even if the intention is for others to fix it up later. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 23:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Are you working in Article I proposed ?. It would be nice that was finished before it hits the concert's 60th anniversary. You only have to translate from Spanish Wikipedia to inglesia and little else ...--El hobbit Guisen (talk) 18:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I think you m ay need to learn a little something about Wikipedia - there is no deadline to get a job done, or in this case an article worked on. Everything takes time, and to do a simple "machine translation" is not allowed. Please let editors take their time to carry out the work that is required. or  are either of you able to help here?  Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 18:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Restructuring
Following on from the discussions that took place 2 weeks ago on the project, regarding haphazard methods and the need to review a restructuring debate into recategorisation, template review, article layout review, etc. I have therefore opened up this "all-in-one" RfC with the aim to try and cover everything at once. Feel free to comment on any areas, and provide any improvement suggestions. Thank you.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 10:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Categorisation
Discussion on our categorisation procedure. Do we have too many? Do we need more? Could some be merged or reorganised better? Please add your comments below.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 22:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Templates
Discussion on our templates procedure. Do we have too many? Do we need more? Could some be merged or reorganised better? Could templates such as Infobox ABU Radio and similar ones be merged into a "all-in-one" type template that would have parameters that allows us to have one template used across the different contests which fall under our scope, and avoid the need to have separate ones for ABU, Intervision, Turkvizyon, Eurovision, etc... Please add your comments below.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 22:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

We have a lot of infobox templates that could probably be recreated into an "all-in-one" version that is flexible and used across all the different kinds of contests this project looks after:
 * Infobox ABU country and Infobox Eurovision country could possible become an all-in-one Infobox Song Contest country.
 * The new universal template has been created. All related versions have been merged and moved to Infobox song contest country. ✅  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 17:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Infobox ABU Radio, Infobox ABU TV, and Infobox Eurovision could possible become an all-in-one Infobox Song Contest.
 * The new universal template has been created. All related versions have been merged and moved to Infobox song contest. ✅  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 17:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Infobox Cân i Gymru National Year and Infobox ESC National Year could become an all-in-one Infobox Song Contest National Year.
 * The new universal template has been created. All related versions have been merged and moved to Infobox song contest national year. ✅  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 17:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Infobox ESC entry could be improved to an all-in-one Infobox Song Contest entry.
 * The new universal template has been created. All related versions have been merged and moved to Infobox song contest entry. ✅  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 17:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Any ideas how these could be merged into an all-in-one version, and would it make life simpler?  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 23:15, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think all of these should indeed be merged. They are literally the same thing. Wouldn't the addition of a field to one main template that allows identification of the contest in question be the solution to this? I don't know much about merging or creating templates so if there are legitimate reasons about why this shouldn't be done then please let me know. Pickette (talk) 14:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not that technically minded to be able to play around with such complex syntax; and I even had to seek the help from when it came to doing similar coding changes for the Escyr templates.  To have a universal infobox, we are going to need to decide what should be included, in what order it should be listed.  And then we have the issue of rolling them out across hundreds of articles.  No doubt such action would get left to a single-individual to rollout, as usual.   Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 15:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Accusations of canvassing
Note These templates were already being discussed at TfD. Wesley Mouse stated this section in attempt to close down that discussion. I collapsed, it, but (s)he has reverted me. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Factual note Firstly Wes (short for Wesley) is clearly a male name, so  do not offend  me by referring to me as "she".  Secondly you "collapsed" the entirety of this thread that is covering not just templates, but other issues too - so I had not "reverted" per se, but restored a multi-purpose RfC that you forced to close in an attempt to get your own way.  Thirdly, I have NOT started this in an attempt to close down your piecemeal TfD's (which has been noted above).  If you actually took a little more time in your actions and researched, you will have noticed this project has been discussing templates and such for the past 2 frigging weeks at .  Learn to read before casting bullish accusations.  Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 17:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Additional note: This is not the first time that the above-named user has attempted to mass-nominate Project ESC templates. The same was done in March 2014.  Clear signs of "not liking the outcome" are evident for the fact the templates are re-nominated 9 months later using the same rationale as before (which for the record resulted in the templates being kept). I would appreciate if the user peacefully refrained from participation here, as their behaviour is causing distress and more harm than good.   Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 17:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Your claims here are both untrue, as any fool can see; and constitute further canvassing, about which you have already been warned. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:48, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you even know the definition of the word canvass? Clearly not.  My claims are untrue?  Er let's see "These templates were already being discussed at TfD. Wesley Mouse stated this section in attempt to close down that discussion. I collapsed, it, but (s)he has reverted me." You definitely referred to me as "she" - fact!.  And this thread alone is not canvassing, it is a continuation of something that was promised 2 weeks ago at .  You clearly do not like the fact that it has been proven a debate has been ongoing for the last 2 weeks.  You've mass-nominated piecemeal TfD's.  Did you even read the comments from the admin above and the stern telling off you were given for "digging-up" archived material that had no face value.  Crawl back in your hole and leave the project to sort its own active messes.   Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 17:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Andy and Wesley, this really has gone on long enough. I really don't want this to escalate to ANI, and I don't think anyone else does either. Yes the canvassing by Wesley was inappropriate, and many of his responses have been needlessly inflammatory. For example, clearly calling someone "(s)he" is common on Wikipedia as some don't like the singular they and there are plenty of females with male sounding usernames and vice versa. Using "(s)he" is not malicious, and at worse should result in a polite note that one wishes to be referred to as "he" or "she". That said, let him who is without sin cast the first stone. Going through someone's talk page archives to find some dirt to use on them is highly inappropriate – Wesley had a legitimate grievance there which should have at least been acknowledged. Also saying that starting this RfC constitutes "shutting down" the TfDs has little basis in fact. A discussion on the overall strategy with templates should be allowed to take place, and then this followed-up at existing or future TfD nomination. All should be welcome to participate in these discussions. So can we agree to a cease fire and move on? CT Cooper · &#32;talk 20:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * For the record, I think it's fair to point out that there was no previous ongoing discussion about these templates during the past two weeks. I don't even think these templates would be under discussion today had they not been nominated for merging. Pickette (talk) 20:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your good-faith intervention. However, you seem to be lacking some of the important facts. The response to someone who blatantly canvasses (which can include immediate and indefinite blocks) depends on whether or not they've done it before. It was therefore entirely legitimate to look at his talk page archives for prior warnings (not "dirt"); and he has no "legitimate grievance". I said that this RfC was an attempt to close down the TfDs. Wesley has explicitly and repeatedly asked that the TfDs be shut down specifically because of this new discussion ("Request to postpone TfD so that the discussions can conclude "; " Admin closure of these should be taken to allow the active project discussion to conclude its course" - both on the 6 Dec TfD page).  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I stand by my analysis. Digging things up, if it has to be done, is for ANI or another user conduct venue, not for a content based discussion, where it will do nothing but cause bad feeling and turn it into a mudslinging contest. Also if users insist on going through people's talk page archives, they should familiarise themselves with the full facts of the matters they review before passing judgement, as talk page discussions are often missing important context. I happen to be familiar with what happened in the year-and-a-half old discussion you cited and the accusations of canvassing by Welsey in that incidence were not justified. In this incidence they were justified, but there's still been a lot of exaggeration which has achieved nothing but added fuel to the fire. Wesley's notifications were clearly non-neutral, but they were public and openly disclosed, and some of the offending content has been struck, so this was far from the most serious incident of canvassing in Wikipedia history. It was for an uninvolved admin to decide what action to take, but I would suspect at worse a firm warning would be given – a block was not likely, and an indefinite block was out of the question.
 * Welsey has the liberty to request the closure of any XfD, and in this case he asked for the TfDs to be postponed while the discussion here takes place, so at worst he was trying to move the discussion from one place or another. He did not engage in an edit war to achieve that, so there has been no violation of Wikipedia policy by him on this issue. It is unlikely that his request will be accepted, but he is not trying to "shut down" all discussions on the templates, and implying otherwise is not helpful. The tragic irony is here that there is close to a consensus on merging the templates, only the details need to be worked out, so there is no reason for this feud to have occurred. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 18:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The accusations of canvassing by Welsey in that incident may indeed have been not justified; but since I made no claim that they were, your comment is a straw man fallacy (as is your comment about edit warring); I merely cited them as evidence that Wesley was aware of the concept (in the Wikipedia sense) of canvassing. Furthermore, while it is true that he is at liberty to ask for any TfD to be closed, I was pointing out the falsehood of the claim that he had not done so. WP:CANVASS makes no exclusion for canvassing which is "public and openly disclosed" (indeed, it prohibits "hidden" canvassing separately), not subsequently struck (though f course still easily readable). Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Your point that you were intending to point out that Wesley was aware of what canvassing was is noted, though I still question whether it is appropriate to dig through people's archives for a content discussion. It would also have been helpful if you had make that clear earlier rather than allowing things to escalate, as any reasonable person might have interpreted your citing of that old discussion in a post accusing Wesley of canvassing as suggesting that Wesley has a history of canvassing. As for straw man fallacies, you've just made one. I worded my comments carefully and explicitly stated that Wesley had violated the WP:CANVASS guideline, for which I am familiar with. I never said at any point that it "makes exclusions" for publicly and openly disclosed notifications, I just said the fact that Wesley did openly disclose the notifications made the issue far less serious than was being portrayed. Or to put it another way with legal terminology, openly disclosing canvassing is not a defence but it is a mitigating factor, as it shows there was no intent to manipulate discussions in a covert manner. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 18:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, I don't think trawling through someone's talk page archives is a legitimate reason for anything, unless of course if such discussion were taking place via a admin noticeboard - which to me would make perfect sense for such action and searching to be taken. The thread that was used had nothing to do with canvassing as such, nor did it provide any evidence that I am a "serial canvasser" (which is being alleged here). When the entire discussion that took place 18 months ago is read in full, then it becomes very clear that it as not about canvassing whatsoever. Also further allegations of canvassing were made at the TfD discussion thread; but the "links" do not even demonstrate canvassing. The first linked to something entirely different, which I'm sure even who was part of that discussion would confirm it was not canvassing, but a response to their question. The second doesn't even show signs of canvassing. It clearly shows a notation of something entirely different. These allegations of canvassing need to stop, like Chris said, they are just fuelling up a fire that is easily avoidable.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 13:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It might also want to be noted that there are ArbCom sanctions and am indefinite ban regarding infoboxes (although the wording of such enforcements are rather vague). See Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive147, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes, Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing, Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2, and Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive802.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 04:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Assessment
Looking at the importance scale on our assessment, maybe this is also worth a review? What should be deemed as being of low, mid, high, and top importance?  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 13:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've always assessed importance as follows: Top (main articles like the overall contest page), High (contests by year and country participation overviews/summaries), Mid (country participations by year), Low (singer and song articles). Grk1011 (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Project scope
Anything else that could do with a review by the project? Its scope: are we covering too much? Would a task force be better to cover non-Eurovision?  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 13:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The OGAE contests are covered in way too much detail. I've raised concerns about this before. OGAE is a fan club and the results of each and everyone of their contests is quite irrelevant and really don't hold any kind of real significance in the world of Eurovision. Pickette (talk) 14:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * OGAE has been discussed at (above), and is still waiting for members to actively participate in the debate.   Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 15:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Article layout
Article layout: do we need to review the layout again? I have noticed the country by year ones (especially the 2014 for Austria and Netherlands) have a lot of good work done and the layout is superb. Should we follow the same layout across all country by year articles?  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 13:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We should wait and see the results of the GA nominations before considering changing the layouts. I agree the layouts are nice however. Discussions in the past pointed out that layouts for these articles will be different depending on the type of selection though. Pickette (talk) 14:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that we're ultimately pending the GA review so that we have a rough idea what to be aiming for. But I think the main structure that has been used would work across the board, regardless of the selection process used.  Having a 1) Lead; 2) Background; 3) Before Eurovision; 4) At Eurovision; 5) After Eurovision; and thus allows us to go into sub-topics in the "Before Eurovision" section dependant on the selection of entry.  The main headers would provide a main backbone. And as we know each country does things differently, we would be able to detail such content within sub-headers and be placed into a corresponding main "backbone" header, that suits it best.  For example; the "Before Eurovision" could house "National selection" or "Internal selection" as a sub-header; the main header would also enable us to add information on how the entry was promoted etc.  At Eurovision would enable us to mention the entry at the contest, and the voting etc.  After Eurovision allows us to mention "what happened next" kind of thing.  An article in theory is like a book, it needs a start, a middle, and an end.

Makes sense to me anyway.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 15:15, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The lead is like reading the back of the book that gives brief insight into what the book is about.
 * "Background" would be like a prologue.
 * "Before Eurovision" would be the beginning.
 * "At Eurovision" would be the middle.
 * "After Eurovision" would be the end.

Crimea is a part of Russia
. Thanks. ← Alex Great talkrus? 14:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have commented. Commons is not the place to resolve content disputes. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 15:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * with all due respect, but I don't wish to comment on the deletion request at Commons. If I were to comment, then people may see the fact you asked me as being canvassing.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 15:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As long as the notification is transparent and neutral, which this is, that shouldn't be a problem. I've already demonstrated that this notice can attract people with various takes on the issue to the discussion. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 16:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * the notice here is neutral, I agree. However, the wording at Commons which reads "@Wesley Mouse, AxG: what do you think about it?" may be perceived to some as canvassing, especially if I were to comment. I'm just airing on caution, especially when I've had canvassing accusations thrown at me in the past. Commons:Offsite discussion states that "mentioning current issues offsite can have an advertising effect, bringing in users who would not otherwise have seen the issue. If done deliberately, this would be considered canvassing". Seeing as I rarely visit Commons or even participate in discussions over there (on average twice a year), then the admins at Commons may see the fact that I have been personally named in pinged format on Commons and here, could well be seen as trying to get me to throw my weight into the ring.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 17:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I can understand that. I don't think there's very much more that can be added to the discussion at this point anyway. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 22:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I have no issues with the user uploading a map, as long as the user does not change existing maps that we use. --  <span style="color:#000;font-family:SwissMad, Arial;">axg //  ✉  ]] ''' 19:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's my position as well. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 22:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)