Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision/Archive 17

Possible removal of English translations for future editions
I'd like to suggest that we discuss the possibility of getting rid of the "English translation" field in the Results tables for the semifinals and finals of at least future Eurovision editions. Having the English translation makes perfect sense for older editions where either the big majority had song titles not in English, and even for slightly more recent Eurovisions where sometimes at least half of the entries did. However, as the big majority of entries have titles in English these days, I'm questioning whether it's really justifiable to keep it? For the 2016 edition, there were only 3 entries in total that had titled in another language, meaning that the "English translation field" is blank for the other entries. In the second semifinal there wasn't even a single song that made use of that field. And it's been quite similar in other recent years. The translations are definitely of interest to wikipedia readers, but they're also usually also available on the individual song pages, so it seems like it may just take up unnecessary space on the main Eurovision page of a year. Especially when it's mostly left blank. If we were to get rid of it, it would also mean there'd be room to include other information. Information that would possibly be of higher interest, and that would be applicable to all entries rather than only a few. One of those things would be to include the names of the songwriters representing each country (possibly as a collapsible list to avoid too much text). In theory they are just as much participants as the singers are, and we already took the step to include them in the Infobox for the entries on their individual pages. Or we could add the name of the broadcaster (which in reality is the actual participant, not the country). Or just not add any new field at all. Anyway, I thought I'd put the idea out there. I apologize if it's already been discussed in the past. But I'm keen to hear your thoughts about this. Zouki08 (talk) 14:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * unfortunately this proposal is not going to gain ground. This is English Wikipedia, so we have a mandatory obligation, per Naming conventions (use English), to provide English translation for any songs that are not in English. It does not matter if a contest only has 3 songs that are not in English, the "English translation" column is a requirement we must provide. If ever there is a contest where all songs are in English, then that would be treated as an individual case. But a blanket removal will never go ahead.  Wes Mouse  T@lk 18:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll go into the flawed points of this proposal in more detail, as to why it would not work. Firstly, we should not expect every reader to click on the song title link in order to discover the English translation. That is not helpful, as we are to assume that the general reader wants a quick reference area, rather than waste time clicking back and forth between articles. Secondly, a column for songwriters would get very messy and overcrowded with information; and it is impossible to have such a column to be collapsed, whilst the remaining columns are visible. As for the broadcaster being the "actual participant, not the country", well that is factually incorrect. If we're to be picky on that aspect then the singer is the actual participant representing their country for whom the national broadcaster is a member of the EBU.
 * That aside, as I said above we have a naming convention and manual of style to strictly follow and are ob obligation to provide an English translation column, regardless of whether there are 1 or 11 songs not in English.  Wes Mouse  T@lk 18:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree about the removal of the field itself on a case-basis such as the 2016 edition, however with keeping those few translations in parentheses and in a row under the song's original title. I found a featured article dealing with pieces titles in German, which actually only gives an English translation to the last title in this table: . As you can see, it does so with adding the English meaning within parentheses to the side of the German title. So I can suggest, for example, that whenever there are 3 needed translations or less on the semi finals smaller tables, and 5 translations or less on the bigger final tables, the translation can be added within parentheses under. This way it follows providing the translation on the annual articles with a slight down-expansion and solely for those specific "title" square spaces, instead of big inflation to the side of the same column as well as instead of the entire dedicated "English" column which, as you say, is mostly left blank. There was this ad hoc discussion as well, with my view expressed there: . It was opened with the same concern as yours but with varied views, so it's good you keep discussing this and it will benefit to look also there to see the former inputs. אומנות (talk) 11:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * OK. I wasn't aware that Wikipedia had such strict rules about always providing English translations. It seems rather superfluous in cases like these as one wouldn't expect that a translation of a song title is normally that important to most people, but if that's the mandatory obligation then of course we need to stick with that. As for your comment regarding the broadcasters, the Eurovision Song Contest is a competition where broadcasters select an entry to represent them, unlike the common belief that it's a country that selects and entry to represent them. That's what my point was, sorry if I didn't explain it better. But I however do disagree about the singers being the actual participants though. It's the songs. Throughout its history there's been numerous mentions during the shows of how it's the song that are competing rather than the singers. These days there's certainly more focus on the singer than there was 50 years ago, but it doesn't mean it's a singing competition rather than a song competition. Wikipedia has a certain responsibility to makes sure that we phrase things correctly regarding that aspect. E.g. like at the Country/Year pages of each entry we're usually mentioning the song as the entry, and the artist as the singer performing the song. Zouki08 (talk) 19:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, Wikipedia has strict rules on a wide variety of issues, and to be honest some of them are rather silly and unhelpful. Indeed there will be occasions where the entire table of a semi-final will comprise of English songs - and in cases like this then yes the English translation column could be removed as it is not serving a purpose (so semi-final 2 table on ESC2016 could be removed). But on tables where there may be 1 or 2 songs that require translation, then the English column would be required. I'm not overly enthusiastic at the suggestion of using parentheses under the foreign language song title. Primarily because the average reader would assume that is also part of the song title, and we would then be breaching another rule on factual presentation of content. Something which I would have thought the other user above would have been fully aware of by now. We would end up with the strict rule abiding Wikipdians placing Not English-inline across sections of the articles. Using Erschallet, ihr Lieder, erklinget, ihr Saiten! BWV 172 as an example does not relate to Eurovision topics. That article is about church cantata, it is not about a contest of songs.  Wes Mouse  T@lk 07:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I've got a couple of appointments today. But when I get home and have a spare moment, I will contact a user at the Wikipedia Guild and see if they have an suggestions around this matter. I may even play around with a couple of test ideas within my sandbox to see if there is a way to improve this. We do need to be consistent as such changes would impact not just Eurovision articles, but also Junior Eurovision, Turkvision, ABU Song Festivals etc. And with this project having well over 6000 articles is a mammoth task to be undertaking.  Wes Mouse  T@lk 07:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Readers able to read through content on the English Wikipedia also comprehend the discussed titles as foreign when encountering them within an article. So my view and the featured article case I brought, is that the average reader tells them apart from their English naming in parentheses, in addition to the column we have for stating the songs language. If stating on one hand that we must provide explanation that this is an English translation, then it applies to this featured article above dealing with the same issue, instead of isolating Eurovision topics with similar issues; something I thought you are aware of by now and precisely as you wrote at the start there are general Encyclopedic rules to abide. With that (and again with the featured article example as well as other featured foreign-albums articles not giving translations to songs details), I didn't see a rule stating there must be a separate English column for a foreign title. From what I read over "naming conventions", it deals with a one-preferred way to present a specific name, while this is about if and how to present additional translations to an already determined titles in other languages. So if I missed something there, I would like to see and learn about a link to this policy dealing with added translations, or if indeed a guild copyeditor can comment here, that will be great as well.
 * Regardless, since I support the importance of showing English translation, I did thought about adding "(English:...)" within the parentheses to eliminate any chance of confusion; the same way it is done in a primary definition of subjects with a foreign etymology. This seems to be a simple solution. Zouki08, I would like to know what you also think about this. As for your songwriters suggestion, I didn't have a gathered view so I didn't comment earlier. I agree with you about their importance, as they are recognized just as the singers are. However, there can be songs with a bunch of songwriters. I once suggested to show a table explaining briefly about countries preparations for the contest on annual articles, in which songwriters and broadcasters details can be placed. After all, broadcasters of non-participating countries are mentioned on annual articles, so it seems appropriate to show the participating broadcasters. Other than that, what I can suggest for the existing table is to list songwriters under each other (just as my suggestion for cases with few songs requiring translations). אומנות (talk) 11:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I think the parentheses is a decent idea, but just like, I can see some problems with it. It could end up a bit messy with all that information in one field. And there could indeed be some confusion regarding if the title within the parenthesis is part of the title or not. Especially in cases where the official title is already including a parenthesis. Or, even worse, in cases like the Spanish entry in 2011 where the official title, as it appeared on screen during Eurovision, was actually "Que Me Quiten Lo Bailao - They Can't Take Away The Fun From Me". But I'm far from against the idea either. Maybe if the translation appearing within the parenthesis is also written in Italics, or in some other way that distinguishes it from the official title of the song? I also wonder, is there any way to make an entire column of a table hidden, and only appearing if one clicks a header or something? It would be perfect if the English translation column could remain just as it is, but not be automatically visible. That way the article would fulfill the requirement of having an English translation, but it wouldn't take up as much unnecessary space in the tables.Zouki08 (talk) 16:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * And yes, if there was a field for songwriters, it would have to be done in a way where we can be sure there won't need to be five-six names appearing in each field. Because it would either take up a lot of space. Or if they appear underneath each other, it would make each table be very long, and the rows for some countries would be a lot wider than others. Hence why I originally suggested it would be a collapsible list of songwriters, only appearing if the user clicks "Show" or something... but if that's not possible to do, as said, then I don't know what other alternative there would be. Even if we show just surnames, the list could end up very long. Another option would maybe be if each annual page had a section with a table showing more detailed information for each entry. Appearing somewhere underneath the main ones (and hidden until the reader clicks "Show"), which could include all the additional information such as broadcaster, songwriters, conductor (for older years) etc. Zouki08 (talk) 16:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * , I also thought more deeply about songs which already include parenthesis as I looked at the 2016 ESC and saw Serbia's song: . You can see that the name of the song - "Goodbye (Shelter)" includes quotation marks "..." for the parenthesis as well, as well as it is colored in blue since the Eurovision songs are linked. This is while the translations (on the English translation column) are black as unlinked and without "...". So it's further separating between the display of the original titles - quotation marks, color and as a line beneath to expand the space down instead of to the sides; and with my added suggestion of putting "English:", it seems clear enough to me. So this is just something more I wanted to share, especially as you refered to other means of separation when you addressed this for my request. If that won't be accepted eventually, then I'm sorry but I feel that translations are very valuable to show on annual articles so I can't support removing them altogether... As for your comment: "It could end up a bit messy with all that information in one field", I just want to clarify that I meant in cases of less than 3 foreign titles fields (in semi-finals) and 5 (in final tables) as I suggested for example above. If you still feel the field itself can be messy that is another issue.
 * As for the songwriters field in a different table, your idea seems parallel in some aspects to my former suggestion - which was based on briefly describing countries preparations/selections method, and then adding alongside that column of broadcasters and songwriters and other such details. So I hope that this, or another way, can be found to solve this as well. If done on the existing song's able, I strongly go with placing their names underneath each other - again to expand the square-space down instead of to the sides. That is as I also remember some songs indeed having 5 or 6 songwriters, although not a many of them. As for having a column hidden within revealed columns, I'm sorry but I don't know if this exists. I never encountered such a display. אומנות (talk) 17:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * You're absolutely right. The quotation marks and the fact that the official title is linked, while the translation won't be, definitely makes it a lot easier to distinguish the title from the translation. Thanks for pointing that out. And in that case I don't think adding "English:" at the start of the parenthesis will be necessary. It would just add unnecessary extra text that would take up space, and I think that from the context people will realise it's the English translation. So I think this could be a pretty good way of doing this, for annual pages with very few non-English titles. It would be interesting to try this for the 2016 page and see what it looks like. The only other option I could think of would be to add a * after each non-English title and then have the translation underneath the table. But I think the parenthesis idea might work better.Zouki08 (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * And moving on to the songwriter (plus broadcaster etc) fields. I guess this is kind of a separate discussion now, and maybe we should create a new thread for this? Anyhow, I like your idea of having some place on the annual page including mentions of the selection method as well. Did you have in mind a short descriptive text about each country's method, or just mentioning the national final or other process? (I.e. "Slovenia: EMA 2017. San Marino: Internal selection" etc). I suppose it would be under some kind of headline called "Detailed Entry Information" then? And it wouldn't necessarily need to be separate ones for each semifinal and the final, but possible just one table/list for all 40-ish countries? Similar to the ones we use before the draw has been made. Zouki08 (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

There is a way around the songwriters information, well from 2000 onwards at least, as they would be incorporated into the official album sections (I'm sure there are parameters in the Track listing template that allows songwriters to be included). As for the parenthesis idea, I am still not overly convinced it will work, and would make the articles look unsightly messy. Each annual article will need to be reviewed on a case-by-case situation. Any tables that the songs are entirely in English would warrant the "English translation" column removed. I suppose those with a couple of not in English could be treated with the note template and footnote the translations at the bottom of the article. It is an improved suggestion and one that wouldn't be as messy as the parenthesis idea.  Wes Mouse  T@lk 09:30, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * After posting my comment above, I had one of them "Eureka!" moments, and remembered the 1988 winner Celine Dion. Having looked at her French album D'eux and also the featured article Celine Dion singles discography, it gave some inspiration as she has performed songs in various languages. They do not even provide a translation column. So perhaps we would be safe to omit such column across all annual articles. To implement such change is going to require a broader consensus from the project members, so that people know why the column has (or will have been) removed. Last thing we want is for one of us to remove the column, and someone else coming along and accusing us of vandalism.  Wes Mouse  T@lk 09:37, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * (added after an edit conflict):, I'm glad of course that you agree about the further differences between the display of the titles and their translation. The ("English":) was just a suggestion to try reassure from any confusion, also before I thought about the link and the quotations difference. However it can be a good idea to add "*" if we are going with this method. However, since there is also the concern raised of the field looking bit crowded (also without "English" if I understand correctly), I am adding 2 more possibilities: Inline footnotes - under specific songs table with very few foreign titles. An example can be seen on this 2015 final table with a note to the placing of Germany and Austria: ; even one joint footnote (if only 1-2 songs) can suffice to display the translated meaning. One more option: Display it at the prose above the table which will enrich the introductions to the semi-finals and final (where it says how many entries participates and who voted), which I think I personally actually prefer the most. These are overall the 3 other possibilities I gathered. BTW, on the same case-grounds I also apply those 3 for the language column.
 * Yea it can be great as well and easier to discuss the additional columns-info under a new thread, but just to answer your question - yes, I mean also in the style of "COUNTRY", "BROADCASTER", "SELECTION" (name of show or "internal"), "DATES" (overall period in case of a graduated process, like "20 February-12 March"), "SELECTION METHOOD" (like "4 quarter finals - 50 songs; 2 semi finals - 20 songs; final - 10 songs; super final - 3 songs", also in rows underneath each other) and "REPRESANTATIVE SONGWRITERS" (underneath each other). This also allows incorporation of the non-participating countries and their broadcasters at the continuation of such table, or on a separate table. Something similar was done a long time ago at the old ESC articles. So this is my view for this.אומנות (talk) 09:54, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't mind having the footnote at the bottom of the article instead of as an inline footnote, however I personally prefer to incorporate it at the prose, as the other suggestion I gave. And while I also encountered featured articles without translations as I referred to above, I still tend to support keeping the translations in some way or another at the annual articles. אומנות (talk) 10:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Really footnotes are suppose to be at the bottom of an article, per WP:FNNR, which all manual of styles must be followed. If we were to aim at getting one of these articles to featured status, then the reviewer would be xplicite and state the footnotes need to be moved to the bottom under the section "Notes and References" in order to comply with FA criteria. So the Austria/Germany example has actually been incorrectly laid-out and does not comply with the manual of style policies. And I like how you credit yourself with footnote idea, when I was the one who came up with it first. But this is not about stealing ideas, it is about improving articles and making life easier.  Wes Mouse  T@lk 10:28, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * If there's a possibility that it would be acceptable to not include translations at all, then that's definitely a possibility still worth considering. And since we're not in a hurry to implement these changes, we could easily wait to get a more general consensus. If we'd decide that it's the best option. To sum it up, the other options that seem doable are either the parenthesis-option or the footnote-option. (Though the footnotes may have to turn into just being an explanatory text underneath each table and not laid out as if they're actual footnotes, to avoid being forced to place them at the very end). I see pros and cons with all options... I think it would be worth considering whether each option would be convenient to use even for annual pages where more than just 3-4 songs have non-English titles too. There might be years where there are a total of ten songs not in English, and if the same system can be used for those, then that's even better. Because consistency wouldn't hurt. Also, if we do come up with a system that is applicable to every annual page (at least future ones) then we still have the option of adding another field as a replacement, if we want to. But we couldnt add something new to the tables if there'll only be space for it as long as there are very few non-English titles that year. In that case it's best to remove the English translation field from those annual pages, but not replace it with anything at all. Which at the moment seems like the most logical thing to do anyway, as we've not been able to come up with a good way of presenting i.e. the list of songwriters in a neat way in those tables. Zouki08 (talk) 11:48, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I do like the idea of a table with information about the selections, etc. Broadcaster/Selection name/Dates etc. Would this include the name of the artists as well once again, even though they're already mentioned in the other tables? Because if not, and it will mainly be information regarding the selection of the entry, then "Songwriters" seems a bit like the odd one out. As if it would rather belong in the main table of information, and not in the one concerning the selection process. However, if there's no way to include the names of the songwriters in the existing table, then I agree that it's good to at least have them mentioned in a possible selection process table. They deserve to be mentioned somewhere, one way or another. So if we cannot include them as a replacement for the English Translation field, I'm all in favour of doing it the way you suggested. Zouki08 (talk) 11:48, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * we have come up with a way to present the list of songwriters, and not within the tables either. From 2000 onwards there is the section for the official CD which uses Track listing, and that has a field to include songwriters. 1956-1999 on the otherhand would require further work. Footnotes should not be placed directly under the tables, per WP:FNNR, which is a manual of style rule. The note for Austria/Germany 2015 was as the bottom and I do not know why it was moved under the table, or who did it, and when it was done. But it should be placed back at the bottom of the article per Manual of Style/Layout. Even Manual of Style/Layout explicitly states footnotes go at the appendices section along with references. Manual of Style/Tables might be useful to look into for further help. The idea of looking for a replacement to fill a void is unacceptable. There is a policy somewhere on removing something only to pad it with other stuff as being unacceptable, and it was pointed out a while ago by an guide editor, but I cannot for the life of me find that policy.  Wes Mouse  T@lk 12:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I've just checked other language Wikipedia and they have a translation column too. So I'm guessing this is a mandatory Wikimedia thing and not just isolated to Wikipedia.  Wes Mouse  T@lk 12:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not entirely convinced that the compilation section is the best way to do it, as it has the potential to end up a bit cluttered. And it's also not the most natural place to chose to be the only place to display the names of people who are supposed to be seen as participants in the contest. But if we can't find another way, which seems to be the case, then it's better than nothing. It's worth trying it out to see what it'd look like. Zouki08 (talk) 13:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * As for footnotes, that's why I said it would have to be something else than a foot note. A short text underneath each table (or somewhere else?) that mentions the English translations of each entry (i.e. "Only two entries had titles not in English. Portugal's title "Quero ser tua" translates as "I want to be yours" and Montenegro's "Moj svijet" (Мој свијет) translates as "My world". Not ideal, but it would be a way of getting around the rules regarding footnotes. It could be done in a similar way as the "Returning artists" section even. (Which, speaking of, could probably be turned into Returning artists and songwriters)Zouki08 (talk) 13:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Wesley Mouse, unlike you I assume good faith that you didn't notice the opening "(added after an edit conflict)" - meaning I wrote my comment simultaneously to yours. That is just as my good faith assumption for your lack of attention to my direct comment to you yesterday about featured articles without translations (which you defined today specifically as your "Eureka moment") while yesterday you also insisted on a policy which requires "English column" and now jump to the other extreme of suggesting to remove all translations from all Eurovision articles... Not that I owe you any further explanations, but to reassure you, I thought about this comment already yesterday and started writing this today well before you posted yours; evident by 3 different connected-detailed proposals I gave, by content which solely followed Zouki08 comment, that afterwards I added another comment addressing yours, and the notice "edit conflict" with copy-pasting my entire comment from the "edit conflict" window, to not accidently delete yours. That is aside from the fact I have already came up with footnote suggestions for past discussions so it's really not new to me. Indeed as you said, "this is not about stealing ideas" because there was no "stealing" here, and as you said "this is about improving articles and make life easier", so start assuming good faith, discussing pleasantly, be happy that we both thought of a footnote option, and make life easier to others who try to have a pleasant discussion. With that, I also disagree about putting songwriters on album details.


 * Footnotes - I saw policies about stylizing bottom-footnotes but not a policy forbidding inline-footnotes, but I didn't look at the other manuals yet, however found further example with multitude inline-citations - Eurovision Song Contest 2012 tables. However, as I already wrote in relation to the previous comment, I don't have any issue with placing the footnote translation at the bottom of the articles but I'm still also with the option of displaying them in the introduction prose - that already exist above the tables. This is also for your suggesting-direction Zouki08 - as you refer to have a simple explanation underneath the table whereas I suggest an option of placing such explanation at the prose introduction.


 * Zouki08, Overall I remain against complete removal of all foreign titles from all Eurovision articles. As for songwriters, I don't oppose adding them at the existing songs table either, but yes I would like for a "further details" table. I agree with your view about equality between singers and songwriters. However I can also understand that since the singers appear on stage, they are more noticeable to the reader after he watched them, so I can also see the songwriters feat to a table detailing about countries organization - just as the songwriters organize the song.


 * Overall I also agree to wait some more because this needs more participants, and otherwise it would be good to open an RFC with different threads to put the proposals across again. אומנות (talk) 14:18, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Guys, I just tested if it would be possible to use collapsible lists to showcase the names of songwriters in the main table. And it was actually a lot easier than I thought it would be. Check out what I did in my Sandbox User:Zouki08/sandbox (I hope I managed to link to that properly). The column takes up hardly any extra space at all (so it could actually be used regardless if we keep or remove the English Translation column) and the names only appear when the user clicks "Show", so that the information is very easily accessible but doesn't give us a very long and cluttered table to begin with. So I think this looks pretty neat.
 * Alternatively, whenever there's only one songwriter on a song, the name could appear normally and without a collapsible list. Although that would make the table a lot wider. Anyway, I'm curious to hear your thoughts about this. Zouki08 (talk) 13:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Zouki08, regardless of the other issues with the translations and further info in certain cases, I think this looks good and I appreciate your work. Though, in my view also adding even few songwriters in the same square-space (written beneath each other) can be still added regularly-visibly as an additional column (as anyway there is the space taken with the "writer" and "show" script.אומנות (talk) 13:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * , do you mean simply showing all the names of the songwriters? Or just some of them? Look at the same link again, I added a table underneath the first one, where the names are visible underneath each other. In theory I think this would be the best option, i.e. to simply display all the names. But, for formatting purposes, I think it's difficult, and I can imagine it being difficult to get enough other editors to agree to such a change. Simply because it makes some entries take up a lot of "space" than others. Like now when Finland has five names listed, and Greece only one, it makes Greece just a very thin row while Finland gets a very big one. If there was a way to display all the names but still have each country's row be of the same height, that would be great. But I don't think there is? Zouki08 (talk) 16:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yea I mean showing all the names, objectively to my view, as you did with the bottom table on your sandbox; that is also as you also suggested on your previous comment (I forgot to address) that if there is only one songwriter - we can make it visible while keep few songwriters per country hidden. Also, according to your further suggestion to fully-show single songwriters per country - the width of the column will still be wider; this one space will increase the whole column width.
 * As for the table's length (up to bottom), I don't see it as an issue because it objectively means there are more details to show (as a factual representation - that there are more songwriters per one country than to another, in this case) while aesthetically they extend the table from up to bottom, but not further crowding the columns from left to right (again, if there is anyway one songwriter we would fully show according to your suggestion). Maybe most editors will agree with your also well-worked basic proposal to completely use hidden-format (that you don't show any visible songwriter). Overall my rationale here is that showing all songwriters makes them equal to the visibility of the singers (if they are placed at the same table and as we said they are just as important), as well as makes few-songwriters per one country equally visible to another country single-songwriter, and without crowding the columns (from left to right). BTW, instead of "writer" I think such column should be under "songwriters". אומנות (talk) 17:39, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not too keen on that collapsed idea now that I've seen it in operation. It looks very messy and is going to cause severe WP:ACCESS issues. Don't forget that people use Wikipedia not just on a computer/laptop, but also on iPads, Android phones etc. So we need to make sure that any option being used will work across all platforms.  Wes Mouse  T@lk 07:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * We only have 3 users discussing this issue, which is not a consensus building operation. So playing around with ideas and designs is all good. But none of them can be rolled out into full usage without gaining support from the wider community nor should they be either. Discuss matters with more people, gain consensus from the project members, then roll out what has been agreed upon. Something of this nature requires discussion from Project Eurovision members, who know more on the topic. Requesting an RfC would draw in attention from outside projects, such as WikiProject Olympics or WikiProject Television who would probably know very little on this topic or have no interst in Eurovision whatsoever. any input on this topic?  Wes Mouse   T@lk 07:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, the designs and discussion here, also for project members to join, are to develop the suggestions as even now there are differing views. I also differ in my view from a full collapsible-column but on the grounds to make the songwriters visible and there are other collapsible materials and tables. I think an RFC, which I suggested also for the purpose of waiting for more inputs, is good since it draws more varied editors and with ideas and knowledge as well about manual of style and their own aesthetical view and practices, which is the issue and which applies to different subjects with such tables like on Olympic articles. However, indeed it wouldn't hurt to also bring more Eurovision-interested editors, so I also ping and  as they also had issues and were among those viewing things precisely for the Eurovision tables, on the 2016 archived discussion. אומנות (talk) 09:11, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * nice work pinging those other 2 editors. I had completely forgotten about them being just as active. And now that you mention the Olympics, maybe it wouldn't hurt seeking their views and maybe suggestions too. After all, Eurovision has been nicknamed the "Music Olympics". I know the newsletter hasn't been in use for a long time. But perhaps I could use my mass-mail deliver access and send out a notice to all project members about this post too?  Wes Mouse  T@lk 10:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't have enough time to read the whole discussion, but I'm strongly against the removal of the English translation field. I'd be more open to discussing possible future designs, but I will always oppose them if the English translation is removed. { [ ( jjj   1238 ) ] }  10:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yea, if it can be delivered through mass-mail that will be good. Thank you Jjj1238 for your input. אומנות (talk) 10:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * When I brought this issue up in a talk page a few months ago I agreed that the English translation column is necessary because there are no alternatives. I don't have anything else to say unfortunately. GarethTJennings (talk) 16:53, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * First a question, is it possible to only have a translation field for the songs with "Foreign titles"? To eliminate the white fields. Otherwise, I have no other suggestions or stance against having translations and translation fields in the ESC 2017 article. It is helpful for readers to see what a song title means, if it is in lets say Serbian. BabbaQ (talk) 19:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * A suggestion from user may go in this direction; he suggested a collapsible list for songwriters (as another issue discussed) and made an example in his sandbox User:Zouki08/sandbox. Then he applied it also to the translations field as it will narrow the entire width of the column (without widely visible blank squares) while the reader still able to click "show" for the few translations (of course this can apply to column with all songs needing translations). Personally, I think this is very aesthetically however I prefer visibility but I'm bringing Zouki08 suggestion in the direction of this question and as maybe others will view it as very good.
 * and others, as the above discussion was lengthy and touched several issues, I will sum up alternatives that were discussed, for the translation field. It was suggested first to evaluate each annual article and his number of foreign titles on his own case-basis. For cases that may be agreed as having too few foreign titles, there are suggestions of:


 * Displaying them as footnotes (there are also footnotes explaining about the songs-languages on the 2012 edition, for example).
 * In parenthesis and in a row under the original title (on the same squarespace).
 * Above the table as general prose-description - as telling how many languages performed on the specific night with addressing the few foreign titles and their translation (along with the info on how many entries competed and who voted in each semi, for example).
 * As a text under the table, with a preceding mark to each reference like " * Translation from Italian:...", or making the column collapsible. אומנות (talk) 22:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow, this issue has certainly been discussed at length in recent days! As I recall, my suggestion was the second option above - adding the translation in parenthesis on a new line under the English title but within the same row. I think it is the best option, given the translation is right there next to the title (as opposed to a footnote that requires scrolling up and down the page to read), yet doesn't add a near-empty column for the whole table. -- Whats new?(talk) 23:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Glad to hear the input of more people regarding this! And this has really become two separate matters (Removal of English translations or not, and addition of songwriters or not). I think we can conclude that this leaves us with four separate main outcome options.


 * 1. Tables with neither an English translation or Songwriters column.
 * 2. Tables with both and English translation and a Songwriters column.
 * 3. Tables with an English translation column but no Songwriters column. (i.e. staying the same as the current version.
 * 4. Tables without an English translation column, but with a Songwriters column.
 * I am sure we all agree that if we would end up with option 1 or 3, the English translations would have to be presented one way or another. (Parenthesises, footnotes, or making the field collapsible, etc) And if we'd go with any of the options that would add a field for songwriters, there's the question of in what way they'd be presented, since there's sometimes many names included. The two current options seem to be to either make them collapsible or to have them fully visible. Do any other possibilities exist? A smaller font? Only displaying surnames? Something else?  Zouki08 (talk) 19:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * tl;dr. I support the removal of the columns whilst having the translation in the song field in parentheses when needed. But when it comes to songwriters—I think should be left in the songs article. --  AxG /  ✉  / 10 years of editing  19:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm with AxG on this one. Songwriters are propably better off on the song title articles. And if we're going to go down the parenthesis route, then maybe using Transl would avoid the confusion we spoke of earlier in the discussion.  Wes Mouse  T@lk 19:55, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Example
An example of what I'm thinking it could look like.  Wes Mouse  T@lk 20:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

On second thoughts, it might not work and more thought is required into this. Using the Macedonian entry in 2010 for example would cause an unsightly mess like this... It will cause way too much mess for entries that also require writing in Cyrillic. Looks like the English column is the only clean and clutterless method.  Wes Mouse  T@lk 21:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * H:title? Јас ја имам силата (I have the strength) ? --  AxG /  ✉  / 10 years of editing  21:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the parenthesis does work pretty fine when it's in a smaller font. Sure, it does get a little odd in the example of Jas ja imam silata... I suppose the Cyrillics are a necessarity as well. I can't imagine this would be an issue with too many entries though, fortunately.
 * The smaller font would totally work for a songwriter addition as well. Especially combined with only writing the first name initial and the surname, which is a common and widely accepted way of crediting composers and lyricists, to save space. Zouki08 (talk) 23:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I support and like (translation) in the title as well, and using smaller font. Also AxG hovering example for the fewer other-script cases - however, better showing the English reader the Latin script with the other hovering. Regardless, also with full visibility I will gladly go with parenthesis. I also thought about smaller font, as a way to act on all articles, also full of translations, and songwriters. The suggestion to use the common first name's-initial for songwriters (which can still be linked for those having articles) with smaller script to write them in row sequence, looks great to me as well. אומנות (talk) 07:03, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I've had time to sleep on this, and thankfully some of the ideas that came to my mind have also been mentioned since the Macedonian example. How about using only Latin script and not using other-foreign scripts, which would be in-line with WP:ROMANIZATION? Or maybe using H:list to provide script and English translation. So for example... The first line is only using Latin script, and not providing Cyrillic version of the song title. The second line uses H:list and shows primarily the English translation, but when you place the cursor over it, then the Cyrillic translation is also shown. This would also work for Greek, Arabic, and Hebrew scripts. Even the table style can be changed so that the entire table content is written in a smaller text size.  Wes Mouse  T@lk 09:59, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Update: I have also included the writers column in the example above, and switched the columns around so that they present the information on a more contextual sense - a country → represented by an artist → singing a song → performed in a language → written by song writers → finished in a place → achieving points.  Wes Mouse  T@lk 10:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I would support dealing with the translations the way Wesley has presented them in his very last example. I have a question though: are we required to include the native scripts? It doesn't seem very pertinent to include in a table for an English Wikipedia. I think that information is more suited to the song's respective article. If we have to I think Wesley's example deals with it in the best way. As for songwriters, I'm against adding them to the table because then we would have a very clunky looking table. Readers who come to this article will identify the entry firstly by country and secondly by artist name and song title. Writers are included on both the song article pages and the Country in the ESC Year pages and I think that should be enough coverage. Things are already getting way out of hand with all of the 12 point tables and double the amount of scoreboards now with this new system. I'm all for keeping things as simplified as possible. Pickette (talk) 17:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not overly keen on the inclusion of songwriters either, I just included them in the option so people will see just how chunky and complex the table will start looking. The main thing we need to treat as vital is WP:ACCESS and making sure the byte size of the article is low so that it doesn't take forever to load up. I agree that songwriters should be on the song articles. The average reader only visits an annual page to see which country is taking part, who is representing them, what they are singing, and where it placed. If they want to know more information on the songwriter, then they are more than capable to click on the song link and obtain the information. The songwriters no longer appear on stage to receive an award, not like they use to do in the late 80's and early 90's (yes I remember that far back, and Johnny Logan's second win). Therefore taking into account all of the suggestions, I'm assuming we are aiming for something like this...


 * I have left the Cyrillic script in the (h:list) but it can only be seen when hovering the cursor over it. That keeps everything tidy, in line with Romanisation, and deals with the translation that good that we would be able to roll this out across all of the annual articles, not just ESC, but JESC, Turkvision, ABU Festivals, the lot.  Wes Mouse  T@lk 18:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I also thought about the necessity of the scripts on the rationale of Latin script and an English translation; following AxG link to the hovering template I didn't mind keeping such scripts, however I'm not sure if hovering it above the English translations makes its relation clear to the original title, so in any case I can support removing them.
 * I think Zouki08 suggestions of small script and using name initial, and his sandbox and Wesley Mouse examples with adding (translation), contains all focal info and convenient. Annual articles (alongside Country-Year pages) list commentators of all semi-shows and varied TV&radio channels, for each country, when they act as an extraneous-coverage medium to the event's making, so I believe writers as the entries-makers should be acknowledged and approachable to readers looking just at annual articles.
 * I agree the table looks bit confused, on merits of order, as on annual articles 2nd-column after "Country" is "Language", then "Artist" and "Song". A "COUNTRY" represented with: A "SONG" in "LANGUAGE" performed by "SINGER" and "WRITTEN BY" is actually the defining initial phrasing per a lot of songs articles. This way the table presents the competition concepts first per country-song-language; acted by personalities artists-writers; and the achievement place-score.
 * I agree with the issue of the different scores tables (for which I thought proposing small script as well if not just remove them) but this shouldn't relate to the songwriters. אומנות (talk) 20:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm still opposed to songwriters, which I was opposed to originally and for many years anyway. The example above using H:list to show the English translation, and also Cyrillic/Greek/Hebrew text when hovering above the translation works and covers all bases that this debate is primarily about. Looking to substitute a column with songwriters is definitely not what Wikipedia is about. Like I said earlier, an experienced member did state years ago that nobody should propose to remove something only to substitute with something else. This isn't about making a "cosmetic change" and "prettiness". And I 200% agree with Pickette that the songwriter information is better off away from the annual articles. And nothing is going to make me step aside from that decision.  Wes Mouse  T@lk 23:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I said I can support removing the script since I don't see it necessary, and as you suggested yourself both options of either show or not per WP:ROMANIZATION, and as another editor questioned their necessity, regardless this template solves the main issue and so if more editors won't question it I am fine with it remaining as anyway it seems to go for an agreement for parenthesis translations which was also one of my prefered suggestions from the former discussion.
 * Also others views about the table were in regards to existing and suggested columns-order, not crowding. So when or if this translations implemented, based on the current views, it applies for the "translation" column existing place.
 * My further view about songwriters is of course my own, as yours is your decision, and my correspondence is also to clarify from your assumption of a general aiming for the last design, and to see inputs from others for more points I believe worth raising. For this I also gladly supported your mass-mail delivery suggestion. My correspondence heavily leans on songwriters-importance merits with relation to other important personalities mentioned, with only a side note about the design looking convenient enough, which has nothing to do with "prettiness" nor substituting for another column; this side note was to address your own concerns actually talking about neatness and afterwards about WP:ACCESS issues. This actually relates to all the scores tables that can be loaded, so I don't see this as a reason to not include one more column. אומנות (talk) 11:22, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * per your concerns and suggestions, it seems the discussion is going in the direction of parenthesis. If there are no further inputs for songwriters there is always the availability for a future discussion, RFC or mass mail. אומנות (talk) 11:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am very much in favour of the parenthesis option now as well. Especially when getting rid of the non-latin scripts. The question now though is, do we do this for all future annual pages regardless of how many non-English titles there are? Or only if there are less than a certain number? Personally I think consistency would be best, i.e. using the same format regardless of how many titles that need to be translated. Zouki08 (talk) 12:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It's too bad you're still opposed to including songwriters, because I think that with your Macedonian example you proved that it doesn't really need to look chunky and complex at all. (Especially not when we include the parentheses-translations, since that already makes each row wider). I think you're partly right about the average user mostly being interested in the country/artist/song. And less users will be interested in the translation and the name of the songwriters. But I think many still will be. I think the information we put in these tables should represent the information we are given during a Eurovision broadcast. A country is represented by a song, and the song is written by songwriters and performed by a singer. This is how it's presented at Eurovision as well, with the graphics before/during a song. To use Macedonia 2010 as an example again; the on-screen graphics at the beginning of the song says:
 * Jas ja imam silata
 * Gjoko Taneski
 * Music: Kristijan Gabrovski
 * Lyrics: Kristijan Gabrovski
 * So as it's information relevant enough to be presented along with the song title and singers during Eurovision, I think it ought to be information relevant enough for wikipedia to include. Unlike now where (apart from the translation) we provide the readers with less easy-access information than the broadcasts do.
 * I won't go on about this, I can see that I'm probably not going to be able to convince enough people. I think it would have been a good change,especially to give some more proper credit to the participants that often get quite ignored by the public simply because they aren't given much visibility. As a dictionary I think we have a certain responsbility to not only provide readers with the information that they want to see, but also the information that they need to see. But if you're all still opposed, then I'll drop this. Zouki08 (talk) 12:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yea I also touched before on my view that such design can work consistently across all articles, and with that helps solving the issue of a crowded table also with songwriters, though again my argument was basically for my view of their role importance. And great research about the titles of song/singer graphics during the live shows, I didn't thought about it and that goes along with the presentation of song/singer and songwriters on a lot of songs articles on Wikipedia. I agree we can leave it for now if there may not be further inputs on this during the next days, also as this discussion touched several issues, we can always bring it individually in the future in a form of RFC or mass-mail to maximize potential options and gather more opinion to either way. אומנות (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * For what it is worth, I don't think including songwriters is necessary. If the original point of this thread was to remove the English language column to reduce clutter, I don't think adding or replacing it with yet another column is wise. Songwritters are hardly as important as the other parameters. -- Whats new?(talk) 23:27, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You are right that the purpose was also to remove the English column, but just to clarify it was initially aimed solely under circumstances with regards of its necessity in cases of tables with few translations, not because of arguing about the general field crowding. And Zouki08 brought in parallel arguments in regards to the role of songwriters, regardless of other fields, for which he later also raised the option of small script to still address crowded-concerns and personally then further convinced me; just to explain the merits of the songwriters discussion. For your views about the songwriters appearance - thank you very much for your input. אומנות (talk) 06:55, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Also for the thought that they are not as important as the other parameters in this table, I just need to mention it was also discussed about placing them somewhere else in the article, just as commentators personalities for all available channels in each country are mentioned with assuming they also interesting for the readers, which I find to definitely strengthen showing songwriters somewhere as well. Anyway, if you still don't think they should appear somewhere in the article - thank you very much again for your input. אומנות (talk) 07:12, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I definently think songwriters could be mentioned somewhere in article, just not the table. I like the English translations in brackets, and in smaller font, as in the above examples too. -- Whats new?(talk) 07:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I see. Your further input is valuable, as it was discussed about the possibility of adding further table-concentrated info, so your opinion contributes towards figuring out about if its worth opening a separate discussion sometime in the future for this and perhaps further info. Thank you again very much. אומנות (talk) 08:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I also think mentioning them somewhere else in the article could work. And as says, that way we can probably include other information as well. If there's enough people who are positive towards considering a section where data like that can be included (outside of the main tables) then I think we should start a new thread about it and sketch on some suggestions for how it could be done. An "Detailed entry information" segment or something. Zouki08 (talk) 16:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, any changes to the translation column would ideally be carried out across all articles for consistency I would think. Or at least in years where there was a free language rule, so some years in the 70s and any contest after 1998. I'm highly opposed to adding songwriters however and definitely not to a new table or section. That information is available on each song article and even on the Country in the ESC Year pages. It has enough coverage there. Just like we don't add the names of every single juror involved in producing the results of the contest, we shouldn't add songwriter information. That information isn't being ignored, but rather covered in a more appropriate article. Pickette (talk) 03:57, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the parenthesis work greatly for all tables and would support it for consistency as well. We don't add every juror however it's worth raising again that we add every commentator for every TV and radio channel in each country who transmit the show and that we show the voting spokespersons. I responded under a new thread, as this better to be discussed individually at this stage and as I want to show few more examples and points, while letting this thread keep focusing on finalizing opinions for the translation. אומנות (talk) 09:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems we're all mostly in agreement about the change regarding the translations then! That's good. I think a good start would be to implement it for 2017 and for recent years. Aiming at only doing it for the years with a free language rule sounds like a good idea. Possibly excluding the years in the 70s when the majority of songs were not in English in spite of the free langauge rule. And, I know the information isn't ignored... But I don't think most readers go as far as clicking those individual Country in the ESC year pages. On the annual pages it isn't even that clear that it's where you'll reach if you click the country name. I just think it's a bit lop-sided that we include the name of every commentator, conductor and every spokesperson (who are these days not even credited by name in the official broadcasts) on the annual pages, but we don't mention the songwriters whatsoever (even though they're participants of the contest, and do have an on-screen mention). It signals that the songwriters are of less importance than e.g. a spokesperson, and that it would be of less interest to the reader. Which I definitely don't think is the case. I think it's worth considering possible options rather than dismissing the idea completely. More about this in the thread below. Zouki08 (talk) 15:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

don't be jumping the gun just yet on this. I had no internet access between 23 and 27 September due to moving house and had forgotten about this debate. We need full agreement from the majority in order to fulfil WP:CONSENSUS, before we can close this discussion down and start to roll-out the changes. One needs to remember that the English translation column is used not just on annual contest pages, but also on country pages, and country by year pages. What we need to determine now is to what extent this removal becomes implemented. And to be fair and for consistency, I would say right across the spectrum that the column should be abolished with the new h:list being used. The roll out will be a nightmare, because there are 62 ESC pages, plus all of their respective country pages, not to forget 15 JESC pages and their respective country ones, along with ABU Festivals, Turkvision, Bundesvision, Can i Gymru, Bala Turkvision, Caribbean Song Contest, Intervision, and every other contest that this project manages. This will become one hell of a mammoth task to roll out and will require a team of people to get it done quicker (so that people don't undo changes etc).  Wes Mouse  T@lk 16:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, my intention wasn't to sugfgest that we start now, but merely summing up a conclusion of the above debate and making a suggestion for in which order the pages could be updated. But you're right, the best would of course be to try to change all the annual pages at roughly the same time. Zouki08 (talk) 17:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Summary
Before this thread is closed with whatever outcome has been agreed, I just want to clarify the summary on the discussion.
 * The English translation column is to be abolished across all annual, country, and country by year articles (such as, , and )?
 * A new format is being introduced as shown in the collapsed example below, which includes the reordering of the columns into a more contextual structure?


 * 1.The song is in French; however, there is one sentence in English and one sentence in Spanish.
 * 2.The song is completely in Italian; however the last line was sung in English at the contest.

If everyone is happy with the summary, then I will proceed with the closure, and include the consensus report to the project's formatting and layout guidelines.  Wes Mouse  T@lk 23:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * These changes are also being rolled out across any article for contest which this project manages?
 * A group of members will team up to roll out the changes much swiftly and promptly?


 * I agree with the need to change the columns order from the current “language”-”artist”-”song”, however as I stated earlier – for a view to place “country”-“song”-“language”-“artist”. I was away myself and also with severe family illness issues to deal with myself and needed to make a follow-up for attention to all the further comments the passing days, I can relate and understand others private issues with the difficulty to cope and delayed replies before, and waited for comments. In any case, I earlier stated a view and as there were differing views, I think such influential matters still needs to be discussed and find a way for more inputs.
 * In regards to the translations solutions, I just point that addresses reliable sources as the only policy, and English meanings are also shown on individual songs articles with reliable sources, which therefore stands as the needed criteria. Earlier comments also included  stating she will always remain in favor of providing translation, me,  and  showing support to parenthesis. So I like to see their opinion in case they didn’t keep follow the discussion, before keeping with rolling new designs. For me, following Jonesey95’s comment that Wikipedia doesn’t have to provide translations and to avoid cases of speculating titles instead of leaning on sources, I can agree on removing translations, from the annual articles.
 * The column order was briefly discussed with inputs for preference of a new order compared to the current one, and as I previously stated by prose, I like to see more thoughts if others want to comment, with a designed example. My view:


 * A "country"-“song”-"language" then “artist” is for both to place in accordance to Year-Country pages articles phrased by “represented with song-X” and then “performed by”. Also, the song is the country’s representation-expression, realized by an artist, achieving “x-place-points” for his performance; if others want to view as well. אומנות (talk) 01:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I recieved your ping. What was it exactly you were wanting opinion on? -- Whats new?(talk) 02:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I wanted to see if you (and few others) who supported parenthesis translation followed the continuation of the discussion and okay with removing them altogether, I wasn't now completely decisive myself but can support removing them. Also earlier and yesterday I offered a slightly different column order to show "song" before "artist" as in my above design and per my above views, it's a minor change technically but I wrote my view above, just in case you or someone else interested to view. אומנות (talk) 11:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)