Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision/Archive 3

Reliability of ESCKaz
Moved from Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2009.

After taking a good look at ESCKaz, I am wondering if its a reliable source. At the top of the page its reads "by Andy Mikheev". Seems to be his personal website. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 03:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This started to be used a while back, though I have never investigated the website much. After reviewing WP:RS and the website itself, I do not think this is reliable. While it is not a pure blog (which certainly should not be used for sourcing) and is instead presented as news site, the small print at the bottom of suggests it only has one author and hence probably does not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy as required per guidelines. Some further comments suggesting that everything is the personal opinion of the author, are even more concerning. I think it would be beneficial if this was not used as a source on Wikipedia. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Greekboy said that it won an award for "most reliable eurovision website" or something like that, but I'm not sure that that makes it appropriate for wiki. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Lol. Not most reliable.  While investigating the site myself the other day, it mentions that it won "Eurvision Hero" award from some other site, but in terms of reliability to wikipedia, I don't think it qualifies for the reasons stated by Chris.  And of course these awards mean nothing. :p Greekboy (talk) 23:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * On the plus side however, the external links in the stories link to the official websites of the networks where there is a lot of information that we are missing. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 00:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ESCKAZ is one of the few sites that can offer reliable information from the former CIS countries. News that is often copied and pasted to other less reliable sites. One thing it certainly doesn't have currency with is rumour and gossip. That Oikotimes and ESCToday are amongst those who often use the material (the latter with credit, the former rarely so), I think regarding it as unreliable is a rather blinkered thing to do. The site has been nominated for Millenial and Eurowebby awards and almost always ranks as the most reliable in polls of users. I think you'd be hard pushed to find a site that is more dedicated to the news and not self promotion. On a lega footing, the site owner and main editor is a legal expert, something that is vital to understand the somewhat convuluted systems employed in this part of the world. To see it as anything other than pristine and a shining example is foolhardy andsuggests a private agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.126.53.118 (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The only agenda is ensuring Wikipedia articles follow established policies and guidelines such as WP:V and WP:RS. Positive feedback and award nominations alone does not make website reliable, and being a lawyer may count a bit for legal articles, but I don't see how this means very much for Eurovision articles with a few exceptions; in addition for any of these to count there should be reliable source based evidence that they are true. Of primary concern is that the website only has one author, which means content on there is possibly self-published and hence is usually not acceptable per WP:SPS, there are a few exceptions but I don't see how this site meets them. Oikotimes and ESCToday may use content from the site, but their website set-up means they will likely oversight/check material before they re-publish it, making it more reliable. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I can only tell you how it looks. ESCKaz is a reliable source of information, something you can establish by looking at older articles and verifying that the information they claimed at publication was later proven to be correct. 'Opinion' is not an issue surely with 'news' and given this is the Eurovision Song Contest, where broadcasters in the CIS zones tend to play their cards rather close to their chests, I think the site has proven to be entirely trustworthy. Given Wiki's own failings on all things Eurovision, I felt it only fair to point out the plus sides of a site that tends not to flock with the others and on the whole proves to be the source of news rather than the one who reproduces it (with or WITHOUT any fact checking). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.126.53.118 (talk) 20:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, if we "fail at all things Eurovision" why don't you step up and help out since that is all that we are doing. We can't always keep up with all of the random things that people add. Whether the site is reliable in the end or not, it does not pass the qualifications that Wikipedia has set for reliable sources. There are links to reliable sources on ESCKaz however, so obtaining information from those sources is allowed. Also, I have no idea what "CIS" is. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think CIS refers to Commonwealth of Independent States. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It is accepted that Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source, that is why use of other clearly reliable sources is such an issue. WP:RS says it its nutshell: Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for *fact-checking* and accuracy. It may have some reputation for accuracy, but I am not happy over the latter issue with no real case being made on how the source gets past WP:SPS. One thing that has not been mentioned is that sourcing requirements for information on living persons, which include some Eurovision information, is even stricter and I am very confident that ESCKaz would not pass, as explained at the Biographies of living persons policy. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank heavens for Wikipedia then, eh :) On a more serious note, I have grave concernes about ESCKaz. Whilst I accept it is probably the only site with constant and often incredibly detailed news about the eastern European entries, it is effectively a blog. And blogs fail WP:RS. doktorb wordsdeeds 20:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * ESCKaz is currently the most comprehensive site on Junior Eurovision and Dance Eurovision, even much more than their official sites are. You hardly can find anything more reliable than it on ESC as well, especially considering how many false rumours often appear on other sites and how many articles from ESCKaz are illegaly reprinted on other sites. Being a one-editor website doesn't make it less reliable, especially as it's editor has direct contact with most of participating broadcasters. It uses the big team of correspondents to report live, in fact their team in Belgrade was about of 10 editors, I recall, accredited as press P and not fans F or fan-press PF. Is hiring of number of editors what makes source more reliable and Wiki worthy? As it is 1. reliable, 2. accurate, 3. created by "expert in the field" it complies with WP:RS just fine. Also, I recall that ESCKaz is base of the official OGAE Rest of the World club. I do not even realise from what of sudden this talk appeared, citing ESCKaz has been at Wikipedia for years, as site celebrates 7 years of existense this year. If some Wikipedia editor is stuck to some sites, it doesn't make other sites less reliable. If we're speaking on Wikipedia guidance, the first to drop out from it should be Oikotimes, as it clearly goes below "reliable and accurate" source, it's articles are either reprinted from elsewhere, and then we should cite original sources, or are pure gossip. Sorry, but the phrase "oversight/check material before they re-publish it, making it more reliable" seem to make no sense to me at all, I can not see how you can make material more reliable by copy-pasting it to the tabloid resource whose editor knows less on topic than the original author. Zaqqq (talk) 03:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It does to me, as many publishers check their sources accuracy over before publishing them, and that is clearly what WP:RS demands - it is not usually just copy and pasting. One person alone is never perfect, and more people reviewing is logically more reliable, and how this site passes WP:SPS still has not been shown in evidence. There have been a lot of outside policy/guideline practices occurring with Eurovision articles, and perhaps everything needs (and is) being reviewed. I don't know huge amounts about Oikotimes, so I will leave it to others that know more, perhaps which needs to be reviewed as well. No source is perfect though, which is why as many different sources need to be used as possible in an article. Camaron2 | Chris (talk) 12:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I will reiterate that ESCKaz does have links to the broadcaster's website where the information is obtained, so sourcing the information from the original source is fine. (ex Cyprus confirmed...with confirmed being a link to the CyBC website where the source is). Also note that what is said about Macedonia and Ukraine is unsourced; ESCKaz has no link to where the information came from. When a final decision is publicly released (meaning we can find it more than one place) then they can move to confirmed. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 12:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ESCKaz mostly operates on direct contact with broadcasters, that is the reason, why they are very reliable and accurate, so when it doesn't mention source, that means news came directly from the broadcasters. What you were using as source of possible "withdrawal" from these countries also comes from NONOFFICIAL sources, which reliability can not be confirmed. I do not see what is the difference then. It's either we accept information from non-official sites as ESCToday or ESCKaz, or we do not accept it at all, which also will be fine. But to accept information from such poor source as Oikotimes is and not accept it from the site that has proven to be reliable and accurate seems top of being ridiculous for me.Zaqqq (talk) 14:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sources do not need to be official to be reliable, and as explained in WP:RS there is a difference between some non-official sources and others in their reliability. I am also not seen any strong evidence that ESCKaz has been proven to be reliable and accurate, user testimony alone does not prove it, but I will assume for now that it is probably accurate for the sake of dispute. Stephen is right that ESCKaz should be useful for finding other source outlets, regardless of it is reliable itself or not. If ESCKaz is getting information from broadcasters (rather than being based on the authors opinion, which is a WP:OR issue) then the broadcasters themselves should be publishing such information and ESCKaz should be sourcing it, so that can be used instead and using ESCKaz should not be necessary. As I have already said diversification is important, if multiple sources say something and there are no sourcing conflicts (ie other sources don't claim otherwise), then including something in the article can be more strongly justified. Camaron2 | Chris (talk) 14:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you exactly list why Oikotimes can be used as source and ESCKaz can not? Zaqqq (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I never said it could, as I said earlier: There have been a lot of outside policy/guideline practices occurring with Eurovision articles, and perhaps everything needs (and is) being reviewed. I don't know huge amounts about Oikotimes, so I will leave it to others that know more, perhaps which needs to be reviewed as well. I have never actually used Oikotimes as a source in articles personally, but I might do more research and give an opinion. Do you have a view on this Stephen? Camaron2 | Chris (talk) 15:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have yet to find an error on Oikotimes, but usually check out who or what their source is before I use the story for a ref. No offense, but ESCKaz does not look like a very presentable site like Oikotimes and ESCToday; its just a bunch of info pasted on a page. ESCKaz is the same thing as a random person calling the network and getting information; how do we verify that? I think using the site as a library for other sources would be a better choice than to ref ESCKaz itself. There are only 85 refs to the site, most of which are for the Dance Contest, which is not very well covered by both Oiko and ESCToday. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oikotimes has a couple different editors, and their articles are usually backed up/check by outside sources. When they do post "Rumors", they go under a rumor section and not the main news section. I haven't read this argument in full, but from what I can tell, ESCKaz is only a 1 editor website which is a big "no-no". Greekboy (talk) 16:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Still, there has been no proof in discussion given that ESCKaz fails to comply with reliability standarts and Wikipedia guidance. I have noted already, that on my understanding it fully complies with WP:RS and WP:SPS as it has proven it's reliability and is run by very much known expert in the field, who has been consulting different Eurovision delegations for years. The only two reason, you've suggested are the number of editors (again, ESCKaz is using editors when they are necessary, like Eurovision Week) and design of the site, which can not be decisive in terms of reliability of sources. Unless more users join the discussion and proves me wrong, I suggest to keep using ESCKaz as one of primary reliable sources of all things Eurovision, which it is, as most of the Eurovision news are really primarily published there and then illegally copied by other sites. If only 5 of us, 2 pro 3 contra will keep discussion, I see no use in it. Zaqqq (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I think you are getting this the wrong around, according to policy under WP:BURDEN it is those that add information that have the burden of providing reliable citations, not those that challenge it. In the spirit of this policy, the evidence and consensus of reliability needs to be shown for it to be widely accepted. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

(<--) Not that its a vote, but you are the only one for the site. I could make my own site and post eurovision info that is always right, but that doesnt make it appropriate for wikipedia. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 17:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not alone, someone from 80.126.53.118 (talk agreed with my points too, and there are only 3 of you contra. You definitely can do this, but whether you will be able to get any exclusive information on your site makes major difference. If you're able to get exclusive first hand information from the broadcasters and prove your information is reliable, then your site will be very much welcomed source. Zaqqq (talk) 17:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not supposed to be a vote, but if lack of numbers are really an issue requests can be filed for further opinions to be made from other independent Wikipedia editors. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The choice is, does Wiki want the information to be accurate or pander to less reliable 'multi-person' fan sites. None of the fan sites are official, just having more fans work on them doesn't mean there is any fact checking. It is little wonder that Wiki has a fading reputation from the heyday when it was regarded as accurate. Instead of quoting policy, why not try to make the information accurate. You cannot apply a rigid set of policy documents to something that is basically a creative element and light entertainment. This is where Wikipedia fails at the most fundamental level. My last contribution, since I realise I'll not convince you and since it leaves Wiki as people's last port of call for accurate Eurovision information - which is probably fine as the fan sites work at this and Wiki doesn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.126.53.118 (talk) 06:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This should not turn into a debate over fundamentals of Wikipedia, no discussion on this talk page is going to change them. Next, WP:RS is a guideline that is quite loose in places which is why we have these debates, not a rigid policy. They however reflect community consensus and all editors are generally expected to follow them for all articles. You suggest that we should make the information accurate, well that is exactly what people here are trying to do but that is not that simple - there are varying opinions on what is accurate and how to achieve accuracy. As for Wikipedia being "people's last port of call for accurate Eurovision information", well editors try hard, but there will always be a minority that hold that opinion whatever is done, that is unlikely to be news to me or many others. Camaron2 | Chris (talk) 12:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I see it useless to talk in bigger dimensions, which go beyond the Eurovision scale. The aim should be to ensure that the BEST available sources are used. As ESCKaz is constantly proving to be one of first reliable sources of information, it should be used. When a proper information appears on Oikotimes, it also can be used, but it should be rechecked with other sources, as this site has no reputation for being reliable as ESCKaz is. This is at least how I plan to continue editing. Unless you go more deeply in research, and start regularily visiting not one or two your current favourites, but also other different ESC sites, and NOT in off-season, when EDC and JESC are main coverage topics, but in main season, when each day delivers breaking news, you will not be able to understand which site is reliable and which site gets to visitors breaking but accurate news first, and which are just copy-pasting = stealing information WITHOUT any checking. Zaqqq (talk) 15:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Enter Oikotimes Expert (stage left) -- Let me get this straight. Oikotimes publishes rumours, under a rumour section. Oikotimes publishes sources, left column of any article. Oikotimes checks it's information multiple times, I have had articles checked by 2 or more editors. Oikotimes gains it's information from broadcasters mainly, but occasionally from other Eurovision sites, these sources are all published.
 * ESCKaz -- I agree with absolutely everything that has been said against ESCKaz. For the purposes of Wikipedia, ESCKaz cannot be used as a source as it is almost a blog and it is only edited by one person, therefore making it unusable for Wikipedia sources.
 * ńăŧħăń -  ŧăłķ  08:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Blog is usually something that provides personal opinion or a commentary to all posted items. Number of editors is not the decisive question in reliability. Zaqqq (talk) 17:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * How is a "personal opinion" a reliable source? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 17:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * We are speaking about accuracy of news coverage and not reviews or opinions. Other sites also have reviews, for example live commentaries of national finals, which also are personal opinion. Except for the only reason listed so far, being "a one-man site", you have not proved that ESCKaz has ever published something innacurate. I can not understand how number of editors can deal with reliability? If ESCKaz hires extra editors, will it make it more reliable then? That is nonsense. If it's author is fluent enough in the subject and can do all the job alone, it can only be praised and not criticized Zaqqq (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If he sources his info then it becomes useful to us, until then it is almost useless as ESCKaz can be considered a blog and the editors own opinion rather than news. ńăŧħăń  -  ŧăłķ  19:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, the preferred sources should be the official websites of participating broadcasters. Concerning unofficial websites, ESCKaz has proven reputation as one of the most reliable and accurate sources of all sorts of Eurovision related information, especially when it comes to information from Eastern Europe and also Eurovision Dance and Junior Eurovision contests, as it is Europe-wide leading website in coverage of these topics. In case it's information contradicts with information of other independent / unofficial sources it is very likely to prove to be more accurate, as experience shows. However, the tabloid websites, such as Oikotimes, do not have such an reputation of being accurate and sourcing to them should be always double checked, and same concerns sourcing to some obscure local press, when reliability of the articles is unknown and can not be verified. I also feel it wrong to put the question to the community-wide attention, as people having no experience in regular visiting Eurovision related websites, will unlikely give the correct opinion on their accuracey and may fall victims of wrong assumptions, due to design and other features of the websites in questions, which have nothing to do with reliability. Tcharge (talk) 15:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Requesting outside opinion and assistance is a standard part of dispute resolution, and if a side has a case they should be able to present it those that are not involved. The aim of many articles is for them to reach Good article or Featured article status, and for articles to get there outside scrutiny by editors is required. One big area assessed is article sourcing, and if there is a problem with choice of sources, no promotion will happen. The other reason for this to be brought to RfC was the suggestion that participation was not high enough, and hence starting an RfC will hopefully increases participation. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I will agree with what is said above by Tcharge. ESCKaz is highly reliable site, has very professional team (they were invited to various national selections as observers or consultants, reported live from the venues for the last 5 years), is base of biggest Russian language online community Euroforum and official Eurovision club OGAE Rest of the World. It should be considered as one of the prime Eurovision news sources, especially when it comes to former USSR countries, all news from these countries first appear on ESCKaz and are reprinted elsewhere. I can recomend as sort of criteria of reliability to use results of Eurowebby awards (last run in 2007). Though unofficial, they were run by very high profiled and respected independent researchers from UK and were also recognized by EBU and promoted on official Eurovision.tv and official BBC broadcaster websites. Last results can be seen here http://web.archive.org/web/20070706101633/http://www.eurowebbys.com/ As you can see, ESCKaz has received mention in several categories and is runner-up in "Most reliable site" category and winner of "Eurovision Hero". Other top sites are ESCToday (Best Overall Site) and DotEurovision (now unfortunately closed after around 10 years of existence) and AKOE. Oikotimes has been mentioned in some categories as well, but received only "Eurovision villain" one, likely due to it's very low accuracy and reliability. Currently, I'd suggest ESCToday, ESCKaz, AKOE, ESCNation as prime English language Eurovision sources, Eurosong.be, Belgovision, SongFestival.Web-log as other highly reliable non-English Eurovision related websites. In my opinion, editors of Wikipedia:Eurovision project should do some research and not be stick to only one or two sources. I'm afraid that now some articles look like copy past from one source, like the Bulgarian selection article I've tried to edit the day before yesterday AlexeyU (talk) 07:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * First thank you for sourcing your claims about ESCKaz, I looked at http://web.archive.org/web/20070706101633/http://www.eurowebbys.com/ with interest. It appears on a search that these are respected awards, though I could not find any reference to them at the BBC or EBU, but are helpful any way even if they should not dictate what sources are used. I think you are right about using lots of sources, as I have already said that is always a good idea with advice being given somewhere that no more than 15% of an article's referencing should be based on one source. It was disappointing that Wikipedia Eurovision pages clearly were not popular when the awards were done, though things have much improved since then. Camaron | Chris (talk) 11:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out that ESCKaz is just hard to read. Its a page full of test and you need to word search to find anything. Also, though you say they have a professional team, but its only one person who writes and manages the site, they may send people to the contest, but at the end of the day it is self published. How do we source that. What is the date that the information was added, is he always the author? Its hard to tell. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

There are also some other issues which need consideration:
 * I am under the impression that there is consensus that ESCKaz falls under WP:SPS with agreement that the source is self-published. The disagreement relates to if the source passes these guidelines to be used in articles, or fails them. If this is the case ESCKaz will not be usable for any material which is biographical about a living person (unless it is about the author of the website), whatever the outcome of the disagreement for other content, per the second to last paragraph of WP:SPS and BLP. This means that ESCKaz should not be used in full BLP articles such as Hadise, and on other pages for sourcing substantial BLP info such as details of a persons role in the contest. This does not apply to most content covered by this project, but needs considering.
 * Greece in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008 passed a Good article review with ESCToday and Oikotimes as sourcing, suggesting their use is acceptable, although the GA reviewer said they may need backing up with newspaper articles for Featured article status. Despite this it has been disputed if ESCToday and Oikotimes are appropriate sources, if such claims are going to stand up in the long term the article should possibly go through Good article reassessment over the issue. Camaron | Chris (talk) 11:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

RfC on ESCKaz reliability
I am requesting a style RfC on this issue as suggested earlier as it is clear the discussion is not going anywhere. I am requesting outside input on the question: What sources are considered reliable sources for Eurovision articles, in particular is the ESCKaz website a reliable source? The ESCKaz website is. I have taken the liberty of moving the discussion here as it relates to all Eurovision articles. Camaron | Chris (talk) 17:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I have had to add it to the listing manually, as the bot is not working at this time. Camaron | Chris (talk) 17:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I have notified everyone with a neutral note in-line with WP:CANVASS who is both of the following: This is try and widen the breadth of input, the content of the note can be found at User:Camaron/Sandbox. Camaron | Chris (talk) 11:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A member of WikiProject Eurovision who is listed as active.
 * Not yet commented in the above section.


 * Ok, I'm assuming this is where we discuss this issue. Currently I'm trying to get the Junior Eurovision Song Contest article up to Good Article status. Because of the difficulty of getting information on this contest online I've had to resort to using mostly ESC Today and OikoTimes content. Using these sources is only way of referencing what I already know to be true. Personally I think ESC Today is an extremely useful and accurate source. OikoTimes does have tendencies were it will report some nonsence though it tends to be on subjects that wouldn't be written on Wikipedia. I've found that using Oiko, at least for the JESC article/s has been very useful. What I would say about ESC Kaz is that they are extremely accurate in terms of the JESC (I can't comment on the ESC because I've never used this site for that). The biggest problem with ESC Kaz is that all of their information is on the one long page and it is not possible to highlight and copy text so if it was used as a reference it would generally be quite difficult for user's to locate the information... but the information is there! I'd say keep using these sites as sources.--gottago (talk) 13:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * One of the biggest hassles I find is yes that all the information is on one very very long page. There are no publication dates or titles, it is just a bunch of text. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like to reiterate my suggestion of using ESCKaz as a way to find links to reliable sources. I found that most of the time their information is linked to the page of the national broadcaster where the information can be found in its "official" state. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't used the site at all since its Eurovision history only seems to go back to 2002, so too recent (or not broad enough) for the majority of the articles I've worked on. I don't particularly see a problem with it having had a look just now. Seems quite a good source for interviews of recent entrants in a particular area, although several times I noticed things getting lost in translation, but not a big problem. There does seem to be a fair bit of blogging and polls, which would have to be ignored. Having said all that, I would say other sites like ESC Today are better and would only use ESCKaz if I can't find the information elsewhere. So I would say it can be used for some things (such as quotes from interviews etc) but not for statistics (there are better sources), fan views or reporting. I would leave it to common sense depending on the article and the information used.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 21:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

After a few emails and some elaborate responses by ESCKaz, I'm pretty satisfied about how they work. They have a limited budget, so the way they present the information on one page is the easiest way for them to present the information. In a way, their site is similar to wikipedia, in that they make individual pages for each country's selection and update them as more info comes in, kinda like what we do. The lead editor stressed that though it says his name on top only, he has an editorial team of several editors who check new information at least three times before it is published. He only has his name because people associate him with the site only because it used to only be him and it now serves as more of a guarantee, sort of "you can trust the information because it has my name on it". Now the only problem now is finding a way to source the information correctly because the site uses no titles, author names, or dates. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I never thought of contacting them to be honest, so thank you for finding that out, it changes the situation completely. Well given their apparent reputation and fact checking procedures I am willing to accept them as passing WP:RS, and as not covered under WP:SPS. The way they present the information does make things difficult though. One way to source it could be to use the entire pages title (for example Eurovision 2009) and use the quote option on cite web to help find the relevant info more easily. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion
It is clear we are going to get no more input so I think now would be a good time to conclude the RfC. Input was mixed with varying levels of merit, with both new users and older ones participating. Few or none of the participants were from outside this project. After reviewing the debate it appears:


 * There is rough consensus that ESCToday and Oikotimes are generally considered reliable sourcing, though ESCToday was usually preferred over Oikotimes.
 * Views of ESCKaz were mixed, with many users arguing it was an unreliable source as there was not clear fact checking, while others stated it had a history of being reliable in the Eurovision community so should be considered such on Wikipedia. Later in the debate it was pointed out that fact checking does occur, though there was little input after this surfaced, so per WP:SILENCE, it can be assumed it is reasonably accepted that this source is reliable. Issues over the content being on one large page was not fully resolved however, so preference of other sources over ESCKaz may still be desirable due to this.
 * The issue of WP:BLP content requiring high quality sourcing was not challenged, so again per WP:SILENCE, it can assumed this is accepted. The issue on if ESCKaz and Oikotimes (after new information surfaced) is acceptable for BLP sourcing was not directly addressed.

I think that covers it all. If you disagree with my conclusions, given that I was involved, please point it out. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Results tables
Is there any particular reason that the results tables are not sortable. I understand that the the draw is the best starting layout, but it would be useful for the reader to be able to sort by Country, Language and Place/Points. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 23:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought they were, but maybe the older ones aren't. Do you have an example page? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Aghh! Sorry about that they all do have sortable tables. I came to the 1966 page from another article without noticing that I was still in Maxthon and not back in Firefox. I only use the IE browser to check layouts on Wikipedia but at the same time need the ability to view Inuktitut syllabics, which is lost in IE7 so I never upgraded. Of course viewed in FF the tables are sortable. Sorry. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 05:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep. Moved to another computer that has IE7 and the tables are sortable. Sorry again. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 06:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Project newsletter
I was thinking that we move the newsletter to an end of the month thing where it will more recap things that happened and explain what will the next month. This will mean that the November newsletter will come out at the end of November instead of next week. What do you guys think? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't say I'm a big fan of that. It's already recapping what happened in October, why do two jobs when you don't have to? (looking forward to November and then recapping November in December?) Mike H. Fierce! 19:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Basically I want to publish the newsletter at the end of the month so say the November newsletter will recap November instead of October (though the first issue after I switch will be a catch-up issue). Cause as it is now, next week I'll publish the November issue (which I didn't write yet), but it will be all about what happened in October. I've seen other newsletters on end of the month recap schedules. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 19:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have an idea, I could just make the next newsletter "October Edition II", "October Supplement", or equivalent and then I wouldn't have to do a combined issue next month. It would go out at the end of October instead of the beginning of November. Thoughts? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 19:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I like that idea. Mike H. Fierce! 20:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Great idea Stephen! I think that'd be great for the Project! ńăŧħăń  -  ŧăłķ  21:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please edit this Junior Eurovision map?
I'd ask on the talk page of the Junior Eurovision Song Contest page but no one ever goes on there. I haven't got a clue how to edit maps and someone a while back changed Azerbaijan and Bosnia & Herzegovina to green to imply that they had both taken part. However, since then they have both withdrawn and the map hasn't been edited to change them back to yellow. Could I ask that someone do this as well as change Israel from purple to yellow (purple was supposed to represent countries that were going to participate and pulled out but since info is a little sketchy on whether or not certain countries were seriously considering entering, it would probably be best to get rid of this colour). Once this is done I'll submit the article for Good Article nomination as I now feel it's been improved to the point where it meets the GA standards. If anyone feels any differently, please do pipe up!

Thanks for the help.--gottago (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I can't figure out how to revert to older version. Someone with more png knowledge will have to help you. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 17:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I've changed it, using Paint! :-) Vanjagenije (talk) 12:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

JESC Fans?
Just recently I've been editing the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2008 article and creating "Country in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2008" articles. These pages are fairly short and I'm looking for people who are part of this project to help me complete the articles at a high standard. What needs to be done is listed here. Thanks! -Diggiloo (talk) 22:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Editnotice feature
A new feature of the software appeared a while ago which I think may have some use on this project. The edit notice feature allows administrators to create messages that will appear when users attempt to edit a page (except in the userspace, non-admins cannot create or edit editnotices due to the large potential for abuse). To work the messages have to be created at a special location, for example if we want one for Eurovision Song Contest 2009, an edit notice will need to be created at MediaWiki:Editnotice-0-Eurovision Song Contest 2009. See Template:Editnotice for the correct place to create an edit notice.

Given the large amounts of new and unregistered that edit Eurovision articles, if used properly this might help communicate to them over issues to lower the amount of reverts being made. To see editnotices in use, try and edit President of the United States. Any thoughts? Camaron | Chris (talk) 14:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 17:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, to see it more in use I have introduced it on the ESC 2009 article as linked above. The notice I have created can be found User:Camaron/Sandbox; if anybody wants to make changes they can do them there, and I will implement them at MediaWiki:Editnotice-0-Eurovision Song Contest 2009 as appropriate. I have tried to keep the notice a reasonable length while being aimed at new users with a balance between being firm and friendly. I have listed things I believe consensus has been established on within the notice (including Monaco although it has not been discussed), these were all previously in hidden comments. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you just edit the spelling "likley" to "likely" as it's just bugging me :) -- [[ axg|undefinedSpecial:Contributions/AxGtalk  |undefined]] 20:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * lol. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Spelling was never my strong point :), fixed. My spell check did not, and still does not, pick that error up for some reason. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You probably unknowingly added it to your dictionary lol. I find that when i go to click and change i hit add sometime and im like noooo haha. The best part was that likley was bold! Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes you are right, I found the offending dictionary and removed the entry with that word, plus a few others that likely :) got accidentally added. Camaron | Chris (talk) 21:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Well so far, I think the edit notice on ESC 2009 has been a pretty good success, better than I expected in fact. There have been few reverts compared to before the notice was added, and hardly any edits have been in defiance of the content of the notice, with a few perhaps making better edits from it such as by reviewing Citing sources. It shows there was a communication issue with editing some of the time, with unregistered users re-making edits that were reverted without understanding why they were removed. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record I have updated the ESC 2009 edit notice, and created one for the 2009 Junior ESC contest at MediaWiki:Editnotice-0-Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2009 per a nice request on my talk page. Any issues, please point them out. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Named national finals in Country in ESC Year
There has been some discussion and disagreement over whether the entire national selection process should be included in the Country in ESC Year pages. For instance, should Melodifestivalen 2009 have its own page or should it be a section in the Country in ESC Year page since its function is to select the entrant. Since Melodifestivalen has always been Sweden's selection process from the start, each year is a part of Sweden's participation in ESC so that seems justified, but in the case of Festivali I Këngës Në RTSH, where the contest went on for decades before it was assigned the task as Albanian entrant selector, some believe that its inclusion in the ESC page is lowering its status to that of just as selection process and not the national contest it is. Since every detail on the selection of the entrant is relevant in the ESC article it does not make sense to me to have a separate page, but does the entire contest's inclusion on the ESC page seem justified? If we simply put a link to the other article, then one could argue that the ESC page is incomplete in that it does not document the selection of the entrant. This only applies to well established annual contests, not country's who simply have a "national final" with various names.

Also, what is people's opinion on Be A Star, should it have its own page? Its like a precursor to the semi-final and final for Bulgaria, but definitely [art of the song contest. I wanted to keep things all together, but since we are having a similar discussion I thought I would ask.

One of the main points is that I don't want it to be impossible to get these pages up to WP:Good Article if so much relevant detail is missing. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * For the sake of the WikiProject's standards and the fact we want to get to GA standard, we should have it all in one article - the Country in ESC Year article.. ńăŧħăń  -  ŧăłķ  17:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

FYR Macedonia's Junior articles
Does anyone agree with me that all the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest articles be moved to the much shortened version of F.Y.R. Macedonia in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest? Like the main Eurovision article, F.Y.R. Macedonia in the Eurovision Song Contest. -- [[ axg|undefinedSpecial:Contributions/AxGtalk  |undefined]] 12:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I tried last month, but they all seem to be move protected. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have moved it to the right place, the page was not move protected as such but there was a re-direct in the way (with more than one entry in the edit history) of the desired title so it required admin action to fix the issue. There may be some other F.Y.R. Macedonia pages at different titles as well, they should probably be all standardised. Camaron | Chris (talk) 22:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Eurovision
Just to let people know coding on the template has been changed. So at the bottom of the Infobox on Eurovision articles:


 * What is used now:


 * The more standardised and compact version:

Does anyone think that this a crap idea? -- [[ axg|undefinedSpecial:Contributions/AxGtalk  |undefined]] 22:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It was fine before, but whatever works is good and I didn't see any compatibility issues in my quick sweep. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well it saves a bit of space in the code of articles, so I am happy with it. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Fix map


I've just noticed that the flag for regular participants after 1994 is kinda wrong.
 * 1) Luxembourg hasn't participated since 1993
 * 2) Switzerland has
 * 3) Serbia and Montenegro hadn't broke up, and were still the FR Yugoslavia

I'm horrible at editing maps, so can someone who can fix it please. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 09:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision/Country in the Eurovision Song Contest Year
The two Good Articles within "Country in the Eurovision Song Contest Year" are currently undergoing reassessment for encyclopedic content (broad coverage). It wouldn't require much work to bring them up to standard as the material is available. See Talk:Greece in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008/GA2 and Talk:Ireland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008/GA2.

Also see Talk:Portugal in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008/GA1, as that article is undergoing a GA review and needs the same attention.

There will be more detailed suggestions shortly.  SilkTork  *YES! 13:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Eurovision Newsletter
Is there any chance that when delivering this, it could come with a date and time stamp please, as a Bot can't archive them, and this may effect others. Thanks. -- [[ axg|undefinedSpecial:Contributions/AxGtalk  |undefined]] 17:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well its nice when the bot doesn't archive them because then I can guarantee that people read them :p I'll try to do something when I deliver the next issue. There is also a Newsletter Department where you can talk about this kind of thing. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 17:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Image use policy
There is currently a discussion ongoing (as shown through the above link) about policy's position on galleries. This could be quite significant for this project as quite a few articles have them, such as Eurovision Song Contest 2008. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm actually the discussion seems to have died down a bit recently, but it is still ongoing. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Spacing and navboxes
There seems a bit of a unwritten disagreement on if navboxes should be at the end of articles after a double (hard) space as in Russia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2009, or after a single space as in Albania in the Eurovision Song Contest 2009. It is a bit of trivial issue but is quite noticeable when moving from article to article through navboxes. I have not found anything in the WP:MOS which specifies which to use. I hope we can come to an agreement on the issue. I personally do not see the need for double spacing, and no other project I am a member, such as schools and films, seems to follow this practice. Camaron | Chris (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I like the double space cause then then refs aren't jammed on top of the navbox. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 17:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * They don't look on top to me, and what if external links are last? Are they any different? Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, same with the external links. It just seems that with everything there is a space skipped, and with the case of the navboxes, two spaces are skipped in the code, to show one. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 18:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The gap that comes out if you double space is quite large compared to others in an article, enough to put two lines of text in to me. If you single space however it does not seem to leave a single line gap strangely, only a very small one. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I personally prefer double spacing. It tends to look better. I feel like there is no separation with single spacing. Even if there is a larger gap, I actually think that is better. It makes it look separate. Greekboy (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, since we now have a third opinion, per below unless anyone objects I am going to assume we have consensus for two spaces before navboxes if they are directly following an external links or references section, and hence all articles on this project should slowly be standardised to this format. Camaron | Chris (talk) 22:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's only the navboxes and other templates that are the problem, other than that the spacing will appear normal if there is another header below it. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, for normal headings, only single spaces should be used as per normal. Camaron | Chris (talk) 08:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Since this does not seem to be a big issue I am requesting a Third opinion as a sort of tie breaker, even if the issue in the bigger picture is very unimportant, it would be good to have consistency. The arguments are split roughly 50/50, so it will be interesting to see what an outsider has to say. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Since we now have a third opinion I have withdrawn the request. Camaron | Chris (talk) 22:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Nul points
I'm a little confused between Nul Points and Nil Points. Why are there two and which is right? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 03:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well spotted. I always thought it was Nul Points, and the infoboxes seem to use this term. The Nil Points article (created December 2008) should probably be merged into the Voting at the Eurovision Song Contest article. Camaron | Chris (talk) 11:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As the creator of this article, I would not disagree with Merging it with the main Eurovision article. I am very surprised, though, to find neither these lists nor, indeed, any reference to nil points anywhere on Wiki beyond general usage.  Propose either keeping this article or merging with main article with redirect to the proper place in that article placed here.  I would not agree with total deletion as this article is of general interest and importance, at least in Europe.  Jubilee♫ clipman  06:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, just found nul points in Voting at the Eurovision Song Contest. I have never heard it called that... maybe I'm wrong, but I am sure it is French Nil not some unknown nul. (Not ''null'?) Jubilee♫ clipman  06:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have redirected the page to Voting in the ESC. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 02:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Host city insignia
I found this page also: Host City Insignia; should it be expanded, merged, etc? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 03:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have marked the image that was used in the article for deletion on Commons, see Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:HostCityInsignia.jpg for reasoning. Camaron | Chris (talk) 11:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Image galleries
I see that we include image galleries on the ESC pages, and was wondering what people think of this. I know there was a debate on galleries at Image use policy, but there doesn't seem to be a firm outcome. I am posed to add a gallery on Greece in the Eurovision Song Contest since there is sort of an image stack up, although it is not affected by gaps. Personally, I think in a case like that, a gallery is better suited as it is an overview page, with the images not describing a specific point in the article. Thoughts on this matter are appreciated, especially since this is a project wide practice. There are image galleries on a number of the "Eurovision XXXX" pages. Greekboy (talk) 21:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the present layout works well. The images take up the white empty space that would otherwise be there and are more likely to be seen as opposed to a gallery just plopped at the end of the page. "Image stacking" is not a problem here as that only matters when stacked images cause awkward gaps in the text which, as of now, there are none.
 * The image galleries are fine on the regular Eurovision XXXX pages as this is a different case where we simply can't have 43 or so images scattered throughout the article. However, for the Country in ESC pages, I feel that a gallery is not necessary; if there are too many pictures, leave only the ones that are notable. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Grk1011. It's more practical to have stacked images in the country pages and galleries in the year pages. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I also agree with the present layout. Like Michael, it's says it's practical to do it this way. ńăŧħăń  -  ŧăłķ  21:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What is the difference though? Why is it more practical? I would call 6 images stacked, a lot, plus one more each year if you consider that one is likely to be added each year. But regardless of that, keep in mind that I am also asking a project wide question, not just Greece in ESC. I think that there needs to be a consensus on this if we are using it project wide. What determines how many images are necessary to have a gallery? If you use the white space argument, there is white space in every article. Greekboy (talk) 21:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I would say use as many images as the contestants table allows for. Nothing says we need one for every single appearance. This is an overview page so if there are too many images like i said above, than we can just choose the most memorable or important images. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * But still. Who decides what is notable or memorable? I don't see how that argument can stand if you are trying to argue it with a random user trying to add in some free images. Greekboy (talk) 22:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Deciding what images to include is an issue on many articles, I assume it is just resolved on talk page consensus on image quality and relevance. This has to happen in some cases such as games articles where lots of people like to add images but the amount has to be capped as they are usually fair use (i.e. image galleries are not allowed). In the Greece example I think the best long-term solution is to expand the article to have a small section summary on each year (article), this will make the article much longer but still reasonable as well as following guidelines, and will allow more images to be placed in-line with the article content. I generally don't like galleries for similar reasons as trivia sections and I support their discouragement in policy, as galleries are best placed on Commons. There is already some Commons galleries for a few Eurovision articles such as Eurovision Song Contest 2008 and they are usually prominently linked at the bottom of articles, which can make near identical in article galleries redundant. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Editnotice update
As discussed previously (see archive 3), this MediaWiki feature has/is being tried out on Eurovision articles to reduce the level of reverts being made. It is currently in use on two articles:


 * Eurovision Song Contest 2009 at MediaWiki:Editnotice-0-Eurovision Song Contest 2009
 * Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2009 at MediaWiki:Editnotice-0-Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2009

Compliance with the edit notices initially was very good though it was never going to be 100%. However, it has deteriorated particularly on the ESC 2009 article, with IPs and even established registered users just ignoring it - the most common being not sourcing material at all, hence resulting in further reverts. Reasons for this could include:


 * The article is just getting more active for the 2009 contest, hence more edits, hence more edits ignoring the edit notice.
 * The edit notice is ageing, so "naturally" people are ignoring it more.
 * The edit notice is too long, people are not reading it.
 * The edit notice is confusing to new users, so they are ignoring it.

I think now would be a good time to review the edit notices, what changes do project members think should be made? Should the edit notices be left in place at all? What stuff should be removed? What should be added? I do have drafts of these edit notices at User:Camaron/Sandbox that any user can make bold changes to for implementation. Camaron | Chris (talk) 22:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think having them is still a great idea, but there will always be some who just don't care to look. At least by having it, there is a chance that it will be seen. I do think they should be refreshed. Are we allowed to do anything more eye catching like with larger print, multiple colors, etc? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree we should keep them. Use of the editnotice template seems to be standard so there is a limit to what colours can be used, but we can put some content in different colours e.g. key text in red. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have improved and implemented changes to the two templates, copies of which can be found at User:Camaron/Sandbox. I have made the title bigger and introduced the colour red to make it stand out more, though I have tried not to over use it as doing so makes it less effective. I have cut down the content to the key points to make it more likely to be read. For the ESC 2009 I have also added a more hard hitting reference to how high profile the article is, particularly as it gets a link on the main page during the contest, and the fact it could be commented on by the press (which has happened for other article types in the past). If anyone has any suggestions, please make them. Camaron | Chris (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Just fyi the edit notice system is currently being jigged about a bit, see Village pump (technical). The ESC edit notices have been moved to Template:Editnotices/Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2009 and Template:Editnotices/Eurovision Song Contest 2009. It was originally announced that they were no longer working, but they seem to work again now? With the move anyone can now edit these notices, but for security reasons it is unlikely to stay that way - they will probably be fully or semi-protected depending on consensus. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. &mdash; Delievered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the  parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:07, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Didn't know this project existed!
When I did click to the place where people can add names if they are interested in contributing, I did not see any. Is this a new project, an orphan project, or did I miss something? Being in the USA, I only bumped into the existance of such a contest upon research for Colm Wilkinson, who gained Ireland 5th place in 1978 on his way to originating what is arguably the definitive role of Jean Valjean in later years in Les Misérables. Please see the article for Colm Wilkinson for that information.


 * Also, the article on what it means to reprise a role desperately needs help. I'd never heard of the term before, but I can recognize repeated musical patterns of melody within musicals like Les Misérables and Jesus Christ Superstar; often ingenious. However, I think that page, which is not references, seems to cofuse medleys and songs from Green Day with the term. (??!!) --leahtwosaints (talk) 22:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, we've been around and active for years now with almost 2000 articles under our banner. Here is our list of members if you would like to join, I don't know where you were looking and saw that it was blank. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 04:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Eurovision: Your Country Needs You
I've upgraded the "Your Country Needs You" article to C Class, though I do feel with more references the article could be up for peer review for a possible B Class promotion. Afkatk (talk) 12:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Change in Country Navbox

 * ''The following discussion is an archived discussion of a formatting change proposal. Please do not modify it.

A new more focused and official proposal has been started in the section titled "Change in Country Navbox proposal". Please add any comments regarding this template discussion there. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 19:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking we could change the Country navbox into something more easily accessible, above is the current Navbox for Ireland and below is the NavBox I've just done some work on, the Did not compete column can be up for some type of change if not be taken complete away.

Afkatk (talk) 10:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I replied on my talk too. I think I prefer the original one more, but let's see what others think. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 12:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I also think that this could replace the current Template:Eurovision years as it looks much neater and is easier to navigate on. Afkatk (talk) 13:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't say I don't like the new design, it does seem a little easier, though I have two reservations: (1) there is a lot of white space on the right, which looks a little odd, (2) the decades should not have ' in them e.g. 1950's -> 1950s, as done in relevant articles. Camaron | Chris (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I was kind of mucking about with it and came up with this, I think it covers the improvements while adding something more to it, the image can always be taken away.

Afkatk (talk) 23:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the present way is fine, I have no problems with it. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 02:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The present way is fine but I feel the 2nd (or 3rd posted) is more user friendly. Afkatk (talk) 06:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I like this latest design, the picture looks good. Camaron | Chris (talk) 16:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't like that it's so narrow. It will look awks when stacked with a full width navbox. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't think that, you have a point. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't really think it will look that awkward, just because it's width has been cut shouldn't damage it. Afkatk (talk) 03:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In all honesty it doesn't seem like a big problem for other Wikiprojects such as Tennis', See Here Afkatk (talk) 06:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually I think that link for the Tennis Project does look awkward. Let's wait a little and see if any other project members have anything to say. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 07:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We could always get a Third Opinion outside of the Eurovision project. Afkatk (talk) 07:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok it's been 3 days since we've left it for other members to comment on, lets decide whether to have this change. Afkatk (talk) 18:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I really think the current format works well and there could be more productive things that we can work on. I don't like how it's smushed and how it presents consistency issues when dealing with countries that have irregular participation. It's one of those things that though could be better, is fine the way it is. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 18:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see why there is such a problem with the Change. I'm going to request a Third Opinion this issue. Afkatk (talk) 21:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Third Opinion - For future reference, WP:3o should only be used when the dispute is between two editors, use WP:RFC for disputes with more than two. But while I'm here, I personally prefer the second navbox, the full width one. It is much easier to find different years with that design, and the white space is only a minor issue. ƒingers on  Roids  00:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see any point in changing the navboxes, they are perfectly fine how they are now. How are we going to make get correctly sized maps for each country? -Diggiloo (talk) 15:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well FoR said Second NavBox which would lead me to assume the 2nd one posted rather than the adjusted width one, but in any case, you can adjust the width of the images. Afkatk (talk) 16:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested merger. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

FYR Macedonia articles
User has been moving the articles from F.Y.R. Macedonia... to Republic of Macedonia..., this is not following WP:MOSMAC which states (under Summary guidance): "In articles about international political organisations or cultural/athletic events that use specific Macedonia-related terminology. Use the terminology adopted by the organisation or event in question (e.g. "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", "FYR Macedonia" etc)". So it would help if they where moved back. --  [[ axg  ⁞⁞  talk   ]] 17:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've already moved many of them back as I see you have too. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 17:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Fyi, there is currently an Arbitration Committee injunction in force on moving Macedonia related pages: Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia_2. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Change in Country Navbox proposal

 * ''The following discussion is an archived discussion of a formatting change proposal. Please do not modify it.

The result of the following discussion was to retain the current design. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 12:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

A suggestion has been made to change the formatting and layout of the "country in ESC" navigation box template.

Discussion

 * Support. I think the change is good as it provides an easier navigation. Afkatk (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There is a lot of white space in the proposed template, a good idea it to probably split it into two columns (a bit like Template:BBC Local TV), however it depends on what size monitor you have. --  [[ axg  ⁞⁞  talk   ]] 21:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I really like the current one and think it does a fine job at facilitating navigation; it is also much more compact. Since there is only one variable (the year), to separate it into several different groups seems to me like it is being made more complicated. I think it is very easy to pick a year from a group of years arranged chronologically. I am a big fan of symmetry and the white space is an issue for me as well. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support- Maybe it's just the way my brain processes information, but the second one makes it a lot easier for me to find a specific year, instead of running my eyes down a long line of numbers. ƒingers on  Roids  00:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Since the new design groups the years in a decade-decade time frame, there would be too much white space for a country who, for example, participated once or few times in a whole decade. Chrisportelli (talk) 07:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Again, too much white space. I don't really see how it would make life that much easier, it might take about a second off the time it takes to locate the year you want but if you're looking for a year where they didn't compete then you find yourself looking in the decades rather than at the bottom. The old design with its strike through the years makes it much easier to find these years. Change for change's sake. --gottago (talk) 13:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I am supposed to be on study wikibreak at the moment, not good timing for this project I know but I don't decide when I have exams. However, since this is a big change proposed I can still spare some time to weigh in here following a request in the newsletter. My view is that I don't hate the new design, but for the same reason as most other people I oppose it due too much white space. Camaron | Chris (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - As many people have said before, there is too much white space. It looks awfully blank on the right-hand side and really makes no sense to me. I think the current design is just fine, more symmetrical and looks better in my opinion. I know it may safe a bit of time, but I just think the current way's fine. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 18:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Personally, I don't dislike the new design, but I cannot see why there is a need to change it. The old one does the function perfectly well, and it is more succinct. The new one many look nice, but as picked up by others it does have a lot of white space, and I also do not understand why the years it did not compete would be down at the bottom. I also don't think it would save time whilst looking. Now I must get back to revising for the dreaded IB. P  e  ter  will  07:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

New countries
So what does everyone want to do about our newest articles: Palestine in the Eurovision Song Contest and Qatar_in_the_Eurovision_Song_Contest? If someone starts the deletion process I'll vote, but I don't feel like setting it up myself :p Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, if they only have an interest in competing its not worth making a whole article about, I guess if I'm not doing anything later I'll set them up anyone's free to do it before me though. Afkatk (talk) 11:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. No need for them when they are only considering competing/in the process of applying for membership. It's the same principle as with Liechtenstein, Tunisia etc. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk)
 * I'm still at work, so can someone start an AFD for Palestine in the Eurovision Song Contest and Qatar in the Eurovision Song Contest. I tried PROD, and as expected, I ran into some resistance. I think maybe we should wait a little longer before nominating ESC 2010 as there is more substantial content for it. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 19:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Qatar and Palestine both AfD'd. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 19:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for semi-protection of Eurovision Song Contest 2010
I wanted to check with everyone first before I went ahead with anything. Personally I am sick with anonymous IPs adding information on possible debuts, possible returns etc, after editors have repeated deleted the same information over again. The same thing happened last year and it is, in my opinion, unnecessary, especially considering that many of these countries are in no way able to compete in the contest yet.

It is my belief that we semi-protect the article to avoid these edit wars and name only confirmed participants on the article, along with strong references to back up the claims.

I would appreciate as much responce on this topic as possible. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 17:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Its way to early for the 2010 Eurovision article, I think give it a few more months and slightly more information on next years contest and it'll be ready for its own article, since the 2009 Final is tomorrow night this years hasn't even concluded. Afkatk (talk) 18:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The article has already been created. Are you suggesting send it on its merry way to WP:AFD? Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 18:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I would rather not have the page at all either and was planning to request a creation block, but it was made before I could set one up. When I get home from work Michael, I will help you get the protection. I too am sick of the ips adding unconfirmed countries and doing whatever they please as they did last year. I can't take the information out anymore because I'm close to 3RR. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 19:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Just in case it wasn't clear - I'd fully support WP:AFD, followed by create-protection (but I'll settle for semi-protection in the meantime). I'll watch-list it for now, and revert as much as I can. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 19:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ESC 2010 has been semi-protected for 3 days. We can extend it after that time if necessary. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In my personal opinion i think you all looking at this the wrong way. ofcourse there should be an Eurovision 2010 article as the new host country are revealed. And there are more editors than you folks who can revert and keep an eye on this article. Why keep an negative view, after all this has been the standard every year since wikipedia became bigger to make the next years eurovision article the same day as the new host country was reveal via the finals. And the fact that some countries have already confirmed their partiicpation in the 2010 contest is grounds enough to keep this article in question. And in all honesty sutch a decision shouldnt be made by a few contributers who then mass Deletes an article.cheers--MarkusBJoke (talk) 21:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The biggest problem is not that the article exists, it is that people love to speculate in it, which we cannot do here since this is an encyclopedia. I mean think about last year, people were steadfast about adding Kosovo and were guaranteeing that it would participate, but did it? No. This year we are taking a conservative approach, one more inline with wiki policies, and only adding confirmed entries. It's fun to know which countries could theoretically take part, but in reality, that information is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. As for the "mass delete", us "few contributors" cannot delete an article by ourselves, there is a process that uses the input from people all across wikipedia. If it should not exist, they they will decide, it will not delete solely on our opinions as a project. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I can see and understand both sides to this debate. The advantages and disadvantages are equal. However, the French version of Eurovision Song Contest 2010; has a good layout; and covers all aspects, and by contrast, they don't seem to have this problem of random IPs adding Possible Débuts. Perhaps we should consider following in their footsteps, and thus, in my opinion, would put and end to this debate once and for all. It's only a valid suggestion! (Pr3st0n (talk) 12:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC))

Eurovision Winners Map
On the Eurovision Song Contest winners article, IP is saying that this Map on the article is wrong and removed it. His reasoning being that 'It's all describt in the discussion page, but for you: germany won 1982'. The Map has Germany as a winner in the top right using the former borders, and since the united Germany didn't exist until 1990, the title goes to West Germany. Am I missing something. --  [[ axg  ⁞⁞  talk   ]] 21:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what he is talking about either. There is no consensus to remove it from the article, so it should be put back. If he wants something changed, he can be more clear in describing it. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the map is fine as it is... it shows Europe as it is currently; and also stipulates the "West Germany" and "Yugoslavia" in a separate indent-box. I see no other reason to change this. (Pr3st0n (talk) 12:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC))