Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision/Archive 5

What to do with commentators and spokespersons
There seems to be a bit of a mess at present on what do with commentators and spokespersons. Originally the information was put into lists into the main year article, and it still is at Eurovision Song Contest 2007. This method caused controversy at Eurovision Song Contest 2008 and there was a discussion about it several times at Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2008. In the end removal of the commentators and spokespersons lists and then re-placement of the information in individual entry articles was agreed at Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2008/Archive 5. There has been recently dissent from this, particularly from unregistered users, commenting that it is nice having the information together. The idea of creating a separate page for each year on commentators and spokespersons was not considered in the original debate but one was created more recently for Eurovision Song Contest 2009 resulting in List of commentators for the Eurovision Song Contest 2009. This then caused Articles for deletion/List of Commentators for the Eurovision Song Contest 2009, the debate was closed by as merging them into Eurovision Song Contest 2009. So effectively we have gone round in a complete circle on what to do with commentators and spokespersons! There are two main issues here which need addressing:


 * There were only two participants in the AfD debate excluding the nominator and closing admin, and as a result the issue was not really fully discussed, I suspect that not many people on this project noticed the AfD was happening, including myself. It appears that a lack of consensus is confirmed by the fact that nobody has merged the articles with the merge tags remaining on the page for almost a month. I have considered contacting Juliancolten to re-address the issue, particularly as not a single policy or guideline was cited in the AfD nomination. How should the AfD result be dealt with now?
 * What happened to spokespersons? Should there be a separate page for this if there is one for commentators, or should there just be one page for both?

Any opinions on this would be welcome. Camaron · Christopher · talk 19:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Given the fact that the voting order of countries is in the 2009 article anyway, couldn't the names of the spokespersons be slotted into that section? Or we could put the voting order, the spokespersons and the commontators into one table allowing all the information to be displayed in one relatively compact section. It wouldn't take up any more or any less space than what's already there and I've always found the seperate lists in articles for previous contests to be too long. --gottago (talk) 10:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that could work and would fit particularly well for spokespersons and help reduce space. Use of tables for commentators and spokespersons have been objected to in the past however but with this new format that can probably be overcome. In any case the information will remain in each country's entry article as well. Camaron · Christopher · talk 14:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this sounds like a good idea. I thought it was unfortunate that the deletion debate closed as merge since that is one of the things we didn't want from the beginning. I had no idea that a commentators page even existed as it wasn't tagged for our project and therefore didn't show up in the article alerts. We should have been notified of the debate. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I have just merged it in for now since it has been sitting there for months. The content can either be merged with the results tables, or a commentators and spokespersons table can be created per above. I must so that the ESC 2009 article is getting huge and there is possibly more content that could be added as the article gets better - splitting off one or two sections may need to be considered again in the future. Camaron · Christopher · talk 20:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of San Marino in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008
I have conducted a reassessment of this article and found a large number of issues with the prose style, referencing and possible original research. There were so many that I delisted the article. These concerns can be found at Talk:San Marino in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008/GA2. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You did bring up some worthwhile concerns about the prose and the diversification of sources, however, your determination of ESCToday and Oikotimes as being unreliable fansites is still under debate and they could very well be deemed reliable, making this reassessment a little premature. In the time it took you to find the errors in prose, you could have simply fixed them and left the sourcing issue for a later date when consensus is achieved. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please re-read the assessment (referenced above). My concerns were that the ESCtoday and oikotimes references were either cited from other RS sources which could have been used or cited from other fan sites or blogs or in several instances to themselves which gives cause for concern about their reliability. I delisted because there were so many concerns about prose, and about statements that were not supported by the cited sources, that I could not see them being fixed in a week. As you have been advised before please take this to WP:GAR if you disagree. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok. Just note that when they site to themselves it means they use their own resources, ie interviews, field reporting, email correspondence with networks, etc. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 17:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Flying the Flag (for You)
I have conducted a GA reassessment of this article and have found a few minor referencing concerns which may be viewed at Talk:Flying the Flag (for You)/GA1. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Continued use of edit notices
This project continues to use a few edit notices in its articles. The pages used for edit notices have been moved around a lot but are now as follows:


 * Template:Editnotices/Page/Eurovision Song Contest 2009
 * Template:Editnotices/Page/Eurovision Song Contest 2010 (New one I have created)
 * Template:Editnotices/Page/Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2009

They are on a global blacklist so only admins can edit them due to the vandalism potential. They have not been perfect in reducing inappropriate edits but do seemed to have helped. If anyone wishes to make any changes they are free to request them here. Camaron · Christopher · talk 12:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia mass re-naming
Just to let the wider project know the decision over Macedonia naming has been made at WP:MOSMAC2 in the form of a new guideline, resulting in mass re-naming of Eurovision articles related to Macedonia. The relevant section is...

[In international organisations] the country will be referred to in these contexts in the same manner as it is referred to elsewhere on the project. Diverging naming practices used by the organisations themselves may be reported (for instance in parentheses after the first reference to the country, or in a footnote), but will not affect usage within the article.

The interpretation made of this guideline is that the EBU continues to use F.Y.R Macedonia, so that should be 'reported', but the primary names now used per the guideline is Macedonia or Republic of Macedonia. It is still a little open to debate on which of these main names is to be used for articles titles e.t.c., editors have so far interpreted it to be Macedonia. The guideline is not rigid so it also open to debate exactly where F.Y.R. Macedonia should still be used e.g. should categories stay where they are?, and should F.Y.R. be in brackets in navboxes? A move request for more re-names has been started at Talk:F.Y.R. Macedonia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008. Camaron · Christopher · talk 09:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think most of the implementation is pretty straightforward. I would propose:
 * All article titles to be moved to plain "Macedonia in ..."
 * Each of the "Macedonia in..." articles to have "Republic of Macedonia" as the first reference to the country in the lead sentence
 * The main Macedonia in the Eurovision Song Contest article to contain a reasonably concise explanation of the naming practice and its motivation (probably with link to Macedonia naming dispute etc)
 * The other "Macedonia in the $year ..." articles to have a single, brief parenthetical note or footnote of the type "...under the name of...", either in the lead or perhaps in the infobox
 * Routine references to the country or its entrants etc. elsewhere, including result tables and the like, to use plain "Macedonia" (MOSMAC2 is actually quite clear about this, because ESC contexts are always unambiguously about independent countries, so there is no ambiguity.) I have already edited Esc/Macedonia accordingly. Note that the principle of "reporting" the divergent naming practice where appropriate does not leave room for parenthetically sticking an addition "FYR" in on every occasion – reporting encyclopedic information means you report things once, where it's relevant; you don't report it mechanically over and over again.
 * The category is currently up for discussion at WP:CFD; the question is whether to go by MOSMAC2's principle of "disambiguate only where necessary" (hence moving to "Macedonia in..."), or whether to go by WP:NCCAT's preference for maximally uniform naming schemes (hence moving to "Republic of Macedonia in..."); keeping "FYR..." is basically not an option.
 * Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I missed the bit about navboxes in the later sections, well that speeds things up a bit. Yes constant brackets with F.Y.R. Macedonia in would not look right so one occurrence will do, as specified by the guideline. I don't have any strong opinion on the category, though if the rest of the article uses Macedonia it may be easier for the category to do so as well. Camaron · Christopher · talk 11:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Progress on ESC FAR
Since the start of July, the only substantive changes have been Grk formatting some cites. Is anyone still planning to work on this?  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) paid editing=POV 02:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll be doing some more. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 11:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * My location for the past week has made it very difficult for me to do very much article work, and that will remain the case for at least the next two days. After this I may be able to help out with this article a bit more. This project only has a small base of very active users compared to other projects so getting rapid improvements will not be easy. Camaron · Christopher · talk 16:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Is a monthly newsletter viable?
I suddenly realised it was almost the end of the month yesterday and that it was time to draft another newsletter for the newsletter department of this project. I have started writing it but like last month I am struggling to find stuff to fill the page and there does not seem to be very much interest. I take note that this project only has 75 members, few other projects of this size have a monthly newsletter. Even the far larger WP Video games only has a quarterly newsletter. While I think it would be a shame to scrap the newsletter completely, I do not think a monthly newsletter is viable in the long-term at least until the project gets significantly bigger. I see two main options:


 * A bimonthly newsletter e.g. one at the end of February, April, June, August, October and December. A possible transition to this system would be to delay the release of the current draft newsletter till the end of August.
 * A quarterly newsletter e.g. one at the end of March, June, September, and December. A possible transition to this system would be to finish the current draft newsletter for early August and then not do another until the end of September.

Other options including an annual or twice annual newsletter would probably be too infrequent to make the newsletter that useful. I am personally in favour of the quarterly option to get the work load right down and allow this project to focus on other things while still being frequent enough to be useful. What do others think? Camaron · Christopher · talk 13:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem with reducing frequency. Ultimately the periodicity should be determined by those who actually write it. My only suggestion is that we stagger whatever choice is made, so that an issue comes out at the end of May, when the results of the Eurovision Song Contest are still fresh news. -- Alexandr Dmitri (Александр Дмитрий) (talk) 14:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That could work, if one was released at the end of May in a quarterly system then the others would have to be the end of August (easy transition as a plus), November, and February. This would also fit with the Junior Eurovision Song Contest which is usually in November. A bimonthly could be staggered to have one in May, September, and November for all three contests. Camaron · Christopher · talk 15:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, quarterly would suffice. --Tuzapicabit (talk) 14:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you by the way to Stephen and Sims2aholic for getting the July edition out before I could blink and supplying some fresh news. I would like to hear their views before going ahead with anything however. Camaron · Christopher · talk 15:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't mind making the monthly newsletter and I think that too much happens for it to be less frequent. I've been slow on wiki the last month or so, mostly because of the aggravation from the GA reassessments, but a whole month to make a newsletter isn't bad if you work on it a little at a time and as information comes in. On that note, people need to start submitting their own news, announcements, etc on the newsletter department's page! Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes the fact that news comes quickly would be a problem, particularly for a quarterly newsletter. I still do not think a monthly one is very sustainable unless input from outside the core few currently doing it increases a lot. I would be happy with a bimonthly one as lowering the work load and allowing us to produce more beefed up and higher quality newsletters, and still keeping frequency reasonable. A bimonthly newsletter could also be timed to fit perfectly with the end of all three Eurovision contests when the big news is out. Camaron · Christopher · talk 08:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I would say do it monthly between January and May or June when Eurovision fever is at its peak and there's plenty of news flying about. The rest of the year maybe do it every other month. I know that's not a particularly conventional schedule but I think it would work out in the end. Plus I really like getting this little nugget in my Wiki inbox! --gottago (talk) 23:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Simple answer: why not just produce a newsletter whenever there's enough news? So if there's not a lot to write about in the low season, it may be 2-3 months between newsletters. Then when there's lots of news in March-May, it can be every few days if necessary. the purpose of a newsletter is to provide news - so do so accordingly :) It's not as if members have paid subscriptions which need to be justified by any particular frequency of output! EuroSong talk 13:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That could work, though some degree of organisation needs to remain for where to create newsletter pages e.g. currently it is done on month. I doubt frequency can increase hugely during the main Eurovision season as on top of increased need to edit articles some editors have exams in that period, a problem with this project. Camaron · Christopher · talk 08:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

After a think about it, the best and simplest solution is just to stick to a monthly set-up and skip some months when there is a lack of activity. This is similar to Eurosong's suggestion of doing it when there is enough news. Some jingling around would be needed for more than one a month, but even during the active periods it may be difficult to get this for the reasons I have given above. Camaron · Christopher · talk 11:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Dealing with criticism and controversy
I have noticed that there have been a lot of 'Criticism' and 'Controversy' sections appearing in Eurovision articles. There use however on Wikipedia has been, with little surprise, controversial. A an essay have been written on the subject at Criticism, Wikipedia guidelines also discourage the use of the terms of criticism and controversy at Words to avoid, as they are often misused. I have found five articles with such sections:


 * Azerbaijan in the Eurovision Song Contest
 * Azerbaijan in the Eurovision Song Contest 2009
 * Eurovision Song Contest
 * Eurovision Song Contest 2007
 * Eurovision Song Contest 2009

I have found that such sections can cause issues at GA/FA, such as with The Lion King, and should be replaced if possible. The problem with them is that by giving the negatives a dedicated section you can potentially push an article off WP:NPOV, and in some cases other sections have to be overly positive to make up for it.

For example in the ESC 2009 article there is plenty about the negative reception to the contest, what about the positive reception and the rebuttals however? I'm sure there must be some, but there is not very much in the current article. Perhaps it should be replaced with a more balanced reception section. This could easily be done in the ESC 2007 article too. Alternatively each of the issues could just be given its own section as appropriate without declaring them as controversy. In the ESC article the criticism and controversy section does contain rebuttals, though perhaps it would still be better as reception or similar. In Azerbaijan in the Eurovision Song Contest 2009 about a third of the article is dedicated to criticism and controversy. The rest of the article is written in chronological order which this section does not seem to fit well into, perhaps this section could be re-organised into some after the contest section, since that is what it deals with. In Azerbaijan in the Eurovision Song Contest this section just seems to deal with the Azerbaijan-Armenia dispute, so perhaps this section should be re-named to reflect this.

I would also like something to appear in the proposed Eurovision guideline about this as it is an issue which is worthy of note. What are other peoples thoughts on this? Camaron · Christopher · talk 09:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the section about controversies in Azerbaijan in the Eurovision Song Contest violates WP:WEIGHT. It gives inappropriate weight to the controversies, some of which are in reality nothing but yellow press reports, such as the section about alleged vote stacking in Belarus. It is based on just one article in a Belorussian newspaper. The section should be shortened. In fact, it takes as much space as the rest of the article, which is not appropriate. Grand  master  09:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

This sounds to me like an ill-disguised attempt to whitewash-out "inconvenient" content from articles. Meowy 14:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree with you, as no one wishes to discuss the omnipresence of the English language in the ESC 95.93.234.32 (talk) 15:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Let us not mix up including  criticism which is WP:NPOV and not WP:OR as appropriate in the articles in a fair and balanced way per WP:WEIGHT and some of the text which has been included (and in some cases removed). I'm the first to admit that the voting system is not utopian and 95.93.234.32 I agree that English has become increasingly used since the inception of the ESC, but there are ways and means of presenting the information. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 15:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Meowy, this seems like an attempt to rid the articles from "unfavorable" content. Why wouldn't wikipedia cover the harrasment of Azerbaijanis, whose only "mistake" was voting for their neighbors song. And this comes from a country that claims that it's the most tolerant country in the world. So yes, I think if there is information supported by verifiable and reliable sources it should be included. Lida Vorig (talk) 02:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I was expecting a response along these lines at some point, my answer to such accusations is very clear: No. I have no links to either Armenia or Azerbaijan and I have no personal investment in any side of the controversies mentioned in these sections. My interest here is a good faith attempt to try and improve the encyclopedia by aiming to have articles follow neutral point of view as much as possible with views presented fairly and without bias. That is probably true of almost all editors of this project, and assuming otherwise will not help resolve anything. Camaron · Christopher · talk 17:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Camran, please stop making assumptions about other people. Your above plea that your actions should be seen as "good faith" ones looks insincere since you also make it clear you think everyone else is not acting in good faith! On Wikipedia articles about serious subjects you don't get away with throwing around allegations of POV bias without stating what you think is biased and what you think is lacking a neutral point of view. And you absolutely DO NOT get away with tagging an article without stating what you think is biased and what you think is lacking a neutral point of view within the article. It is, I think, as I suspected: you want the article to be all sweetness about Eurovision, and containing nothing that might shine a light on the darker sides of the contest. The "controversies" section that you wants to whitewash-away is actually the only section of that article that is real-world notable. Most of the rest is just anorak-type trivia that is of interest only to those who are dedicated fans of the show. Meowy 02:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) How about one or two facts here. Taking the Eurovision Song Contest 2009 as an example: If someone can explain to me how keeping material by integrating it impartially and giving a balanced view according to one of our five pillars is 'whitewashing', I would be most grateful. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 10:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Has the material been removed? No. The 1,250 words or so on the four different controversies are still there. In fact, if you check the recent edit history, Camaron has reverted in order to restore a more comprehensive version.
 * Does the tag say that the material should be removed? No. It says that "[this] may mean the article does not present a neutral point of view of the subject. It may be better to integrate the material in such sections into the article as a whole." (my emphasis).
 * Does Cameron want the controversies deleted? No. He suggests (see above) integrating them into the text without using the controversial use of the section heading Controversies.
 * Has the tag been explained? Yes. We are debating it here, thanks to his posting of multiple links across the articles concerned to centralise this discussion.
 * Has Camaron failed to assume good faith? No. He has clearly stated that he has no links or affiliations to one of the controversies and has no personal investment in any side of the controversies mentioned and merely wishes to have articles follow WP:NPOV as much as possible, a characteristic which he attributes to "almost all editors of this project".
 * Is Camaron focussing on the Armenia-Azerbaijan issue? No. It seems to me that he is talking about all the material included in the Controversies section.
 * Very well said, you have hit the nail on the head. Camaron · Christopher · talk 15:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it is time to raise Camaron's abuse of tagging with other administrators. It looks like he has ownership issues with Eurovision-related articles, and there are no indications that he understands or wants to understand the proper use of tags. You would think having such an understanding would be a requirement for an administrator. Meowy 23:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Meowy, this is again a violation of WP:AGF on your part. If editors have concerns, the tag remains until the concerns are addressed. Even if concerns are baseless, they still have to be addressed and discussed, and dealt with in accordance with WP:DR. You must know that very well. Grand  master  07:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If I had "ownership issues" with the page I would not have bothered with the tags and just made sweeping changes myself. I didn't because I wanted some further opinions including some suggestions on how to resolve the concerns, which is why I started the discussion here. The Eurovision Song Contest 2009 controversy section has improved now it does include coverage of Azerbaijan's response, but I would still think the article would be structured better without such a section. I suggested earlier that the controversy section be replaced with a reception section (mostly for vote controversy material e.t.c.) for the ESC 2009. I have given the issue more thought and I have realised that not everything in the controversy section would fit into a new reception section. The Georgia material can just go in 'Participating countries' where it is already mentioned, Spain material could possibly go into one of the Voting sections, and LGBT protests could be given its own section. The Azerbaijan and Armenia issue could be part of participants, though unless it is cut down it is big enough for its own section if not its own article in the long-term if this over flows into other contests. Camaron · Christopher · talk 17:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Armenia-Azerbaijan issue has now been given its own article at Armenia–Azerbaijan relations in the Eurovision Song Contest. I will take part of the credit (or blame) for the decided title, though it turns out, which I didn't notice before suggesting the word relations, that this fits well with the Armenia–Azerbaijan relations article. The controversy sections in some articles can be improved to reflect this new article, as has happened at Azerbaijan in the Eurovision Song Contest. Camaron · Christopher · talk 12:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Blaxy Girls
The page from one of the Romanian finalists, the Blaxy Girls is at Afd here. If anyone would like to join the discussion or work on the article please do so. J04n(talk page) 14:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

MOS and YYYY-MM-DD
A proposal is being made to change the WP:Manual of style (dates and numbers) in the advice it gives for use of numerical dates. Currently it disapproves of the use of YYYY-MM-DD only in sentences, a proposal has been made however to also disapprove of it in footnotes (i.e. references). This could impact on this project which widely uses YYYY-MM-DD in its references for the publication date and access date. Some discussion is at Mosnum/proposal on YYYY-MM-DD numerical dates. Personally, I will not be in any hurry to make mass changes to references in articles if the proposal goes ahead as it not very important, unless a bot helps out, though it looks like it won't given a build up of opposition since it was first proposed. Camaron · Christopher · talk 11:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not a huge fan of that format, but the reftool does it automatically so it's always easier for me to leave it. I am under the impression that the date format in the article body should be carried down into the refs. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 14:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, to quote WP:MOSDATE:


 * Dates in article body text should all have the same format.
 * Dates in article references should all have the same format.


 * So the two can be different, which makes sense as different rules apply to reference dates than to ones in the body e.g. numeric dates are not allowed in article body, and space is not usually an issue within prose. There is also the problem of different date styles between countries, but that is not a problem for YYYY-MM-DD as it is an international standard. Camaron · Christopher · talk 14:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Cuchufleta
Just so the rest of the project knows, I have blocked indefinitely for hoax article creations and adding false information to articles despite warnings, mostly Eurovision releated. Normally WP:UNINVOLVED would prevent me blocking users with connections to articles I am involved in, but an exception could be made in this case as the actions met the definition of vandalism. The users editing style of using fake references is suspiciously like that of a few IPs that have edited Eurovision Song Contest 2010 (while unprotected) in the past, and is likely the same user logged-out, see Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2010/Archive 2 for more information. Camaron · Christopher · talk 18:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

MelodyVision Song Contest
This article and associated AfD may interest members of this project, particularly in helping to work out if it is a hoax or not. Camaron · Christopher · talk 12:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Commented. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Red used for last place in country articles
The red used on the country articles totally needs to be changed, this may not be a problem some articles but some may be swamped with red links such as JESC articles (example: Macedonia in JESC), which with the current red colour is unreadable as well as black and blue being bad on the eye with the red. The table above lists some red colours with '1' being what is already used --  [[ axg  ⁞⁞  talk   ]] 11:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * One possible way to change it could perhaps be to go from background to a border. Using the Macedonia JESC example.
 * {| class="wikitable sortable"

! Year ! Artist ! Title ! Place ! Points
 * - bgcolor="#CCCCCC"
 * - bgcolor="#FF0000"
 * 2006
 * Zana Aliu
 * "Vljubena" (Вљубена)
 * 15
 * 14
 * 2006
 * Zana Aliu
 * "Vljubena" (Вљубена)
 * 15
 * 14
 * - style="border:3px solid #FF0000"
 * 2006
 * Zana Aliu
 * "Vljubena" (Вљубена)
 * 15
 * 14
 * }chandler 14:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I like the idea, but when two or more colours are next to each other, it looks odd.
 * {| class="wikitable" border="1"
 * I like the idea, but when two or more colours are next to each other, it looks odd.
 * {| class="wikitable" border="1"

! Rank ! Country ! Points
 * -style="border:3px solid gold"
 * 1
 * 44
 * -style="border:3px solid silver"
 * 2
 * 35
 * -style="border:3px solid #CC9966"
 * 3
 * 34
 * -style="border:3px solid red"
 * 4
 * 33
 * }--  [[ axg  ⁞⁞  talk   ]] 14:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 4
 * 33
 * }--  [[ axg  ⁞⁞  talk   ]] 14:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * }--  [[ axg  ⁞⁞  talk   ]] 14:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 03:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment on Biographies of living people
Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:

Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, nearly all wikiproject topics will be effected.

The two opposing positions which have the most support is:
 * 1) supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
 * 2) opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect

Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.

Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced article if they are not sourced, so your project may want to pursue the projects below.

Tools to help your project with unreferenced Biographies of living people
If you don't already have this and are interested in creating a list of articles which need cleanup for your wikiproject see: Cleanup listings A list of examples is here
 * List of cleanup articles for your project

If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation page", contact me, User talk:Ikip
 * Moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation pages"

If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip
 * Watchlisting all unreferenced articles

Ikip 02:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Spokespeople 2009
I noticed the Eurovision Song Contest 2009 article is missing its spokespeople section. I planned to add them, but I couldn't find a list on the internet. Is it possible to gather our forces and try to recognize all 42 people. A few I remember are: Maybe we can find al 42 and add them. Clausule (talk) 00:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 🇫🇮 Geir Rönning
 * 🇦🇲 Sirusho
 * 🇳🇱 Yolanthe Cabau van Kasbergen
 * Laka


 * There has been some previous discussion on this which may interest you at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision/Archive 5. Camaron · Christopher · talk 11:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced living people articles bot
Okip  01:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * We seem to have done well on the unreferenced BLP front; that assumes that all relevant pages are properly tagged though. Camaron · Christopher · talk 10:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I will look into more depth about whether the bot is correctly listing unreferenced BLPs or not. Thanks for your efforts. Okip  01:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Marios Tofi
Do folks here think this singer is notable? He hasn't released an album, but participated in several song contests, including Junior Eurovision. Thanks, PDCook (talk) 14:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say he probably passes criteria 9 and 10 of WP:MUSICBIO. anemoneprojectors   talk  20:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. Regards, PDCook (talk) 01:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * While the account that most recently edited the page is no longer active, I have expressed concern over the user's choice of username on their talk page. Camaron · Christopher · talk 10:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The user claimed (on my talk page some months ago) that he/she was not Marios Tofi, just an adoring fan. I assumed good faith, and chose not to pursue that any further, but I did add the COI tag to the article. PDCook (talk) 13:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I noticed the claims, which if true mean that most likely the username does not pass WP:REALNAME, even if the choice was in good faith. I don't see any point in taking action while the account is inactive, though if he returns I will strongly advice a change in username, particularly if he continues to heavily edit that one article, due to the potential problems it may cause. Camaron · Christopher · talk 16:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Point tables
Hi! Should we create point tables at the Country in the Eurovision Song Contest XXX with the reference of the Score Tables of Eurovision.tv??? I could change the references at the tables were there already exist.Redpower94 (talk) 13:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * He is referring to the tables as seen here. While I agree that the information is relevant, I don't like the table format. We previously decided that the huge tables that listed what was awarded to the country and what the country awarded were overwhelming considering the number of entries these days, and decided that the information should be presented as prose. I find that a bunch of tables with no explanation are not as helpful as the information if it were presented as prose. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 14:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hm,so how should the table look like? Does anybody has an idea?Redpower94 (talk) 17:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion proposal of entrants by year categories
I have spotted by chance the CfD of Category:Eurovision Song Contest entrants of 2001. Given that there are calls for a mass CfD if this one passes, which will have a large impact on the project, this nomination needs full scrutiny. Camaron · Christopher · talk 19:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Newsletter update
You may have noticed that with the currently bi-monthly release model, a newsletter should have recently been released for March and April. I started it but I have not been able to finish it, and there is no change of me finishing it now as I now have to focus on upcoming exams. Due to other members being busy I am nowadays writing these newsletters almost entirely myself. To make things worse, Article Alerts, where I get a lot of the news from for the newsletter, is currently out of action.

We could delay this next issue to the end of May just after the Eurovision Song Contest when there will be more activity, but this will be right in the middle of my exams, so I will not be able to write it. My preferred option is to delay the newsletter to the end of June, when I will be available, and make it a second-quarter edition, including full coverage of the 2010 ESC and its aftermath. After this, I suggest just releasing a newsletter every quarter (so four issues a year, down from the bi-monthly six), as this seems to be more viable, would still be regular enough to be useful, and could possibly mean higher quality newsletters. Bear in mind that if the project becomes more active and more editors are available, the newsletter can be more regular, and that most projects of our size do not have a newsletter at all. Unless there are significant objections, I plan to implement the switch to a quarterly newsletter in June. Camaron · Christopher · talk 13:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Given that the deadline has long since past for the next edition, and with me busy doing other things, no activity here has occurred, I am being bold and declaring the newsletter inactive and shutting it down indefinitely. As I have said previously the sustainability of this newsletter was always questionable, given that this is a small project, and for at least the last five editions I have written 70 to 100% of the newsletter content. Even with Article Alerts operational, it still takes a lot of work to get out each edition, and now with it out of action indefinitely, the task is now a lot more difficult. I have decided it would be better to focus my Wikipedia time on other things. I do understand that a newsletter is desirable, and it can always be re-started later if there is more interest. In the meantime, notices can be given to all members of the project on a case-by-case basis. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 12:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Tags
I've tagged most articles surrounding this years Eurovision and assessed them, also I changed a few articles assessments, most notably OPA (song) which fails one or more of the B class criteria, also Lena Meyer-Landrut and Satellite (Lena Meyer-Landrut song) could be FACs if enough work is done on them. Afro ( DontTazeMeBro ) - Afkatk 13:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons update
The WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons (UBLPs) aims to reduce the number of unreferenced biographical articles to under 30,000 by June 1, primarily by enabling WikiProjects to easily identify UBLP articles in their project's scope. There were over 52,000 unreferenced BLPs in January 2010 and this has been reduced to 32,665 as of May 16. A bot is now running daily to compile a list of all articles that are in both Category:All unreferenced BLPs and have been tagged by a WikiProject. Note that the bot does NOT place unreferenced tags or assign articles to projects - this has been done by others previously - it just compiles a list.

Your Project's list can be found at WikiProject Eurovision/Unreferenced BLPs. As of May 17 you have approximately 97 articles to be referenced, a 7.6% reduction from last week. The list of all other WikiProject UBLPs can be found at WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons/WikiProjects.

Your assistance in reviewing and referencing these articles is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please don't hestitate to ask either at WT:URBLP or at my talk page. Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 18:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The number of unreferenced BLPs under this project has gone from 124 on 29 March 2010, to 97 today. If current trends continue (~11 removed per month) we should reach zero unreferenced BLPs by around January 2011. Camaron · Christopher · talk 18:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Or the 50 or so people listed as active members of this project could each reference two this week and have it all done before you all head off to Norway for this year's show. The Opera and Metal music projects have both cleared their lists, Sweden did 200 in the last week.  I'm not forcing you to do anything, just letting you know it is possible.The-Pope (talk) 18:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That would good, though unfortunately I can't go to Norway as I have exams. I'm waiting until Eurovision is back in the UK before going to a contest, which could be a long wait! Also, the active list is out-of-date and many that are listed are not active, and some such as myself are only semi-active. After my exams I, and hopefully others as well, will get through the list relatively quickly as 98 is manageable number compared to 32,280. Camaron · Christopher · talk 18:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Eurovision songs by country CFD
Hello, I'm here to notify users that the subcategories of are currently under consideration to be renamed. The 50 categories were nominated at Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 24 and I would like to invite the members of this WikiProject to the discussion. Thank you. — ξ xplicit  02:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thea Garrett
An editor claiming to be the owner of Thea Garrett's website has been removing the Controversy section from this article. As far as I can tell, there is no WP:BLP issue with the section as the info is sourced reliably. Please see WP:HD for details. This should be discussed on the article's talk page, which is what I've told the editor in question. Mjroots (talk) 14:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Obviously caution must be taken on BLP issues, however I do not see any actual WP:BLP violations. If the section is damaging Thea Garrett then the damage has already been done since the content there is taken from the The Times of Malta. However, a few sentences seem to have been directly copied and pasted from the source, which may be enough to raise copyright concerns. Camaron · &#32; Christopher · &#32;talk 17:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Eurovision Song Contest: Winners? Rules? Help, please!
Hello, aren't there some experts on the Eurovision contest around who know about its rules? Here I've asked a few questions regarding who is or who are the winners of a Song Contest: the performers, the songwriters, the countries, all of them, or only the songwriters, only the performers? And where can I find the official rules as to who is/are the winners? I know that there's also a trophy involved, is it given only to the performers or the songwriters, and does the trophy go to the winner(s)? Thanks in advance for going there and helping find some answers! Catgut (talk) 01:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The winners of the Contest are described as the songwriter(s), artists and participating broadcaster - jointly. See rule #11 here. I believe that it was not always thus: in the past, the trophy was awarded to the songwriter(s) alone. I can't remember when it changed to include the artists and broadcasters. EuroSong talk 17:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Harel Skaat
Hello, I've been working on the article for Harel Skaat and I want to know how I would go about requesting a reassessment of it from WikiProject Eurovision. It currently is listed as a C class article and I would like for it to be considered for an upgrade. Thanks. Hjquazimoto (talk) 17:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This project currently does not have a formal Assessment Department. I have however upped the article to B-class as while it seems to still need work for GA, it appears to meet the B-class criteria okay. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 14:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Members list clean-up
I have taken the opportunity to clean-up the members list. I have dealt with user re-names, blocked users, duplicates e.t.c. as well as moved editors to the inactive list from the active list (and vice versa) as appropriate based on a scan of recent contributions. As a result the active users list is now shorter than the inactive list, so eventually older additions may have to be removed from the latter. Any users who thinks I have moved them to the wrong list, are free to move themselves back. In any case, this project remains small with just thirty-seven active users, and eighty-one total members. There are probably lots of users out there that can join, so liberal use of should be encouraged. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 14:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Electro Soukouss
Hello, I created the article for Jessy Matador's second album Electro Soukouss. If anyone can find more information about the album and when his next singe is please contact me, thanks. --Joe692 (talk) 10:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to re-structure the project
The scope of this project has never been resolved, though there has been prior discussion on this, for instance see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision/Archive 2, but a clear resolution was never reached. As can be seen on the main project page there were plans to re-name this project WikiProject Eurovision Song Contest and create a separate project called WikiProject Eurovision Dance Contest, but this never went ahead.

The situation has changed since then however, many Junior Eurovision Song Contest and Eurovision Dance Contest pages have been tagged as part of this project, and in practice this project, de facto covers them. The plan to create a separate project for EDC seems less viable now given that the next Eurovision Dance Contest is on hold, and this project is struggling to maintain good activity levels as it is (see above).

I believe the best option now is to expand the project's scope outwards to cover all the main contests of the Eurovision Network. These would include:


 * Eurovision Song Contest (ESC) (what the Eurovision Network is most known for, and would remain by far the main focus of the project)
 * Junior Eurovision Song Contest (JESC)
 * Eurovision Dance Contest (EDC)
 * Eurovision Talent Contest (was once mooted by ESCToday, but doesn't seem to be going ahead)
 * Eurovision Young Dancers
 * Eurovision Young Musicians

Advantages to this plan are:


 * Would eliminate current confusion on the scope of this project.
 * Would be easy to do, as it would only require some further page tagging and a bit of re-organisation on the main project page. Creating separate WikiProject's would take a long time with all new templates, pages e.t.c. required.
 * Realistic given that this project needs an activity boost, and expanding its scope is one way of doing that. This project can manage as it is but it lacks many of the facilities that larger projects have such as a newsletter (see above), fully written article guidelines, and an assessment department.
 * Would encourage more attention to be given to non-ESC Eurovision articles, some of which need much work on them.

Potential objections/disadvantages and their response/remedies are:


 * "Many of these contests only relation is that they have "Eurovision" in their name, and so they should be kept separate."
 * There are clear connections between these contests, as many valid comparisons can be made between rules and formats of the contests, even if the actual content can often be quite different. Another similarity which is more relevant for a WikiProject is that the article structure and hierarchy is very similar between contests e.g. Contest by year, Country in Contest by year, Country in Contest articles exist for ESC, EDC, and JESC. Even if you dismiss the similarities, other successful WikiProjects such as the BBC WikiProject cover many articles, including TV shows and contests, with the only relation to each other being they are linked to an organisation. Furthermore, the issue of keeping different contests separate could be resolved through task forces within WikiProject Eurovision, which is more viable than creating lots of separate WikiProjects.
 * "This project should only cover the ESC, given that is what is was created to do so and I never edit EDC, JESC e.t.c articles."
 * Users who join a WikiProject do not have to edit all topics within its coverage. This project was created in 2003 before EDC and (only just) JESC existed, so at the time using Eurovision to refer to the song contest was less of an issue, but in order for WikiProjects to remain relevant they do have to evolve with the times. It is also clear that many members do edit articles for multiple contests, with at least one editor in the members list citing JESC/EDC articles as a focus of editing.
 * "Such an increase in coverage will cause this project to loose focus and become a messy mix-up of unrelated topics."
 * Loss of focus is a valid concern, though given that the Eurovision Song Contest is by the far the most known Eurovision Contest the main focus of this project will stay on that contest. The main changes will be that more articles will be tagged as part of this project and the main project page will need to be re-organised a bit, so there isn't any specific area where there is going to be a messy mix-up.
 * "Why not just leave EDC and other such contests on their own, not all article topics require a WikiProject."
 * No, but having one is a good idea to provide appropriate support to these articles with article guidelines, co-ordination, and article assessments. Some contests will be covered under larger projects such as WikiProject Dance, however due to the very large scopes of these projects less support can be given by them compared to this project.
 * "This proposal doesn't address non-EBU spin-off contests such as Our Sound."
 * This is perhaps requires a separate debate. In the long run Our Sound may be better off having its WikiProject, though given its a spinoff and the articles have been created by members of this project, in my opinion it might as well be tagged as part of this project for now even if nothing more happens than that.
 * "This proposal would result in very distant articles such as the Vienna New Year's Concert being tagged as part of the project."
 * Such events appear to only have one article on Wikipedia, so including them would not be a big deal. In any case it is debatable on if they should be included given that unlike contests such as the ESC, they appear to be only broadcast by the EBU, not run by the EBU, so they may be too distant to be included.

Any thoughts on this? I am aware that this project talk page is not heavily watched, so I am considering leaving a note on all active project members talk pages given the scope of this issue. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 14:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I feel that including all related projects would be best. As it is now, active membership is low and having other projects to draw from our membership base would be a bad thing. On the grand scale, there are so many similarities between the contests that it only makes sense to have them all under one umbrella. They pretty much all formatted the same and all use the same templates. Also, fans of one tend to be fans of the others. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you agree. It's clear we have activity issues given the lack of responses on this page alone, and I wondered for a while if I was going to get any! CT Cooper · &#32;talk 16:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

In the portuguese wikipedia we use this system since 2008 ;) http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Projetos/Eurovis%C3%A3o It works very well. We can organize better the articles and use the same criteria to all of them (including the pages desings, etc). It's really a nice way to control all the eurovision world in wikipedia :) For me you should do it as well. João P. M. Lima (talk) 19:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That's interesting to hear. I don't know much about Eurovision WikiProjects in other languages, but if it works elsewhere, it strengthens the case for a change here as well. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 15:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The Portuguese project is very small, however, it is highly developed in terms of what it has to offer thanks to Joao. I don't know if it would be a great example of the joined topics working since there is not much activity, but at least it shows a precedent. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the project is small ;) The concep is huge lol But I have to agree someway... I create the projec in 2008, at that time was only for ESC, some moths later came JESC and EDC, when the ideia of Asiavision come out I add that one too, but in the first birthday of the project I solve to refresh all the project and take of the asiavision part, and include the others eurovision contets. The project pages aren't finished, I create all the main pages, made a lot of advertisement to undreds of users, but there were few interested :/ that's the main problem, after two months of waiting for some help I decided not to create/complete the remain pages because I was creating a project basicly just for me, and I was losing a lot of time doing it insted of working in the articles wich are the main subject here. In the portuguese wikipedia there are only three people that really work on the articles, me, and another two users (and one of them has never entered on the project despite many invitations. Rigth now the works slow a little bit, I'm not working hard on wiki, I made so much work in a short space of time that I can say that it was to much wikipedia at once xD I'm on a kind of holidays, just making some edits. The way the project is organized works as a media database ;) it's a new concept of offering information in wikipedia, it's not easy to find by many readers but it's there ;) I think that is important you (the english wiki) addopt the same concept, this will make the eurovision world come out, and this is proved ;) I noticed in that thing that gives the number of visitings that an article recives and they have increased more than 100% ;) João P. M. Lima (talk) 15:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

moved comment
Actually that comment was for some else not the template or the project sorry. Spongie555 (talk) 08:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I am moving this comment here after it was accidentally placed on Template:EurovisionInvite. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 08:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * For the record, Spongie555 has edited the comment since it was placed here. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 08:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * When I sent invites to the wikiproject, I forgot to subst the invitation template. Because of this, when someone clicked the edit button for the section on the user's talk page, they actually were editing the template! I made the same mistake as Spongie and have since substituted the invites that I sent. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 14:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I see; I was wondering what had caused it. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 21:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Changes made by Dan221094/86.146.229.194
It really is worrying me that Dan221094/86.146.229.194 is making a lot of changes to articles, including; a last place section in the Infobox and the tables from only showing the winner to showing last, third, second and first placing, without discussion of the matter anywhere. --  [[ axg  ◉  talk   ]] 12:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yea I noticed. I tried to recruit him for the project, but he doesn't seem to have acknowledged it or know what it is. On the bright side, this is the same sort of behavior I noticed when Sims2aholic8 started so maybe another dedicated editor is on his way :p Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 12:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

New colours for the final table on the article
Hey guys have good idea that perhaps we could use colours to show which country finished first, second, third and last as it would make it easier for the readers. --Dan221094 (talk) 17:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Eurovision articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Eurovision articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (&diams;) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject cleanup listing
I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 20:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Eurovision Song Contest winners
Every article for songs that won the Eurovision Song Contest has both a succession box linking to the previous and next year's winner and a navbox template that shows all the winning songs. Since they accomplish the same thing, isn't having just the navbox simpler and more beneficial? Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 05:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Mass creation of galleries
I have to say I am rather alarmed by the mass creation of galleries by and earlier by  without any discussion at all. Given the similarity of the edits I suspect both these accounts are owned by the same person. Random galleries of images at the end of articles is already discouraged by policy, in particular by the second paragraph. What makes these recent edits more problematic is that they are stripping all other sections of images then placing them at the end of article, which goes against how encyclopaedic articles should use images - to support the text. I have informed the user about this posting. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 11:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with you there, many seem to be a one image gallery, which looks vulgar and out of place, and really takes up more unnecessary space. --  [[ axg  ◉  talk   ]] 14:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, even more so when there is only image in the article: . I was keeping an eye on since it suddenly appeared after I blocked  for in itself being a sock of . This means this could be the user's fourth account - which makes sense since it is clear this user is familiar with wiki markup and like all the previous accounts has a particular interest in images. I have asked the user to clarify there position and the standing of these accounts here. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 17:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. Get rid of those galleries. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * User is still at it now . It is clear from their use of wiki markup that they know what there doing and are just going to continue until they get blocked - Mr.eurosong all over again. Given unanimity here and the fact this could get very disruptive if it continues I'm issuing a final warning. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 21:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Uploading Eurovision logos on Commons
Please see Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2011. This is a good piece of Christmas news for the project - local uploading of logos under fair use appears to be no longer necessary. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 22:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Disruption from Diogomauricio3 sock puppets
It appears there has been a lot of disruption on Eurovision articles from and his sockpuppets which so far have been, , , and , with this users main target being Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2011, though he has also gone after other articles such as Eurovision Song Contest 2011 in the past. This users main tactics are to insert false information into articles, often subtly, without any references, or even to create entire hoax based articles (sometimes with fake logos to go with them!). The user also likes to build-up a garden of fake articles in the userspace (triple digit number of them under Diogomauricio3) and then move them into the mainspace in his own time. I will be looking out for more socks of this user, but the more eyes the better! CT Cooper · &#32;talk 14:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll keep an eye out for him. Grk1011 (talk) 14:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Article alerts
FYI: Article alerts for WikiProject Eurovision are now back operating again with a new bot. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 00:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Third RfC on source reliability
Following repeated requests at Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2011, it seems appropriate to start another RfC on sources for Eurovision articles. All sources can be reviewed if demanded, though the main source under question at the moment is ESCDaily (website). So I ask for comment on the following question: Is ESCDaily a reliable source?

There have been two previous RfCs within WikiProject Eurovision on source reliability:


 * First (October to December 2008): Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision/Archive 3
 * Result:
 * ESCKaz - Reliable
 * ESCToday - Reliable
 * Oikotimes - Reliable
 * Second (June to July 2009): Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision/Archive 4
 * Result:
 * ESCKaz - Semi-reliable
 * ESCTime - Not reliable
 * ESCToday - Reliable
 * Oikotimes - No consensus

If you did not participate in the above RfCs, then it is recommended that you skim through them to get a taste of current consensus. Please note that any decisions made here will be based on interpretation of established Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you are new to Wikipedia, please read through the following policies and guidelines thoroughly before commenting:


 * Verifiability (highly relevant)
 * Identifying reliable sources (highly relevant)
 * Neutral point of view (also important)
 * No original research (also important)

Furthermore, if you are in any way connected to the website(s) being discussed here, you are welcome to comment, but please read Conflict of interest before doing so. If there is a lack of participation, I may neutrally notify all members of this WikiProject, as I did before, in-line with Canvassing. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 22:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

As before lack of activity is a problem, and it has been a month and not a single person has commented. Should this RfC stay open, I could notify people individually like before, or should I kill it? I will default to the latter if there is no input soon. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 21:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I was waiting for others to comment before myself as my opinions have not really changed much. I'll try to whip up a reply before the end of the day. Grk1011 (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So was I lol. RfC generally should be opened neutrally so I couldn't really inject my opinion in the opening comments. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 21:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The RfC has now expired. I think it will be best to revive this when there is more interest. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 13:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Update on Eurovision logos on Commons
Unfortunately, there has been some trouble on Commons with the transfer of the logos, and despite the precautions I took as I feared it would happen (see older section on this above), administrators there have deleted some logos they think are copyrighted. See commons:Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests. Logos such as File:Eurovision Song Contest 2011 logo.png currently seem unlikely to be accepted on Commons, and should not be transferred for the time being. The jury is still out on more generic versions such as File:Eurovision Song Contest 2011 logo.svg. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 16:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Please note that consensus at has established that simple logos are okay on Commons, while the more complex ones are not. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 14:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Attention required of someone in the know (content dispute)
Hello there, I'm not part of this project, but an ongoing content dispute has been brought to my attention. As I know little about the article's content, I am hoping someone within the article's WikiProject can be of assistance. I would presume someone here would know how to resolve the content dispute better than myself. Input into the discussion (on the talkpage that I have provided the link to) would be greatly appreciated. Orphan Wiki 12:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I feel personally that the edits made by user Parishan are politicaly motivated. The user has been in numerous conflicts over Wikipedia articles about Armenia and Azerbaijan and always in favour of Azerbaijan. The user is also referring to a Wikipedia guideline which tells that basically no unsourced material should be used, when infact all the material removed by the user was very well sourced. Just because material might be pro-Armenia in one section doesnt mean that its OK to remove it. Parishan removed a huge section of the article and I tried to tell the user that a third party opinion was needed before removing the information again. Instead I was patronised by the user and told basically that Parishan is right and I am wrong. I dont think Wikipedia should be about politics or Pro-armenia or Pro-azerbaijan, all well sourced and true material should be welcomed. I here by state that I believe that the huge section removed by Parishan should be put on the article again.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said to Orphan Wiki which agreed with me that mutch that he put this discussion up here to help me. It doesnt feel right that a Wikipedia article basically gets censored by a very possible Pro-Azerbaijan user.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So, no one willing to help??? Orphan Wiki  11:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately this talk page does not seem to get a lot of traffic. I have plenty of experience with Eurovision, and some experience with Armenia-Azerbaijan controversies in the contest. I will try to take a look at the dispute and post an opinion on the article talk page. Editors are not obliged to go along with my judgement, but it should help break the deadlock. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 14:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have now posted a third opinion. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 23:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Good that plus the positive reactions from me and two more users should be enough for a consensus to restore the content.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The content has now per consensus been restored.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, CT Cooper. :) Orphan Wiki  16:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Re-naming the Eurovision portal and re-organising categories on Wikipedia and Commons
There is currently a confusing mix of references to "Eurovision" and "Eurovision Song Contest" within Wikipedia, caused by the potential of referring to the Eurovision Song Contest as "Eurovision", which can also refer to the Eurovision Network and everything in it. This is not an issue for articles, with the standard convention being to re-direct "Eurovision X" to "Eurovision Song Contest X", and have a hat note or disambiguation page to resolve confusion. The main example being Eurovision going to Eurovision Song Contest, which has a link to Eurovision (disambiguation).

However, the Eurovision Song Contest portal is out-of-step of this precedent, being located at Portal:Eurovision with no such disambiguation. However strangely despite being titled as the ESC portal, the portal does refer to the EDC and JEDC as "Eurovision Song Contest events" despite the fact they are completely separate contests!? I propose deleting the references to the JESC and EDC, and moving the portal to Portal:Eurovision Song Contest. The JESC and EDC can have their own portals as necessary, and possibly one central Eurovision Network portal can be created.

The central ESC category is titled Category:Eurovision Song Contest, and most sub-categories are titled Category:Eurovision Song Contest X, with one exception being Category:Eurovision songs, which again is potentially confusing and I propose that this is brought into line with the other categories.

Finally, I am also planning to re-organise the category structure on Commons, with ESC categories confusingly being titled Category: Eurovision X (see commons:Category:Eurovision), while galleries use the full title (see Eurovision Song Contest 2010). The categories should be re-organised for improved harmony between them and galleries.

In a TL;DR summary:


 * Referring to the "Eurovision Song Contest" as "Eurovision" can be potentially confusing.
 * The scope of Portal:Eurovision is somewhat unclear, and its current location is confusing. It should be modified and moved to Portal:Eurovision Song Contest.
 * Category:Eurovision songs is out-of-step with other ESC categories and is potentially confusing. These categories should be moved into line with the others.
 * commons:Category:Eurovision is potentially confusing and is out-of-step with ESC galleries, and this should be rectified.

Any suggestions are welcome, before I place formal move proposals. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 21:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. Here's my view on things.


 * From what I can tell, whenever most people talk about "Eurovision" on its own they mostly talk about the Eurovision Song Contest, so in my opinion, when most people would put "Eurovision" into Wikipedia they are looking for the Song Contest, not for the Network itself. So I would suggest keeping the "Eurovision" reference as it is.


 * The other three points however I can agree with mostly.


 * Hope I've been helpful
 * Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 03:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Good to see this project is not completely dead! I agree with you on the point that in the overwhelming majority of cases individuals saying "Eurovision" mean the "Eurovision Song Contest", and hence the existing re-direct at Eurovision and the ones for each contest year (e.g. Eurovision 2008) make sense, and do not propose changing them. However, they are only re-directs, and the main idea behind my proposals is to ensure that portals, categories, and templates are consistent with the articles themselves in specifying the full name where appropriate. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 16:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Peer review request
Hey guys. Just letting you know that I've recently expanded the United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 2011 page in preparation for the Contest, and I was hoping to get some people to review it for me to try and get it to GA status. I wouldn't mind some ideas for a DId you know suggestion. Thanks, Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 03:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It is one of the good article criteria that an article has to be stable, though I have to say the reviewer's interpretation of it is open to debate since the actual criterion on this only mentions content disputes, and the note clearly says that "good faith improvements to the page" do not apply to it, and that "Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold". I would like to help out further but I've not historically been very good at reviewing articles for GA, and I probably won't be of much help. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 21:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Mass creation of unsourced lists of living people
I am rather alarmed at the mass creation of unsourced lists of commentators and spokespersons on many Eurovision Song Contest year articles. Given the scale of the creations it will be very difficult to source many of them any time soon, and I'm not getting the impression that the creator's of these list are planning to give sources. Unsourced lists of (mostly) living people is not in compatibility with either the verifiability policy nor the biographies of living persons policy (the latter policy applies to all pages on Wikipedia, not just biographical articles). It is both the view of myself and policy that when it comes to content on living people - no information is better than misleading or false information, and as it stands it will be difficult to verify whether these lists are accurate, and edits such as this do not inspire confidence. I'm seriously considering going through all Eurovision Song Contest year articles and just deleting everything related to living people that is unsourced, per standing policy. If I can I will try and give some time over to finding sources myself, but WP:BURDEN applies here. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 21:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If tried to get Carlos to source his changes, but he still doesn't. In terms of the contest as a whole, I don't really think listing the commentators and spokespeople is even important. If anything, maybe they should be mentioned in the "At Eurovision" section of the individual country in year pages. Grk1011 (talk) 14:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think it is particularly important either, and I do think we should have a review of the content in the ESC year articles and agree on what should be there and what isn't, particularly given that some more trivial sections such "Returning artists" have appeares without consensus and I would certainly question their necessity. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 22:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

These changes are only based by intuition according to YouTube videos, and, by the way, neither of the users who helped to create the page sourced his/her changes. Kind regards Carlos MS (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * On your talk page I provided you a link to the Biographies of living persons policy (WP:BLP), in case you haven't had a chance to read it or have forgotten what it says, I will provide a quote for you:

Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies:


 * Neutral point of view (NPOV)
 * Verifiability (V)
 * No original research (NOR)

We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.


 * Is YouTube and "intuition" a high quality source? No. Have inline citations been provided for this material? No. Conclusion: do these additions follow policy? Per the previous answers, no. I am aware that a lot of content in these articles is unsourced, but that does not excuse adding to it - see WP:OTHERSTUFF or possibly two wrongs don't make a right, and as I have already said, this is material about living people, and due to past incidents such material gets placed under a lot more scrutiny than other content. At the end of day, while I intend to help properly source such content, all editors are expected to follow both WP:V and WP:BLP, and should expect it to be enforced. It is simply not going to be practical for me to go through all this material alone from 1956 onwards and provide sources myself, something that should have been done while it was being added, which leaves me in a difficult position. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 22:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

A lot of this content is now being sourced, which is good news. The reliability of some of the sources might be open to question, but something is better than nothing at all. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 18:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Flags in template
Here's an example of the template with flags in it: hu:Sablon:A 2011-es Eurovízió dalai. Colorful? Easier to navigate maybe? B i b (talk) 06:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Producing company Eurovision 2011 co-oned by manager German candidate Lena
An article in the serious German Newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) on May 14., page 18, online: (http://faz.net/s/Rub1AF9D78C5CBD45ABA9EC978E01873DC7/Doc~E1278E90F7C5A42B897ED78845F6C047E~ATpl~Ecommon~Scontent.html - in German) "Der Mann hinter Stefan Raab" tells, Eurovision 2011 Düsseldorf was comletely produced by a company that is co-owned by Stefan Raab, the manager / producer of singer Lena Meyer-Landrut, the 2010 and 2011 Eurovision candidate for Germany. Stefan Raab moderated the show, and performed Lena's 2010 winning song Satelite. The producing company is Brainpool TV GmbH, based in Cologne. Founding managing directors: Jörg Grabosch, Martin Ke?, Ralf Günther.

The question should be asked, if this is in balance with rules of fairness, open competition etc. In the wikipedia article on the Eurovision 2011 productions, it should be thematised and be made tranparent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.130.50.150 (talk) 15:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Finals Table Arrangement
I created the table for the voting points from the finals the evening immediately following the event (as the show ends at 6:00 Eastern time, and I was gone for the last hour, I went back to watch the progressional voting around 9:00 in the evening even after learning that Azerbaijan has won). After watching, I noticed no table had been made to my knowledge yet, and started working on a table here (basically copying the 2010 table into there and blanking it, putting comment lines around each header entry for countries for working purposes). After more workspace edits, I started inputting results, finishing the following morning. I then inserted my finished (at the time) table in this edit to the article. I had personally checked every single row after inputting the information to ensure that there was no error prior to my adding it to the article.

About four hours later, another user, Sims2aholic8, completely copied over my version with his own version using articles from past years as a guide. As a result, it introduced numerous errors that were later being reported on the talk page (yes, errors get in, I understand it). It also brought me to his talk page, which brought me here learning of it for the first time (I'm now probably the only Canadian member). I'm not assuming any bad faith as he did what he felt was right, so I'm not upset at him. I do think, however, this is not the right format to use.

Clearly, our table is arranged in a different method than on the Web site (which lists countries alphabetically for voting order, apparently to help people looking for their own country's votes). So clearly, we're not copying exactly as it appears on the site; this much is evident. However, I do truthfully think we've got it wrong; my version of the table, you'll notice, lists countries left to right in the order that votes were presented on the telecast. A much better presentation format than a table that lists countries in a more or less random order (except the first 25 which are in the same order as on the left). Sure it might not look as pretty once the cells for each country's own performer are grayed out, but it seems a more correct order. Merely two ways of presenting the same information. So my question is which format is more appropriate; the proper voting order from the telecast, or the performance order from all three telecasts? I get that consistency is the reason used, but I would willingly redo every single table we have where voting order is known to accommodate for it (Finals only of course, we don't have a voting order for semifinals). I hate seeing 3-4 hours of hard work on my part just edited over like that. CycloneGU (talk) 00:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I have used the previous version mainly because other tables were ordered like that, possibly due to the voting order used in 2004 and 2005 (alphabetical by country code in 2004, and by semi-final non-qualifers and then finalists in 2005). I feel the current order could be useful for these two contests, and then maybe to diverge into the new order from 2006 onwards, but whatever order is decided on I will follow. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 00:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I should add that corrections are still being made to the version currently in the article. Mine is accurate and with no errors. Heck, per my comment when joining the Wikiproject, I'll happily take over table creation for future contests as long as I am active on Wikipedia. I'm good at this type of thing. This goes for Junior Contests too, if I know when to watch for them (November is all I know). CycloneGU (talk) 03:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Well in my personal opinion I prefer the current method that we use. I think it looks neater and ties in better with the tables used before semi-finals were introduced, when the voting was by running order. But whatever method is agreed upon I'll work with. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 15:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmm. When did semi-finals first start?  If voting was by running order before the semifinals were introduced, then those tables obviously are fine regardless of the method; they remain unchanged.  It's after that I'm more concerned about.  Also, with Latvia at the end in both tables, it seems running order still has a role to play in the whole thing to some extent, but based on semifinal ordering perhaps?  Still makes me wonder how the Big 5 get ordered in...  CycloneGU (talk) 17:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)