Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision/Archive 6

Reviving plan to restructure the project
Since this project is suffering from a lack of activity, I am reviving the plan to re-structure the project by formally making it include all topics within the Eurovision Network, the main ones being:


 * 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 Young Dancers
 * Eurovision Young Musicians

Since in the last discussion the idea received no clear objections, I am planning to go ahead with the change within the next few days barring any objections here. This will involve a few changes to the project main page and sub-pages, as well as to the project template. Also, some further articles may need to be tagged, though this has already been done on some EDC/JESC pages, which are de facto in this project, but not presently de jure. On the whole, it is not a large change on the technical front. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 20:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Exams kicked in before I could go ahead and make the proposed change above. However, since editors have had over two months to comment I have now gone ahead and made the necessary changes to more clearly define the scope of this project. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 19:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Diogomauricio3 is back
, who likes to insert hoaxes into Junior Eurovision Song Contest articles, as well as in some areas, appears to have made a re-appearance recently, with the latest sock puppet account being. The more eyes looking out for socks the better, so I'm posting another note here as I suspect we haven't heard the last of this person. General characteristics of this user include creating hoax articles in the user space, inserting hoaxes into actual articles (sometimes with false references), and predictable user names. If you see a sock with these charactristics, please let me know, and I will deal with it. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 16:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Membership list
On the membership list I have gone through all editors on the active list and placed those that have not edited any Eurovision pages in the last three months on the inactive list. Those that were already on the inactive list I have checked again, and removed completely those that have not edited any Eurovision pages in the last three months, while those that have have been put back onto the active list. There are now fifty-one active users, and ten inactive users, bringing a total sixty-one members - that is quite low for a WikiProject. The project currently appears to be loosing editors faster than it is gaining them, possibly because new Eurovision editors are not joining the project and the general decline in Wikipedia editing in the last year or so. I intend to use the template liberally in order to help boost membership, particularly outside the ESC, now the project scope has been expanded, and I would encourage others to do so too. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 21:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Maintenance to templates in Category:Junior Eurovision Song Contest by year templates
I think it is quite sad that the 2003 and the 2004 templates had one extra country for over 2 years and no-one noticed... talk about lack of maintenance! Anyhoo, they are fixed, and the red links of "Country" per year are being redirected to "Country" in the Junior Eurovision contest, so there are no annoying red links in the above templates, until of course there is more info on the national finals of every country. I hope no-one objects with these changes. Kosm1fent Won't you talk to me? 14:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * JESC and other non-ESC Contest articles have received relativity little attention in the past, and were not officially part of this project until very recently. I hope with their formal inclusion they will get them more attention. I have tried to push against red links in such templates, particularly before the contest occurs, as they can encourage the creation of tiny stubs which give very little useful information and tend to attract deletion requests (which have sometimes resulted on all articles on the template having to go through an AfD, something that should be avoided if possible). CT Cooper · &#32;talk 17:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Project template
I have been bold and made a few changes to Template:WikiProject Eurovision. Firstly, I have added a link to Portal:Eurovision, although the purpose of that portal does need discussion as I've already highlighted on the talk page. Secondary, I have inserted our own introductory text which can be modified as required/requested, rather than just using the generic Template:WPBannerMeta text. Finally, I have replaced the main image with that of a Eurovision heart, which better symbolises the project than the previous map of Europe. I still wish to make further changes, including introducing importance ratings (see above). CT Cooper · &#32;talk 20:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the purpose of these portals. It just seems like an additional thing to worry about updating and writing for. Do most readers even know they exist? I only know because I edit. Grk1011 (talk) 20:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point. There intended to provide a general introduction to the topic area and its articles, plus provide some information about the editing side of things (unlike articles) - see Portal. The main portal for the entire project is at Portal:Contents (linked from the sidebar) with Portal:Contents/Portals being a contents of portals. I myself rarely use them as a reader and edit them even more rarely - a pattern followed by other editors as I have frequently seen users at editor review suggest they edit the portal namespace more frequently. Even the Eurovision portal itself is way out of date and does need updating, and really for that to happen it needs a clearer scope on what it covers. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 21:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Eurovision Young Dancers and Musicians
has moved all the Eurovision Young Dancers by year pages (e.g. Eurovision Young Dancers 2011) so that "Competition" is removed from the title. Should the same be done with Eurovision Young Musicians? CT Cooper · &#32;talk 19:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Since plenty of time has passed for comment, I am going to move the musicians pages as well for consistency. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 18:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Want to advertise your WikiProject?
I have started making a Wikipedia page purely to advertise GOOD and ACTIVE WikiProject some users may find interesting. It's hard for new users to find a good WikiProject. That's why I'm starting this project, to help new users find WikiProjects that are interesting and can give them a few simple jobs. I've selected this WikiProject as one of the few I initially want to see advertised on this very special page. This will bring in a lot of new members to your WikiProject, so make sure you are ready! To get started, all you need is a statement, userbox or any form of advert-so leave a message on my talk page and I'll see what I can do! RDN1F (talk) 19:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Merging Lebanon with the other unsuccessful attempts to participate in the Eurovision Song Contest
Hi,

what do you think about merging Lebanon in the Eurovision Song Contest with Unsuccessful attempts to participate in the Eurovision Song Contest?

Kosovo, Lebanon, Liechtenstein and Tunisia tried all four of them to participate in the Eurovision Song Contest but dit never entered a song. So in a equal way it's logicaly to merge all articles together. And to add Lebanon by the rest.

What do you think?

Klodde (talk) 15:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I undid the merge primarily to be prudent given that this is a GA article. While on paper the loss of a GA is not good for the project, I do not object to the merge as this is a relatively short article that would fit in well with the merged page. If there is significantly more coverage in the future, then the page can be split off again - which would happen anyway if the country was ever to compete. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 17:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I think users have had plenty of time to comment, and going ahead with merge seems reasonable. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 18:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * There just isn't enough relevance for all of the information about Lebanon's attempt at participation to be present in the unsuccessful attempts section. I think it should remain separate; there were no concerns brought forth during its GA review. Grk1011 (talk) 20:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean by "relevance". While the story behind Lebanon is different from the other countries in the Unsuccessful attempts to participate in the Eurovision Song Contest article, it was still an unsuccessful attempt. The GA review concerned the suitability of the article for GA - which there is no issue with; the issue is whether it would be better to have all the information together in one article. While I am normally of the opinion that if a topic is notable it should have its own article, there are circumstances in which information would be better together without the need for summaries. The Lebanon article is shortish, being just slightly longer than the Liechtenstein section, and won't expand unless perhaps there is another attempt to participate - in which case the article can be branched back out and additional articles after this created as needed. As it stands I think the content of the Lebanon article would fit snugly into the unsuccessful attempts article, and no information needs to be lost.


 * I respect that getting rid of a GA is not popular - a possible compromise would be to leave the Lebanon article as it is, get the unsuccessful attempts article to GA, which shouldn't be too difficult (perhaps barring any trouble over Kosovo), then look into merging the content into one GA article. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 22:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Lack of activity
I'm planning to use to update users on events on this page, since although this page has 45 watchers, not many currently active users appear to have it on their watchlist. Since some discussion on this page will result in significant changes, it would in project members interests to keep this project page on their watchlist. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 17:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The messages were successfully delivered on 3 August 2011. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 18:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Assessment Department
One major thing this project is missing is an assessment department. I'm planning to create one at WikiProject Eurovision/Assessment based off others such as WikiProject Schools/Assessment. The primary aim of this project should be to assess the three-hundred and so articles which are unassessed in Category:Unassessed Eurovision articles, as well as tag any missing articles. Once the department is created consideration should be given to sending out a message asking project members to tag and assess articles, as creating articles without tags or assessment seems to be a common occurrence.

Another thing this project is missing is importance ratings, which could easily be introduced into the standardised WikiProject Eurovision template, and may help focus the project more. A possible importance rating hierarchy could be as follows:


 * Top-importance: For the few very important articles within the project including Eurovision (network) (as the article that defines the project scope) and contest pages such as the Eurovision Song Contest.
 * High-importance: For every contest by year page and country in the contest page such as the Eurovision Song Contest 2011 and the United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest. Also includes other key pages about how the contest operates such as Voting in the Eurovision Song Contest and List of countries in the Eurovision Song Contest, as well as national selection pages covering multiple contests, for example Eurovision: Your Country Needs You.
 * Mid-importance: For all country in the contest by year pages such as United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 2011, and (if they exist), any national selection pages which only cover one contest. This category would also include "accessory pages" to the contest by year articles for split-off content such as spokespersons, commentators, and jurors.
 * Low-importance: For pages which are relevant to Eurovision but which have a scope beyond that including songs and biographies such as Alexander Rybak and Fairytale (Alexander Rybak song).
 * NA-importance: All disambiguation pages, categories, and templates. Only articles and lists need an importance rating.

Note that importance ratings are assigned independently of article quality and one article may correctly have different importance ratings between project (unlike quality ratings in most cases).

Any thoughts? CT Cooper · &#32;talk 14:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me! Grk1011 (talk) 20:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I have now activated the importance ratings on the main template at the appropriate categories can be found at Category:Eurovision articles by importance. It appears that many articles were erroneously given importance ratings over the years meaning that some of the categories were instantly populated. I have already finished Category:Top-importance Eurovision articles and have started with Category:High-importance Eurovision articles. I have also gone through all articles currently in Category:Mid-importance Eurovision articles and Category:Low-importance Eurovision articles and moved those that were in the wrong category, though far more articles still need to be added. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 21:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Standardising templates
As part of the standardisation proposed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision, I think standardising the name of the templates is a good start, since all the contests follow a similar pattern. Here is the current structure:


 * (and others)
 * (and others)
 * (and others)
 * (and others)
 * (and others)


 * (and others)
 * (and others)
 * No equivalent templates at this point.
 * (and others)
 * No equivalent templates at this point.


 * No equivalent templates at this point.
 * No equivalent templates at this point.
 * No equivalent templates at this point.
 * No equivalent templates at this point.
 * No equivalent templates at this point.


 * No equivalent template at this point.
 * No equivalent templates at this point.
 * No equivalent templates at this point.
 * No equivalent templates at this point.
 * No equivalent templates at this point.


 * No equivalent template at this point.
 * No equivalent templates at this point.
 * No equivalent templates at this point.
 * No equivalent templates at this point.
 * No equivalent templates at this point.

Standardisation has already occurred in places, for example has been moved. However, further standardisation can be made, and I think this is most easily achieved by having the template title follow the name of the template. Here are the proposed changes:


 * (fine as it is)
 * to
 * (and others) to
 * (and others) to
 * (and others) to


 * (fine as it is)
 * (fine as it is)
 * (and others) to
 * (and others) to
 * No equivalent templates at this point.


 * (fine as it is)
 * to
 * No equivalent templates at this point.
 * No equivalent templates at this point.
 * No equivalent templates at this point.


 * (fine as it is)
 * No equivalent template at this point.
 * No equivalent templates at this point.
 * No equivalent templates at this point.
 * No equivalent templates at this point.


 * (fine as it is)
 * No equivalent template at this point.
 * No equivalent templates at this point.
 * No equivalent templates at this point.
 * No equivalent templates at this point.

The benefits of a standardisation will be limited, but it will make the templates easier to find, will have them appear more tidily in the assessment categories, and will make template/article structures such as the above easier to make for reference by other editors. Any move will not disrupt articles, as the re-directs from the old names will remain indefinitely and may still be used. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 15:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Makes sense to make most of the moves. I think some of them were originally named so that the templates would have short names, yet still be easy to identify. Grk1011 (talk) 20:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay since there has been plenty of time for comment and plenty of notification, I am trialling this and have moved the following pages:


 * to
 * to


 * I will see how this goes before making further moves. I will not make any direct edits to articles, since a re-direct will be left, but over the longterm the new name should be used. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 20:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, since the above moves happened with a hitch, I will begin moving JESC country templates. A list of them is given below with the destination:


 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to

I won't move the ESC equivalents for a day or so in order to see how this goes. After moving I will ensure they all have the correct talk page templates and make any appropriate fixes to the templates themselves. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 19:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I moved several standalone templates for further standardisation; they are in Category:Eurovision Song Contest templates.

I might as well finish moving the JESC templates before working on the ESC ones, the only ones being the JESC year templates as given below:


 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to

As before, after moving I will ensure they are templated and appropriately formatted. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 17:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

For the ESC I am going to start with the song templates:


 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to

I will start on them shortly. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 18:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, here are the final set of templates that are large in number that will be converted in several stages:

Part 1:


 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to

Part 2:


 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to


 * to

Part 3:


 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to

Part 4:


 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to


 * to

After the above are moved, the project will be complete. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 23:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Stub re-organisation
Recently, , and were created, though I have only just become aware of them. Although this project has been around since 2003, it did not previously have its own stub types by the look of it. However, all three were nominated for discussion at Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/July/23. The decision was made to merge them all into one stub at with the description "This article about the Eurovision Song Contest or related contest is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it." with all articles placed in the category Category:Eurovision Song Contest stubs. Nobody from this project took part in the discussion, and the decision was problematic for several reasons:


 * Categorising other contests in a category with the name "Eurovision Song Contest" in it is potentially misleading. The Eurovision Dance Contest and Eurovision Young Dancers are only related in terms that they also fall into Eurovision (network), which unites them under this project, otherwise they are completely different contests.
 * All the articles now fall under Category:Music stubs. This is the wrong category for Eurovision Dance Contest and Eurovision Young Dancers which should fall under Category:Dance stubs.
 * Per proposals above and in the archives, attempts are being made to move away from using "Eurovision" to describe the Eurovision Song Contest in template titles to avoid confusion and avoid future title conflicts, even if this is its informal nickname.

Better solutions which could have been implemented include:


 * Making for Eurovision Song Contest, Junior Eurovision Song Contest, and Eurovision Young Musicians only and just using  for Eurovision Dance Contest and Eurovision Young Dancers articles.
 * Making into a general category on the Eurovision network and categorising it both into Category:Music stubs and Category:Dance stubs.
 * Just get rid of all three stub types and put it all into and  as appropriate.

Any thoughts? CT Cooper · &#32;talk 20:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm coming into this discussion from WikiProject Stub sorting so forgive me if I don't fully know the niceties of Eurovision overall - I'd suggest that, given the size of the junior and dance categories you'd only really need a stub template and category for the song contest. Such a category would be useful for WP:WSS as well as your project, since there are a large number of song stubs relating to Eurovision songs. If you do decide to use the template only for the song contest, it's simple enough to just change the wording of the template's text and at the top of the category - no change to the nam of either would be needed. Oveall, I'd suggest that using a banner talk-page template is a far more useful way for you to organise all the articles within your project (in general, individual WikiProjects use assessment templates; stub templates are really cleanup templates for use across Wikipedia and are not really connected to individual subject projects). There's more info on this worth reading at Stub. Grutness...wha?  00:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree that should be the primary method of sorting articles, and we are currently revamping the assessment process. Just using  for the Eurovision Song Contest would work well, with the Eurovision Dance Contest, Eurovision Young Dancers sticking with, and the Junior Eurovision Song Contest is probably okay with . I will implement this now. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 12:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Assessment Department up and running
I have finished creating the new Assessment Department page at WikiProject Eurovision/Assessment, bringing us into line with most WikiProjects. Article assessments can now be requested on the page at WP:EURO/A, and there is now a dedicated talk page for discussing assessments at WT:EURO/A, so those interested should add the page to their watchlist. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 20:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Kristall (singer)
BLP PROD or not? I'm not sure it would be fair, although Candy (group) was twice speedily deleted under criterion A7, and reference-wise, it wasn't any worse... Kosm1fent Won't you talk to me? 14:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * PRODed it after all. Kosm1fent Won't you talk to me? 09:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * BLPPROD is only appropriate if it has no sources whatsoever, so regular PROD was appropriate in this instance. I'm a bit confused by the claim that is possibly contains libel - if so where is it? Such content should be removed immediately. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 10:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * My apologies, i wasn't 100% sure what libel consisted of, i thought it was just about anything not true about a living person... in particular, i was talking about her genres, and the fact that i couldn't find any source confirming that she was a TV presenter... anyway, i fixed the reasoning.  Kosm1fent Won't you talk to me? 11:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It's only libel usually if the claim is false and portrays a negative image. While any unsourced content in a BLP is problematic, everything in that article is neutral or positive, so no need to worry about libel in this case. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 13:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

JESC2012 review of redirection to JESC
I was wondering if it would be possible for other editors on the project to participate in a discussion regarding the redirection of the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2012 that happened a few days ago. I had opened a discussion at Talk:Junior Eurovision Song Contest, but still feel there may be confusion or misunderstandings regarding the redirect of the article itself. The JESC2012 article got redirected with the explanation of "WP:CRYSTAL, only having the host country and two participating countries does not justify a stand-alone article" (as shown in this diff). However, after checking with User:CT Cooper, the redirect may have been misjudged, as there doesn't appear to be any breach of WP:CRYSTAL whatsoever - to which had been stated as main reason for a redirect. As far as I understand it, if the EBU confirm a location for a contest, then we know that the event is almost certain to happen - right? I understand that with the main Eurovision Song Contest no article should be created years in advance, as we have no idea if such event will happen, until we know who wins a contest, so that an article can be created for the following year. Plus the fact that sources and news in relation to a new ESC article would appear quickly to include as sourcing. But this wouldn't be the case for JESC, since the host country is often decided more than a year ahead, as in this case, which would mean that an article for JESC 2012 has probable cause to be created. Now I can see that if there were insufficient sourcing that is reliable as well as notable then of course, no article should be created. Although, there are a plethora of reliable sources to show that a Junior Contest is scheduled to take place in 2012, with the Netherlands as host country. Websites such as ESCToday.com; EBU; and ESCDaily.com all have articles which provide details of a Junior Contest to be staged in 2012. As those websites are classified as "reliable", then hasn't notability been passed, and an article on Wikipedia worth warranting a creation? I value the opinions from other editors on this, as I feel it is something worth reviewing, so that maintenance and competency can be found for future articles related to Junior Eurovision. Thank You! Wesley Mouse (talk) 11:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * OK OK, after reading your conversation with CT Cooper I understand my mistake. I misunderstood the purpose of redirecting this year's article until after Christmas 2010, apparently it was because the host country hadn't been announced until January 2011, and not because there were only few countries who sumbitted their interest in participating. Since we are here, it would be nice if we could decide on a notability guideline about Eurovision-related articles. My apologies, Kosm1fent Won't you talk to me? 12:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I actually agree with Kosm1fent about deciding on more structured guidelines for notability on Eurovision-related articles. It may, in the long-run, help to provide a better understanding on when a new article should be created, and what should or shouldn't be included.  I know that WP:N has guidelines for wikipedia in general, but perhaps looking into more unique notability guidelines specifically designed for Eurovision-related articles, would be more idealistic.  Wesley Mouse (talk) 13:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Notability has never been too much of an issue on this project, since the article system is very well structured as the importance scale shows, with most articles fitting into this structure being notable. The major exception to this is when editors create articles prematurely; for example I do have to keep on top of article creations in templates such as Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 2012 every year. So I remain open minded to some loose guidance on this issue. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 22:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Security issues with Oikotimes
I wish to bring to project wide attention some recently discovered security problems with the Oikotimes website. See Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2012. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 22:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Membership review
I have reviewed the membership list for this project, meaning another review should not be necessary for a year or so. This action required moving two users from the inactive to the active list, doing the opposite for two more users, and clearing the user names already on the inactive list. On the whole, we seem to be going along healthy and have gone from sixty members in June 2011 to seventy-two now. Please feel free to invite more members using, as awareness of this project among contributors has been poor in the past, and it needs promoting. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 17:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of the top ranking countries of the Eurovision Song Contest


The article List of the top ranking countries of the Eurovision Song Contest has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Per Articles for deletion/List of the top ranking countries of the Junior Eurovision Song Contest. Article is not encyclopaedic and is a page full of statistics with original research and trivia.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 21:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * PROD was contested far quicker than I could have expected, so have taken it to AfD at Articles for deletion/List of the top ranking countries of the Eurovision Song Contest. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 22:04, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

While the tables per decade (and most of the article) were unnecessary stats, the general table with all top-5 places gave a great all-time perspective of the whole contest, I think. How about including it in Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Not A Superhero (talk • contribs) 06:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem was that the top five was determined by an editor created points system, which was original research, and hence can't be included anywhere. Having tables with number of entries and wins, content that can be easily verified, is fine, but the line has to be carefully drawn. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 12:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * One of the rankings was, but the ranking by victories followed the system used in the Olympic medal table, only with top 5 placings instead of medals. Even if it's not official, I'd say it's useful. And technically the medal rankings released by the OIC aren't official either, still we have an All-time Olympic Games medal table article. I know it's not the same, but I think it's similar. Not A Superhero (talk) 01:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If it's useful, but original research, it belongs in a website other that Wikipedia. As for the Olympic medals table, it seems heavily underreferenced indeed. Kosm1fent Won't you talk to me? 07:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, got the point. I withdraw the proposal. And I think I have to go through some edits I did before joining Wikipedia that fall into this as well. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Not A Superhero (talk • contribs) 22:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Template cleanup proposal for Junior Eurovision Song Contest
The template for Eurovision Song Contest includes a link for a separate template for ESC winners, listed by decade, while the template for Junior Eurovision includes the winners listed chronologically. I think it would be convenient either put the winners on a separate template as in ESC, or at least organize them by decade as it's done in the ESC winners template. Any thoughts on this? Not A Superhero (talk) 21:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I presume you are referring to Template:Junior Eurovision Song Contest and the templates at the bottom of List of Eurovision Song Contest winners. I have no problem with creating more templates for the JESC, and consistency across contests is always desirable. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 22:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As long as the template is not a wash with red (which it will not), then I'm fine. Also are you planning in removing the winners from Template:Junior Eurovision Song Contest? --  [[ axg  ◉  talk   ]] 23:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree with listing the winners in a separate template, they are much less than ESC winners. Organize them by decade yes; separate them no. Kosm1fent Won't you talk to me? 06:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * At which point should we separate them, then? I think it would make things easier both in the present (having the most consistency possible in ESC and JESC templates) and for the future, since we wouldn't get to a point when the JESC template would became cumbersome for having too many winners.Not A Superhero (talk) 06:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought we should separate them once they become way too many, because more (perhaps unnecessary) templates will make the articles more difficult to read. Can't you just separate the winners per decade in the existing template? Kosm1fent Won't you talk to me? 06:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's done and I must say Kosm1fent suggestion turned out a lot better than I thought it would. I guess the amount of years/winners on JESC is still not enough to fill two separate templates. Any opinions on how Template:Junior Eurovision Song Contest looks now? Not A Superhero (talk) 06:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Perfecto. :) Kosm1fent Won't you talk to me? 06:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, it does look better. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 10:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Should ESCKaz be reviewed for reliability?
I was reading a large article on ESCKaz earlier today, and came across a most disgusting find on their website. They have reported several times that Wikipedia are fabricating information about confirmed participants for Eurovision Song Contest 2012. And that everything that we publish on the projects are nothing but lies that are not sourced from the EBU directly. However, I find it strange that most of the confirmed participants we use are in fact sourced, whether it be from EBU, national broadcaster, or other reliable sites (including ESCKaz). If we're using ESCKaz as reliable, then how can we be fabricating lies? In using ESCKaz, then are they are not basically stating that they are also fabricating lies? Their negative comments about Wikipedia, are very contradictory. Should we still be using ESCKaz now as reliable, based on what they are saying about Wikipedia? Wesley Mouse (talk) 13:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Since this is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, people were putting random countries in the list (Czech Republic, Morocco and Armenia, as ESCKaz reports) without proper sources. That doesn't mean that "Wikipedia is fabricating lies", as (now) every country in the list is sourced, and if they are lies, they should question the other sites we used as sources instead. Anyway, I don't believe we should drop ESCKaz for defaming Wikipedia, although I'm not really a fan of it and avoid using it when I can (too hard to navigate). Kosm1fent Won't you talk to me? 16:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree it would be unwise to stop using a source simply because it has given negative coverage of Wikipedia. Though saying that, if ESCKaz have made such comments, it shows their taking a lot of liberty with the truth, which isn't a great indicator of reliability. I also find it hard to navigate and use, and I avoid it for that reason alone.


 * I have reviewed the site and tried to find the offending material, but I could only find one page with a reference to Wikipedia here. The comment was "Series of Azerbaijani press articles with claims of the lists of "confirmed countries" are totally fake. Usually, they are just based on Wikipedia lists and have no other sources." I interpreted this to mean that they thought the press releases just took lists off Wikipedia, when in fact the reverse was actually happening, with us sourcing the press releases. That is somewhat problematic as it implies it was Wikipedia that was making things up, which was never true. I couldn't find anything else on that page; has anything been removed? CT Cooper · &#32;talk 18:36, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Clarification of criterion 9 of WP:NMUSIC
"A musician or ensemble may be notable if [...] they have won or placed in a major music competition." "Placed" means what? Top 3? Top 5? I'm just asking, because in Junior Eurovision singers this is the most commonly used criterion for inclusion.Kosm1fent Won't you talk to me? 17:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Well since placed derives from "place" which in this context could anything from "first place" to "thirteenth place", this criterion could be as wide as simply requiring participation for a major music competition. Really this wording needs to be clarified and perhaps enquiring on the guideline talk page as well might get other opinions and result in action. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 18:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think common sense would have to come into play here, whether an artist is notable. An example here is of a completely worthless article being made a redirect. Perhaps if these artists go onto have a hit single with the song, that might help. --Tuzapicabit (talk) 19:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I've asked for clarification on the talk page of the guideline. I think that rule should be treated with common sense, however; for example, I believe that a kid who ended 5th and has not established notability in other ways, cannot be considered notable. – Kosm  1  fent  06:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Joakim Haukaas AfD
Hi there.

I have nominated Joakim Haukaas, part of the duo 2U that won Melodi Grand Prix Junior 2003 and participated in Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2003 as Norway's representative, for deletion. Any comment is welcome at Articles for deletion/Joakim Haukaas. Cheers. Mentoz86 (talk) 11:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the notification. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 20:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

EBU endorse some Eurovision fan websites
The European Broadcasting Union have published a list of Eurovision Song Contest fan websites that they seem to be endorsing as "reliable" enough "to keep the fan community, the music industry and even the media informed on what's going on in the magic world of Europe's favourite TV-show". I've included the list below, however, I'd like to know how many of those sites listed do we, as a project team, also consider to be reliable enough? Should we as a project also be treating all those listed as reliable too?

*Please note that I have marked "agreed" on the ones that I do know we see as reliable. Wesley Mouse (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This is certainly interesting, and may be useful when looking at the reliability of some of these sites. I think it would be best to treat this as a guide only, as the EBU might not be too concerned about reliability or may have different standards to Wikipedia. It should also be taken into account that some sites there have been given a more prominent position than others e.g. ESCToday, Oikotimes and EuroVisionary seems to be taking top spot. I'm familar with some sites on that list, but not others, such as JanelaESC. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 23:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought it was strange that they have ESCKaz "ranked" lower on their list, and Oikotimes very high up too. The other interesting factor is that not one of the .az sites have been quoted, nor has ESCDaily.  Wesley Mouse (talk) 23:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe we should treat the ones in the list that we don't know on a case-by-case basis; not treat them as reliable solely because they were endorsed by the EBU, or reject them because we've never heard of them. Also Wes, I don't know where it was established that ESCDaily is a reliable source, half of the rumors in the JESC 2012 article are cited by ESCDaily and ESCDaily alone.,.. – Kosm  1  fent  05:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ESCDaily appear to report their articles in the same way as ESCToday. I have noticed that ESCDaily carefully cite where they have found their research when publishing an article - just like ESCToday do.  They both posted video interviews on their respective websites during the rehearsals at Düsseldorf 2011.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but based on those factors, it would appear that ESCDaily operate in the exact same (if not similar) manner as ESCToday.  There's a lot of cited material on ESC 2012 are also from ESCDaily.  If we are to start doubting the reliability of ESCDaily at this stage of the project, then we are basically doubting the fact that they operate similarly to ESCToday, and thus in turn doubt ESCToday's reliability - which if I remember rightly, you did yourself Kosmo stated (as found via this link) that EscToday are very reliable, and therefore ESCDaily should also be considered as equally reliable based on the fact they operate similarly.  We went through something similar regarding the reliability of the .az websites.  I took it upon myself to carefully scrutinize each and every one of those sites.  Firstly by discovering that each of the .az sites published an editorial team, providing email contacts for each of them.  But it was only through deeper research that I noticed that each of them actually operated from the same host blog server - which then caused us to re-evaluate each of the .az's reliability, and as a result they became treated with caution.  Wesley Mouse (talk) 09:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with Kosm1fent on how to treat this EBU list. On ESCDaily, unlike ESCToday, there has been no formal discussion establishing consensus that it is reliable, though that doesn't necessarily make it unreliable. As has been noted, the precedent has long been set to use it, so it would be interesting to know what the history is of their articles being found to be accurate or not. On the .az sites, I think they're not listed as they are general news sites for Azerbaijan, rather than being dedicated to Eurovision, and that their coverage is likely to be one year only. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 12:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll take your word for it, Wesley. If ESCDaily work as well as ESCToday do, I'm sure it will be safe to use them. – Kosm  1  fent  16:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

To include Oikotimes as reliable is ludicrous especially seeing as we have discussed why it is not a reliable site in the past and nothing has happened that has changed how it is run. This list is in no way an endorsement of sites. It is just a list of Eurovision related websites provided as a courtesy. Take into account the disclaimer: "All content in these lists is retrieved directly from the given websites, without moderation and bare no official connection with the Eurovision Song Contest or its organisers nor their beliefs and thoughts about the contest and thus the EBU does not take responsibility for the content published on these external websites." Grk1011 (talk) 04:54, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * We certainly have had a lot of problems in the past with Oikotimes, though attempts to stop people using it haven't been successful so far. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 12:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the problem with Oikotimes is that some of their articles are self-published by members of their website. Whilst others, do have sourcing within themselves.  Oikotimes is a very borderline case.  What we would need to look for with Oikotimes material is if they source where they got their information from - and only then should we allow it.  If one of their articles being used doesn't supply a source of information, then it should be disregarded.  Wesley Mouse (talk) 13:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * That could be a good compromise. Though, I would only apply that to Oikotimes and other borderline sources; ESCToday's internally sourced articles, as I said at Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2012, are okay. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 18:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Sanremo Music Festival 2012 nominated for Speedy Deletion
The Sanremo Music Festival 2012 article has been flagged for speedy deletion under section G11, as promotional material. I find this a little strange, as the Sanremo is what inspired Eurovision to begin. We have a main article for Eurovision, as well as respective articles for each of the annual contests. If Sanremo Music Festival 2012 is breaching section G11, then doesn't that mean the annual contest pages for ESC also fall under the same ruling? If not, then Sanremo Music Festival 2012 and any subsequent annual articles need to be saved/reviewed. Wesley Mouse (talk) 11:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I have declined the speedy deletion request, as this clearly does not meet WP:CSD. While I'm not saying its perfect, the article is not written in way so promotional that it would need a complete re-write, with most of it being purely factual. Anyone can decline a speedy deletion request, as long as they didn't create the page. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 12:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * What a relief. I'm glad I acted swiftly on this, and saved an article from being axed.  I had mentioned it to the editor who flagged it up for deletion; stating that if annual Sanremo articles are classified as "promotional", then so would annual Melodifestivalen, and ESC articles.  Seeing as the latter 2 have never fallen under speedy deletion for G11 breach, then it is highly unfair that annual Sanremo's should be deleted.  Personally I feel the G11 ruling is a grey area, and well worth reviewing or made more explanatory.  A bit of a long shot, but perhaps (if OK with other editors on the project) we could look into creating articles for each of the annual Sanremo's similar to Melodifestivalen and ESC.  Wesley Mouse (talk) 12:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Chances are, another admin would have eventually come along and declined the nomination as well. G11 is open to interpretation, as many speedy deletion criteria are, but this criterion is frequently misused well outside any grey area, with people sometimes nominating articles under it simply because of the article subject, even if the content is perfectly neutral. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 15:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for "saving my work" on this article! I am Italian, and I joined this project right now. I'd like to help in creating pages for each annual Sanremo Music Festival, but I know it will be a huge work! I will try my best, and I hope to get some help here! I'll also work on the Italian entries. --Stee888 (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It's a pleasure Stee888. And I am so pleased to see you accepted the invitation to join the project team. Benvenuti - Wesley Mouse (talk) 17:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Dispute over European Broadcasting Area definitions and linking on the Eurovision Song Contest article
There is an ongoing dispute over the Eurovision Song Contest section, in particular, how European Broadcasting Area content should be presented and how it should be linked. I have intervened as an admin in this case so I do not have an opinion, but some outside input at Talk:Eurovision Song Contest would be appreciated. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 19:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Re-organizing categories on Commons
A while back I gave a laundry list of things that need fixing. One of them was to standardize template names which is now done. However, another was moving the categories on Commons around, as currently they are not well organized. Currently the names are not always logical or consistent e.g. the categories in commons:Category:Eurovision Song Contest by year, and commons:Category:Junior Eurovision - 2010, not to mention commons:Category:Eurovision talks about the Eurovision Song Contest, but plays host to all the other Eurovision contests as well. I also raised it at commons:Category talk:Eurovision which has resulted in one response of support. My general plan is to have the category names reflect the English Wikipedia article titles e.g. Eurovision Song Contest 2012 goes into Category:Eurovision Song Contest 2012. A case could be made, since Commons is multilingual, that each year's category should be in the native language of the host country, but I think this would rather awkward and ultimately ESC is an international contest which is mostly broadcast in English. Some thoughts on the issue here would also be appreciated, as the content on Commons is quite important to this project. I have also previously raised this issue at commons:Category talk:Eurovision, and have received one comment in support. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 22:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

songfestivalweblog.nl as a reliable source
There are some concerns risen by myself over the reliability of songfestivalweblog.nl. Here's the discussion, comments will be appreciated. Thanks. – Kosm  1  fent  17:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Commented. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 20:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Succession boxes
You know these things:

A large number of these need formatting correctly, especially song titles as you can see should not be like this "It's My Time" or It's My Time, but like this "It's My Time". Although yes there are a whole load of them, just if you come across one, please correct it. --  [[ axg  ◉  talk   ]] 22:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Will do. Wesley  ☀  Mouse  12:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * So, it should say:


 * Is that right? Spa-Franks (talk) 17:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, songs should be in the correct format using " [double quote marks] like the ESC articles, without italics. (Bold text is part of the templates coding) --  [[ axg  ◉  talk   ]] 18:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Eurovision logos on Commons threatened with deletion (again)
This time the issue is over the copyright of the heart and the text of Eurovision logos in the country of origin (which is presumed by me to be Switzerland) - we have already established it was too simple to be copyrighted in the United States. One of the 2012 logos on Commons has alredy been deleted - see. The image on the Eurovision Song Contest 2012 article is not under question since it was too complex to be transferred to Commons as public domain to start with. I have attempted to get somewhere with the closing admin, see commons:User talk:Thuresson. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 23:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The logo needs to belong in the public domain in its country of origin. First, its country of origin should be accurately identified, and then it should be checked according to their laws. Until that's done, the logo belongs in the English Wikipedia (where only US law applies) and not in Commons. – Kosm  1  fent  08:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, according to the official website's terms of use, the EBU is "an association duly established under Swiss law", so indeed its operation (and therefore copyright status of its creations) is defined by Swiss law. – Kosm  1  fent  09:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I am familiar with the copyright policies of Commons, though I didn't transfer the logos, and it is clear that copyright issues were not given as much thought as they should have been. In a previous DR for the 2011 logo it was presumed that the country of origin was Germany, where it is definitely PD, though beyond that the country of origin issue was paid little attention. The heart logo itself (which is on its own in several uploads) is so simple it is pretty much implausible for it to be copyrighted - the only real point of contention is the text and the logo in combination, which is PD in Germany and the US, but its status in Switzerland is not clear. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 11:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * In the end, the only foolproof place to upload the logos is en.wiki. – Kosm  1  fent  12:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am beginning to come to the conclusion that it is not worth the hassle, and I would advise everyone to upload everything locally for the time being. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 22:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Update
Following a discussion on the issue, I have started a mass nomination of all such logos on Commons at. Obviously, future logos of this type should be uploaded to local projects only. If deletion goes ahead, I plan to add notices at commons:Category:Eurovision and elsewhere informing users not to try and upload such logos. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 01:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Three articles
We have the articles; Eldar Gasimov and Nigar Jamal and erm Eldar & Nigar. For some reason I don't really like the fact we have three articles? Yes their is an Ant & Dec page, but that is a common pairing with 15+ years. Eldar & Nigar have to my knowledge only been put together for Eurovision. --  [[ axg  ◉  talk   ]] 00:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The content of the article seems more fitting for the Azerbaijan in ESC 2011 page. It was a one time occurence, they aren't known for being a group. Grk1011 (talk) 14:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Ireland and Ireland
Many articles regarding Eurovision and Ireland contain the page link Ireland which links into the Ireland of Ireland article when as Ireland Eurovision entry represents the (Republic of) Ireland they should link into Ireland. C. 22468   Talk to me  16:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * OK thanks, I'll have a look at using WP:AutoWikiBrowser to fix some. --  [[ axg  ◉  talk   ]] 19:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've started the rollout exercise of these new templates, so it may be worth checking those too for this Ireland thing.  Wesley  ☀  Mouse  19:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I had a sweep through yesterday, I've done some, although may have missed some? --  [[ axg  ◉  talk   ]] 19:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Alphabetical or appearance order for commentators and spokespersons
Hello everybody

I would like to know what is more recommendable for commentators and spokespersons on Eurovision Song Contest 1958, in an alphabetical order or respecting the official appearance order decided by a draw.

Greetings and Happy Easter Carlos MS (talk) 16:40, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd like to further explain that Carlos MS means listing spokespersons and commentators across all Eurovision related articles and not just ESC 1958 - that page I assume has been listed as an example. As the majority of articles have such details listed in alphabetical order, then consistency needs to be carried out right across the board.  The same consistency would need to be implemented if we were to reorder these lists, in accordance to Carlos MS's suggestion.   Wesley  ☀  Mouse  16:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * How odd I have always thought about the listings of them. My personal preference is that commentators should be alphabetical. But when it comes to spokespersons, then that also lists the their order, instead of having two separate lists of 'appearance order' and 'alphabetical order'. Having them in appearance order covers both. --  [[ axg  ◉  talk   ]] 17:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Template duplications
User:123o has created a selection of templates that appear to be overlaps/duplications of long established templates currently used on Eurovision articles. Articles created by user Template:Albanian Eurovision Representatives || Template:Armenian Eurovision Representatives || Template:Azerbaijani Eurovision Representatives Template:Czech Eurovision Representatives || Template:Georgian Eurovision Representatives || Template:Israeli Eurovision Representatives Template:Moldovan Eurovision Representatives || Template:Montenegrin Eurovision Representatives || Template:San-Marinese Eurovision Representatives Template:Serbian Eurovision Representatives

Original templates currently in use Template:Albania in the Eurovision Song Contest || Template:Armenia in the Eurovision Song Contest  || Template:Azerbaijan in the Eurovision Song Contest Template:Czech Republic in the Eurovision Song Contest || Template:Georgia in the Eurovision Song Contest || Template:Israel in the Eurovision Song Contest Template:Moldova in the Eurovision Song Contest || Template:Montenegro in the Eurovision Song Contest || Template:San Marino in the Eurovision Song Contest Template:Serbia in the Eurovision Song Contest

According to the user, his templates should remain, and the long established ones MUST be deleted - despite the many man-hours put into the originals. ..
 * An example of what the new one looks like
 * An example of what the original looks like

My argument is that the newly created ones are not just A) an overkill with images; but B) covering way too much information in one navbox that will only become more and more complicated to use as the years go by. Where as the originals are easy to navigate even as more and more "years" are added to them. Nominations for their deletion have been put into place. But the user is still insistent that theirs should stay, and has even resorted to saying that "I cannot read" whenever they post questions on my talk page, despite the fact that I rely back to them (which is a clear indication that I have read their questions to begin with). Therefore I invite views from other editors on the project, to see what action (if any) needs to be taken next. Thank you for your time reading this - Wesley  ☀  Mouse  14:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Firstly, consensus should have been sought before the templates were created, so agreement on if they were needed, and if so how they should be presented, could be reached. As said above, it would have ultimately been in the interest of to do this, as if the community decides that the templates are not appropriate, then they will be deleted, and a lot of effort will have gone to waste.


 * I'm not entirely against navboxes for entrants by country, since we don't have any other navboxes currently that fits the bill. The "County in the Eurovision Song Contest" templates only cover the "Country in the Eurovision Song Contest" articles, and these templates could potentially cover the entrants. If they are to stay though they should only cover the entrants, with the years either unlinked or presented in decades as done with Template:Venues of the Eurovision Song Contest. Having no years at all though could make the templates less useful for readers, particularity for countries who have participated for decades and will have templates with many entrants. One could argue that we should combine the "Country in the Eurovision Song Contest" templates with the entrant ones, but I think that will end-up being too cluttered.
 * I personally vote for templates instead of navboxes. A template shows the participation in all years, while the navbox only shows the previous and next representative. I agree that having no years would make them hard to read, but we could, as a compromise, separate them for decade as we do with the template of winners. Not A Superhero (talk) 06:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * On the presentation, the plain heart is pointless and needs to go. There is some precedent for having the heart logo with the flag in on the right-hand side in "Country in the Eurovision Song Contest" templates, though there should be nothing more than that, and pure flag icons are not needed.


 * On the naming, currently this needs work. "Representatives" could mean many things and to avoid conflicts between different contests, the use of "Eurovision" on its own should be avoided in template names, and this practice was supposed to have ended with last Summer's template re-name drive. I'm a little against use of terms such as "Azerbajani", "Croation" e.t.c. as they are awkward/irregular and imply nationality, which is inaccurate. I do note that most categories at Category:Eurovision Song Contest entrants by country use the format of "Nationality Eurovision Song Contest entrants", though I would prefer the Georgian approach of Category:Eurovision Song Contest entrants of Georgia (country). While we are at we may as well discuss if "entrants" is the best word; would "contestants work better? I don't have a strong opinion. Whatever is decided should be the naming used in the templates, if they are kept.


 * Hoy about "Representatives of Georgia in the Eurovision Song Contest"? And in the artists by year, it could be "Artists/Contestants in the Eurovision Song Contest 2011". Not A Superhero (talk) 06:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Finally, notability is an issue to me as well. I'm concerned that the large number of red links that may appear will be interpreted by some users as a green light to create lots of unreferenced stubs which could be problematic, particularity as many of these are BLP articles, and are hence subject to WP:BLPPROD. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 20:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... looking back at the list of templates this project has, one should bear in mind not only don't we have entrants by country templates, we also don't have songs by country templates, with a few exceptions such as (though that only covers years the show was used). Up until now, country and succession boxes have been sufficient. Logically, it it both or neither here. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 20:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Personal dispute
I would like to commend you for giving some very reasonable arguments referring to what I mentioned. I ask you and the editors here NOT to take into account what has claimed, as i'm afraid his opinions are based on a personal and not professional level. As for what wrote, you gave some excellent insights regarding the need for an entrants template, while questioning the need of the linked years. You could not put this dilemma into words any better. My proposal is you should call what needs to be done - whether to delete or make some changes, it would be acceptable by me. --123o (talk) 02:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * While I have read clearly what written above, as well as the numerous comments on my talk page, I would like to ask if a user posts on my wall using some capital letters, which is classified as shouting; post demands that I delete templates that have had many man-hours work put into them, posting derogatory comments implying that I cannot read (as per this diff and this one); and also demands that "I suggest we conclude this discussion here and let the editors give their professional opinions from now on" (which implies that I my right to comment is now being denied) - how can this be deemed as acceptable behaviour?  I had asked  for a second opinion to see if perhaps I was over-sensitive about the nature of 's comments towards myself - and even they noticed that his comments were "provocative in nature".  Every time that User:123o has asked questions on my wall, I have replied back politely and with as much details as possible - each time I get nothing but abuse hurled back at me.  If user:123o had actually took the time to read carefully what I had posted, he will notice what that my replies and what  posted above, are almost identical reasons, just worded differently.  This is a clear indication that a user has personal grudge against myself just because I nominated the templates in the first place.  As I am a member of the is project, and also the user who started this thread, then I am well within my rights to participate in this discussion.   Wesley  ☀  Mouse  17:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I would also like to ask, how one person can get away with saying "I ask you and the editors here NOT to take into account what has claimed", in a manner which implies that I am speaking lie  - when I have the diff evidence which shows in black and white, that my so called "claims" are factual.  How can the same person say that my "opinions are based on a personal and not professional level" - everyone is entitled to an opinion.  And also state that I am being one-sided and not commenting on their opinions, when they haven't even posted any opinions on my wall to being with.  How does one comment on an opinion that hasn't been made prior to their allegation?  C'mon I may be getting old, but at least I know how to read.  This absurd and vindictive behaviour needs to be quashed, and start to act more civilly grown up.  Facts are facts, some may find it easy to hide in a web of lies, but I certainly cannot, especially when I am able to supply the facts in black and white.   Wesley  ☀  Mouse  18:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I would like to ask the editors here (since I don't have the privileges) to delete these personal notes against me. I believe we should focus on the main issue here, what should be done about the templates, and not discuss the relationship between me and Mr. Wesley.--123o (talk) 21:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * To be fair 123o, you did make some rather provocative comments above on this page earlier, so that suggestion is a bit late. However, I would prefer that personal disputes were kept off this page - please continue this elsewhere to allow this discussion to be rebooted. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 21:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. But if you could remove from from this public page the personal discussion about me it will be much appreciated.--123o (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * To be fair you can't cover over what's been said in the past. You yourself has made some personal notes about Wesley, so to make yourself out as the only victim in all of this is slightly hypocritical. I say we don't cover over what's been done and just try to move past this and resolve the issue in a calm, professional matter that doesn't result in name calling etc. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I never claimed to be the only victim, but I don't understand why I need need to deal with this user's insults about me everywhere, while I would really like to focus on the Eurovision project (and as you can see for yourself, without him writing personal notes about me in your wall, you would never know about this continuous discussion, which became public for a reason I can't seem to understand). --123o (talk) 01:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I am happy to continue discussion regarding the templates, as that is why I started this thread to begin with, and intend to be proactive with diplomacy to find a resolution. However, when continual provocative postings like this one are still being made, despite being told by CT Cooper not to, then I fail to comprehend how it would ever be possible. It is becoming obvious that as I submitted the nomination for deletion, that no matter what I explanations and reasons I provide, they are deemed unacceptable and I get abuse, yet someone else can give the same information and theirs is treated with respect. Where is the fairness and diplomacy in that? Any other user would probably have raise this elsewhere in a formal matter - but I believe in giving someone the benefit of the doubt. Now, if 123o can agree to cease posting further provocative comments aimed at me, whether they be here, my talk page, or anywhere else - then I am ready to resume topic of discussion. Wesley ☀  Mouse  22:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC) And furthermore, 123o literally made me out to be a liar - sorry but nobody would sit back and take it; any person would defend themselves if they have proof; and that is exactly what I did posting the evidence above. Count yourself lucky I WP:AGF in posting them here, and didn't take things via the formal route. Wesley ☀  Mouse  22:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I can collapse this discussion to allow a reboot if there is consensus for it, but it will cover all posts and would still leave them viewable. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 22:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Coop; but something needs to be stressed out to 123o about ceasing to make further provocations towards myself, and behave in a diplomatic and "professional" manner. I have tolerated enough of it now; the next one will result in me taking matters down the appropriate channels; which I am within my rights to do so.  Wesley  ☀  Mouse  22:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, the neither or the hard code version works, probably due to the amount of external links and templates already used in the discussion, which tends to break collapse options. I have however split the discussion into a sub-section from the point onwards that it derailed. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 23:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK that's just as good I suppose. Although like I said, I shall only resume on the condition that 123o ceases further provocations and behaves in a justified manner.  First sign of that failing, and I will take proceedings further - I do have the evidence to show that the "claims" are not claims, but factual evidence.  Now let's turn that frown upside-down, and get this thing back on the ground.   Wesley  ☀  Mouse  23:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Urgh, I give up now. Things like THIS needs to stop.  I've had enough of it.  They receive warnings, and still go about provocation.   Wesley  ☀  Mouse  23:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Upon further investigation, it appears this isn't the first time that has gone about in a provoking an threatening behaviour over deletion of materials.  Ironically, posting comments in the same mannerisms as another user also on the same thread.  Very concerning now!   Wesley  ☀  Mouse  01:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Albania example of combined templates
I take note of the more pristine version at Template:Albanian Eurovision Representation, though that does not resolve all of my concerns, particularly on template names. Furthermore, I think it needs to be pointed out that while that might look lovely for Albania, it won't work on longer-term participants such as the United Kingdom which will end up with massive templates, which will be unnavigable on the contestant/entrant front. A two-tier system for participating countries won't work well - either they all have combined templates, they all have split ones, or we stick to categories to record entrants per country. Also, if the combined option is chosen, it would be easier if existing templates were updated, rather than relying on new ones. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 10:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur and applaud on what Coop has said above. That is basically the point I have tried to make from the start.   Wesley  ☀  Mouse  11:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Another issue, which I mentioned earlier, is that we don't have "songs by country" templates either. If we are going to open up these template to entrants, then it would be only logical to include their songs as well, meaning that these templates are going to get even bigger. In my opinion, the options are between the status quo or creating two new templates (one for entrants by country; one for songs by country), and transcluding them as appropriate. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 12:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * But then it does come back to the other templates which we have, "Country by year" and "participating countries". Each article currently has those two templates, and a mini-navbox on the article directing to previous entrant/song and succeeded entrant/song.  IMHO those alone are simplified versions of these templates created by 123o.  I believe in that well known proverb "less is more".  Too much informative templates on an article would be overpowering to any reader - the human race lately is all about speed rather than being passed from pillar to post.   Wesley  ☀  Mouse  12:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Creating and maintaining these templates will be a lot of work, and we will need to assess if they are worth the time and effort. I agree we do already have good navigation between articles, and that we are going to have to draw the line somewhere. That said, I remain open minded on finding a better way of organizing things. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 12:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The other worry in having a template combined for entrants, song, year; is what happens when we get returning artists? Dana International represented twice, she would in theory have to appear on the template twice, showing each year  Chiara from Malta did it three times, Lys Assis also three times - they too would end up being duplicated within the template themselves.  A line needs to be drawn somewhere.  Also the new Israeli version doesn't even have Dana International listed, and is supposed to be completed with all details.   Wesley  ☀  Mouse  12:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think these templates would become imposibly complicate in a very short time. I vote for splitting them and making collapsable, just as we can see in all the templates at the bottom of Baku That has, by the way, seven templates. Each eurovision article would have at most two (Artist by year and artist by country in the case of artists, song by year and song by country in the case of songs), perhaps that wouldn't be too much.


 * About the navbox, I personally vote for templates instead. A template gives you the entire list, while a navbox only points to the previous and following entrants, so I think a template is more complete, and would make a navbox redundant. Not A Superhero (talk) 06:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Just out of curiosity, exactly how many templates for Eurovision do we currently have? Only reason I ask, is that it could be possible to review them all, and amalgamate some, thus we'd have few templates.  Wesley  ☀  Mouse  14:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * According to Category: Eurovision Song Contest templates there are 51 templates for "ESC by country", 58 of "ESC by year", plus 27 independant templates, adding to a big total of 136. Humm... if we add "Artists on ESC by country" and "Songs on ESC by country" this would nearly duplicate, as there would be two templates for each ESC by country, one of artists and one of songs, and two on each ESC by year, one of artists and one of songs, plus the other 27 templates... that would be 235 templates according to my calculations. Not A Superhero (talk) 14:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I think we have a slight confusion in terms here; a navbox (or navigation template) include the templates that go on the footer of articles to aid navigation between them. What we already have for songs by country and entrants by country are succession boxes, which are slightly different. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 15:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * @Not A Superhero; just as I thought, having the newly created ones would cause chaos in quantity of templates available - 235 is (in no other words) beyond a joke. Is it possible to create a collapsible template, that holds templates within them?  I've noticed some talk pages have a collapse box, which when you click "show" holds other collapsible boxes in them.  Doing that, each article would have 1 storage-template "Country in the Eurovision Song Contest".  Inside that, we could then place "Country by Year"; "Country by Artist"; "Country by Song".   Wesley  ☀  Mouse  15:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, you can have multiple navboxes combined into one super-navbox - see for examples Template:Schools in Hampshire. I don't see the benefit of that for Eurovision though, as it would still result in the same amount of content, would not reduce the amount of templates, and would result in navboxes being transcluded where they don't need to be e.g. the song part in an entrants article. What is being proposed is one navbox for entrants and one for songs for each country (so totaling two per country), with all the countries being listed at Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest, totaling 51 (excluding unsuccessful attempts which won't need one). Two for each would equal 102, not including existing navboxes. That's a lot of new templates, but I do think we need some prospective here - there are 4,550 pages tagged as falling under WikiProject Eurovision, the overwhelming majority of those being for the Eurovision Song Contest, and that probably excludes a large number of pages which are awaiting creation of haven't been properly tagged. 102 on Wikipedia standards isn't that many. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 16:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm I can see a valid point there Cooper. I'm trying to go off the ones that 123o have done at the minute too; Template:Georgian Eurovision Representatives shows details for Georgia by year and entrant; where as Template:Georgia in the Eurovision Song Contest covers by year only.  Can you imagine what Template:United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest would look like if we included entrant next to the years, in the same way as 123o's current ones?  It would be too much information to the eye, and may discourage people from using them.  This has been my main concern from the start in all honesty; a template is suppose to be a quick navigational tool - holding too much details makes it a complex tool.   Wesley  ☀  Mouse  16:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I have thought of yet another gap that could be filled: we have "country" templates, we have "year" templates, we have "songs by year" templates, so perhaps we should have "entrants by year" ones as well? The concern of going overboard is a real one. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 16:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * We have Template:Winning performers of the Eurovision Song Contest and Template:Winning songs of the Eurovision Song Contest; would it be possible to have the "entrants by year" in a similar layout as those two? That would cover the information required, and at the same time simplify the layout so its easier on the eye.   Wesley  ☀  Mouse  16:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Having it by decade would make sense for the proposed "song by country" and "entrants by country" templates, but for "entrants by year" it would be the same as "songs by year", for instance Template:Songs of the Eurovision Song Contest 2011. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 18:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Doesn't the templates for "country by year" direct to the articles that hold details on both entrants and song by year?  Wesley  ☀  Mouse  18:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The way that Template:Songs of the Eurovision Song Contest 2011 looks, seems to be fine. Why fix the layout being used there when it isn't broken?  A similar version listing entrants by year, would in my opinion, look neat and navigable.   Wesley  ☀  Mouse  18:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I like how Template:Albanian Eurovision Representation has been styled. Very effective and easy on the eye too. How about having one template like that, which is segmented to show "By Year", "By Entrant", and "By Song" - everything nutshelled into one "By Country" template. Wesley ☀  Mouse  17:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I've just had tweaked the Serbian template that 123o created, to show in the template, 'by year', 'by participant', and 'by song'; just to see how it would look - let me know what you think. Wesley ☀  Mouse  17:21, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * That's the version of the template I was talking about when I started this sub-section of the discussion, in response to the refinement by . I agree it does look nice, but my first post in this sub-section goes over my main concerns. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 21:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So in theory then, the newer ones would be better discarded, and if any "tweaking" changes are need to be made, they are best done on the current ones. Am I right there?   Wesley  ☀  Mouse  21:33, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, if the existing templates just need tweaking, they should ultimately be sent to WP:TFD or simply re-directed. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 21:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Wesley Mouse (talk) mentioned the UK as having a massive template. May I point out the Eurovision: Your Country Needs You template? That's a massive template, so this is the conclusion I have drawn up:
 * 1. Another one is not needed.
 * 2. Wesley's right, it's gargantuan.
 * Hope you all take that on board! Spa-Franks (talk) 11:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Ijust had an idea: is there any way to link an artist (for example, Eva Rivas) to a navbox that doesn't include the link to the artist's article? Because in that case, we could just reduce all this drama to a single template per country, plus a single template by year. In her article, we would include the navboxes for "Armenia in the Eurovision Song Contest", bolding the year 2010, and "Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 2010", bolding Armenia. I don't know if that could be done, or if that would suffice. Any thoughts? Not A Superhero (talk) 05:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I like the Serbian navbox example, though I think an example that reflects one of the extremes would give better light on how a packed navbox would look with that format. When I was reading over the discussion, I was trying to think of why we would need additional navboxes or more information on each navbox (not just because we have one with the years so we should just automatically have one for songs, participants, etc). We have a well categorized project that has categories for each of the combinations mentioned above. Will making these navboxes really improve navigation much? Would someone be going from one participant to the next? The infobox has previous and next song links so would someone go down to he bottom of the page to find the next (which would be in alphabetical order anyway?) It's a similar problem with the participants, which would also be in alphabetical order (and if they weren't there would be duplicates). So, overall, the Serbian example looks nice and has everything that it seems we might want and in an ok format, but is it needed? Grk1011 (talk) 16:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Can I just say if this does mean a clean up of templates, it may be wise to use the new code being introduced as used on Songs of the Eurovision Song Contest 2012  --   [[ axg  ◉  talk   ]] 16:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Why would they have to be in alphabetical order? I think chronological would be fitter, and if an artist enters more than once, they can be put more than once in the navbox. We already do it for Winning songwriters of the Eurovision Song Contest. Not A Superhero (talk) 05:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Let me see if I'm getting this right, because reading the whole debate just made me more confused: If I understood it right, the templates we're talking about are the navboxes that appear at the end of each article, like Songs of the Eurovision Song Contest 2012, the infoboxes are the things that appear at the beginning of articles, like in Boom Boom, and the sucession boxes appear at the end of most artist articles, with links to the previous and next entrants from that country. Is that right? Not A Superhero (talk) 05:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * @Not A Superhero, in reply to your first comment, I must agree; chronological order would probably be better. In the result of an entrant returning, then only their first appearance would need to be wikilinked in the template, with subsequent ones in plain text.  As to the second comment, you're correct yes.   Wesley  ☀  Mouse  10:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Notifying the rest of the project
Given the large scope of this discussion, I thought it might be worth sending out a bot message to everyone listed at WikiProject Eurovision/Members asking for their comment, as I know a lot of them don't watch this page. I have previously used for this purpose. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 22:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ Wesley  ☀  Mouse  22:39, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ I don't usually look into this talk page, especially having a watchlist of 684 changes out of 15,260 items. --  [[ axg  ◉  talk   ]] 00:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. I do have this on my watchlist of 11 pages but I don't often look at it when something occurs that's not of important interest to me at that present moment. Spa-Franks (talk) 10:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, I will try and put something together shortly. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 12:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ CT Cooper · &#32;talk 13:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Renewed Discussion Post-Notification
Let's start a new section for this now that notifications have been sent to members, myself included.

The original template looks better. The new version looks like a shrunken cluttered mess. 123o requested a section of the discussion be deleted; I disagree, it's already a permanent part of the history, so I'd be open to collapsing the irrelevant discussion and closing it. Further, it's unreasonable for 123o to demand the templates be replaced with new versions; while Wikipedia values contributions of its users, we typically don't need contributions designed to replace the contributions of others unless there is a consensus that an improvement is needed and the new version addresses that improvement while retaining what is good about the original. That is my view. CycloneGU (talk) 18:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well two of us already commented above, so please read the above section before replying! Grk1011 (talk) 22:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, the new template by 123o looks unprofessional. I also agree that that section of the discussion should not be deleted for the same reasons, and that there is no need for a template that he has made to replace the current templates, since there is nothing wrong with the current templates. I also believe that the new template is misleading; the page that the template is used by gives information on a countries participation over the years in the contest, not of the artists participation (i.e. more information is included in those articles, which do not particularly relate to the artists involved). If 123o wanted a new template, he should have asked first whether it is agreed that a new one is needed. I for one believe that no improvement is needed at all, and that to change to this new template would not be an improvement anyway. Lukex115 (talk) 00:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I would also like to reinforce something stated near the beginning of this discussion: "According to the user, his templates should remain, and the long established ones MUST be deleted - despite the many man-hours put into the originals." As much as it should be acknowledged how much effort 123o put into his templates, it should be acknowledged that an equal amount of effort has been put into the originals, so the amount of effort that went into each template should have no effect on one's judgement of this situation. Lukex115 (talk) 00:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I responded to the latter portion of this comment, and akin the original comment et al, in my reply. The originals WILL NOT be deleted unless there is good reason - and someone saying they MUST be replaced is not a good enough reason.  CycloneGU (talk) 02:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Wesley  ☀  Mouse  02:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Eeeeek I hadn't noticed the template example Spa-Franks added above. Template:Eurovision: Your Country Needs You does look overpowering with a plethora of information in one template box.  After seeing that, I can definitely see that a UK version of 123o's template would just be ludicrous.   Wesley  ☀  Mouse  03:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Compared to Media in the United Kingdom, that template looks tame, however another thing about this template is the inclusion of [show/hide] parameters on each section as well as the option to only display 1 opened section as said in the 'Usage' section. Thus reducing the clutter to a degree. --  [[ axg  ◉  talk   ]] 22:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This could be a great solution, actually. We could reduce all the issue to one template per country (with artists, songs and years) plus one template per year (with artists, songs and countries), hiding or showing different sections of the template acording to the article. I like it. (And to be honest, with all the amount of data this project handles, there's got to be some cluttering somewhere, either in the number of templates of in the amount of data per template. For me, this is close to a perfect solution). Not A Superhero (talk) 15:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Collapsable Template proposal
This is me not wanting to do my homework. I took example from Media in the United Kingdom and did this:

I chose Germany because it's the country that has entered the most times, therefore if something works for Germany it will work for any country (in case of countries that aren't part of the Big Five we would need to include the "italics for the times they didn't qualify for the final" bits). I didn't read thoroughly the collapsible template documentation (I was focusing just in the technical parts that I needed at the moment to create the template) but I'm pretty sure there is a way to make different sections of the template appear uncollapsed according to the article, so we could have a template like this for each country, uncollapsing the "songs" section in a song article, the "representatives" section in an artist article, and the "years" section in the "Country in the Eurovision Song Contest XXXX" article.

I think it will avoid cluttering by hburying the excess data in the hidden parts of the navbox, but will have it at hand if someone needs it, and will vastly reduce the number of templates needed. We could have another template like this for each "Eurovision Song Contest year", with countries, artists and songs sections. Any comments? Not A Superhero (talk) 06:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I just realized song titles must be inside quotation marks. I'll fix it later. Not A Superhero (talk) 06:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

And here we go: this is how a Year template would look like if we use collapsible templates:

I put the countries, artists and songs that didn't pass the semis in alphabetical order because that's how they are ordered in the "Songs in the Eurovision Song Contest year" templates, but I think it would be better to order them by placing. What do you think about this? Not A Superhero (talk) 20:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I would prefer that the template names reflected the headings at the top of the template and the article titles e.g. having them at Template:Eurovision Song Contest 2009, in-line with earlier template standardization, but nothing wrong with having acronyms as re-directs though. That said, despite my initial skepticism, having the content collapsed makes the templates look a lot better and I think I can support this. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 21:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with Cooper, on the names. Really loving the Germany template. I would support an all-in-one template, would be a lot easier to update. --  [[ axg  ◉  talk   ]] 21:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I like both of those very much, and they seem to be easy navigable too, which is an added bonus. Am I right in guessing the template style for Germany, would be implemented onto "Country in the Eurovision Song Contest" articles, and "Eurovision Song Contest XXXX" would appear on the annual articles?  And if these do work, then would it be worth doing the same for Junior Eurovision Song Contest templates too, to keep a consistent uniformed look throughout the project?   Wesley  ☀  Mouse  22:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I purposefully used acronyms because they were tests and I didn't want to interfere with any existing template, but if these are adopted I'm all in favor of matching the template name with the article. Any thoughts about the only-semifinal order? Should it be alphabetical or by placing? Not A Superhero (talk) 22:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * By placing. But then again, the "readers" wouldn't know the placing based off a few non-qualifying entries, so maybe alphabetical is better.   Wesley  ☀  Mouse  22:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * A third option could be by running order. Not A Superhero (talk) 00:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think rolling these out to the other contests would be a good idea if it works for ESC. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 23:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Do we need two names (Representatives and Entrants), wouldn't Artists work? Also if this doess go ahead, I can do a fair share of the updating with AutoWikiBrowser --  [[ axg  ◉  talk   ]] 23:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 'Artists' looks better than 'Representatives' or 'Entrants'. Also, I don't mind helping out with the rollout for these new ones if they do get the go-ahead.  Keeps me out of mischief and mayhem teehee.  On a side-note has anyone unknowingly added   when posting comments on Facebook?  I did before, and now everyone is asking what it means - d'oh!   Wesley  ☀  Mouse  00:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I changed both "Representatives" and "Entrants" to "Artists". Not A Superhero (talk) 00:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The category system currently uses the word "entrants", though I somewhat agree that artists is better as "entrants" can mean countries as well as people, so it is rather ambiguous. Perhaps re-organizing the categories should be looked into. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 16:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I might as well also point out that the use of the hyphen in the note at the bottom is not strictly correct. A dash (or possibly a colon) should be used instead. The en dash would probably be best. I know it is trivial and many Eurovision templates already do it, but there have been a lot of fights over the dash-hyphen issue, so I think we should probably get it right before someone later comes and complains. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 16:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I would always use a colon (Note:) --  [[ axg  ◉  talk   ]] 17:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I personally do use the colon a lot to bypass the hyphen-dash issue altogether. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 18:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Technically the colon would be correct in punctuation terms, as a colon "informs the reader that what follows the mark proves, explains, or lists elements of what preceded the mark".  Wesley  ☀  Mouse  18:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Besides deciding how to place songs in semifinals (I still think either running order or placing would make more sense than alphabetical), what else do these templates need? Not A Superhero (talk) 04:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The collapsable templates look great btw! For the songs in the semi-final placing might work better, or possibly keeping it in sync with the countries in the "country" section would be better too (which would be achieved through sorting it by placing). Either way I think the songs and artists should be ordered the same way as the countries. Another thought: would it be worth our while adding info about hosts, city, stadia etc. If it's a template for each ESC then those factors whould be included I would think. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 10:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Update: I've just spent the last 24 hours rolling out the new template format across all the "Country in the Eurovision Song Contest" and "Country in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest". The only ones remaining are the annual contest templates. I should hopefully have those done by the end of the weekend. Wesley ☀  Mouse  22:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Why do the new Junior Eurovision templates feature a section with song titles? No song apart from the winner's is ever notable for a stand-alone article, thus making that section redundant. – Kosm  1  fent  05:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If you read the whole conversation above Kosmo, it was agreed to have a uniformed look across the entire Eurovision project (including JESC) in regards to the templates. This keeps consistency across the board,and ties the entire project together.  I've spent days (and by days I mean worked hard into the early hours of the British morning with minimal sleep) reformatting all 100+ templates into the new format.  Now isn't really the time to throw a spanner into the works especially after all the long hard hours been put into this work at such a late stage.   Wesley  ☀  Mouse  14:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You still have not answered what's the purpose of having plain text in a navigation template, and the issue of non-notable songs occupying unnecessary space is something that didn't come up in the discussion. – Kosm  1  fent  18:43, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have an opinion on the notability of the songs, but in any case, content related to the Junior Contest only makes-up a small percentage of these templates, so these issues can be ironed out easily. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 19:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I think my reply kinda answered your question Kosmo. If I didn't make myself clear enough, then I do apologise.  This debate has been on-going for almost 6 weeks now, and Not A Superhero took time to design 2 templates.  Cooper did invite everyone on the project to participate in the debate.  So if you've missed the opportunity after a consensus has been built, and an extensive rollout exercise undergone, then that isn't really my fault.  The new designs can be used on all ESC and JESC articles, and despite the songs not being "linked" doesn't really affect them to be honest.  Besides, once the rollout has been completed, then I'm guessing further discussions will be held to iron out any creases or flaws that may have been spotted.  But until then, may it be wise to allow the rollout to complete first?   Wesley  ☀  Mouse  19:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Wes, of course I wouldn't be stupid enough to engage in a revert war, and of course I'm willing to wait. By the way, you are doing a great job updating all these templates with no AWB access. Don't get me wrong; I think the new template format works great for ESC, but there are notability issues which prevents it from working as good in JESC articles. To be honest I didn't care much for the discussion and also I got busy over the last week, but only today I saw the new templates in JESC articles and I was like "Waaaaaaaaa?". – Kosm  1  fent  19:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the gratitude. I will admit, it has been a huge pain in the balls doing all this with no AWB access (whatever that is). But in all honesty, I have enjoyed doing this task, even if my body-clock has turned vampiric, and I ended up sleeping during the daylight hours and working on this rollout during the graveyard shift. Good news tough, the rollout is almost complete. All "Country in the Eurovision Song Contest" and "Country in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest" templates have been completed and rolled-out successfully. All the annual "Junior Eurovision Song Contest xxxx" are complete, and rolled-out across their respective articles (including any song-title ones). The annual "Eurovision Song Contest xxxx" are stored via my sandbox, 1956-1979 have been rolled-out across respective articles and song-title articles. 1980-2012 are stored, and only need artist/song details adding to them, before being rolled-out on respective articles. I'm off out for a beer, as I think I've deserved one up to this point. I'll finish off the final stage of rollout when I get back. Wesley ☀  Mouse  19:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * A huge thank you to Kosmo for mentioning AWB. I did a little research into it, and registered my name for AWB rights.  Those rights have now been granted, and hopefully should make the rollout even easier.   Wesley  ☀  Mouse  11:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh please, you make me blush. :P – Kosm  1  fent  11:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Rollout exercise is complete. Click here to see the full list of new templates that have been successfully rolled out across all annual, country, country by year, and song title articles - for both ESC and JESC. Wesley ☀  Mouse  02:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Well done for rolling them out so quickly. I think the templates look great, and they certainly make it easier to find what you're looking for in much less time. Plus everything's in one place, so it cuts down the number of templates we have overall as well. While there may be some debate over the JESC templates I'm sure we can come to a reasonable agreement over it in the coming days. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 11:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Sims. I do agree, the new format does make things easier to navigate, and also find things in quicker time.  We all know that people like to move around cyberspace a lot quicker these days - and these templates sure assists that speediness.  The good thing about doing the rollout exercise though, was finding out some articles didn't even have the old-style templates.  You could just imagine the articles feeling abandoned but now they're like "woohoo we're officially a part of the project" lol.  Overall there's 146 of the new-style template - each covering year, country, song, and artists - spread across all articles connected to the project.  So my estimate is that we have reduced the number of templates by at least 65%.  Not only that, it makes updating them easier too, as everything is now in one place.  Even articles such as ESC 1969, ESC 1976, and ESC 1977 where Liechtenstein and Tunisia attempted to participate, but where never shown within a template, now have a place within them.  This allows readers to see that a country tried to take part, and also allow a user to navigate to those pages if they wish.  All that remains now is batching together a list of the old templates, and submitting them for deletion.   Wesley  ☀  Mouse  14:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

JESC templates & "Songs" section
So... now I think is the time to discuss whether we leave or remove the "Songs" section from the JESC templates. Since the overwhelming majority of JESC song articles are not considered notable per WP:NSONGS (only Antes Muerta que Sencilla is, in fact), I think it's wasteful to contain such sections merely in the name of "consistensy". Any thoughts? – Kosm  1  fent  07:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well in my deepest honest opinion, if we are to remove the songs from JESC templates, then we're not exactly maintain a level of consistency really. Removing song titles from JESC templates, would mean removing them from ESC templates, so that we keep a level playing field across the project.  And if that is the case, then all that hard work reformatting 100+ templates, and the 4-days of rolling them all out will have been wasted just so that we end up back at square one.  Sure, the song titles aren't linked, but in keeping them we're providing encyclopaedic material in a kinda "at a glance" perspective.   Wesley  ☀  Mouse  11:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I never said that we should remove that section from the ESC templates? ESC songs are notable and all have got articles, thus a navigation template is needed. JESC songs are not notable and none (but one) has got an article, thus a navigation template is not needed. Why is there such a rigid level of consistency? – Kosm  1  fent  11:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I never said you did say to remove "ESC songs". I used that as an example, as in, if we removed them from JESC, then in order to keep a standard of professionalism and consistency throughout the project, then we would also have to consider removing them from ESC ones too.  ESC songs are as notable as JESC songs.  They are equally played across various parts of Europe; thus making them both notable enough in their own rights.  How many songs on ESC templates are yet to have an article of their own?  Quite a handful; yet those missing songs are permitted to be redlinked on templates, and nobody has questioned their removal.  One option to consider would be to create articles for the JESC songs, so that they have inclusion - but a lot of research would be needed to give them a notable status.   Wesley  ☀  Mouse  11:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)