Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision/Archive 7

Nomination for deletion of Obsolete templates
Following the extensive rollout exercise, in which the new all-in-one navboxes were circulated into use across several Eurovision and Junior Eurovision related articles. The following "old-style" templates have become obsolete, and are therefore nominated for deletion.


 * Template:Albanian Eurovision Representatives
 * Template:Armenian Eurovision Representatives
 * Template:Azerbaijani Eurovision Representatives
 * Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1959
 * Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1960
 * Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1961
 * Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1962
 * Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1963
 * Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1964
 * Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1965
 * Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1966
 * Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1967
 * Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1968
 * Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1969
 * Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1970
 * Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1971
 * Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1972
 * Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1973
 * Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1974
 * Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1975
 * Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1976
 * Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1977
 * Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1978
 * Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1979
 * Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1980
 * Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1981
 * Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1982
 * Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1983
 * Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1984
 * Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1985
 * Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1986
 * Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1987
 * Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1988
 * Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1989
 * Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1990
 * Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1991
 * Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1992
 * Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1993
 * Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1994
 * Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1995
 * Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1996
 * Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1997
 * Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1998
 * Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1999
 * Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 2000
 * Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 2001
 * Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 2002
 * Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 2003
 * Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 2004
 * Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 2005
 * Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006
 * Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 2007
 * Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008
 * Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 2009
 * Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 2010
 * Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 2011
 * Template:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 2012
 * Template:Countries in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2003
 * Template:Countries in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2004
 * Template:Countries in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2005
 * Template:Countries in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2006
 * Template:Countries in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2007
 * Template:Countries in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2008
 * Template:Countries in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2009
 * Template:Countries in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2010
 * Template:Countries in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2011
 * Template:Countries in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2012
 * 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
 * Template:Slovakia in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest
 * Template:Songs of the Eurovision Song Contest 1956
 * Template:Songs of the Eurovision Song Contest 1957
 * Template:Songs of the Eurovision Song Contest 1958
 * Template:Songs of the Eurovision Song Contest 1959
 * Template:Songs of the Eurovision Song Contest 1960
 * Template:Songs of the Eurovision Song Contest 1961
 * Template:Songs of the Eurovision Song Contest 1981
 * Template:Songs of the Eurovision Song Contest 1989
 * Template:Songs of the Eurovision Song Contest 1992
 * Template:Songs of the Eurovision Song Contest 1993
 * Template:Songs of the Eurovision Song Contest 1994
 * Template:Songs of the Eurovision Song Contest 1995
 * Template:Songs of the Eurovision Song Contest 1996
 * Template:Songs of the Eurovision Song Contest 1997
 * Template:Songs of the Eurovision Song Contest 1998
 * Template:Songs of the Eurovision Song Contest 1999
 * Template:Songs of the Eurovision Song Contest 2000
 * Template:Songs of the Eurovision Song Contest 2001
 * Template:Songs of the Eurovision Song Contest 2002
 * Template:Songs of the Eurovision Song Contest 2003
 * Template:Songs of the Eurovision Song Contest 2004
 * Template:Songs of the Eurovision Song Contest 2005
 * Template:Songs of the Eurovision Song Contest 2006
 * Template:Songs of the Eurovision Song Contest 2007
 * Template:Songs of the Eurovision Song Contest 2008
 * Template:Songs of the Eurovision Song Contest 2009
 * Template:Songs of the Eurovision Song Contest 2010
 * Template:Songs of the Eurovision Song Contest 2011
 * Template:Songs of the Eurovision Song Contest 2012

And have been replaced with:


 * Template:Eurovision Song Contest 1956
 * Template:Eurovision Song Contest 1957
 * Template:Eurovision Song Contest 1958
 * Template:Eurovision Song Contest 1959
 * Template:Eurovision Song Contest 1960
 * Template:Eurovision Song Contest 1961
 * Template:Eurovision Song Contest 1962
 * Template:Eurovision Song Contest 1963
 * Template:Eurovision Song Contest 1964
 * Template:Eurovision Song Contest 1965
 * Template:Eurovision Song Contest 1966
 * Template:Eurovision Song Contest 1967
 * Template:Eurovision Song Contest 1968
 * Template:Eurovision Song Contest 1969
 * Template:Eurovision Song Contest 1970
 * Template:Eurovision Song Contest 1971
 * Template:Eurovision Song Contest 1972
 * Template:Eurovision Song Contest 1973
 * Template:Eurovision Song Contest 1974
 * Template:Eurovision Song Contest 1975
 * Template:Eurovision Song Contest 1976
 * Template:Eurovision Song Contest 1977
 * Template:Eurovision Song Contest 1978
 * Template:Eurovision Song Contest 1979
 * Template:Eurovision Song Contest 1980
 * Template:Eurovision Song Contest 1981
 * Template:Eurovision Song Contest 1982
 * Template:Eurovision Song Contest 1983
 * Template:Eurovision Song Contest 1984
 * Template:Eurovision Song Contest 1985
 * Template:Eurovision Song Contest 1986
 * Template:Eurovision Song Contest 1987
 * Template:Eurovision Song Contest 1988
 * Template:Eurovision Song Contest 1989
 * Template:Eurovision Song Contest 1990
 * Template:Eurovision Song Contest 1991
 * Template:Eurovision Song Contest 1992
 * Template:Eurovision Song Contest 1993
 * Template:Eurovision Song Contest 1994
 * Template:Eurovision Song Contest 1995
 * Template:Eurovision Song Contest 1996
 * Template:Eurovision Song Contest 1997
 * Template:Eurovision Song Contest 1998
 * Template:Eurovision Song Contest 1999
 * Template:Eurovision Song Contest 2000
 * Template:Eurovision Song Contest 2001
 * Template:Eurovision Song Contest 2002
 * Template:Eurovision Song Contest 2003
 * Template:Eurovision Song Contest 2004
 * Template:Eurovision Song Contest 2005
 * Template:Eurovision Song Contest 2006
 * Template:Eurovision Song Contest 2007
 * Template:Eurovision Song Contest 2008
 * Template:Eurovision Song Contest 2009
 * Template:Eurovision Song Contest 2010
 * Template:Eurovision Song Contest 2011
 * Template:Eurovision Song Contest 2012
 * Template:Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2003
 * Template:Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2004
 * Template:Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2005
 * Template:Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2006
 * Template:Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2007
 * Template:Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2008
 * Template:Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2009
 * Template:Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2010
 * Template:Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2011
 * Template:Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2012

Wesley ☀  Mouse  01:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm all in favor or deleting them. Now they're unnecessary. Not A Superhero (talk) 03:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Scoop 'em all! – Kosm  1  fent  16:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Scoop'em and nuke'em I say lol.  Wesley  ☀  Mouse  16:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The obsolete ones have now been deleted. Hooray!   Wesley  ☀  Mouse  01:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I propose a standing ovation for Wesley. Not A Superhero (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you! It was nothing really, just an average Joe working effectively as part of a team. 3 templates slipped through the net though grrr. Thankfully another editor found then, but he also nominated a category for deletion too, one that we are still using. I swiftly put an objection, and saved the category from being obliterated into category heaven. Wesley ☀  Mouse  19:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Well done, I'm glad deletion went through without too much trouble. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 21:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Eurovision 2008 and last place
At the 2008 contest the United Kingdom, Germany and Poland all came in joint last however somehow the chart shows some hypothetical way how if the ebu would calculate last place with the order being Germany, Poland and then United Kingdom as this is not an official method and if you notice they are also put into alphabetical order I would quite strongly suggest removing this and just saying that they finished joint last place and put the same in each of the countries respective articles, and other opinions?. C. 22468   Talk to me  21:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I would recommend that issues with specific articles should be raised on the talk page of that article. In the 2008 case, there has been some previous discussion at Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2008. In short, there are tie breaking procedures in the contest which can be applied, although it has been previously argued that these only apply for first place. The EBU shows the ties broken, and as the organizers of the contest, it is appropriate that they have the final say on whether ties are broken or not. However, due to disagreement in the sources, a footnote was considered appropriate and is still present in the article. I don't see any reason to change the status quo as it stands. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 21:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * (ec) On the contrary to what you have pointed out, the EBU even have them listed as Germany (23), Poland (24), and UK (25); despite them all finishing with the same total of points. As the EBU is a highly reliable source, then we should go off what they have officially printed.   Wesley  ☀  Mouse  21:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, according to the EBU's rules on tiebreaking; the country who receives points from the most countries would be ranked higher than a country who received points from fewer countries. If this number is also tied, then the EBU look into who received the most 12's, 10's 8's etc.  In respect to 2008, all 3 countries (Germany, Poland, UK) received points from 2 countries.  However, Germany received 12 from Bulgaria, and 2 from Switzerland; Poland received 10 from Ireland and 4 from the UK, and the UK received 8 from Ireland, and 6 from San Marino - thus sorting the tiebreak into the current order as shown on the article.   Wesley  ☀  Mouse  21:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Recategorising
Now that the new templates have been rolled out across all articles (with exception to artists), it may be an appropriate time to look into recategorising pages more suitably. At the moment, I have added Category:WikiProject Eurovision to all the templates. My proposal would be to have the following:


 * Category:WikiProject Eurovision on all articles - to show there is a connection to the project
 * Category Country in the Eurovision Song Contest - on any Eurovision articles connected to the respective country
 * Category Country in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest - on any Junior Eurovision articles connected to the respective country
 * Category: Eurovision Song Contest by year - on all Eurovision articles related to that particular year
 * Category: Junior Eurovision Song Contest by year - on all Junior Eurovision articles related to that particular year
 * Category: Artists in the Eurovision Song Contest by year - on all Eurovision articles related to artists in that particular year
 * Category: Artists in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest by year - on all Junior Eurovision articles related to artists in that particular year
 * Category: Songs in the Eurovision Song Contest by year - on all Eurovision articles related to songs in that particular year
 * Category: Songs in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest by year - on all Junior Eurovision articles related to songs in that particular year
 * Category: Eurovision Song Contest Templates - on all Eurovision templates
 * Category: Junior Eurovision Song Contest Templates - on all Junior Eurovision templates

Any objections and/or comments on these proposals are warmly welcome. Wesley ☀  Mouse  22:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me, though "templates" should probably be lower case. Also, since Category:WikiProject Eurovision is a Wikipedia maintenance category, mainspace articles probably shouldn't in there. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 21:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmmm good point actually. I suppose using Category:WikiProject Eurovision for the time-being can be viewed as a temporary measure, until we can sort out a better category indexing system.  How about for a more generic term we could perhaps use primary indexing of Category:Eurovision Song Contest and Category:Junior Eurovision Song Contest, and then sub-indexing of the other proposals in order of relevance?  Wesley  ☀  Mouse  21:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I forgot to mention, that my intentions are to make sure that every article gets category tagged, and also receives the appropriate templates too - thus we will be able to have an accurate number of article related to the project, and then the articles by quality and importance table on the main project page will be completed.  Wesley  ☀  Mouse  21:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Per WP:PROJCATS administrative categories such as Category:WikiProject Eurovision and content (mainspace) categories such as Category:Eurovision Song Contest should be separated. The WikiProject Eurovision category is an appropriate place for project pages and article assessments, though, it is not for mainspace articles. All the mainspace articles should instead be somewhere in Category:Eurovision Song Contest (or equivalents for other contests). Templates are a bit of an oddball, as other projects categorize them in both administrative and content categories. At present they do seem to be overwhelming the WikiProject Eurovision category itself; it might be better to simply place Category:Eurovision Song Contest templates (and the equivalents for other contests) as a sub-category of both the WikiProject Eurovision and Eurovision Song Contest categories. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 22:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * This is a rough idea on categories and how they would technically resemble an index system.
 * Category:WikiProject Eurovision
 * Category:Eurovision Song Contest
 * Category:Eurovision Song Contest by year
 * Category:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest
 * Category:Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest by year
 * Category:Artists in the Eurovision Song Contest
 * Category:Artists in the Eurovision Song Contest by year
 * Category:Songs in the Eurovision Song Contest
 * Category:Songs in the Eurovision Song Contest by year
 * Category:Eurovision Song Contest templates
 * Category:Junior Eurovision Song Contest
 * Category:Junior Eurovision Song Contest by year
 * Category:Countries in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest
 * Category:Countries in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest by year
 * Category:Artists in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest
 * Category:Artists in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest by year
 * Category:Songs in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest
 * Category:Songs in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest by year
 * Category:Junior Eurovision Song Contest templates
 * An example of how this would work is: a user wishes to view articles for artists in the Eurovision Song Contest, but not from any specific year; s/he would be able to view Category:Artists in the Eurovision Song Contest. However, if a user wanted to define that search even more, they could click Category:Artists in the Eurovision Song Contest by year.   Wesley  ☀  Mouse  22:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * All looks very sensible to me; I don't have any immediate issues. My proposal to take templates out of the WikiProject Eurovision category and put the template categories in there instead as a sub-category would work with this proposal. On the side note, the categories on Commons for Eurovision is even more of a mess than the ones on Wikipedia. Fixing them is still in the pipeline for me. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 19:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * For example, under the category "Countries in the Eurovision song contest by year", we would have the subcategories "Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 1957", and under that category, we would have all the articles of France, Switzerland, Netherlands, etc... in the Eurovision Song Contest 1957, amirite? That Sounds Good to Me, although we would need to check the number of categories, so it doesn't become too large. Not A Superhero (talk) 05:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

A possible solution to the dialect problem?
Listening to Woki mit deim popo gave me a slight idea which would save the problems we had a few months ago. The song is in Mühlviertlerisch (a dialect of German) and I've almost kicked myself for not saying this back then - in future, go for the language which the dialect originates from as, for example, if Engelbert Humperdinck's entry Love Will Set You Free was in Cockney Rhyming Slang, wouldn't we just use English? Spa-Franks (talk) 17:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that is how we came to the conclusion of using Diggiloo website for the sake of "language" used, and footnote dialects. Which from looking at your original post, is reflecting that same conclusion.   Wesley  ☀  Mouse  17:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Some articles being deleted via WP:AFD without WP:ESC being informed
Hi folks,

nominated Cute (band) which is the Maltese entry for JESC 2007, to be redirected first, but then put it up for G6 speedy and failed to notify this project about it. So please be on the look out for other Eurovision-related articles that have been speedy nominated without us being informed about it. A bit of underhandedness in my opinion that someone took it upon themselves to do such actions. Wesley ☀  Mouse  13:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a misinformation. I never nominated it to be redirected and never "put it for speedy", see Talk:Cute (Japanese band). Also, it had never been added to your project. Moscowconnection (talk) 15:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The article has been restored under Cute (Maltese band). I've expanded the article too, as it was a very small stub.   Wesley  ☀  Mouse  15:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The article couldn't have been restored, cause it never was deleted. Moscowconnection (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And I may remind Moscowconnection, that Ryulong asked you at Talk:Cute (Japanese band) why you had deleted the article. And your reply to that users was that you nominated for G6 to make space for an uncontroversial page move. And that you also stated in your request that the deletion was needed to make space for Cute (Japanese band) and added a link to this discussion.  And now you say that it is a misinformation, and that you never "put it up for speedy"?  Your own comment at the article talk page contradicts the comment you now post on here.   Wesley  ☀  Mouse  15:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I repeat, I never "put it up for speedy". That was another, new article with the same title that I "put up for speedy". Sorry, I explained it to you already at Talk:Cute (Japanese band). Please reread it. Moscowconnection (talk) 15:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * So you are now denying that you told Ryulong that you nominated it for deletion, even when there is evidence to show you said exactly that to the user? I read everything very carefully, and also the part where you told Ryulong that you deleted an article, and why you nominated it.  I then asked you why you never informed the project, to which you replied "No reason.  Should I?  How is it done?"  I even pointed out that you was aware the band took part in Junior Eurovision Song Contest, which is a very clear and obvious indication that it is Eurovision related.  You have now used Cute (band) to disambiguate Cute (Maltese band) and Cute (Japanese band), which that alone warrants a deletion, as its an unnecessary and orphaned disambiguation page, when Cute (disambiguation) page already exists.  I encourage your enthusiasm in becoming a good editor and creating as many new articles as possible.  But sometimes it is always best to check with WP:NEW or research if a new article is needed, or if another one covering your proposals is in existence.   Wesley  ☀  Mouse  15:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't request the article about the Maltese band to be speedy deleted cause at the time when I requested Cute (band) to be speedy deleted, the Maltese band was already at Cute (Maltese band). Do you understand now? It wasn't the Maltese band that I requested to be speedy deleted. The Maltese band article would have been deleted as a result of my page move request to move Cute (Japanese band) to Cute (band), yes. But I withdrew the page move request cause I didn't want the Maltese band article, although having been redirected since 2008, to be deleted. Moscowconnection (talk) 15:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Jury members ???
I've noticed that a number of the articles have lists of the members of 2 or 3 of the national juries. As these people are generally not well-known - ranging from music producers to housewives - these are a mass of red links.

What should we do about this? Should we remove their internal links? Are the lists worth having at all? thisisace (talk) 22:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmmm a very good point there. I'd also wonder if the jury members are "notable" enough to be even listed?  I'm on the fence on this at the minute, but swaying towards a support of removing those details.   Wesley  ☀  Mouse  22:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:Red suggests "Articles should not have red links to topics that are unlikely ever to have an article, ...", "Do not create red links to articles that will likely never be created", "In general, a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article" --   [[ axg  ◉  talk   ]] 23:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I noticed this a while ago on Eurovision Song Contest 1981. Obviously the red links are pointless, so I removed them. Now however I see that the ref given is dead, so all the info needs to be removed anyway.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 13:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Portal:Eurovision
Out of date by over four years now. I wonder if such a headline page became neglected over time, or this was intentionally left. Can I try and keep this updated? I was going to per WP:BOLD but I'm just wondering if I'm treading on old ground here. Spa-Franks (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I've brought up this portal previously on this page, though I nor anyone else got round to doing anything. The main problem I see with the portal other than being heavily out-of-date is a lack of clear scope - does it cover just the Eurovision Song Contest, or all the Eurovision contests? If it is the former, it probably should be moved to "Portal:Eurovision Song Contest" with the references to other contests removed. Individuals can then create portals for the other contests as they desire. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 20:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I'll do all of that bar the move (as I don't want to mess up something almost irreversible!) and update it. I'll try and continuously update this! WP:BOLD coming into the decision. Spa-Franks (talk) 16:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * And we're done. What do you think? Spa-Franks (talk) 17:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Can we do something about the blue writing on an orange background please? Blue/red; green/red; blue/orange colour-combos are deemed to be difficult for colorblind and/or visually impaired readers.  And believe me, when I look at it personally, I start to go cross-eyed.  Thanks  Wesley  ☀  Mouse  18:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I will look into the page move later. On the colour issue, I agree with Wes that the orange/blue theme does not look right at all. The Eurovision infoboxes currently stick to a blue/light green oriented theme and probably should be consistent with the portal. The colour choice should be based on what colours are used on ESC material, although this doesn't appear to be consistent and varies from year-to-year. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 22:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've changed the orange to a light shade of blue. Also the 'Eurovision Song Contest news' part still needs work: 'semi final one', no mention of Panorama (TV series), opening party should be welcoming party, songs in "-", red linked L'amore e femmina. --  [[ axg  ◉  talk   ]] 00:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources (again)
An editor recently used a website called MyEurovisionDairy.com to reference the confirmation of Finland and Hungary at Eurovision 2013. The Finland details where removed with reason being the aforementioned website is a blog; which at the bottom of their website reads "Blog at WordPress.com" with a link taking people to a page to create an account if they wish to host a website with them. The thing that concerns me now is that other sources which we classify as reliable such as ESCDaily; ESCXtra; EurovisionTimes; Oikotimes; and now ESCToday are all operating their websites via the WordPress company and all have "Blog at WordPress" or "Powered by WordPress" at the bottom of their pages. With this in mind, should EurovisionDiary be classified as reliable now, and if not due to the WordPress issue; then shouldn't the others now be unreliable sources too? Love to see views on this one. Thanks Wesley  ☀  Mouse  21:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I think I should explain why I raised this issue up again. It reason is I can fully understand the WordPress situation and how they operate; and that some long-established sites that we know to be reliable are now using WordPress for their operations.  However, some users new to the project and/or IPs may not be as compus mentus about WordPress and reliable sources, which the majority of us do know about.  So perhaps it would be an ideal time to review which sources that use WordPress would be classified as reliable and which won't.  The way I see it is, if a website using WordPress has "Blog at WordPress" at the bottom of it, shouldn't be used as a source due to it being a blog.  However, those which have "Powered by WordPress" at the bottom of the website can be seen as reliable enough, as they are pure business orientated; unlike the blogs which are fan-inspired.  Would this suggestion be a good one or not?   Wesley  ☀  Mouse  00:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Newsletter revival
Howdy project members, Just a quick note to inform you all that a revival of the newsletter for WikiProject Eurovision is underway. The revival edition is in mid-editorial stage; and is scheduled to be published on 1 June. The newsletter is designed to keep members informed about what is happening on the project, welcome new members, and an opportunity to bring everyone together as a project community. Wesley ☀  Mouse  16:00, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Marcel Bezençon Award tables
I've read Eurovision 2009, 2010, and 2011. So far I've noticed that they have this section. So are we aloud to add one for 2012? If we are, would we need to provide sources? Bleubeatle (talk) 07:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * As has been mentioned a few times now. Nobody even knew such content was added to the 2009 - 2011 articles; until another user raised the issue in regards to the content on 2012.  When the issue was raised, a search back on previous year's articles was conducted, and found that similar content had been added since 2003; and without consensus.  The fact that winner details on OGAE and Marcel Bezençon Awards are already covered on the respective articles; should indicate that these tables shouldn't have been mass created/included.  We shouldn't be confusing people viewing the articles who are not unfamiliar with Eurovision, by adding tables stats without explaining what they mean.  There is nothing wrong in adding a "See also" section near the bottom of articles, with a short sentence reading "For other awards relating to this years contest please see..." and then add wikilinks to OGAE and Marcel Bezencon pages.   Wesley  ☀  Mouse  13:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem here is that many Eurovision articles are being taken over my indiscriminate collections of lists and tables. Encyclopedic articles are supposed to provide a summary of the topic in question, not all known information, and be primarily written in prose - as WP:BETTER and WP:LAYOUT goes into. Three questions that should be asked when adding content which often aren't are a) "Is this relevant to the topic?", b) "Is this of interest to a general audience?", and c) "Will this be understandable at face value by a general audience?" On question a, yes they have some relevance, but it is only indirect relevance, as the awards are not part of the content itself. On b, the OGAE and these awards are marginally well known compared to the contest itself, and would greatly question if the weight of coverage justifies them each having their own dedicated section in every year article. The awards for each year are already included in other articles, so a passing mention somewhere in the ESC year articles might be appropriate, dedicated sections and tables is not appropriate. On c, the answer is clearly no. A link is provided but most readers won't have a clue what these are and will need to go to another article to find out any information, which is undesirable. An explanation will be needed in every article which further adds to the weight keeping these sections will take.


 * I am considering having an RfC on this page to agree on a standard layout for ESC by year articles, so that some standard can be reached. These sections will obviously be included in such an RfC; all project members will be notified, and a decision can be made on these sections. However in any case core policy may override any consensus reached in such a discussion, in other words, if it is not sourced, any editor is free to remove it and it should not be restored without sources. A shorter high quality article is better than a longer low quality one. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 14:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps submitting the RfC as soon as would be an ideal option. That way we could add notification about it to the upcoming newsletter, which is scheduled to be sent out to all project members soon anyway, and thus save time sending two lots of messages (one for the newsletter and one for the RfC).   Wesley  ☀  Mouse  14:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅, see below. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 20:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Do we really need to distinguish between "All-time points" and "Points since the introduction of semifinals"?
Most of the "Country in the Eurovision Song Contest" articles include the following tables:

Most points given to other countries. Most points received from other countries. Most points given to other countries since the introduction of semifinals. Most points received from other countries since the introduction of semifinals.

I don't understand the purpose of the last two tables. Why is it necessary to list again the points given/received since the introducion of semifinals? Another problem with them is that they don't only count points given and received IN the semifinals, but also points given and received in the finals. The tables had a footnote that says:

"NOTE: The tables with points from 2004 include points awarded in both finals and semi-finals where the highest point from the final/semi-final is picked."

I think the meaning is unclear and makes the tables mostly worthless. I propose we remove them from the articles, or rewrite them to reflect only the points given and received in the semifinals. Not A Superhero (talk) 20:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I would question the appropriateness of these tables at all, since they do seem to be endless lists of trivial statistics, and encyclopedic articles are not supposed to be overrun with an endless numbers of tables - five tables, as seen at Slovenia in the Eurovision Song Contest for example, is definitely overkill. Many of these tables are unsourced (particularly the post-2004 ones), suggesting an editor created methodology that violates policy. Some do have sources such as this, though even if the information is accurate, only reliable sources should ever get their methodology of statistics used in Wikipedia articles. I do see some overlap between these tables and Articles for deletion/List of the top ranking countries of the Eurovision Song Contest. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 14:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I would consider them related to Voting in the Eurovision Song Contest, but yes, at least some, if not all of them, are unnecessary statistics (We realy need an Eurovisiontrivia.com website to keep all that data that doesn't belong in this wiki, btw). So the question is: Which of them should we delete? All of them? Only the unsourced ones? Only the ones that have a questionable metodology? While I think the all-time points tables give a good perspective of voting trends, I'm not sure they belong to Wikipedia, and claiming them to be justified by WP:CALC would be an overstretch of that policy's definition. Not A Superhero (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Interesting that Not A Superhero suggests having some sort of Eurovisiontrivia.com website; as Eurovision.tv has a full list of voting history. You only need to click on the respective year, and you're able to get the full voting scoreboard.   Wesley  ☀  Mouse  18:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * For that reason simple tables of results in the year articles should be okay; it is the additional stats on top of this, particularly those which require editor calculations, which are problematic. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 23:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * So, if I understood it right, CT Cooper is in favor of deleting all the points tables. My opinion is that some of them are confusing and all are questionable, so I would vote for delete at least the "from semifinal" tables, and wouldn't object to deleting all of them. Any other opinions about this? Not A Superhero (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm all in favour of removing the "from semifinal" tables. They don't really do much, apart from show a difference in voting pattern pre and post semifinal introductions.  And if one was to go deeper, then delete all the voting stats, as that is basically what they are, statistics.  I thought Wikipedia was about encyclopaedic material and not statistical trivia?   Wesley  ☀  Mouse  17:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I personally am against such tables in general. – Kosm  1  fent  21:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Can't it just be "points given/received in the semi-finals"? That Sounds Good to Me. Spa-Franks (talk) 19:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * How would that work though? If we only have tables of points given and received from 2004 onwards, then what about the points between 1956 - 2003?  Doing that won't show a full picture of voting patterns.  And not only that, Luxembourg, Morocco and Yugoslavia articles would end up having no tables whatsoever, as they haven't participated post-semifinal introduction.  But like I pointed out above, those tables are literally showing voting statistics, which is trivial information in all honesty.  Whereas the scoreboards that appear on the yearly articles are more encyclopaedic in data.   Wesley  ☀  Mouse  20:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * My fault, badly worded. Basically there could be one table for the finals, and one for the semi-finals. I'm strongly in favour of these tables but the original point (of since 2004) is correct. Have a look at the Switzerland page! Spa-Franks (talk) 17:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's the perfect example of overdoing it with the statistics. Now, if we were to keep the tables, we would need to recalculate all the semifinal ones and check for accuracy the final ones (Who keeps these tables up to date, by the way?). Would it be worth it? Doesn't it violate WP:NOR? While I like the tables, I'm not sure if they are neccessary or useful here in Wikipedia. Not A Superhero (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I've made some changes to the Albania in the Eurovision Song Contest for these tables: two columns of tables have been made, one that shows points in just the final, and the other that shows points in both the final and the semi-finals. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 10:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The look is better, but I would be all for separating completely the points in final/points in semifinals, if we are going to keep both. Not A Superhero (talk) 03:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that these tables should stay. I know this is an Encyclopedia website, but it does give some interesting facts and figures. I think that we should keep all four tables (two from Semi Finals, two just of Finals) - in one condition but they need to be cleaned up. Some pages only have 2/4 tables, others have 3/4 tables, and some have all 4 tables. If we are going to keep all 4 tables, I believe all 4 should be injected into all of the countries' pages. Another issue with them is that, how far do they go? Do they go to 3rd, 4th or 5th? Most stop at the 5th rank - however Russia goes as far as 10. This should be a matter of continuity too. Every country should be treated equal with 4 tables and have the same amount of ranks. Cathair  awr  ✝  20:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * There is that word again: interesting. What is interesting is completely subjective and lot of things are interesting, but are not appropriate for inclusion in encyclopedia. Putting aside the fact that having pages full of tables with little else is not encyclopedic, the main objection I have to these sections, as I alluded to earlier, is that they are not based on any sources - they are a methodology invented by editors of totting up points given/received over the years. That is original research, which is forbidden in Wikipedia articles. You could argue the WP:CALC exemption, but I would say this goes beyond that by i) separating time periods e.g. before/after the introduction of semi-finals, ii) not reflecting any provided sources, and iii) the results are not obvious and there are lot of complications which makes the methodology complex and original - combining the semi-finals/finals would produce a different result, along with having different starting points (e.g. starting again with the introduction of two semi-finals), or counting changing regimes (e.g. Serbia and Montenegro -> Serbia / Montenegro) as contentious entries. The more I look at these sections, the more wonder why they have remained - the same thoughts I had with the List of the top ranking countries of the Eurovision Song Contest article. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 23:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I suppose you are right. They are not necessarily needed and are not what Wikipedia are about. They could be removed right now, but these Tables should definitely stay. They are of more importance and have a better meaning than those other tables. Cathair  awr  ✝  18:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Those ones aren't such a problem because they are simply reporting verifiable information. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 19:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Countries in Eurovision Song Contest

 * Wesley has created this idea, but I am just adding it here for further discussion. On the "(Country name) in the Eurovision Song Contest" pages - at the Contestants section, where the table gives all the information on who have represented the country and how they have placed, the suggestion is that, take Norway for example, the XX on the semi finals and finals should be replaced by AQ and DNQ with the following key below it:
 * AQ denotes auto-qualification. This could be the result of one of the following two reasons; if a country had won the previous year, they did not have to compete in the semi-finals the following year. The other reason being that back in 2005-2007, the top ten countries who were not members of the big four did not have to compete in the semi finals the following year. If, for example, Germany and France placed inside the top ten with Spain and the United Kingdom finishing after 15th place, the countries who placed 11th and 12th were advanced to the following year's grand final along with the rest of the top ten countries.
 * DNQ denotes an unsuccessful attempt at qualifying to the final.

How would the table work though? I have put some of my ideas onto my sandbox for you all to look at and discuss it here. Cathair awr  ✝  15:51, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * As the tables are sortable, then version two wouldn't work. So that only leaves version 1 (which is the version in use anyway, with the only difference being XX is changed to AQ/DNQ.   Wesley  ☀  Mouse  15:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

True indeed. Version two looks better whereas version one works best. Have you thought of any other additions/editions/removals in response with this table? Cathair awr  ✝  16:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * In reply to if there are other additions etc to be made, I would suggest waiting. As has been mentioned at the start of the RFC discussion (above), those articles (Country in the Eurovision Song Contest) will go through another RFC, and such discussion on content/layout will be covered at that stage.   Wesley  ☀  Mouse  16:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think abbr should be used here, I've never heard of 'AQ'. E.g. AQ and DNQ. --  [[ axg  ◉  talk   ]] 22:01, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Even better idea, and saves having to have the paragraph explanation too. A simple AQ and DNQ should self-explain everything.   Wesley  ☀  Mouse  22:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I am liking this abbr suggestion. As Wes stated, it saves the whole paragraphing issue. Could you reference it though? As an N Reflist (only for the first AQ) so users can click the ref and see why they auto-qualified? Cathair  awr  ✝  22:55, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm the solution to that could be just as simple too. Just footnote a much briefer paragraph for AQ's.  Or we could drop the A, and just have Q, as most people know Q means either 'question' or 'qualified', and that DNQ means 'did not qualify'.   Wesley  ☀  Mouse  22:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I agree because there was pre-qualifying round that was introduced in 1996. Wouldn't the countries that were eliminated in that round also count as a participation since the country did submit a song for the contest and was judged by the national juries. Even though their singers weren't able to present the song in the actual event shouldn't they still be listed? I think they are still worth being mentioned Bleubeatle (talk) 10:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The 1996 pre-qualifying round is mentioned on all the country in ESC articles in written prose. Although, the information could be done with being included into the contestants tables for each country.  But if we're to go down that route, then we should also think about 1993, when there was a pre-qualifying round that year too (Kvalifikacija za Millstreet).  You may wish to consider adding those to the tables too.   Wesley  ☀  Mouse  13:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah that's what I think we should do. Those songs are still worthy of being mentioned in the contestants section and shouldn't be forgotten.Bleubeatle (talk) 02:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I have updated my sandbox, which now has four versions. I have only included 1996, not 1993. You have my permission to edit them around as to what you think may be appropriate, I have left a few rules on the page regarding my permissions though. I agree with what bleubeatle is trying to say though. NOTE: 1.1 + 1.2 are excluded, as they will not really work. Cathair  awr  ✝  13:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry to be a pain, but we've already discussed (a few paragraphs above here) about the styles used in versions 1.1 and 1.2. Version 1.2 wouldn't work as the table is sortable.  If the table contents were "rowspan" (as used on the venue section of ESC 2013 article), then yes it would work.  But colspan doesn't I'm afraid.  The discussion above about using abbr in order to get away from the heavy paragraph footnote, rules out version 1.1.  Version 2.1 doesn't really explain about the 1996 pre-quals round; so that rules that out.  Which only leaves version 2.2.  That one's very good; but the footnotes don't make much sense.  They could do with being re-worded, so that the general audience understands the context.  Luckily I know about Eurovision, so could grasp the meaning.  But for the average Joe Smith who hasn't the foggiest clue about Eurovision, would probably feel lost in the context.   Wesley  ☀  Mouse  14:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, very true, I guess I'm the type of person who likes to keep their creations lol. I should have mentioned that, in fact, now, whilst writing this, I have edited it above stating that about 1.1 + 1.2. Yes, I do agree 100% with what you are saying. I created them to see how they would look beforehand and then develop them further. I'm all on for 2.2 also. I do admit that even when I know what I am trying to say in my head, sometimes I'm not the greatest at typing it out. You are more than welcome to edit it. Oh and slightly off the rails here, but what does 'cmt' stand for? I notice it on your edit summaries. Cathair  awr  ✝  14:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I know the feeling about thinking and then putting those thoughts into words, I get all confuzzled too - which I shouldn't really as I'm good with lexicography. As for the last question, 'cmt' is an abbreviation for 'comment'  You'll find a lot of editors tend to abbr. their edit summary, so that they can squeeze more explanations into it - 'r' or 're' or 'rply' is short for reply.  I suppose its each to their own on how they abbrv their summaries.   Wesley  ☀  Mouse  15:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Moved from RfC

 * Do we really need Semi Final tables? Various pages only have the Finals' tables. Could the Semi Final tables just not be binned altogether? It's either that or else create Semi Final tables for every other page. Take for instance Ireland's page and United Kingdom's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cathairawr (talk • contribs) 11:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see why the final should get special treatment over the semi-finals with results tables, so it should probably be all or nothing. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 13:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be unfair though for some of the pages to have more information than others. That is the point I am trying to point out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cathairawr (talk • contribs) 15:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Depends on the context, could you provided some examples of the pages you are referring to? CT Cooper · &#32;talk 16:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I am not talking about the results table which states who qualified, I am referring to Voting History. Those tables are completely unclean on many pages. The United Kingdom's page contains three tables. Two Finals tables and one Semi Finals table. Whereas, if we take Ireland's page in to consideration, it only has two Finals tables. Azerbaijan's Page has 4 of these tables. Surely they all deserve the same amount of tables? Another issue, if we take Russia's page one of their table goes to the extremes of listing 10 countries who they have received the most points from, whereas most only list 5 countries on each table - the same with Latvia's Page - whom I might add also has 4 tables.


 * Basically to clear things up, I see no logic as to why some pages contain more information than others, shouldn't we just make it so that all countries have: 1) The same amount of tables. 2)The same amount of information within the tables Cathairawr (talk) 17:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Discussion has occurred on those tables on this page in the past - see . Further discussion may be needed, and I believe they are trivial and wouldn't object to getting rid of them entirely, but they are not present in the ESC by year articles and so are of limited relevance to this RfC. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 19:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's a matter of keeping only information that can be verified easily, clearly understood, and gathered under a clear metodology. Points awarded in finals, for example, is clear. Points awarded in finals plus semifinals is less clear because sometimes countries get into a semi together and sometimes they don't. Points awarded in finals and semifinals, taking the highest score of both is out of the question. At least for me. Not A Superhero (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, points awarded in finals plus semi-finals is not clear and I think it's unnecessary.Dfizzles (talk) 00:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I think people may be getting confused here. This section is in regards to the results tables in the Eurovision by Year articles, such as ESC 2010, ESC 2011, ESC 2012. The comments above seem to be directing towards the tables in the 'County' in the Eurovision articles, such as Ireland in the Eurovision Song Contest etc - to which those tables should be removed in my opinion as they are technically a table of statistical trivia which are calculated manually; where as the result tables in the annual pages are factual evidence of scores, and can be referenced with sources, without calculating manually. Wesley ☀  Mouse  00:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I gathered from reading the initial post of the section in addition to further clarification posts by Cathairawr, the question at hand relates not to the year-by-year articles but the country-specific pages and why some articles such as United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest and Albania in the Eurovision Song Contest which feature tables regarding factual point tallies from semi-finals while Ireland in the Eurovision Song Contest does not feature these tables for semi-final points. For clarification purposes, should the initial post under this section then be disregarded since this RfC is directed towards the year-to-year articles rather than the country articles which is the originating question for this discussion? Dfizzles (talk) 04:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm being bold and moving this stuff out of the RfC, because as I said earlier, its not relevant to the section it was under, and seems to be causing confusion. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 10:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I would like to say thanks to CT Cooper for moving this. I appreciate it! I also apologise if this seems my fault, however, I am relatively new to the project and Wikipedia itself. I'm still learning, and once I was corrected a couple of paragraphs above that the discussion had already taken place, I stopped commenting any further - but instead, on the link which Cooper posted. Cathair  awr  ✝  11:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No its not your fault Cathairrawr, please don't be blaming yourself. It is very easy to misunderstand written conversations, than it would be if this was a verbal discussion.  In response to Dfizzles question, I used "Ireland" as a country name example (in respect to "country in the Eurovision"), not as an example for articles which hold the top-5 points awarded/received tables.   Wesley  ☀  Mouse  12:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not your fault Cathairrawr, I genuinely think that a decision regarding the inconsistencies between article pages needs to be made regarding the number of Voting History tables. Dfizzles (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It is nobodies fault. I agree that more discussion on this topic was needed, but that content wasn't part of that particularly RfC, so I moved it out. It is not a big deal. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 19:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Ell & Nikki - nomination for deletion discussion
Hi, as many of you are aware I nominated Ell & Nikki for deletion earlier this week. Some users who were part of this WikiProject were strongly against it so the result was Keep. However, I was not fully satisfied with responses and evaluations. After reviewing this problem, I believe that there was some mis-communication that occurred and I realized that I should've given this issue a different approach rather than opening an AfD as suggested by some users at Ell & Nikki's talk page . Because of this, many users misinterpreted my actions and thought that I wanted to deleted the article as shown by the responses here 1 as well as the barnstars left by Zymurgy on 2, 3, 4.

Unfortunately, the users that were involved in the discussions also made assumptions such as "(I)attempted to canvass different rules to try and get people to change their votes" and "It's a fight you are very unlikely to win unfortunatly, just saying".

I just want to state my real intentions clearly: Eldar and Nikki should be treated as separate artists with equal notability for winning Eurovision Song Contest. Past winning Eurovision Song entries that were sang by two people, such as "Rock 'n' Roll Kids", have had their articles treating its singers as separate artists including on List of Eurovision Song Contest winners. I have no intent of getting the article deleted along with its information. I also wanted to state that when nominating the article for deletion I had originally hoped for a re-direct or merge and not delete.

Please understand that I am only trying to help just like you guys here so I don't appreciate hurtful assumptions regarding my intents. Thank you. Bleubeatle (talk) 04:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Bluebeatle, by continuing a debate in the manner that you have worded above, isn't in good faith really. The best action to have taken as soon as the AFD had closed was to just drop it; rather than stoke up the fire even more with the provision of diffs from what others have said to each other.  Everyone has the right to cast an opinion on any given situation, and this one is of no exception.  Some could say that you are even guilty of your the same thing that you are accusing others of, by telling BabbaQ that he should "respect view and opinions of others".  You should also do the same.  And I don't appreciate the fact that you have clearly done an extensive search through users contribution logs just to find who has said what, where, and when - in order to provide diffs in your statement above.   Wesley  ☀  Mouse
 * Looking at everything in more light and in-depth analysis, it seems very evident that the accusations are a bit of a boomerang. You state that people accused you of attempting to canvass different rules to try and get people to change their votes.  In hindsight of the evidence and comments posts in various areas, it is clear that this may well have been the case.  AT the AFD, everyone and anyone is entitled to cast an opinion/vote in regards to the AFD discussion, regardless of what project they may be members of.  Throughout the AFD, every time someone cast a vote of "keep" and gave reasons for their vote, you would follow up the vote with a "comment" full of links as if to make their vote meaningless.  You even used WP:BIO1E as a reason that the article should be deleted as it didn't meet the criteria of that policy.  However, that policy wasn't even connected to the article, as BIO1E's are mainly in connection to articles of events, not people.  Ell and Nikki are living persons, which categorises the article as a BLP; and therefore the criteria set out at WP:BLP1E would bear more meaning rather than the BIO1E.  Some editors pointed this out to you, and even stated that all three articles met the criteria at WP:MUSIC.  Despite the advise being made by others, you continued to post negatively worded comments, which were giving off the impression that you disagreed with everyone's vote to keep, and would go to any length to get the deletion approved.
 * And that is more evident when you sent a message to the case administrator, Brandmeister, and told him "there was no proper consensus" to close down the AFD, despite there being 9 votes to keep, and 1 vote to delete. Brandmeister even pointed out to you there (as well as on the reasons for closing the AFD) that WP:SNOW came into affect, and that keeping the AFD open any longer than it needed was a waste of time.  You even demanded that the AFD be re-opened because of the people who cast a vote of keep, where all people from this very project.  Just because we are part of this project doesn't take away our right to vote on an AFD matter, and whatever gave you the impression it did, is beyond me.  So please, do the best thing and just drop the entire matter and get on with editing cooperatively.  Don't let the fact that an AFD which you nominated didn't go in your favour.  That is the whole point of discussions, to find views and opinions of others regarding the discussed matter.  Some may agree with you, some may not - and that is the whole point of holding discussions, to allow people to speak their mind on an issue of importance.   Wesley  ☀  Mouse  12:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * There was a clear consensus to keep the Ell & Nikki article. And even if a majority of the Keep !voters was from the Eurovision project doesnt really matter. If anything those users have knowledge about Eurovision and would probably be more fair in their judgement then any other user. Concerning Bleubeatles comment on my talk page, I have removed that and will pressumre good faith even though I have my doubts. --BabbaQ (talk) 13:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * OK Bleubeatle, enough is enough, time to let sleeping dogs rest. You have said to a few editors now, as well as in this very thread, that you have no intent to have the article deleted.  If that be the case then why did you 1) nominate the article for deletion? 2) Demand to the administrator who closed the AFD that he reopen the case as people from this projected voted? 3) you even continue to canvass support to get the article deleted via Wikipedia talk:Notability (music), despite the unanimous decision to keep.  Just accept the fact that your nomination to delete was a mistake, and get on with wiki-life.   Wesley  ☀  Mouse  14:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * My thoughts exactly, the entire point of AfD is to discuss whether to delete the article nominated. There is no reason to re-open the AfD if no one wants the article to be deleted. Mergers are generally discussed on article talk pages. As for this, I consider it to be a trivial issue, but in any case if you wish to complain about an editor's actions you should first leave a message on their talk page. It is a (mostly) unwritten rule of courtesy on Wikipedia that when you start a discussion about someone, you should make sure they know about it so they can exercise their right to respond. "Please understand that I am only trying to help just like you guys here so I don't appreciate hurtful assumptions regarding my intents. Thank you." No one here has disputed that as far as I can see Bleubeatle, and suggesting otherwise is not appreciated either. There is a difference between criticizing an editor's actions, which is what we have done, and suggesting they are not editing in good faith - please assume the assumption of good faith. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 22:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Alright, you need to listen and stop making further critizing and pre-judging with my actions now. Read this below carefully and please don't take anymore offense.


 * "Despite the advise being made by others, you continued to post negatively worded comments, which were giving off the impression that you disagreed with everyone's vote to keep, and would go to any length to get the deletion approved." - Wesley Mouse
 * -Let's get things clear here. I was not being negative or rejecting people's post. All I wanted to do was have a proper discussion on that page. That's why I was making replies in forms of "comments". There were not intended to be disagreements ok?
 * Also, Wesley Mouse, remember when you posted about finding a charting position for Nikki right after someone said that articles for Eldar and Niggar should be nominated for deletion instead? I quickly commented and suggested that you are allowed to put Running Scared's charting position. Can you tell if I disagreed with you there? Can't you see that I was trying to engage with you in a discussion? Please don't be prejudice and make such assumptions about my posts.


 * “Some could say that you are even guilty of your the same thing that you are accusing others of, by telling BabbaQ that he should "respect view and opinions of others". You should also do the same.” - Wesley Mouse
 * -Explain to me how I was not respecting people’s views and opinions? Because I was disagreeing with them on the Ell & Nikki talk page? Yet others also disagreed with me as well? Let's not forgot that you told me that opening an AfD was "pointless" and BabbaQ, you assumed that I wanted a "fight"? Now can you lot clearly point out to me where I disrespected anyone?


 * “Concerning Bleubeatles comment on my talk page, I have removed that and will pressumre good faith even though I have my doubts.” - BabbaQ
 * -BabbaQ the point of my comment on your talk page was that you need to stop assuming that I intend a fight. I was not out to get you or the Ell & Nikki article. I said on the comment that my intention was not to delete the Ell & Nikki page but was to carry a discussion. All I ever wanted was proper discussion. You should take what I posted into consideration rather than taking offense to it


 * "..continue to canvass support to get the article deleted via Wikipedia talk:Notability (music), despite the unanimous decision to keep." - Wesley Mouse
 * -Wesley Mouse, has it ever occurred to you that just because you told other people, they will already understand everything and move on? People are different and not everyone has the same type of understanding as you might assume. So I have every right to discuss it with other users about my doubts alright? I am not going against the consensus. There were no proper discussions at the AfD other than you lot telling me to read the notability rules. Not to mention you making pre-judice assumptions that my comments were negative and disagreeing to people. So how do you think I felt after that discussion ended? That’s why I wasn’t satisfied with how it went so I wanted it re-opened. Since that never happened I opened a new discussion in another page to get other users to explain it to me. Now, you 3 are just following my contributions in Wikipedia and making assumptions about my behavior behind my back in your talk pages. I don’t appreciate you people reading what I write on other articles and making bad-faith assumptions about my character or intent here at Wikipedia. I find this impolite and hurtful.


 * "It is a (mostly) unwritten rule of courtesy on Wikipedia that when you start a discussion about someone, you should make sure they know about it so they can exercise their right to respond." - CT Copper
 * -Then explain what's on you and Wesley Mouse's talk page & contributions mentioning me? You lot never "exercised my right to respond to that"? I had to go to your talk pages and contributions to find that out myself. So don't go criticizing someone's actions just so that you can prove to them how even more wrong they are when you do that yourself.

I accept the fact that I made a mistake by nominating an article for deletion but you 3 need to learn from your mistakes as well and stop: A) Prejudging and making bad assumptions about my edits. B)Following my contributions and talking unlawfully behind my back at your talk pages. C) Making further accusations about violation of policy rules that you commit yourselves such as telling me the "rule of courtesy". Let's note that not only are you criticizing my actions but also pre-judging me. These are things that you three need to learn to avoid when in an discussion. I am prepared to move on if you guys stop these things now. Otherwise I will have to take this to the dispute boards. Alright? Bleubeatle (talk) 09:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I am offering no apologies, and expect few others will either, as I don't think I or anyone else has committed any real offence here, and this continued dramatization is not helpful. The above reads like a rant, parts of which I don't understand, for the instant the sentences "Assuming that I am yet again canvasing rules just because I opened new discussion? They never exercised my right to respond to that. I had to go to their talk pages to find that out myself." don't make sense. It seems clear to me that you have clearly misunderstood a lot of what I and others have said, and don't appear to have understood many of the policies and guidelines that you claim to have read either - for example, your understanding of Assume good faith is way off, I'm afraid. I'm not sure why this the case, but I'm not going to try and explain further at the moment, because that appears to be going nowhere.


 * Disagreeing with people means holding different views from them, there is nothing wrong with that, so I don't see the issue with that. That is clearly what has happened here since you have argued for the Ell & Nikki article to be removed (removal includes deleting, merging, and re-directing), and others wanted it to stay as it is now, hence there was a disagreement. You can say that you have changed your mind, and that the AfD was a mistake and so on, but the record is very clear. As for the issue regarding people "following" and "backstabbing" you, I'm sorry to you inform you Bleubeatle, but this is a public wiki and a collaborative project, and people can leave messages on other's talk pages about goings-on that concerns them, and the fact that you can look at what they are doing means they can look at what you are doing as well, and act accordingly. I'm glad you don't want to get block, but continuing to increase tension between yourself, which is what is happening here whatever your intentions are, and other editors is not a good way of preventing it. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 10:10, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't care how you feel about what I wrote. Most of the discussions I've read from the top of this whole page clearly shows the kinds of experiences people have had with you. I suggest you learn how to avoid these things when in a discussion. And you inform me that its ok for people to talk behind my back on their talk pages but you were the one who said "you should make sure they know about it so they can exercise their right to respond". Clearly your motives are to prove me wrong. Its time that you read this . I don't expect any apologies. I just want people to understand what I did and stop making further mis-judgements of my actions. I really want to move on yet you guys continue to follow me around. Bleubeatle (talk) 10:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it would be better if I don't respond to the above; read what I said below, then feel free to post again. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 10:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * CT Cooper, and you other 2, I'm done.
 * CT Cooper it has become clear to me that you have no intention of resolving this dispute lol -__-
 * Why do you care so much about looking at the edit history lol? Yeah, I edited my comments several times. Clearly, that's an indication to you that I have had enough. You have done nothing here on this discussion but just trying to repeatedly prove to other people how wrong they are. I think that's not right. You are not helping to resolve a dispute. Anyways, I have no more interest in replying to you since it is clear that is what you only want. Please calm down and read this. I am not going to bother reading what you've written below. No matter how disheartening that it will make me feel I won't reply to it anymore. No thank you :-)
 * Just please let me learn and discuss this with other users alright? I am not going against the consensus anymore. I just want a better understanding from the WikiProject Music and other non-Eurovision Project users. Ok peace. Bye :P Bleubeatle (talk) 11:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I care because I took the time to respond to your comment, only to save the page, and to find you had revised them! Altering your comments hours after posting them is generally not a good idea for that reason. You seem to missing a rather important point here: dispute resolution means two parties coming to an agreement, through discussion, it does not mean one party making a statement and the other agreeing without question. I'm not sure what you think is funny, because your accusations against us are wrong and unfair, and that is why they are not being accepted. I'm a bit confused on why you are telling me to calm down, while making other comments such as "I don't care how you feel about what I wrote." and "I am not going to bother reading what you've written below. No matter how disheartening that it will make me feel". If you don't care how I feel; why should we care how you feel? I actually do care because I know feelings between editors have to be positive to get anything done. You have made several guesses on what my motives are, which could ironically be interpreted as a failure to assume good faith. My actual motives were to try and help you understand policy and the general behavioural norms of this project, misunderstanding of which have been the source of most of your grievances. That may have failed, but if your above comments about not replying any more mean you are going to cease making these accusations against multiple editors, then that is progress.


 * If you wish to consult other projects about the dispute, then that is your decision, but what I said to you earlier still stands - a consensus without the involvement of WikiProject Eurovision isn't going to be accepted, so if you want change to happen, ultimately further discussion with this project editors' will be needed. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 11:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Please note that I posted the above before Bleubeatle came back to revised his comments several hours after posting them. I'm sorry, but if you thought your comments were going to cause offence, you should never have clicked "save page" the first time, because we can now all see what you said in the edit history - and be offended anyway!


 * Then explain what's on you and Wesley Mouse's talk page & contributions mentioning me? You lot never "exercised my right to respond to that"? I had to go to your talk pages and contributions to find that out myself. So don't go criticizing someone's actions just so that you can prove to them how even more wrong they are when you do that yourself.


 * This revised version now makes more sense, although it is not less offensive by any means - the use of the term "you lot" in that way is very rude, and suggests aggression, in English, but I get the impression English is not your first language, so I will assume that is not what you meant it to mean.


 * There is difference between complaining about someone on a project space noticeboard and someone writing a note on someone's user talk page informing them that an AfD was in progress that might interest them. I'm not following your point, since you had nothing to respond to and you are comparing apples and oranges.


 * I accept the fact that I made a mistake by nominating an article for deletion but you 3 need to learn from your mistakes as well and stop: A) Prejudging and making bad assumptions about my edits. B)Following my contributions and talking unlawfully behind my back at your talk pages. C) Making further accusations about violation of policy rules that you commit yourselves such as telling me the "rule of courtesy". Let's note that not only are you criticizing my actions but also pre-judging me. These are things that you three need to learn to avoid when in an discussion. I am prepared to move on if you guys stop these things now. Otherwise I will have to take this to the dispute boards. Alright?


 * No, it is not alright. As I said before, assume the assumption of good faith - accusing other editors of being prejudiced, pre-judging you, and assuming that you are behaving in bad faith are all serious accusations, which are not justified in my view, and if you want to move on, why are you making them? Looking at someone's contributions is perfectly allowed and within Wikipedia policy. Also, please do not use the term "unlawful", as people may interpret that to be a legal threat. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 10:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Best draw
In John Kennedy O'Connor's Eurovision book, I seem to remember a table of where the most successful draw was for winners. I don't know if there's any such table included in any of the articles (I couldn't find one). Is it significant, given that since 2005 all the winning countries have been within the last ten performances? As it stands, the list is (by order of draw in the contest line-up): These of course could be fitted into a table, but it'll be worth seeing what consensus is first and I'm not sure which article they'd go into. List of winners perhaps?--Tuzapicabit (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) 1975, 1976, 1984
 * 2) 1958, 1969, 1971, 1994
 * 3) 2003
 * 4) 1959, 1995
 * 5) 1957
 * 6) 1969
 * 7) 1963, 1969, 1974, 1991, 1998
 * 8) 1956, 1962, 1966, 1988
 * 9) 1979, 2004
 * 10) 1967, 1973
 * 11) 1964, 1970
 * 12) 1960, 1985, 1986
 * 13) 1961, 1969, 1981, 1993, 2000
 * 14) 1965, 1968, 1999
 * 15) 1972, 1980, 1992, 1996, 2006, 2007, 2012
 * 16) 1977, 1978, 1982
 * 17) 1990, 2005, 2011
 * 18) 1983, 1987, 2001, 2009
 * 19) 1989, 2010
 * 20) 2002
 * 21) 1997, 2008
 * (Performed last: 1960, 1970, 1977, 1982, 1983, 1989)
 * 1) 2002
 * 2) 1997, 2008
 * (Performed last: 1960, 1970, 1977, 1982, 1983, 1989)
 * (Performed last: 1960, 1970, 1977, 1982, 1983, 1989)
 * (Performed last: 1960, 1970, 1977, 1982, 1983, 1989)


 * I personally don't think that details such as this is highly significant in an encyclopaedic environment. Purely for the fact that it would be a list of statistical trivia based on the draw position of winning entries over the years.   Wesley  ☀  Mouse  19:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, this isn't encyclopedic. A "draw order" might be added to the winners table in the article about winners, but I emphasize the might because I don't really think it's necessary. (On a side note, some of my friends in an Eurovision forum are gonna be happy to read and discuss this. Thanks a lot.) Not A Superhero (talk) 06:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

People/jury split results in the table?
I didn't know where to put this, so I created a new subject. Hope that's okay.

With the people/jury split results (and I see it is currently being worked at in the 2012 article, I thought that it perhaps could be placed in the same table as the existing one.

Something like this:

They could have a thicker indicator between the combined results and the split ones, to show what is the important one. Or perhaps this would just cause confusion. A simple sentence on top of the table could explain that, though. - Jetro (talk) 19:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh gosh nooo. I dislike that idea, sorry.  The tables take up a lot of width space as it is, so to start adding extra columns is just going to squash the tables entirely, making them look untidy and unprofessional.  At this rate, we might as well just shove everything into a table, and forget about having written context too.  Nah, again sorry, its table-overkill in my opinion.  Besides, the current tables of split jury/televotes may be trivial data, as their individual results don't bear any impact on the actual results, for which are a combination of the jury/televoting.  The article is also under GA review, and it has been advised that the combined tables are trivial, and should be removed immediately.   Wesley  ☀  Mouse  19:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, just checking :P. As I thought there were discussions about there being too many tables in the articles already. As you may know, I cannot believe, though, that the split results are "trivial". They essentially make out the actual results, although you cannot find the average by adding the scores and dividing by two. But perhaps this isn't the right place to discuss that. - Jetro (talk) 20:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * What you mentioned there, is the whole point over these tables. I know I mentioned it on the article talk page, and two users who replied to my comments seem to have the impression that I have said they must be removed.  I never said they must, all I said was I can see both sides of the argument as to why they would warrant an inclusion, but also see why they would warrant an exclusion.  I'm very realistic at times, on matter like this.   Wesley  ☀  Mouse  20:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, and I was one of them. My view on it is pretty easy, actually: Either you're for something, or you're against it. Sounded to me like you were pretty much against it. Not saying you were going to delete it all of a sudden, but you certainly don't seem to be a fan of it. Also, I don't want to argue or be unfriendly. No harshment intended. :) - Jetro (talk) 23:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * A person doesn't have to be for or against something; a person can be indecisive if there isn't enough to sway them either way on an issue. I never said I was against them, just that I could see the understandings why someone would be for them, and why someone would be against them too.  When AxG opened the thread stating the results had been published.  I commented back, as I thought the project was no longer adding those details any more because they never had sources attached to them on the articles, nor did they have a written prose explain what the tables were for.  Without refs and prose, it would make the tables look like original research and then would end up being deleted by a BOT or someone else.  Where in that did I say I was against them?...
 * Then an IP assumed that I was going to delete them, and stated they would be disappointed if we no longer published the tables as we were the only place to publish them. I asked the IP how they concluded we only publish those tables?  They are available in the public domain, and we use those sources to add the information to our articles.  Also stressing that we are NOT a news portal to publish breaking news.  Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, which contains researchable data.  Again, in those comments I never stated I disagreed or agreed with them, I remained impartial.  But like I have said time and time again, I can see both sides to these tables.  I can see why they would be needed, but I also see why they should be deleted too.
 * Think about it more logically. We know Sweden won the contest overall with 372 points.  Those points were based on a 50:50 split vote of jury and televote.  Each country awarded Sweden points between 1-8, 10 or 12.  Those points when added together came to the total 372.
 * Now the split table show that Sweden got 343 points overall from televoting, and 296 from jury. But we have no way of knowing how those totals where achieved, as we have nothing to show who gave what points in order to get to those totals.  Thus making them speculative, even though the total results for jury/televote have been published.   Wesley  ☀  Mouse  00:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC) - (I've refactored parts of my own comments, as they did appear to be a little bitey, which I never intened it to be.  My original statement can still be viewed in the page history.  After re-reading my own words over and over again, I have decided to restructure my comment so that it sounds more polite and simple enough to understand)  Wesley  ☀  Mouse  01:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think they should be in that table. It actually seems to confuse things with three sets of points and three sets of placings. I would think that the final total of points and place are the main thing to consider. A separate table to the public/jury vote (as it is now) is much better if you want to know that extra information.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 07:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Tuzapicabit's comment above, is the other side of this debate that I also understand. My description about these split results not showing a breakdown, is the side of the debate that I can see why someone wouldn't want them to be included.  Yet those who say they should be included and their reasons to include them, is the other side of the coin that I also understand.  To put it more bluntly...
 * Keep them - The reason they should stay, is because the split results back-up the 50:50 vote structure statement that gets mentioned in the articles. These tables show how the results would have looked if only the jury or public votes where solely used.
 * Delete them - The reason they should be deleted, is because the split tables don't show a breakdown of how the jury/public totals where achieved. E.g. they don't give any indication as to the 12's, 10's, 8's etc that each respective national jury/public televote awarded.   Wesley  ☀  Mouse  08:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)